YOU are Satan...

[Beloved Servant]

Am I the only one that knew the 13th page would bring confusion?

[jabcat]

It is clear that when I do the evil that I do not want to do "It is no more I that do it, but the sin in me." Just quoting the scripture. Good grief, it says that TWICE. 

Seth... it is YOU which have introduced the word "responsible"... I have not used this term concerning SIN, nor shall I...

That's good because Bible puts the RESPONSIBILITY for us sinning on sin itself creating lawlessness within us. And he puts the accountability on us that we can be delivered..

And I believe that's how several things occur, including;

our learning and growth...as we fail, are forgiven, offered up the choices again, and finally learn to make the right choice...and are thus grown into maturity by His help, His Spirit working within us, empowering us, guiding us.  We learn to depend on Him, to call on Him for help and deliverance...but we also learn that His grace is sufficient, and His love, forgiveness, and the grace and righteousness imputed to us that flows from His blood at Calvary is far greater than any sin that will never be able to overpower or negate His acceptance of us through the mercy of His Son.  Can we say 'the experience of good and evil'?  Good wins out  .  We know Who is the Victor!

[Beloved Servant]

Yes,
but evil is such a terrible thing to know.

It confounds me how people befriend it.

[jabcat]

I hear you, BServ.  And that's a huge topic in its own right.  Hard to go there too much without the sovereignty/man's will discussion.

I'll limit my comments to say that I believe some are chosen as vessels of honor, some of dishonor - God requires choices, but in the end, works all things according to His will.  And once again, we know who wins.  Yesu is the Victor!  Mowing the lawn the other day I was thinking of Gary A's term for UR, "The Victorious Gospel".  Really pretty good term when you think about it  .

[Beloved Servant]

Dishonor here, at His service.
Apart from Him, there is no good thing in me.

[Seth]

It is clear that when I do the evil that I do not want to do "It is no more I that do it, but the sin in me." Just quoting the scripture. Good grief, it says that TWICE. 

Seth... it is YOU which have introduced the word "responsible"... I have not used this term concerning SIN, nor shall I...

That's good because Bible puts the RESPONSIBILITY for us sinning on sin itself creating lawlessness within us. And he puts the accountability on us that we can be delivered..

And I believe that's how several things occur, including;

our learning and growth...as we fail, are forgiven, offered up the choices again, and finally learn to make the right choice...and are thus grown into maturity by His help, His Spirit working within us, empowering us, guiding us.  We learn to depend on Him, to call on Him for help and deliverance...but we also learn that His grace is sufficient, and His love, forgiveness, and the grace and righteousness imputed to us that flows from His blood at Calvary is far greater than any sin that will never be able to overpower or negate His acceptance of us through the mercy of His Son.  Can we say 'the experience of good and evil'?  Good wins out  .  We know Who is the Victor!

Right:

Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.

We learn more and more to enter into the same REST from struggle that Christ had. That is the mercy.

[jabcat]

Dishonor here, at His service.
Apart from Him, there is no good thing in me.

I am a servant, I am listening for my name,
I sit here waiting, I've been looking at the game
That I've been playing, and I've been staying much the same
When you are lonely, you're the only one to blame.

I am a servant, I am waiting for the call,
I've been unfaithful, so I sit here in the hall.
How can you use me when I've never given all,
How can you choose me when you know I'd quickly fall.

So you feed my soul and you make me grow,
And you let me know you love me.
And I'm worthless now, but I've made a vow,
I will humbly bow before thee.
O please use me, I am lonely.

I am a servant getting ready for my part,
There's been a change, a rearrangement in my heart.
At last I'm learning, there's no returning once I start.
To live's a privilege, to love is such an art
But I need your help to start,
O please purify my heart, I am your servant - c Larry Norman

http://www.youtube.com/index?ytsession=5bjLCmOVZDchiphvU3t9dba-pZ_w__BnTfkn_p3k6N7YCLrFoQAfEfFyPVo93_3bhQj2Koj9NHJmqCkq0J-Kf8SadtGsDUrNZM3rUFdwtuBLsMO_-mjre3eZM2GO4LBIaQFT16CW2JmnkLGXJBJLrKgz2993AyCr6_zFB7VLWyA9tl9JF4sxuuD6FKu5aSJ6qn4hCXfItAVTVh0-_7KQOuWfG_JjPCGniT44BZbUOAV7zrpQmPsn2gG4_cAz3UvPKj-yT1pvk0zqGZ1wdizsYwmUS62mASb6I9uKGC0j4K1JZ741HXvuKwuZCvplzkBR1cyNT5k-WK5cGrzfsvv5XQ

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

No Seth... the MIND IS a MEMBER of the Body... For without the MIND, the body is INANIMATE... The physical BRAIN, is where the MIND which is also a member of the BODY, resides...

Sorry WillieH the mind is not a member. The brain is. That is exactly why Paul DISTINGUISHES the sin in his members, from his MIND with which he delights in God's law. That is why he says "I know that in me (THAT IS IN MY FLESH) dwelleth no good thing."

Sorry Seth, but it is YOUR OPINION that the MIND is not a member of the body... It is located IN the BODY and is therefore PART of the MEMBERSHIP of the BODY... regardless of your opinion bro...

No matter how you try to avoid this Seth, I can tell you right now, that you cannot over argue me in this area...  So as often as we exchange, you shall get refutation from me...

Very well. 

I simply said this because whatever you say, no matter how many times you say it, as long as you post veiled info... I will continue to come against it...

I am not the least confused bro... and as Beloved noted to you, you are not my teacher, never will be... nor do I aspire to teach you...

The brain is the physical element or house in which the MIND which is a member of a PHYSICAL experience, resides... no confusion.  

The mind is scripturally distinguished from the members in the scripture bro.

That is your opinion... I see the CROWNING member of the body to be its SENTIENCE... because you see it as separate from the BODY is your affair... but the HEART which is the mind, is in complete cooperation with the rest of the body, for when the body is in distress, the mind orders the other members to the stricken members aid... of the MEMBERS, it is the MOST important and is the "manager" of the body...  The "mind" is unable to accomplish things, unless it enlists the help of other members to manifest those things...

I am a guitarist, and without my fingers or arms, I would be unable to play the guitar, regardless of the information in the mind, which also plays ITS part to enable me to play it... You do not see this?  Then

By the way, I am not trying to be your teacher. Just sharing what I believe. 

As I see it, ...When you tell me such as:  "sorry willieH, but the MIND is not a MEMBER..." -- you are endeavoring to INSTRUCT me...

And as I see it, ...When you say "I believe this or I believe that" -- THEN, are you "sharing your beliefs"... 

James places LUST as preceeding SIN... and that a man is TEMPTED when drawn away by His own DESIRE (lust) -- if there is no "WHEN", there is no TEMPTATION!  -- so TEMPTATION cannot even take place unless DESIRE draws away... SIN is only CONCIEVED when the DESIRE is enacted either mentally or physically or both...

And Paul is clear that the sin within him, in the members PRODUCES lust. Christ being WITHOUT SIN, no sin could produce lust contrary to God. He was apart from it.

 

Paul was an already established SINNER... He had spent a lifetime under its influences and personal destructiveness... the real point here under discussion is CHRIST and whether or not "satan" is actually part of the NATURAL makeup of man... Nothing that Paul writes in his letters defeats the idea that the NATURAL mind is where SIN is born...  which is that which decides to submit to the "voice" of GOD, or submit to the "voice" of the longings of the flesh...

Again Seth... I am not confused... so please don't insinuate that I am...  

CHRIST's mind as a MAN was a MAN's mind Seth... In order to be TEMPTED, it was the NATURAL mind which He inherited from His BIRTH MOTHER... which made Him the SON of MAN, with the MIND of a MAN...

I have already extensively explained this, so I wont bother repeating it.

Christ was apart from sin. That is how he was different from us. So, no lust contrary to his father could be produced in him to be led away with.

I agree no lust in existence could lead Him away...

As far as being APART from SIN, ...I ABSOLUTELY do not believe this to be true,  Seth... CHRIST got right down to where SIN was being experienced in the HEAVIEST and DEEPEST ways... in the Bars, with the hookers, the bums, the derelicts... He was hardly APART from it... and He was NOT "different" from us with the exception of having the FULL MEASURE of DIVINITY within because He was personally sired by GOD...

CHRIST was well AQUAINTED with our sufferings for IN THE FLESH, did He suffer... He was also well AQUAINTED with the TEMPTATION process that occurs IN THE FLESH... and was the only ONE ever victorious OVER it... 

You make Him a MAN without the mind of a MAN... which is not a MAN at all.  In order to be TEMPTED there had to be a separate portion IN HIM that was NOT GOD, for GOD cannot be tempted as JAMES earlier explains in verse 13... He was careful to note this, because CHRIST's TEMPTATION could not have been VALID and said to be OVERCOMING, if His mind was "hedge protected"... It was NOT... which is why the Father was WELL pleased in Him, for He submitted to YHVH instead of the yearnings of His members...

As I said in the last post bro... you don't get it?  ...well, you don't get it.  

It's not that I don't get it. I disagree with what is plainly unscriptural bro.

That you think something is plainly Scriptural does not mean that it is as you percieve bro... I daily speak with others on an ET forum that make this very same statement about ET...  ...as they bark their Orthodoxy against the Salvation of ALL... stating their vision is PLAINLY stated in Scripture... 

Christ was a man, and he was in all ways tempted like us APART FROM SIN.

That is NOT what Scripture says Seth... here's the verse:

Heb 4:15  -- for we have NOT an High Priest which cannot BE TOUCHED with the FEELING of our INFIRMITIES ...but was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED as we are, yet without SIN...

Do not see the word "APART" in that verse... On the contrary, I see TOGETHER being spoken of in that verse... stating that He is IN TOUCH with our plight, having experienced it's temptations, Himself...

He was not in the flesh but in the Spirit as the Spirit of God dwelled in him without measure.

whatever... more repetition... 

Okay, to satisfy semantic nitpicking... He did not listen to the VOICE of HIS OWN "WILL" (which so happens to be His human mind)... will that suffice for you?  

The difference between your belief and mine is that I realize that Christ did not HAVE to listen to the voice in his members because unlike us he was without sin in his members to produce it.

Your version of CHRIST, is one which is out of touch with MAN... and was PROTECTED and did NOTHING... You are welcome to it... guess we'll see in the end - eh? 

I am about knowing the TRUTH, not avoiding it, and eliminating it... which is what your words attempt to do with the BROTHER that CHRIST is TO us all... doing away with the very things which make Him so CLOSE and IN TOUCH with US and our condition... 

You are welcome to your "CHRIST", Seth... One that you percieve "walked through the rain", but it just so happened He didn't get wet, ...or one that ate heartily all life long, but claims He can relate to our hunger, ...no thanks...

The CHRIST I believe in is a much more personal being... having been though the trenches of suffering and temptation with which I do battle myself...

HIS mind which also delighted after the Law of God was not ENSLAVED to sin.

Of course He was not ENSLAVED to SIN, I never said He was... I said TEMPTATION was presented Him by His Nature as a MAN, and He heeded the VOICE of GOD within instead of giving place to that nature...

In fact it was apart from sin. It was total GRACE. GOD kept Christ in his rest so that he did not HAVE to struggle with lust in his mind. That is the grace of God to do what we cannot of ourselves do: change our evil desires by ourselves.

Never EVER said He "struggled" either... try putting away the strawmen Seth... There never was a "struggle"... there was an OFFER that was PROMPTLY REFUSED... no struggle!

Again... SIN is not born until the MEMBERS submit to TEMPTATION... If CHRIST were totally apart from the possibility of SIN, then He OVERCAME nothing...

Something like you observing your baby being born and then stating that you KNOW how your wife FEELS... You KNOW nothing of the SORT...

Or if you are observing another having a toothache when you have never had one, and saying you KNOW how they FEEL... You KNOW nothing of the SORT...

Sin WORKS FORTH SIN, WillieH. How do I know that? THE BIBLE SAYS SO. SIN PRODUCES UNGODLY DESIRE (which is in itself against God's law.) That is why Paul says "It is no longer I who do it, but the Sin in me."

You keep convincing yourself of this deception and all you will end up with is, well, if the shoe fits... 

How many times must we hash over the same things Seth?  LUST brings forth SIN, it is PLAINLY stated, it has been posted at least 4 or 5 times by me, ...You don't see it... what's next? 

God's sovereignty is ALL OVER that verse WillieH. That is what makes man a SLAVE. Christ was apart from sin that it should create lust in him to be drawn away by. That means the sin in his members, he was apart from it, that it did not influence him to be ABLE to create lust with him.

God's SOVEREIGNTY is not the issue Seth... THAT all things occur according to His FOREKNOWLEDGE and HIS DECLARATION is just a fact that most "free-will-ers" will not acknowledge, but the PROCESS of TIME still comes down, and has been documented in the WORD... 

CHRIST was not APART from SIN, He took it HEAD ON and DEFEATED it... 

SIN was not in His members, but TEMPTATION was... SIN was in Paul's members for long before he wrote Romans... He was already a SINNER... CHRIST never experienced it... so CHRIST never had any such "warring" within...

That's enough...    I deal with this same merry-go-round REPETITION with Grandchildren that refuse to listen so, ...I think I'll close here...    you are just rehashing things we have already covered several times...

No point in going further, for all it will entail is REPEATING the SAME ANSWERS that I have already given to all of this... If you did not hear me then, you will not hear me now either...  Stick with what you (think you) know... 

If I see you trying to argue something new that hasn't been addressed, I'll jump in... G'nite -- 



...willieH 

[Seth]

Sorry Seth, but it is YOUR OPINION that the MIND is not a member of the body... It is located IN the BODY and is therefore PART of the MEMBERSHIP of the BODY... regardless of your opinion bro...

WillieH, when the mind is SPIRITUAL it is not located in the body, it is seated in the Heavenlies with Christ. The brain is ALWAYS located in the body.

One can have a CARNAL mind
One can have a SPRITUAL mind

But, in the flesh exists no good thing. The flesh ITSELF can never be Spiritual. One's flesh and blood can NEVER enter into the Kingdom of God. That is how our flesh differs from our mind. The kingdom of God is "righteousness, joy and peace in the Holy Spirit." WE can receive that, which is why it leads to "a renewing of the mind."

THE FLESH, even when we have the Spirit has NO GOOD THING in it. What is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit. The flesh "misses the mark" by default.

The mind is not a member of our BODY, of our FLESH. The mind is not a limb. That is why it says in BOTH Romans 8 and 6, that we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit if it so is that the Spirit of God dwells in us. Now, it does not dwell in us to the SAME DEGREE as it does with Christ, which is why we struggle with sin under GRACE (which teaches us to live godly lives and crucify the passions within us).

But Christ was TOTALLY in the bosom of his Father, even WHILE he was made flesh on earth. He had the fulness of GOD in him, which is why he was seated with God in Heaven, while he was on earth. We ARE HOPING for the "aionios WEIGHT of glory" wherein we will be made complete. Christ was completely SPIRITUAL in his mind.

I simply said this because whatever you say, no matter how many times you say it, as long as you post veiled info... I will continue to come against it...

Veiled info? I won't need to veil what I say.

That is your opinion... I see the CROWNING member of the body to be its SENTIENCE...

That is your opinion. :-)

You say: "I am a guitarist, and without my fingers or arms, I would be unable to play the guitar, regardless of the information in the mind, which also plays ITS part to enable me to play it... You do not see this?"

Yes, the mind plays a part, which doesn't mean it is an appendage of our body. The mind is not "the body of death" itself, rather that the mind is placed under SLAVERY TO that body. The brain is the appendage.

--------

Have you ever been sitting or walking, or whatever, and a desire enters into your mind of something that disgusts you? We all have had that happen. And the immediate response is "EWWW!" The reason we do not like the immediate feelings we get, is because we don't want them but SIN in our members creates them and imposes them on our minds. That is slavery by DEFINITION.

Those feelings are sin. And the fact that they are sin is WONDERFUL! The reason is because Jesus Christ's job is to DELIVER us from sin. The fact that God's law oulaws lust is for the simple fact that we will all be DELIVERED from it.

In the law, when a woman had a period, she was said to be impure for 7 days. Why? Why would God treat a woman as impure for something that is so natural to her? Just because evil thoughts come automatically and naturally does not mean they are not sin. Jesus is going to deliver us from ALL things not of God, including our "flesh and blood."

We yearn to be delivered from "the body of death" our flesh and blood which places our minds in slavery to it. While we are in the body we yearn to be set free from it.

As I see it, ...When you tell me such as:  "sorry willieH, but the MIND is not a MEMBER..." -- you are endeavoring to INSTRUCT me...

And as I see it, ...When you say "I believe this or I believe that" -- THEN, are you "sharing your beliefs"... 

Well, that is your opinion. It seems to be very important to you that I phrase things the way YOU want me to. However, all your little haughty and derisive comments to me, I have simply ignored. I don't need to you phrase things the way I want them phrased, I just stick to the issue and ignore the garbage.

When you say "I endeavor" you are judging my motives. Words are just words WillieH, the motive should not be judged. As I said I am NOT ENDEAVORING to instruct you.

Nothing that Paul writes in his letters defeats the idea that the NATURAL mind is where SIN is born...  which is that which decides to submit to the "voice" of GOD, or submit to the "voice" of the longings of the flesh...

Right. SIN IS PRODUCED in the mind and therefore takes our mind in captivity to the FLESH (wherein lies no good thing) That is why OUR MINDS need conversion to be not NATURAL, but SPIRITUAL like Christ's was, so that the unlawful lust will not be created in us.

As far as being APART from SIN, ...I ABSOLUTELY do not believe this to be true

I know you don't believe it is true. But the Bible still says it was true. Christ being apart from sin is Biblical WillieH.

Quote from: Seth on Today at 12:33:11 AM
Christ was a man, and he was in all ways tempted like us APART FROM SIN.


That is NOT what Scripture says Seth... here's the verse:

Heb 4:15  -- for we have NOT an High Priest which cannot BE TOUCHED with the FEELING of our INFIRMITIES ...but was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED as we are, yet without SIN...

Do not see the word "APART" in that verse...

Actually, yes it is in that verse. "Without" means "in the absence of."

chōris = at a space, that is, separately or apart from

Now it will be up to you to "play semantics" to say that "without" and "in the absence of" and "apart from" are somehow not synonymous.

Your version of CHRIST, is one which is out of touch with MAN...

My version of Christ is as the Bible says. He was touched by the feeling of our infirmities, tempted in all ways like us SEPARATE FROM SIN.

Never EVER said He "struggled" either... try putting away the strawmen Seth... There never was a "struggle"... there was an OFFER that was PROMPTLY REFUSED... no struggle!

But all men struggle with sin, WillieH, so if Christ was in any way like us, and as you say "not apart from sin" even though the Bible says he was, then he would HAVE to struggle like us. The very fact that you say he didn't struggle SHOWS the difference in the man he was versus the men we are.

And, the very fact that he didn't have to struggle like us, SHOWS that his mind was Spiritual and that he was WITHOUT (apart from) SIN, because SIN was UNABLE to bring a struggle in his mind similar to us.

How many times must we hash over the same things Seth?  LUST brings forth SIN, it is PLAINLY stated, it has been posted at least 4 or 5 times by me, ...You don't see it... what's next?  

Lust seized upon DOES bring FORTH sin WillieH. To seize upon it, it must be there. Romans 7 describes how it gets there in the first place. When we have lust produced by the sin in our members, and it is seized upon, it BRINGS FORTH that sin.

The unlawful desire is FIRST produced within us, by the sin in our members even against the will of our mind. Then we SIEZE upon that lust, and then what happens? THE SIN COMES FORTH.

God's SOVEREIGNTY is not the issue Seth...

God's sovereignty has EVERYTHING to do with it WillieH. When Paul makes these two statements:

Romans 7:16-17
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Romans 7:9-20
For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

When Paul says those words, he is talking about SLAVERY. A slave is someone who is SUBJECTED by something else AGAINST HIS WILL. That is why Paul says that the SIN in him doing it. Who subjects the creature to vanity WillieH? Who subjected the Isrealites to unbelief?

Yet why does God hold Pharaoh accountable for something Pharoah could not avoid?
This is why, while the sin in us does the sin, we are held accountable so that we can be delivered? God judges us so that the peaceable fruit of righteousness will be produced in us.

CHRIST was not APART from SIN, He took it HEAD ON and DEFEATED it... 

You just keep saying unscriptural things WillieH. Christ was indeed WITHOUT SIN. You say so here:

SIN was not in His members

If you say so, THEN CHRIST WAS "WITHOUT SIN" IN HIS MEMBERS.

The sin in the members is what causes lust to be produced in our minds. It is with lust that a man is tempted. That is why Christ was tempted in all points like us APART FROM SIN.

[Cardinal]

  The carnal mind can NEVER be spiritual, it is enmity against God. It can have the things of the Spirit "downloaded" to it for understanding and to give a choice as in choose ye this day whom ye will serve, but anointed flesh (ANY part of it) is still Saul and still has to die.

The day will come (and I have tasted several tastes of it for up to 3 weeks at a time) when the mind of the Christ, which is the Spirit of Christ, will EXCLUSIVELY rule in His temple, whose temple we are, and this thorn in our flesh will have been TOTALLY consumed by the brightness of His coming.

Further; a horn means power (tongues of fire, same as horn or ray; look it up) and we currently have 2 horns. One, the carnal mind, and two, the mind of Christ. A DOUBLE minded man is unstable in all of his ways. Blessings....

[Seth]

 

The carnal mind can NEVER be spiritual, it is enmity against God

.

RIGHT. That is why our minds must be CONVERTED from being CARNAL to being SPIRITUAL. Our minds are only carnal when "brought into captivity" to the "body of death." When we are delivered from the body of death through the Holy Spirit, we are CONVERTED.

To be carnally minded is death, but to be Spiritually minded is life AND PEACE.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

Sorry Seth, but it is YOUR OPINION that the MIND is not a member of the body... It is located IN the BODY and is therefore PART of the MEMBERSHIP of the BODY... regardless of your opinion bro...

WillieH, when the mind is SPIRITUAL it is not located in the body, it is seated in the Heavenlies with Christ. The brain is ALWAYS located in the body.

The "Heavenlies" is NOT a "location" it is a STATE of being... Where do you percieve the "Heavenlies" are Seth?  Just beyond Jupiter?  Or are they outside the Galaxy completely?  Or is it in fact the truth that they "ARE" right here?  As where as EVERYWHERE ELSE, for everywhere YHVH is, the "Heavenlies", ...ARE!

One can have a CARNAL mind
One can have a SPRITUAL mind

The mind is not a member of our BODY, of our FLESH.

Our BODY is composed of many MEMBERS one of which is the HEAD - which is the MIND or sentient entity which is IN CHARGE of the other members.

CHRIST sets the MEMBERS of His BODY, ...HE is known as the HEAD, which is ALSO a "MEMBER" of HIS BODY...

You have been made in HIS IMAGE after HIS LIKENESS... and just as HIS HEAD is a MEMBER of HIS BODY, so is YOUR HEAD (where your mind resides), a MEMBER of YOUR BODY...

The mind is not a limb.

Never said it was... The HEAD is a MEMBER of the BODY (not just the meat which is called a BRAIN)...  The BRAIN is the residence of the MEMBER called the MIND, just as the EAR is the residence of the member which HEARS... the flesh of the EAR does not HEAR, the MIND hears... but were it not for the MEMBER called the "EAR", the MEMBER called the "MIND" could not HEAR...

I simply said this because whatever you say, no matter how many times you say it, as long as you post veiled info... I will continue to come against it...

Veiled info? I won't need to veil what I say.

Just as our brothers in the ET camp are veiled to UR, and preach VEILED information... so do you about this subject.  (My opinion - after all YOU have no way of proving to me what YOU SAY, and neither do I - we both refer to the same document [the WORD], but express 2 different observations of it)

"I am a guitarist, and without my fingers or arms, I would be unable to play the guitar, regardless of the information in the mind, which also plays ITS part to enable me to play it... You do not see this?"

Yes, the mind plays a part, which doesn't mean it is an appendage of our body. The mind is not "the body of death" itself, rather that the mind is placed under SLAVERY TO that body. The brain is the appendage.

 :omg:  I cannot believe you just said what you did!    All an "appendage" is, is an extension of a larger or more important thing.  I do not think the other members of the body are greater in importance than the mind.  However... MEMBERSHIP does not constitute MEAT... nor does it mean that a MEMBER is FLESH... CHRIST has MEMBERSHIP in HIS BODY, yet HIS BODY is totally spiritual... NO FLESH at all!

Part of the "body of this death" is the NATURAL MIND which listens to the beckoning of the FLESH, Seth... Like I said, you don't get it? ...well then, you don't get it. 

Have you ever been sitting or walking, or whatever, and a desire enters into your mind of something that disgusts you? We all have had that happen. And the immediate response is "EWWW!" The reason we do not like the immediate feelings we get, is because we don't want them but SIN in our members creates them and imposes them on our minds. That is slavery by DEFINITION.

Those feelings are sin. And the fact that they are sin is WONDERFUL! The reason is because Jesus Christ's job is to DELIVER us from sin. The fact that God's law oulaws lust is for the simple fact that we will all be DELIVERED from it.

This is YOUR vision Seth... CHRIST did not "deliver us" from LUST... He delivers us from SIN... caused by LUST.

And here I thought all the summer "RE-RUNS" were on television...

As I see it, ...When you tell me such as:  "sorry willieH, but the MIND is not a MEMBER..." -- you are endeavoring to INSTRUCT me...

And as I see it, ...When you say "I believe this or I believe that" -- THEN, are you "sharing your beliefs"... 

Well, that is your opinion. It seems to be very important to you that I phrase things the way YOU want me to. However, all your little haughty and derisive comments to me, I have simply ignored. I don't need to you phrase things the way I want them phrased, I just stick to the issue and ignore the garbage.

   "haughty"?  ...wow! Look who is talking!  Is the tantrum  over, or can I expect more as I go along in this answer?  If you believe a given thing then express it... but when you tell me -- "willieH -- Sorry, but the head is not a member -  " ...then you are endeavoring to TEACH me...

I do not back down from being as one coming from a TEACHING standpoint... up front, I am given it by GOD, and shall teach the best I can with the modest tools He has given me... So don't play charades with me Seth... You DO think to "teach" me...

I fully realize you have this gift as well... and have visited your site, which I commend you for... there are many very good articles written by you which TEACH... so don't try to hide & seek with me about your endeavor to TEACH.  You should be well aware of who I am by now... If you are not, within this alone ...you lack in your observant abilities.

When you say "I endeavor" you are judging my motives. Words are just words WillieH, the motive should not be judged. As I said I am NOT ENDEAVORING to instruct you.

It is not wrong to TEACH Seth... I have just let you know that ...I... am observant enough to see:

(1) and note you are a teacher
(2) that you aspire to do so, as evidenced by your site
(3) that you not only strongly believe your stance but are well able to present it
(4) that it does not RING TRUE to me, therefore your effort to TEACH concerning me, is in vain...

That YOU do not recognize these things as you observe and converse with me, shows that you have a tunnel vision which is unable to know when something is hitting a wall, and though I cannot speak for all, your efforts to embed your "vision" (at least in me), are a failing effort...

Quote from: Seth on Today at 12:33:11 AM
Christ was a man, and he was in all ways tempted like us APART FROM SIN.

[quote author=willieHThat is NOT what Scripture says Seth... here's the verse:

Heb 4:15  -- for we have NOT an High Priest which cannot BE TOUCHED with the FEELING of our INFIRMITIES ...but was IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED as we are, yet without SIN...

Do not see the word "APART" in that verse...

Actually, yes it is in that verse. "Without" means "in the absence of."

chōris = at a space, that is, separately or apart from

Now it will be up to you to "play semantics" to say that "without" and "in the absence of" and "apart from" are somehow not synonymous.[/quote]

No semantics necessary...

Seth... CHRIST was SINLESS, I am not arguing that... but He had a COMPLETE Human experience, which means that the process of SIN which begins with LUST, which is a NATURAL element of the MIND and BODY of MAN ("satan"/adversary/adversity)... was also HIS... Yet, YET, He did not FALL to that LUST which TEMPTED Him, ...AS... it does us. 

He was THEREFORE our brother, as it is mentioned in the Scriptures -- Rom 8:29 -- the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN... He was WITHOUT SIN... but He was NOT withheld from the PROCESS in which SIN enters the experience... THAT is what He DEFEATED while in the flesh of man...

Again... you don't get it? ...well, then you don't get it. 

Your version of CHRIST, is one which is out of touch with MAN...

My version of Christ is as the Bible says. He was touched by the feeling of our infirmities, tempted in all ways like us SEPARATE FROM SIN.

That is your vision... take it, eat it, digest it, then teach it if you must... I will do same with what I see,  and when all is said and done, ...one or possibly both of us will find accountability for it.  I am confident in where I am... and see your words as a construct rather than revelation from above... (or to the side? Maybe past Saturn?  -- jus kidn'ya bro... I love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)

Never EVER said He "struggled" either... try putting away the strawmen Seth... There never was a "struggle"... there was an OFFER that was PROMPTLY REFUSED... no struggle!

But all men struggle with sin, WillieH, so if Christ was in any way like us, and as you say "not apart from sin" even though the Bible says he was, then he would HAVE to struggle like us. The very fact that you say he didn't struggle SHOWS the difference in the man he was versus the men we are.

Now you state things Unscriptural... where does it SAY in the WORD that "ALL MEN STRUGGLE with SIN?"

I do not think that a child (which is the equivalent of CHRIST in mind), really "struggles" with temptation...  Often they unknowingly just jump one way or the other -- into it or flee from it...

The struggle you imply that men have... is due to their past experience WITH SIN... They have already fallen... which CHRIST never did... so they battle with their "history" as well as in the moment of "now"...

CHRIST however was only in the NOW... no "history" to haunt Him... or WEAKEN Him... I stand where I stand about this Seth...

LUST offered the opportunity to SIN, ...CHRIST promptly refused the opportunity...

And, the very fact that he didn't have to struggle like us, SHOWS that his mind was Spiritual and that he was WITHOUT (apart from) SIN, because SIN was UNABLE to bring a struggle in his mind similar to us.

As I just explained... before SIN enters our experience... we are CHILDREN... and that mind is INNOCENT...  CHRIST dealt with a CHILDLIKE and INNOCENT mind... which was of EAR of the fullness of the HOLY option as well as the LUST which was presented...

He was an ADULT when "satan" (adversity) tempted Him after a 40 day fast IN ISOLATION, in the wilderness, and had lived in purity to that point... NO MAN can say this. 

SIN enters into us in CHILDHOOD, when we are AS uninformed and dumb SHEEP, easily led astray... CHRIST on the other hand was a SHEPHERD -- having observed SINNERS and SINFUL behaviors, ...NOT a "sheep"...  He was tempted as are we... but was much MORE than are we... He was the ONLY BEGOTTEN of YHVH... which NONE of us can claim...

See it as you will... positionally, He was a MAN as are we, but also positionally, He was parented by both the HOLY (YHVH) and the UNHOLY (Mary)... whereas we are each parented by 2 UNHOLY (sinful) parents...

God's SOVEREIGNTY is not the issue Seth...

God's sovereignty has EVERYTHING to do with it WillieH. When Paul makes these two statements:

Romans 7:16-17
And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.

Romans 7:9-20
For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

When Paul says those words, he is talking about SLAVERY. A slave is someone who is SUBJECTED by something else AGAINST HIS WILL. That is why Paul says that the SIN in him doing it. Who subjects the creature to vanity WillieH? Who subjected the Isrealites to unbelief?

Yet why does God hold Pharaoh accountable for something Pharoah could not avoid?
This is why, while the sin in us does the sin, we are held accountable so that we can be delivered? God judges us so that the peaceable fruit of righteousness will be produced in us.

The mods on this forum as well as Gary Amirault, wish us to avoid SOVEREIGNTY discussion, for it has been the subject of quite a few heated arguements... so I will limit my comments on this other than I have already stated that ALL THINGS are worked together by GOD... and that those things take place according to HIS PERFECT FOREKNOWLEDGE and DECLARATION ...OF them... This is WHY Romans is so worded...

GOD can hold the things which were UNHOLY, accountable... but His MERCY also steps in and GRACE abounds more than the ACCOUNTABLE SIN which occured in time...

This does not remove the manifestations of UNHOLINESS in TIME, in which we are yet amidst... and in which you and I are engaged in continuing futility, discussing this with one another!

That there IS a process of SIN, ...and the fact that you and I see that process differently IS a part of the FOREKNOWLEDGE of GOD... but the TRUTH is either in one or the other, or NEITHER of our views... which means that one or both of us can be held IN ACCOUNT for this conversation. 

CHRIST was not APART from SIN, He took it HEAD ON and DEFEATED it...

What I said above, is NOT Unscriptural Seth at you claim... for the evidence is found here: Luke 4:1-13 -- Matt 4:1-11

TEMPTATION is the DOORWAY to SIN... CHRIST did NOT walk through it, He slammed it SHUT -- forever...

what's next?

Well?

...willieH 

[claypot]

Willie and Seth, may I ask you both who or what you think Jesus Christ is?

cp

[Seth]

The "Heavenlies" is NOT a "location" it is a STATE of being... Where do you percieve the "Heavenlies" are Seth?  Just beyond Jupiter?   Or are they outside the Galaxy completely?  Or is it in fact the truth that they "ARE" right here?  As where as EVERYWHERE ELSE, for everywhere YHVH is, the "Heavenlies", ...ARE!

This is a strawman. I know it is not a location. It is the realm of God to be reached by "ascention" - not through the physical universe, but by our conversion to a SPIRITUAL MIND.

That is why Jesus said: NO MAN has ASCENDED to Heaven except the son who IS in Heaven.

 

Our BODY is composed of many MEMBERS one of which is the HEAD - which is the MIND or sentient entity which is IN CHARGE of the other members.

CHRIST sets the MEMBERS of His BODY, ...HE is known as the HEAD, which is ALSO a "MEMBER" of HIS BODY...

You have been made in HIS IMAGE after HIS LIKENESS... and just as HIS HEAD is a MEMBER of HIS BODY, so is YOUR HEAD (where your mind resides), a MEMBER of YOUR BODY...

The head of OUR BODY is is the full enchilada: it contains eyeballs, hair, the brain, the mouth etc etc. Christ being the head is the Scriptural theme of using PHYSICAL things to point to Spiritual realities. The mind RESIDES in the body, but not by being a body part. That is why our minds can be converted to spiritual, but flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of GOD.

Never said it was... The HEAD is a MEMBER of the BODY

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members (Gk - melos), warring against the law of my mind (Gk nous), and bringing me (Gk - me) into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


melos
a member, limb: a member of the human body

nous
the intellect, that is, mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication meaning: - mind, understanding.

me
meh
A shorter (and probably original) form of me: - I, me, my.

You said that the MIND is a member. Therefore indeed you are saying it is a limb. Not only that, you are mistaking the MIND for the HEAD. The head is made of many physical parts, the brain included, which is why it is used as a PHYSICAL representations of the SPIRITUAL makeup of the church.

Paul does several things there. He destinguishes the MEMBER (limbs) where sin resides, from the law in our MINDS (our intellect, our thought, feeling, and will) and shows that "I" being distinguished FROM the members where sin resides. This is why "I" am wretched: because the sin in my FLESH brings the MIND into captivity, making ME wretched when I am in that captivity.

That is the same reason Paul is able to say: "It is no longer I but the sin in me."

To use the metaphor of a Body, this is how it works, some people are FEET. Some people are EYES. Some people are ELBOWS. Some people are the NOSE. And Christ is the HEAD.

These are all physical representations of spiritual things. That does not mean that our minds ARE those limbs. This is why flesh cannot be spiritual, and our minds can be spiritual. That is why Paul draws the distinction between what happens in our minds and the flesh.

All an "appendage" is, is an extension of a larger or more important thing.  I do not think the other members of the body are greater in importance than the mind.  However... MEMBERSHIP does not constitute MEAT... nor does it mean that a MEMBER is FLESH... CHRIST has MEMBERSHIP in HIS BODY, yet HIS BODY is totally spiritual... NO FLESH at all!

That is why the use of a PHYSICAL head is used to represent CHRIST. It does not mean that our minds are "limbs" of our body.

Part of the "body of this death" is the NATURAL MIND which listens to the beckoning of the FLESH, Seth...

No WillieH, our minds are distinguishable from our Flesh, which is why our minds can be spiritual but our Flesh cannot be spiritual.

Of course the mind listens to the BECKONING OF THE FLESH. You just distinguished the flesh from the mind just like Paul does! That SIN in that FLESH IMPOSES sinful thoughts upon our MIND, when we want to avoid lust, is what brings US into slavery.

To have our mind REMOVED from the FLESH, is why our minds can be converted even while we are clothed in flesh. Do you know how our brain produces feelings in us? Well, that's NATURAL right, so it ain't sin? People are NATURALLY sinful.

This is YOUR vision Seth... CHRIST did not "deliver us" from LUST... He delivers us from SIN... caused by LUST.

No, he delivers us from THE BODY OF DEATH, by CONVERTING OUR MINDS, so that we don't have to feel lust.

Galatians 5
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts (epithumia). If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Seeing that, do you still say that Christ does not deliver us from lust and affection of the flesh?

Romans 8:9-12
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall ALSO quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit DO MORTIFY THE DEEDS OF THE BODY, ye shall live.

The deeds of the body are described in Romans 7, producing LUST within us. That DEED we put to death so that it need not bring OUR MINDS into slavery. The BODY is dead because of sin, BUT WE ARE NOT IN THE FLESH., so the deeds OF that body are SLAIN. To our minds, our flesh is dead and crucified, EVEN WHILE WE WAIT for Chirst to quicken our mortal bodies, with Spiritual bodies, leaving "flesh and blood" behind. This is why our minds can be made spiritual, but the flesh (with all the sin in its members) is doomed.

1 Corinthians 15:50-54
I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written.


  

"haughty"?   ...wow! Look who is talking!  Is the tantrum   over, or can I expect more as I go along in this answer? 

WillieH, you are simply imposing your emotions on my words. I am not having a tantrum. LOL.

If you believe a given thing then express it... but when you tell me -- "willieH -- Sorry, but the head is not a member -   " ...then you are endeavoring to TEACH me...

LOL, more judgment of my underlying motive. Turn the finger to yourself. Maybe you never condidered the fact that you are imposing your assumption of my motives on my words.

It is not wrong to TEACH Seth... I have just let you know that ...I... am observant enough to see:

(1) and note you are a teacher
(2) that you aspire to do so, as evidenced by your site
(3) that you not only strongly believe your stance but are well able to present it
(4) that it does not RING TRUE to me, therefore your effort to TEACH concerning me, is in vain...

Note carefully what I said. I am not endeavoring to teach YOU. Those who I teach, I do so from my site, about UR. Here, I learn. In fact I have learned many things in this thread alone. In this thread I am not attempting to teach, just to present my opinion. Again, maybe take a look to see if you are assuming my intentions and ASK me if that is my intention. Then, in love, I could TELL YOU what my intentions are, rather than YOU telling ME, what is going on in my head.

He was THEREFORE our brother, as it is mentioned in the Scriptures -- Rom 8:29 -- the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN... He was WITHOUT SIN... but He was NOT withheld from the PROCESS in which SIN enters the experience... THAT is what He DEFEATED while in the flesh of man...

And being without sin is HOW Christ was NOT like US. He was APART from sin, which is why He had no lust in him contrary to His Father's law.

What Christ was withheld from is SIN, being without it in his members, and being without SIN in his members to produce LUST.

 

I love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)

I love you too bro. 

I do not think that a child (which is the equivalent of CHRIST in mind), really "struggles" with temptation...  Often they unknowingly just jump one way or the other -- into it or flee from it...

I didn't say all CHILDREN struggle with sin. ALL MEN all men are carnal sold under sin. Christ obviously was not if was without sin to be enslaved to. THAT would be one way that Christ was UNLIKE his brothers.

The struggle you imply that men have... is due to their past experience WITH SIN... They have already fallen... which CHRIST never did... so they battle with their "history" as well as in the moment of "now"...

And their struggle is not Christ's struggle since Christ was without sin. If all men have fallen Christ never fell. THAT is a big difference. Christ being without sin, means that no lust could be borne in him because, as you say "Christ did not have sin in his members."

That makes Him EXEMPT from the process of Romans 7, which means no lust could be borne in him contrary to God's law.

See it as you will... positionally, He was a MAN as are we, but also positionally, He was parented by both the HOLY (YHVH) and the UNHOLY (Mary)... whereas we are each parented by 2 UNHOLY (sinful) parents...

Mary was not in his mind. His father was. That is the whole point.

That there IS a process of SIN, ...and the fact that you and I see that process differently IS a part of the FOREKNOWLEDGE of GOD... but the TRUTH is either in one or the other, or NEITHER of our views... which means that one or both of us can be held IN ACCOUNT for this conversation. 

I'll keep it even shorter then, and since we both agree on God's sovereigny, we don't need to argue about it in a way that would result in a heated argument.

Romans 7 embodies God's sovereignty in that God is not placing the CAUSAL responsibility for sin on men. He places the CAUSATION of lust on the sin in our flesh. He holds us accountable anyway to be delivered. When Paul says "It is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me" I wonder what the ET free-will crowd would say about that.

I wonder if they would react the same way you did. 

TEMPTATION is the DOORWAY to SIN... CHRIST did NOT walk through it, He slammed it SHUT -- forever...

Temptation to sin is only created by way of lust, which is created by "THE BODY OF DEATH."

Quote from: willieH
what's next?

Well?

Wednesday is next.

[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).

When should we hold captive our thoughts, having restraint?

Tempted

peirazo pi-rad'-zo from peira pi'-rah; to test (objectively) i.e. endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline:--assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.
 
– as of perception or thought, having actual existence or reality, not impartial.

peira pi'-rah from the base of peran per'-an (through the idea of piercing); a test, i.e. attempt, experience:--assaying, trial

 – undergo active participation.

peran per'-an apparently accusative case of an obsolete derivative of peiro (to "pierce"); through (as adverb or preposition), i.e. across:--beyond, farther (other) side, over.

 – to penetrate the depths of; as in one's heart and/or mind.

How many are there who understand that they have a moral nature (good/evil) and a spiritual nature? And even when they do know that, how many still "delight" or pleasure themselves within their fleshly, worldly desires?

There are two parts of our mind, which are quite different. As both trees are within each person. Some may have a small tree of knowledge, although they experience the tree, having life. Whereas, it can be the other way around, ever learning. Are we merely eating to survive?

"The right seed sown in our mind from a correct heart, will reap plants; but the wrong thoughts will destroy any growth."

peacemaker

[Seth]

James 1:15
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth (titkto) sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

tiktō
To bear to be born

Example:

Luk 2:7
And  she brought forth (titko) her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes

When a child comes into the world, first it gestates, then it is birthed into the world. That is why the translators use the term "brought forth." That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just that it is being brought forth, like a child into the world.

Forth (archaic)
out, as from concealment or inaction; into view or consideration: The author's true point comes forth midway through the book.

But, James was WELL AWARE OF HOW LUST ORIGINATES saying:

James 4:1
From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?

The "wars and fighting among us" is an example of the sin within our members BEING BIRTHED into the world like a child. Now the lusts that war in our members is described by Paul. Paul says that "when we were in the flesh the motions of sin worked." He describes how that the LAW says "Do not LUST" and as a result the SIN IN HIS MEMBERS creates LUST. When we, while in the flesh, try NOT to lust, and sin creates it anyway: THEN IT IS NO LONGER I THAT LUST, BUT THE SIN IN ME.

The war happening in our members is against our minds which are carnal when we are IN the flesh. James is well aware of the origins of lust within us: the sin in our members. HOWEVER, he says, when that LUST has been siezed upon it BIRTHS that sin.

When a woman gives birth, that which is WITHIN her comes out into the world. But FIRST is the GESTATION process. THEN the birth. That is why James says "where does war and fighting come from? don't they come from the lusts that war IN YOUR MEMBERS?"

Wars and fighting among us, is a birthing of the sin within us. Here is the process step by step.

-------------------

1) We are carnal sold as slaves to sin with sin in our flesh (this body of death)
2) We are therefore subjected to a war in our flesh where lust is created in us by "the body of death," against the will of our minds, pulling us into captivity, so that when I want to go good and cannot, it is no longer I who lust, but the sin in me.
3) Lust when SIEZED upon births (BRINGS FORTH from concealment) the sin that was in my members. It brings the sin OUT. ("wars and fighting among you")

It's very simple.

Where CHRIST is concerned, he was WITHOUT SIN. Therefore he did not have EVIL DESIRES placed into a mind because, since he had the Holy Spirit sin did not produce anything IN HIS MIND contrary to his Dad's LAW.

That is what made him a spotless lamb WITHOUT BLEMISH.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

Never said it was... The HEAD is a MEMBER of the BODY

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members (Gk - melos), warring against the law of my mind (Gk nous), and bringing me (Gk - me) into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.


melos
a member, limb: a member of the human body

This is selective agreement to definition... you pick the "definition" of the word MELOS which best suits your theological belief/vision... Just as relgious translators pick GRAVE or HELL (depending upon which suits them best), as the definition noted in Strongs -- of SHEOL...

"Member" by English definition means a PART of something... the MIND is PART of the BODY... without the MIND, the body (including the brain) is a mass of MEAT which has no "DIRECTING member"... so the MIND is the MOST IMPORTANT "member" 

There is no designation of LIMB in the english definitions of the word in the dictionary, which compromise what I am saying of the mind as a MEMBER...

You said that the MIND is a member. Therefore indeed you are saying it is a limb.

No I am NOT!  You are concluding ME, with YOUR MIND, not mine.  In communication, many words have multiple applications for the same word which are UNRELATED at times. 

You are putting words in my mouth Seth.  Because one of the defintions of GAY is applied to someone HAPPY, does not THEREFORE in that application, mean the person is HOMOSEXUAL...

Many times words spoken can be truthful, yet inaccurately display truth -- such as a 10yr old, referring to his 22 year old teacher as, ...OLD...  The teacher is in fact OLD-ER than the observer, but in no terms ELDERLY as the kid, within his words, might imply about the teacher which is not present.

Language is a tricky thing bro... in my life, I have had a few LIVING experiences (isolated within the use of foreign language) that were OUTSIDE English... and learned that RESIDENT MEANING, DIALECT, REGION, and ERA can affect words in ANY language...

When one is giving a "definition" of one word in a foreign language (such as Greek), and absolutely deduces its meaning to be thus "in English"... a dire error is committed... It is not wrong to note a potential or possible definition into English, but erroneous to maintain that definition as ABSOLUTE.

MOST languages on earth do NOT convey EXACTLY into English, the meaning of a given word or phrase. 

I once had a Mexican friend (with whom I lived in a Spanish speaking environment for 10 months)... He told a joke in Spanish to his dad, and his dad CRACKED UP BAD!  -- I was yet to be familiar with Spanish, so I urged my friend to translate it into English so I could laugh as well... to which he said that it wasn't funny IN ENGLISH.  He then told me the joke IN ENGLISH, and it wasn't the least bit funny.

My point is, that using Strong's is a good basic reference to give us an insight to Greek or Hebrew, but claiming those "insights" as absolute is misleading, ...even those who fervently study these languages, do not KNOW all the "in's and out's" which can affect meaning... especially with so much time removed from the original era.

As I said, DIALECTS (which can and DO affect spelling and pronunciation particular to a given person and or grouping) REGION (which can affect spelling and pronunciation to a given AREA) and ERA (which can affect spelling, pronunciation AND application)... are ALL intangibles that cannot be PINPOINTED by anyone other than GOD.

So to have semantic arguements over wordings IN ENGLISH which do NOT make an EXACT transfer from Greek or Hebrew... is an exercise it futility...

I believe that it is the APPLICATION of GOD's leading along with REASON, shall avail to the seeker enlightenment as GOD WILLS that enlightenment, to be experienced. 

Not the claim that the ENGLISH translation of Greek and Hebrew words are ABSOLUTE, which are in all likelihood, a partial look at a given word traversing from ANCIENT times... into this modern day...

Not only that, you are mistaking the MIND for the HEAD.

Again another assumption of YOUR MIND...    I am not "mistaking" anything.  You have assumed that your viewpoint on this subject is "correct", and then, ...by comparing my observation to YOURS -- using yours AS the  MEASURE, you deduce mine as "mistaken"...

This is the common (failing) method of most THEOLOGIANS and observers of the WORD of God... Instead of acknowledging that any information BELIEVED by a sinful human being can be FALLIBLE or "VEILED" in proximity to TRUTH, you assume that YOUR OBSERVATION is TRUE, and deduce all OPPOSING observations as "mistaken" by comparing them to YOURS!  Craig was famous for doing this, even when LOGIC was applied to the arguement.

It is a given to those who truly seek TRUTH, to humbly KNOW that it is only GOD which can LIFT the VEIL on any given subject... and that when 2 points can be proven using His WORD, that after a certain amount of exchange occurs when there is no leaning done by either party, that it becomes obvious that GOD does not intend on revealing which of the observations (if either) might be the TRUTH.

It is in this wisdom, that I must note the possibility that you might be holding the TRUE observation of this subject, but until GOD changes the "member" called my mind (heh-heh)... I shall remain where I stand concerning this subject... while I continue to probe it into His WORD... 

You go on to break down the "Head" and fail to see that in the construct of CHRIST, He is the HEAD... not just a quantity of "meat", but the TOP member of the BODY noted as the HEAD of a body which is ENTIRELY spiritual...

Is the HEAD of the church ...MEAT, Seth?  Or is it the MEMBER of the "church" to which all other MEMBERS look to LEAD?  And that MEMBER is NOT physical.

The head is made of many physical parts, the brain included, which is why it is used as a PHYSICAL representations of the SPIRITUAL makeup of the church.

Paul does several things there. He destinguishes the MEMBER (limbs) where sin resides, from the law in our MINDS

You see bro... this (at least to me) is an UNCONVINCING arguement.  For SIN can occur, WITHOUT ANY ENACTING of the disobedience PHYSICALLY, as CHRIST noted:

Matt 5:27 -- Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt not commit adultery [sexual relations enacted outside marraige]

Matt 5:27 -- But I say unto you, that whosoever LOOKETH upon a women to lust after her hat COMMITTED ADULTERY with her ALREADY in his HEART...

To "look" after a women in LUST, is done with the MEMBER of the MIND... for the EYE is just a TOOL under the DIRECTION of the MIND, which is being MISUSED... It is NOT the fault of the EYE, it is the fault of the MIND, for the MIND directs what the EYE does or does not "look upon"...

Part of the "body of this death" is the NATURAL MIND which listens to the beckoning of the FLESH, Seth...

No WillieH, our minds are distinguishable from our Flesh, which is why our minds can be spiritual but our Flesh cannot be spiritual.

I just explained opposition to this statement, try reading it... 

The CARNAL MIND is NOT something that can become SPIRITUAL... it must be RE-Created Seth... Just as the BODY in Resurrection shall be RE-Created... The "MIND" must be BORN AGAIN...

FLESH and BLOOD are portions of TIME concerning Man... as IS his MIND in the NATURAL state...  You and I could argue this continually... and neither get a step further.  Just as YOU or I might argue CHRIST with a JEW... Or the Salvation of ALL with Matt Slick -- 

I must return to EVE... If what you say is SO... then EVE had SIN in her members (body members) before she "sinned" in her MIND...

CHRIST was born of a SINNER (Mary), and no matter how you argue it... He had the SAME FLESH as do we... which YOU claim to have SIN residing IN IT.

So He therefore had SINFUL flesh... according to your observation of SIN being in the MEMBERS of the BODY, and the MIND, a separate NON-MEMBER.

Sorry Seth... but no matter how long you speak this, it remains as GARBLE to me... I'll stick with the BODY as SINLESS until it becomes AWARE of SIN... for SIN is NOT a physical thing it is a SPIRITUAL thing...

It is MISUSE of the BODY by the MIND which has been TEMPTED by the NATURAL DESIRES of the BODY, which produces SIN, as noted in Matt 5:27-28 above.
 

This is YOUR vision Seth... CHRIST did not "deliver us" from LUST... He delivers us from SIN... caused by LUST.

No, he delivers us from THE BODY OF DEATH, by CONVERTING OUR MINDS, so that we don't have to feel lust.

Galatians 5
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts (epithumia). If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Seeing that, do you still say that Christ does not deliver us from lust and affection of the flesh?

I do not argue that we are delivered of the Lust which TEMPTS us, as well as the SIN produced by it... 

What I argue with is "YOUR contention", that states that SIN is present in the body TO BEGIN WITH...

"haughty"?   ...wow! Look who is talking!  Is the tantrum   over, or can I expect more as I go along in this answer? 

WillieH, you are simply imposing your emotions on my words. I am not having a tantrum. LOL.

Seth, the word "haughty" is a subliminal name-calling effort.  I have not been "arrogant" or "proud" with you... I have presented an argument against your present position, to which you react with such terminology by trying to apply it to me... ...I see this as uncalled for... I have stated no such things of you... and if by chance I did (which I do not recall)... I apologize... for it is not by "name calling" that we shall prosper in conversation... rather, by presenting our beliefs and let GOD's WORD decide which of the two better lines up with what is stated overall, and that contains REASON within as well... As we are invited to REASON with Him -- Isaiah 1:18

If you believe a given thing then express it... but when you tell me -- "willieH -- Sorry, but the head is not a member -   " ...then you are endeavoring to TEACH me...

LOL, more judgment of my underlying motive. Turn the finger to yourself. Maybe you never condidered the fact that you are imposing your assumption of my motives on my words.

No judgment Seth, just observation... just as I do not "impose" the Salvation of ALL upon an ET believer, ...and I do not IMPOSE upon you my position here... If you are "flat-out" saying that I am MISTAKEN -- which you DID above... you are therefore CORRECTING... and endeavoring to sit in the "teacher's chair" and wear the "teacher's hat"...    I do not use such terminology... I believe what I believe, and state it as best as I am able... 

That it does not "match-up" to yours is irrlevant to me... I do not seek to align myself with anyone but GOD... Though it is nice to find like minds... it is only the REWARD of alignment with the WORD which can bring PEACE...

I am at PEACE with where I am presently, Seth... 

It is not wrong to TEACH Seth... I have just let you know that ...I... am observant enough to see:

(1) and note you are a teacher
(2) that you aspire to do so, as evidenced by your site
(3) that you not only strongly believe your stance but are well able to present it
(4) that it does not RING TRUE to me, therefore your effort to TEACH concerning me, is in vain...

Note carefully what I said. I am not endeavoring to teach YOU. Those who I teach, I do so from my site, about UR. Here, I learn. In fact I have learned many things in this thread alone. In this thread I am not attempting to teach, just to present my opinion. Again, maybe take a look to see if you are assuming my intentions and ASK me if that is my intention. Then, in love, I could TELL YOU what my intentions are, rather than YOU telling ME, what is going on in my head.

I think that in the most subliminal ways, bro... you are fooling yourself (no offense)... Within this conversation, especially in the latest replies, ...you seek to CORRECT me (which is what a "teacher" does)... you called me "haughty" which (as I see it) was unnecessary (which is a character observation)...

I have YET to say what is "going on in your HEAD"... I can only observe your words as evidence of that activity...  And have so reacted to them, as that which IS going on in "your head"... 

He was THEREFORE our brother, as it is mentioned in the Scriptures -- Rom 8:29 -- the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN... He was WITHOUT SIN... but He was NOT withheld from the PROCESS in which SIN enters the experience... THAT is what He DEFEATED while in the flesh of man...

And being without sin is HOW Christ was NOT like US. He was APART from sin, which is why He had no lust in him contrary to His Father's law.

That again, is just a restated opinion... I see CHRIST as SIN-LESS as well, but concerning TEMPTATION, ...it occured with CHRIST, AS it  does with all other MEN, of which CHRIST is numbered.

THAT is what makes Him SO SPECIAL above all other MEN, bro Seth!

What Christ was withheld from is SIN, being without it in his members, and being without SIN in his members to produce LUST.

This is plainly CONTRADICTORY Seth...

If (as YOU claim) MEN have SIN in their "members" and it is that present "SIN" which births "LUST" (desire)... then CHRIST, being a MAN, had that same scenario present in Himself... as He was born of an EARTHLY mother! 

There is no Scripture which states that His "members) were positionally WITHHELD from "SIN" which proposes LUST, which brings forth SIN... -- Please note the verse(s) which state this...

Try selling this contradiction elsewhere bro, ...I don't buy it...

I do not think that a child (which is the equivalent of CHRIST in mind), really "struggles" with temptation...  Often they unknowingly just jump one way or the other -- into it or flee from it...

I didn't say all CHILDREN struggle with sin. ALL MEN all men are carnal sold under sin. Christ obviously was not if was without sin to be enslaved to. THAT would be one way that Christ was UNLIKE his brothers.

Really drawing at straws now, bro... He was LIKE us in all ways except ONE... He was WITHOUT SIN... Why? because He listened CONTINUALLY to the VOICE of GOD, instead of the VOICE of the (tempting desires of) FLESH.

The struggle you imply that men have... is due to their past experience WITH SIN... They have already fallen... which CHRIST never did... so they battle with their "history" as well as in the moment of "now"...

And their struggle is not Christ's struggle since Christ was without sin. If all men have fallen Christ never fell. THAT is a big difference. Christ being without sin, means that no lust could be borne in him because, as you say "Christ did not have sin in his members."

More "straw drawing" and CONTRADICTORY statements... You say MEN have SIN in the MEMBERS which causes LUST to arise, and even though CHRIST is noted as a MAN, and no such DIFFERENCE to other men is noted as you suggest... (i.e. that He did not have this "alleged" SIN in HIS members)... you contradict yourself by saying "SIN" is a characteristic of FLESHLY MEMBERS... which He INDEED had... born from a SINFUL human being.

That makes Him EXEMPT from the process of Romans 7, which means no lust could be borne in him contrary to God's law.

No such EXEMPTION is noted, other than in the words of YOUR OPINION...

See it as you will... positionally, He was a MAN as are we, but also positionally, He was parented by both the HOLY (YHVH) and the UNHOLY (Mary)... whereas we are each parented by 2 UNHOLY (sinful) parents...

Mary was not in his mind. His father was. That is the whole point.

That is your assertion... which I disagree with...    The WHOLE POINT, is that He came upon this earth, IN THE FLESH which causes man to fall to its desires (not to its SIN), ...and OVERCAME those "desires" which translated into SIN-LESS-NESS...

Your vision does not note Him OVERCOMING anything... 

bro... 

...willieH 

[Seth]

There is no designation of LIMB in the english definitions of the word in the dictionary, which compromise what I am saying of the mind as a MEMBER...

Paul distinguishes member/limb from mind to show that the sin in the flesh generates lust and imposes it on our mind when, when under the law, we try not to lust. Therefore, I can judge the meaning of those words by Paul's expressed differentiation drawn in the context. And attempting to obfuscate language will not work. I see that alot in conversations like this, where people try to call into question whether we can even understand language. It won't work. Just letting you know. The mind is not a member of our BODY, and it is SIN in our members which FIRST produces lust BEFORE lust seized upon CAN BRING THAT SIN FORTH.

I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet/lust. But SIN, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/lust .

The mind is not a member of the BODY. In his context and to his point, Paul distinguishes "mind" from "member," to show how the mind become enslaved to sinful flesh. So it doesn't really matter if YOU think the mind is a member, through his own language, Paul did not. However, even if the mind was a member of the body, SIN would need to be present in Christ's mind in order to produce lust for him to be enticed by. Christ had no sin.

It is a serious error in your judgment if both you and Paul (trittep) think that "bringing forth" means "to make exist." You seem to think that sin does not exist within the flesh BEFORE being brought forth, which runs you headlong into a conflict with Romans 7, parts of which you do not believe, like sin existing in the members, and conflating "mind" with "member" rather than accepting Paul's distinguishing language.

You seem to think that sin "brought forth" means sin brought into existence. BIG MISTAKE.

Sin starts as a seed in the flesh. Sin in our members produces LUST (and that is a Biblical FACT). Lust seized upon BRINGS SIN FORTH. Do you assume that something brought forth does not exist BEFORE it is "brought FORTH?" Where do you get that assumption? According to James, Where do wars come from WillieH, do they not come from the lusts that war in your members?

Just the terminology of "brought forth/forward" SHOWS that it already exists TO be brought forth.

You don't get that? Well then you don't get it. 

When one is giving a "definition" of one word in a foreign language (such as Greek), and absolutely deduces its meaning to be thus "in English"... a dire error is committed... It is not wrong to note a potential or possible definition into English, but erroneous to maintain that definition as ABSOLUTE.

The meaning is deducable BY THE CONTEXT WillieH, hence in Romans 7 MELOS/limb is distinguishable from the MIND/nous which is to show how the seed of sin generates sin contrary to the mind, and that while the person wishes to obey the law, he cannot because the sin in him generates lust in opposition of his mind.

Is the HEAD of the church ...MEAT, Seth?  Or is it the MEMBER of the "church" to which all other MEMBERS look to LEAD?  And that MEMBER is NOT physical.

No, the head of THE CHURCH is Christ who is REPRESENTED by the PHYSICAL HEAD of a PHYSICAL BODY. Paul's use - which is really the important thing - of "member" is in contrast to the mind in that what those members produce bring a WAR with the mind. Member and mind is in OPPOSITION. And Paul further clarifies his usage by illustrating that "there is nothing good in me, that is my flesh." So again, the mind, as it is referenced in Romans 7, IS NOT a member/limb.

The head of "our physical body" IS flesh and it is NOT the mind.
The head of "the church" is NOT physical

The physical head of the physical body REPRESENTS the spiritual head of the church, who is Christ.

 

To "look" after a women in LUST, is done with the MEMBER of the MIND... for the EYE is just a TOOL under the DIRECTION of the MIND, which is being MISUSED... It is NOT the fault of the EYE, it is the fault of the MIND, for the MIND directs what the EYE does or does not "look upon"...

LUST DOES OCCUR IN THE MIND. That is what I keep saying. BUT, it is produced by sin in the flesh to WAR with the mind. The flesh IMPOSES the lust into the mind so that it becomes a "war in our members." That is what Paul means when he says that SIN PRODUCES LUST. The mind is within the members as I stated. When we are delivered from the body of sin, we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and our minds are converted, and renewed to become spiritual.

To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

The CARNAL MIND is NOT something that can become SPIRITUAL... it must be RE-Created Seth... Just as the BODY in Resurrection shall be RE-Created... The "MIND" must be BORN AGAIN...

I didn't say the CARNAL mind can be spiritual. THE MIND can be CONVERTED from CARNAL TO SPIRITUAL. This is why it is called "conversion." It is a change, called "the renewing of the mind."

Seth, the word "haughty" is a subliminal name-calling effort.  I have not been "arrogant" or "proud" with you... I have presented an argument against your present position, to which you react with such terminology by trying to apply it to me...

LOL.

He was THEREFORE our brother, as it is mentioned in the Scriptures -- Rom 8:29 -- the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN... He was WITHOUT SIN... but He was NOT withheld from the PROCESS in which SIN enters the experience... THAT is what He DEFEATED while in the flesh of man...

And being without sin is HOW Christ was NOT like US. He was APART from sin, which is why He had no lust in him contrary to His Father's law.

That again, is just a restated opinion... I see CHRIST as SIN-LESS as well, but concerning TEMPTATION, ...it occured with CHRIST, AS it  does with all other MEN, of which CHRIST is numbered.

Sorry WillieH, to be tempted by sin means that one must be drawn away of his own LUSTS and enticed. Lust is produced by sin in the flesh. Lust concieved BIRTHS/BRINGS FORWARD/BRINGS FORTH that sin INTO THE WORLD.

It starts as a seed, and if lust is conceived, sin is brought FORTH.

As you stated, Christ had no sin in his members, therefore no lust to be tempted by and no lust to sieze upon to birth. No seed, no birth.

Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
What Christ was withheld from is SIN, being without it in his members, and being without SIN in his members to produce LUST.

This is plainly CONTRADICTORY Seth...

If (as YOU claim) MEN have SIN in their "members" and it is that present "SIN" which births "LUST" (desire)... then CHRIST, being a MAN, had that same scenario present in Himself... as He was born of an EARTHLY mother! 

It is not only I that claim that WillieH. The bible shows that the seed of sin is in the flesh which brings forth lust, and lust conceived brings sin FORTH like a child.

You don't get it? Well then you don't get it :-D

Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
That makes Him EXEMPT from the process of Romans 7, which means no lust could be borne in him contrary to God's law.

No such EXEMPTION is noted, other than in the words of YOUR OPINION...

The exemption is noted by YOU when you say that he had no sin in his members. And as I have stated, God already overcame sin for Jesus.

Your position is weak....no offense.  You said earlier:

"TEMPTATION is not "presented" by a being... it is presented by that which OPPOSES the LAW which is the standard of HOLINESS... "

Let's think about that. Temptation is presented by THAT WHICH OPPOSES THE LAW. What opposes the law? The Bible says a man is tempted when he drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Indeed, LUST opposes the law. Let's see again where lust COMES FROM. See if you can spot "what opposes the law and what creates that opposition and from where:

Romans 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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet/lust (looks like lust is unlawful, now let's take a look at what PRODUCES lust). But SIN, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/lust (So, SIN PRODUCES LUST, now let's see where that sin is).

For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Now then it is NO MORE I that do it, but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 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.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

In context, what do we see here? The law of sin is in our members. As it says "IN ME (THAT IS IN MY FLESH) DWELLS NO GOOD THING." Let's now return to your comment: "TEMPTATION is not "presented" by a being... it is presented by that which OPPOSES the LAW which is the standard of HOLINESS... "

I agree, it is presented by THAT WHICH OPPOSSES THE LAW. Guess what presents temptation? LUST. Lust opposes the law. What creates lust? Sin in our members. If lust is concieved what happens? IT BRINGS SIN FORTH.

So the question is, what was Jesus tempted by? You say LUST. Unfortunately for you, you also say "JESUS DID NOT HAVE SIN IN HIS MEMBERS." According to Romans 7 sin in the members is what PRODUCES LUST. Therefore, as sound reasoning demands, JESUS was not tempted by anything unlawful within himself, because he had no sin to produce anything which opposes the law in his mind.

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

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

1) Being without sin, means he was without lust to be enticed by, for that SIN produces lust,
2) and lust seized upon would bring FORTH that sin.

We both agree that that Jesus did not sieze upon lust. But doing that would only bring existing sin FORTH. But the scripture does not say, Jesus felt our infirmities, yet did not sieze upon lust. It says he was in all ways tempted IN THE ABSENCE OF SIN. No sin, no lust produced, no way to bring sin forth.

[Cardinal]

  Just wanted to say I really appreciate seeing the spirit of Christ in both of you as you agree to disagree.  Blessings....

[peacemaker]

"The Word was made flesh."

Paul writes:

But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law.

Now the works (pleasing the desire) of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like.

I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Let us have no self-conceit, no provoking of one another, no envy of one another. (Galatians 5:16-26)

"A person with tender flesh should not expose it to direct sunlight."

Watch and pray, that YOU enter not into temptation: for the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

"For this is my beloved Son, in whom I AM well-pleased."

peacemaker

[Seth]

If sin is a missing of the mark, the flesh itself is WELL wide of the mark by default.

We are so accustomed to thinking about SIN as something we do or think, as if sin is dependant on man to give it power. But the power of sin is the law. Sin exists in our flesh because it is NATURALLY missing the Spirit mark. What is flesh is flesh, and what is Spirit is Spirit.

As Paul said, sin lies dormant, until the law comes, then sin springs to life and puts us to death. It is SIN that PICKS A FIGHT WITH THE MIND to bring it into slavery. Sin exists apart from the mind in that the VERY FLESH ITSELF misses the mark and NATURALLY creates lust, even in opposition to our minds, and US (that is ourselves).

Now, when man SIEZES upon the lust that the flesh creates, that is when sin becomes MANIFEST outward, it comes forth.

[willieH]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

Though you have been as redundant as can be repeating over and again the same points which are deaf of ear (and within that become quite boring), ...now you stoop to resorting to hopefully exalt your own "vision" by erecting the strawman which endeavors to reduce what I believe to "wishing"... 

I have more than proven my point AND my belief, and I hardly spend time "wishing" what I believe to be true... sounds more like what YOU are doing in this thread, brother.

Try looking in the mirror and observe more than a head that needs its hair combed, ...it can be helpful... 

Pretty pathetic Seth... and well below what you are capable of...

...willieH 

[willieH]

There is no designation of LIMB in the english definitions of the word in the dictionary, which compromise what I am saying of the mind as a MEMBER...

Paul distinguishes member/limb from mind to show that the sin in the flesh generates lust and imposes it on our mind when, when under the law, we try not to lust. Therefore, I can judge the meaning of those words by Paul's expressed differentiation drawn in the context. And attempting to obfuscate language will not work. I see that alot in conversations like this, where people try to call into question whether we can even understand language. It won't work. Just letting you know. The mind is not a member of our BODY, and it is SIN in our members which FIRST produces lust BEFORE lust seized upon CAN BRING THAT SIN FORTH.

I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet/lust. But SIN, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/lust .

The mind is not a member of the BODY. In his context and to his point, Paul distinguishes "mind" from "member," to show how the mind become enslaved to sinful flesh. So it doesn't really matter if YOU think the mind is a member, through his own language, Paul did not. However, even if the mind was a member of the body, SIN would need to be present in Christ's mind in order to produce lust for him to be enticed by. Christ had no sin.

It is a serious error in your judgment if both you and Paul (trittep) think that "bringing forth" means "to make exist." You seem to think that sin does not exist within the flesh BEFORE being brought forth, which runs you headlong into a conflict with Romans 7, parts of which you do not believe, like sin existing in the members, and conflating "mind" with "member" rather than accepting Paul's distinguishing language.

You seem to think that sin "brought forth" means sin brought into existence. BIG MISTAKE.

Sin starts as a seed in the flesh. Sin in our members produces LUST (and that is a Biblical FACT). Lust seized upon BRINGS SIN FORTH. Do you assume that something brought forth does not exist BEFORE it is "brought FORTH?" Where do you get that assumption? According to James, Where do wars come from WillieH, do they not come from the lusts that war in your members?

Just the terminology of "brought forth/forward" SHOWS that it already exists TO be brought forth.

You don't get that? Well then you don't get it. 

When one is giving a "definition" of one word in a foreign language (such as Greek), and absolutely deduces its meaning to be thus "in English"... a dire error is committed... It is not wrong to note a potential or possible definition into English, but erroneous to maintain that definition as ABSOLUTE.

The meaning is deducable BY THE CONTEXT WillieH, hence in Romans 7 MELOS/limb is distinguishable from the MIND/nous which is to show how the seed of sin generates sin contrary to the mind, and that while the person wishes to obey the law, he cannot because the sin in him generates lust in opposition of his mind.

Is the HEAD of the church ...MEAT, Seth?  Or is it the MEMBER of the "church" to which all other MEMBERS look to LEAD?  And that MEMBER is NOT physical.

No, the head of THE CHURCH is Christ who is REPRESENTED by the PHYSICAL HEAD of a PHYSICAL BODY. Paul's use - which is really the important thing - of "member" is in contrast to the mind in that what those members produce bring a WAR with the mind. Member and mind is in OPPOSITION. And Paul further clarifies his usage by illustrating that "there is nothing good in me, that is my flesh." So again, the mind, as it is referenced in Romans 7, IS NOT a member/limb.

The head of "our physical body" IS flesh and it is NOT the mind.
The head of "the church" is NOT physical

The physical head of the physical body REPRESENTS the spiritual head of the church, who is Christ.

 

To "look" after a women in LUST, is done with the MEMBER of the MIND... for the EYE is just a TOOL under the DIRECTION of the MIND, which is being MISUSED... It is NOT the fault of the EYE, it is the fault of the MIND, for the MIND directs what the EYE does or does not "look upon"...

LUST DOES OCCUR IN THE MIND. That is what I keep saying. BUT, it is produced by sin in the flesh to WAR with the mind. The flesh IMPOSES the lust into the mind so that it becomes a "war in our members." That is what Paul means when he says that SIN PRODUCES LUST. The mind is within the members as I stated. When we are delivered from the body of sin, we are no longer in the flesh but in the Spirit, and our minds are converted, and renewed to become spiritual.

To be carnally minded is death, and to be spiritually minded is life and peace.

The CARNAL MIND is NOT something that can become SPIRITUAL... it must be RE-Created Seth... Just as the BODY in Resurrection shall be RE-Created... The "MIND" must be BORN AGAIN...

I didn't say the CARNAL mind can be spiritual. THE MIND can be CONVERTED from CARNAL TO SPIRITUAL. This is why it is called "conversion." It is a change, called "the renewing of the mind."

Seth, the word "haughty" is a subliminal name-calling effort.  I have not been "arrogant" or "proud" with you... I have presented an argument against your present position, to which you react with such terminology by trying to apply it to me...

LOL.

He was THEREFORE our brother, as it is mentioned in the Scriptures -- Rom 8:29 -- the FIRSTBORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN... He was WITHOUT SIN... but He was NOT withheld from the PROCESS in which SIN enters the experience... THAT is what He DEFEATED while in the flesh of man...

And being without sin is HOW Christ was NOT like US. He was APART from sin, which is why He had no lust in him contrary to His Father's law.

That again, is just a restated opinion... I see CHRIST as SIN-LESS as well, but concerning TEMPTATION, ...it occured with CHRIST, AS it  does with all other MEN, of which CHRIST is numbered.

Sorry WillieH, to be tempted by sin means that one must be drawn away of his own LUSTS and enticed. Lust is produced by sin in the flesh. Lust concieved BIRTHS/BRINGS FORWARD/BRINGS FORTH that sin INTO THE WORLD.

It starts as a seed, and if lust is conceived, sin is brought FORTH.

As you stated, Christ had no sin in his members, therefore no lust to be tempted by and no lust to sieze upon to birth. No seed, no birth.

Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
What Christ was withheld from is SIN, being without it in his members, and being without SIN in his members to produce LUST.

This is plainly CONTRADICTORY Seth...

If (as YOU claim) MEN have SIN in their "members" and it is that present "SIN" which births "LUST" (desire)... then CHRIST, being a MAN, had that same scenario present in Himself... as He was born of an EARTHLY mother! 

It is not only I that claim that WillieH. The bible shows that the seed of sin is in the flesh which brings forth lust, and lust conceived brings sin FORTH like a child.

You don't get it? Well then you don't get it :-D

Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 06:23:46 PM
That makes Him EXEMPT from the process of Romans 7, which means no lust could be borne in him contrary to God's law.

No such EXEMPTION is noted, other than in the words of YOUR OPINION...

The exemption is noted by YOU when you say that he had no sin in his members. And as I have stated, God already overcame sin for Jesus.

Your position is weak....no offense.  You said earlier:

"TEMPTATION is not "presented" by a being... it is presented by that which OPPOSES the LAW which is the standard of HOLINESS... "

Let's think about that. Temptation is presented by THAT WHICH OPPOSES THE LAW. What opposes the law? The Bible says a man is tempted when he drawn away of his own lust and enticed. Indeed, LUST opposes the law. Let's see again where lust COMES FROM. See if you can spot "what opposes the law and what creates that opposition and from where:

Romans 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, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet/lust (looks like lust is unlawful, now let's take a look at what PRODUCES lust). But SIN, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence/lust (So, SIN PRODUCES LUST, now let's see where that sin is).

For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Now then it is NO MORE I that do it, but SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 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.

O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

In context, what do we see here? The law of sin is in our members. As it says "IN ME (THAT IS IN MY FLESH) DWELLS NO GOOD THING." Let's now return to your comment: "TEMPTATION is not "presented" by a being... it is presented by that which OPPOSES the LAW which is the standard of HOLINESS... "

I agree, it is presented by THAT WHICH OPPOSSES THE LAW. Guess what presents temptation? LUST. Lust opposes the law. What creates lust? Sin in our members. If lust is concieved what happens? IT BRINGS SIN FORTH.

So the question is, what was Jesus tempted by? You say LUST. Unfortunately for you, you also say "JESUS DID NOT HAVE SIN IN HIS MEMBERS." According to Romans 7 sin in the members is what PRODUCES LUST. Therefore, as sound reasoning demands, JESUS was not tempted by anything unlawful within himself, because he had no sin to produce anything which opposes the law in his mind.

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

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

1) Being without sin, means he was without lust to be enticed by, for that SIN produces lust,
2) and lust seized upon would bring FORTH that sin.

We both agree that that Jesus did not sieze upon lust. But doing that would only bring existing sin FORTH. But the scripture does not say, Jesus felt our infirmities, yet did not sieze upon lust. It says he was in all ways tempted IN THE ABSENCE OF SIN. No sin, no lust produced, no way to bring sin forth.

Your most impoverished effort yet... 

...willieH 

[Seth]

willieH: Hi Seth... 

There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):

Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "

Though you have been as redundant as can be repeating over and again the same points which are deaf of ear (and within that become quite boring), ...now you stoop to resorting to hopefully exalt your own "vision" by erecting the strawman which endeavors to reduce what I believe to "wishing"... 

I have more than proven my point AND my belief, and I hardly spend time "wishing" what I believe to be true... sounds more like what YOU are doing in this thread, brother.

Try looking in the mirror and observe more than a head that needs its hair combed, ...it can be helpful... 

Pretty pathetic Seth... and well below what you are capable of...

...willieH 

Lol, don't "get your feathers in a ruffle" WillieH. No tantrums bro, no tantrums.

Craig and I had differences, but to call him out before the whole forum in a derogatory way toward me, when he is not here to defend himself is really a dishonor to yourself.

You just show how wrong you are when you stoop to that level. It's common for people to take that route in moments like these. But that was pretty low. You shame yourself.

[Seth]

Go on and keeping singing your little songs and gabbing about God on forums and praising the Lord, and then turn around and spite a brother in public behind his back. Hypocrite.