I often get criticized for claiming that WE are Satan. I don't mean literally that man is Satan but that our carnal nature IS indeed Satan. I believe that "Satan" is a reference to that disobedience that is in us and has its source in us. In other words I don't believe there is some OTHER ENTITY to blame the source of all evil on. That source is born of man's heart. I came to that conclusion when reading of the events in the Garden. It became apparent to me that the Serpent was indeed Adam talking to Eve. Let's consider a few things:
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The word "subtil" is often translated as "prudent" or other more glowing terms in the King James version. Remember, man is being made in God's image.
Notice Eve's response to this question from the serpent:
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Now if Eve is using the plural here of "we" then this means that the Serpent would have knowledge of Adam if indeed the Serpent is not Adam or that Adam is in the company of Eve when this is taking place.
Now notice carefully this verse a bit later:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Notice the above. It was important to include the words "with her". Adam was with Eve when this was taking place. But let's continue.
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Notice how Adam blames Eve. Now why would Adam respond the way he did. Of all the things Adam could have said he said "The woman whom thou gaves to be with me". Think about this for a moment. Adam would find no helpmeet for him and so God makes Eve from his side and gives Eve to Adam. So my belief is that Adam (the serpent) is having concerns about taking the forbidden fruit. He knows that is will make him to know good and evil and he knows that Eve was given to him from God. So if he gets Eve to take of it and give to him then it looks like he is not at fault.
Let's jump ahead to Jeremiah:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Above we learn about the heart of man. Notice it says above ALL things. Certaintly if Satan was a separate entity from man that he will still be part of "all things". So this verse would be saying that man's heart is more wicked then Satan's heart if that was so. It is logical to conclude that Satan is reference to the disobedience exhibition of man's heart and NOT some other entity that we can just blame for our own wrongdoing. There are many more examples of references like the above pointing to man. Consider that man is to have dominion in this world and yet we learn in the New Testament that Satan is the "god of this world". So which is it? Man or Satan? - my answer is that they are part of the same - man's evil heart.
Paul
I could accept that when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals and into his wife that when he breathed the breath of life into the serpent that he might have created Satan at that point. But, I've dealt with a few too many exorcisms and seen quite a few too many things to ever make Satan a figment of the imagination. Doesn't seem like in the ministry of Jesus or St. Paul that they were casting out figments in the Gospels and Acts. And the indepth teaching of the Word that builds the image of God into us as the divinely intended counterpart to the tower of babel is definitely not to be confused with exorcisms although as the Word and Anointing take root in the life of a person, very often demonic bondages will be cast out. There are physical parasites with plants, animals, fish, etc., so I don't see why it's such a big deal to recognize spiritual parasites since the natural order of things is merely a reflection of what goes on in the heavenlies with no particular aspect of the natural world being the complete picture of what goes on beyond the 5 physical senses.
Quote from: martincisneros on July 01, 2009, 09:31:44 PM
I could accept that when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals and into his wife that when he breathed the breath of life into the serpent that he might have created Satan at that point. But, I've dealt with a few too many exorcisms and seen quite a few too many things to ever make Satan a figment of the imagination. Doesn't seem like in the ministry of Jesus or St. Paul that they were casting out figments in the Gospels and Acts. And the indepth teaching of the Word that builds the image of God into us as the divinely intended counterpart to the tower of babel is definitely not to be confused with exorcisms although as the Word and Anointing take root in the life of a person, very often demonic bondages will be cast out. There are physical parasites with plants, animals, fish, etc., so I don't see why it's such a big deal to recognize spiritual parasites since the natural order of things is merely a reflection of what goes on in the heavenlies with no particular aspect of the natural world being the complete picture of what goes on beyond the 5 physical senses.
How do you reconcile Jeremiah 17:9 with your understanding?
Paul
Not the least bit related to the New Covenant heart that He places within us when He begins His walk in us, talk in us, and leading us into all truth -- even describing that heart in 1John 2 as knowing all things -- though not independent of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, Workers of Miracles, Gifts of Healings, Financial and other Administrations, Helps, Bishops, and every other appointment of Christ Jesus in 1Corinthians 12, 1Corinthians 16, 2Corinthians chapters 8 and 9, Ephesians 4, and Paul's epistles to Timothy and Titus that outline the ministry offices. And each of those people involved UNQUESTIONABLY have a heart like ours that's simply a biproduct of what they do/don't do with the Written Word, His Holy Spirit, and the High Priestly Ministry of Jesus Christ that's supposed to be leading them wherever they go, as it says in Hebrews and Revelation. I don't mock at or deny the New Birth which elsewhere is described as being a New Creation in Christ Jesus because we're born again of INCORRUPTIBLE SEED by the Word of God which liveth and abideth to the age in 1Peter 1:23 and numerous other passages that describe the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those that have been brought near by His ministers who have been transfigured into the very Blood of Jesus as you compare all of the passages that describe being brought near by the Blood, while at the exact same time but in different contexts saying we're supposed to be drawing all men unto ourselves as He lifts us up in Christ to God's right hand by faith in His faith and grace in Ephesians 2 and innumerable other passages, such as Isaiah 58 with being described as riding upon the high places of the earth, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. Romans 8:2 says that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. Heart's not bound any more if it's become Christ's slave and the slave of all of Creation. By the Blood of Jesus Christ my own heart is ALL IN ALL (Ephesians 1:23; Colossians 3:17; 1John 2:5-6; 1John 4:17, et. al.). By the Blood of Jesus and His exceeding great and precious promises, when you compare the first chapter of 1Peter and the first chapter of 2Peter together with all of St. Paul's teachings, then by the Blood of Jesus each of us individually as well as together corporately are the fullness of the Godhead Bodily.
Thanks Martin, but more specifically how do you reconcile Jeremiah 17:9 with Gen 3:1 in which it says that the serpent is the most Subtile creature made. Can the Serpent be more Deceitful above man if Jeremiah is saying that the heart of man is the most deceitful?
Paul
Quote from: martincisneros on July 01, 2009, 09:31:44 PM
I could accept that when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals and into his wife that when he breathed the breath of life into the serpent that he might have created Satan at that point.
Hey bro,
what do you mean when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals, etc.?
Quote from: sparrow on July 02, 2009, 02:46:43 AMHey bro,
what do you mean when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals, etc.?
Genesis 1: God said/called and it was:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called "Man be in our Image, have dominion, et. al."
chapter 2: God formed the animals from the dust of the earth and brought them to the man and whatever the man CALLED THEM
then THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE....Deep sleep came upon Adam and God brings something out of his side and presents this maniquin to Adam and Adam CALLED HER "Woman."
Lots of Old Testament passages regarding what God was bringing the Church through Jesus Christ that I'd taken with the traditional mindset that every single one of you at these boards have taken the same way as promises of perpetual work -- and in the last 6weeks He's made me aware through those very passages that He was restoring us as Creators through Jesus Christ in this life as the chiefest of His works of grace in our lives as the Blood remitted our sins, per Ephesians 1:7.
Quote from: trettep on July 01, 2009, 10:22:03 PM
Thanks Martin, but more specifically how do you reconcile Jeremiah 17:9 with Gen 3:1 in which it says that the serpent is the most Subtile creature made. Can the Serpent be more Deceitful above man if Jeremiah is saying that the heart of man is the most deceitful?
So are you telling me you honestly believe that the Cross changed absolutely nothing and that all things continue as they were from the foundation of the world? You don't believe in the change in the priesthood that's happened, obviously, for one thing, to say such things...much less in the Blood that's said much better things and that we have a Last Adam that's renaming everything as we speak, according to the Book of Revelation. Hosea 2:18, Jeremiah 31:27-28, Colossians 1:15-20 and a lot of other passages say the serpent's already saved. Jesus saw the restored Serpent that came in the Garden of Gethsemane as the angel that strengthened Him. For the joy that was set before Him, He endured the Cross according to Hebrews 12. I love leading demons to Jesus during exorcisms. It's always amazing as the room lights up as you finally convince them to go be with Christ Jesus and you see the heavens opened as you've prayed them open over the situation 'cause you obey absolutely all that the Scriptures have to say about walking under opened heavens. I love preaching the Gospel to demons. Lots of cries start coming out of them being so unworthy as the love of God hits them in waves as you invoke it over them the way the old time Pentecostals would plead the Blood. But you just keep covering them with the love of God as with a blanket as you explain God's plan of salvation for serpents and scorpions throughout the Scriptures and see them go into very violent sobbing as the room fills up with the Love of God. Gotta know what you're doing though, otherwise, if the Word about it isn't a revelation in your heart along with what the Word has to say about the authority of the believer, then they'll beat you out of your clothes and send you running from the place naked like the 7 sons of Sceva in the book of Acts.
Quote from: Martinand in the last 6weeks He's made me aware through those very passages that He was restoring us as Creators through Jesus Christ in this life as the chiefest of His works of grace in our lives as the Blood remitted our sins, per Ephesians 1:7.
This is beautiful, Martin. Keep it coming.
7In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;--Eph 1
[we have]
"redemption"G629
ἀπολύτρωσις
apolutrōsisap-ol-oo'-tro-sis
From a compound of G575 and G3083;
(the act) ransom in full, that is, (figuratively) riddance, or (specifically) Christian salvation: - deliverance, redemption.
17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
--Rom 8
Quote from: martincisneros on July 02, 2009, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: sparrow on July 02, 2009, 02:46:43 AMHey bro,
what do you mean when Adam breathed the breath of life into the animals, etc.?
Genesis 1: God said/called and it was:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called and it was/became:
God said/called "Man be in our Image, have dominion, et. al."
chapter 2: God formed the animals from the dust of the earth and brought them to the man and whatever the man CALLED THEM then THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE....Deep sleep came upon Adam and God brings something out of his side and presents this maniquin to Adam and Adam CALLED HER "Woman."
Just trying to understand what you mean, bro. So you don't see it as these creatures already HAD life (breathed into them from GOD) and then Adam gave them their names? You see the passage "whatever the man called them then that's what they were" to mean that Adam breathed life into them? Is that what you mean? or am I misunderstanding?
edited to add: ok, wait I just remembered something. There are people who believe animals don't have souls because it never says that God breathed life into them the way God breathed life into Adam. (Which I think is totally ridiculous to think that. I absolutely believe that animals have souls. NO doubt in my mind. NONE. But it also doesn't say that God breathed life into EVE. Isn't it just assumed that God did these things? Why does it have to keep being repeated that "God breathed life" All he had to do was say it once when he created Adam, and then shouldn't we GET IT that if these creatures are alive (animals, Eve, etc.) that God breathed life into them?? Why would it have to be repeated if we were already given the illustration of how things came "alive"?? (By God breathing life into them.) I don't think that Adam breathed life into anything. I think it was God who breathes life into everything, and only God.
Well, just some thoughts.
peace ya'll...
Martin, I don't see anything there that is showing me otherwise. I still see man's disobedient nature as being Satan. I believe when Jesus was tempted of the Devil that it was actually in His own mind that we giving these thoughts and the descriptions are figurative - in His mind. I haven't yet been able to see Satan as a DIFFERENT creature that can exist apart from man.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 04:43:07 AM
Martin, I don't see anything there that is showing me otherwise. I still see man's disobedient nature as being Satan. I believe when Jesus was tempted of the Devil that it was actually in His own mind that we giving these thoughts and the descriptions are figurative - in His mind. I haven't yet been able to see Satan as a DIFFERENT creature that can exist apart from man.
Paul
I have been seeing it this same way for several years now.
I could be wrong.
But I will say that the minute I stopped worrying about satan and devils and whatever else...
they lost all power in my mind.
The "Satan's gonna get ya!" stuff just dropped off of me.
It's mostly "Sparrow will get ya!" now.
Just fighing this carnal man within, and clinging to God.
When I don't cling to God.. the antichrist spirit rises up.
The antichrist is me. My carnality.
That is what will end up being burned off me in the lake of fire.
Clinging to God and just trying to burn off as much of it as I can now while living this life.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
It makes sense to me.
It really does.
Again... maybe I'm seeing this totally wrong.
But it makes a lot of sense.
So I'm sticking with this view for now...
but my mind is still open to other possibilities though...
Quote from: sparrow on July 02, 2009, 04:49:59 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 04:43:07 AM
Martin, I don't see anything there that is showing me otherwise. I still see man's disobedient nature as being Satan. I believe when Jesus was tempted of the Devil that it was actually in His own mind that we giving these thoughts and the descriptions are figurative - in His mind. I haven't yet been able to see Satan as a DIFFERENT creature that can exist apart from man.
Paul
I have been seeing it this same way for several years now.
I could be wrong.
But I will say that the minute I stopped worrying about satan and devils and whatever else...
they lost all power in my mind.
The "Satan's gonna get ya!" stuff just dropped off of me.
It's mostly "Sparrow will get ya!" now.
Just fighing this carnal man within, and clinging to God.
When I don't cling to God.. the antichrist spirit rises up.
The antichrist is me. My carnality.
That is what will end up being burned off me in the lake of fire.
Clinging to God and just trying to burn off as much of it as I can now while living this life.
Does that make sense to anyone else?
It makes sense to me.
It really does.
Again... maybe I'm seeing this totally wrong.
But it makes a lot of sense.
So I'm sticking with this view for now...
but my mind is still open to other possibilities though...
That is how I see it also Sparrow. It is this Satan that doesn't survive the lake of fire. Satan goes away along with the sin and death.
Paul
Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
Hummm, Satan entered into him? Maybe Judas' carnal nature left for a period of time... and came back? :dontknow:
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 08:00:09 AM
Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
Hummm, Satan entered into him? Maybe Judas' carnal nature left for a period of time... and came back? :dontknow:
Maybe "Satan entering into Judas" is another way of saying his carnality rised up in him?
Or that he was pushing God away... do you know what I mean?
hmm. I don't know. Maybe not.
I admit this is is an area I'm not too strong in. :dontknow:
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 08:00:09 AM
Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
Hummm, Satan entered into him? Maybe Judas' carnal nature left for a period of time... and came back? :dontknow:
Yes, that is what I think. I think we just reading a personification of the disobedient carnal nature. So when I read that it means that Judas became submissive to his own carnal desire.
Again, if Jer 17:9 can show that man's heart is deceitful above ALL then that leaves
no other heart to be more deceitful.
See to me it is inconsistent in how the devil and demons are viewed in the mainstream sense. Consider this:
Act 13:10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
Act 13:11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
Why wouldn't Paul just cast out the devil? Why punish the man if Satan is just taking possession?
Paul
7Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is.
8For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.
9The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.
11As the partridge sitteth on eggs, and hatcheth them not; so he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool.
12A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary.
13O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters.
14Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved: for thou art my praise.
--Jer 17
Titus 1:15
Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
Matthew 5:8
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
QuoteWhy punish the man if Satan is just taking possession?
8But
Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
9Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.
10And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?
11And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
12Then the deputy, when he saw what was done, believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord.
--Acts 13
"Elymas"G1681
Ἐλύμας
Elumasel-oo'-mas
Of foreign origin; Elymas,
a wizard: - Elymas.
This man is a sorcerer by name even. He works for the devil by choice. He uses spirits to manipulate others. He's a magician who casts spells and tricks people. This is a bad thing to do and carries dire consequences.
Malachi 3:5
And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear not me, saith the LORD of hosts.
Because of the principle of binding and loosing. They had
authority to bind or loose from these spiritual bondages.
Paul chose to not remove it..and to make the man temporarily
blind for a while and cause him to seek someone to lead him
[demon not have power to 'give sight' physically and spiritually.
If you remember some are handed over to satan for the
destruction of the flesh,in order to be taught not to blaspheme.
why did't Jesus cast out the viper offspring of the Pharisees
etc.? Because they rejected him.Just like this Elymas did.
they,too, remained 'bound' until the destruction of their flesh
He has the keys...He sets free.
these are those who remain bound til the death of their flesh
then they will hear HIS VOICE calling them from the
grave..and WILL LIVE..and the spirit will return to God..
these also can represent those thrown in prisonhouses .Bars of sheol...this mans name was Bar-Jesus
bar=preclude,block obstruct...in actuality this was one of the
anti-Christ spirits on this man...a sorcerer,magician spirit
specifically bent on misleading and blocking the Holy spirit.
and you know what Jesus said about blasphemy against the
Holy spirit. No forgiveness,in this 'age' or the next.
Now,the man carrying that 'spirit' will continue til death and
the hearing of Jesus calling his name out of his grave...and he
will live and be seperated from it[first resurrection] however
that spirit will be destroyed in the lake of fire.
that no forgiveness bespeaks of not being 'loosed' from them
it is the Son who sets you free from bondage to/and with them
remember what He told the Pharisees[the offspring of viper]
in Matthew 12 they brought him a demon possessed man who
was blind and mute[note bar-Jesus made blind for awhile, to
show those who see made blind and those blind to see]
Jesus healed him and the Pharisees heard it nd accused Jesus
of working by the power of satan. Same anti-christ spirit at
work again..note His warning to this same spirit in operation
in verse 32...but anyone who speaks against the Holy spirit will
not be forgiven,either in this age or the age to come.
Then He give them the sign of Jonah....this after He had done
a miraculous work of the spirit and been accused of doing the
work per satan,and they had rejected the miracle.
asking for another sign ,He told them about the sign of Jonah
would be the only sign He would give them.
That sign of JONAH[dove] is a whole other treasure trove of
spiritual truth. For it not only bespeaks of Christ resurrection
from the dead..it bespeaks of the first resurrection,or mankinds
spirit returning to God...when they hear His voice from their
tombs
Quote from: sparrow on July 02, 2009, 08:11:23 AM
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 08:00:09 AM
Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve.
Hummm, Satan entered into him? Maybe Judas' carnal nature left for a period of time... and came back? :dontknow:
Maybe "Satan entering into Judas" is another way of saying his carnality rised up in him?
Or that he was pushing God away... do you know what I mean?
hmm. I don't know. Maybe not.
I admit this is is an area I'm not too strong in. :dontknow:
But that's not what Luke 22:3 says...
Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire...
Rev 20:2 And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old,
who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; ... Rev 20:10 And
the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire...
Rev 20:14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
And Finally,
Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds... Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life,
he was thrown into the lake of fire.
According to John, Satan and the rest of humanity go in to the Lake of Fire at different times. Again, maybe all of humanities carnal nature left for a period of time.
Maybe God needed to chat with their carnal nature one last time to say goodbye before destroying it? ( Like in Job 1:7 )
I'm thinking why bother to have Satan enter back into humanity when they are all going in the same pot. Probably saved time and speeds up the judgment process! :dontknow:
Anyway, we will find out soon enough, at least no one will burn in Hell forever if their wrong either way. :laughing7:
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 02, 2009, 06:26:17 PM
...
This man is a sorcerer by name even. He works for the devil by choice. He uses spirits to manipulate others. He's a magician who casts spells and tricks people. This is a bad thing to do and carries dire consequences.
...
Can someone do the devils works without it being their choice?
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 06:46:28 PM... Anyway, we will find out soon enough, at least no one will burn in Hell forever if their wrong either way. :laughing7:
Paul
I think this topic is very important because it gets down to how much of a man was Jesus? We must know what comprises a man. For if we believe that Satan is another being separate existing from man then we may have a wrong understanding of what man is. And if we have a wrong understanding of what man is then we may not identify that Jesus came as a man and thus consider Him to be beyond what a man actually is. And to not believe that Jesus came as a man is the spirit of antichrist. So it becomes very important.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 02, 2009, 06:26:17 PM
...
This man is a sorcerer by name even. He works for the devil by choice. He uses spirits to manipulate others. He's a magician who casts spells and tricks people. This is a bad thing to do and carries dire consequences.
...
Can someone do the devils works without it being their choice?
Paul
well, you know, you're dangling forbidden fruit in front of me lol. But, I will bite--yes I think they can because they are just lost and in darkness. That's why Jesus forgives them from the cross. They don't know what they are doing. But, if you know the right thing and do the wrong thing anyways, aren't you in rebellion against God? This is why he deals so harshly with the Israelites when they start worshipping their false gods; they know better.
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 07:34:27 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 06:46:28 PM... Anyway, we will find out soon enough, at least no one will burn in Hell forever if their wrong either way. :laughing7:
Paul
I think this topic is very important because it gets down to how much of a man was Jesus? We must know what comprises a man. For if we believe that Satan is another being separate existing from man then we may have a wrong understanding of what man is. And if we have a wrong understanding of what man is then we may not identify that Jesus came as a man and thus consider Him to be beyond what a man actually is. And to not believe that Jesus came as a man is the spirit of antichrist. So it becomes very important.
Paul
How much of a man was Jesus?
Scripture and Jesus Himself clearly teach... Jesus was 100% a man. A human that was conceived by the Holy Spirit. "The second Adam". Listen to Gabriel,
"who stands in the presence of God." Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;
and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Now for what reason is Jesus to be called the Son of God? Perhaps, being conceived (Created) by the Holy Spirit?
Listen to Jesus...
Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me,
a man who has told you the truth,
which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Listen to Peter...
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene,
a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs
which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
Listen to Paul...
1Ti 2:5 For there is
one God, and
one mediator also between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus,
Jesus was definitely a Man, and all of Him (Body, Soul and Spirit) died on the cross for our sins. As you know...
"The wages of sin is death." To believe that not all of man dies at death, (immortal soul) is to believe Satan Himself when he said...
"You surely will not die! Peace,
Paul
some men serve as an example of godlessness in this life..
the twice dead..those not forgiven in this age nor the age to
come....but it is only in the temporal that they have this role.
Jude1 godless men who deny Christ...
v 7 THEY SERVE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THOSE WHO SUFFER THE
PUNISHMENT OF ETERNAL FIRE
they are but serving as an illustration...to the fact that all
negative spiritual input will be annhilated in the perfection
stage of the sons and daughters of God.
Sodom and Gomorrha was one of the examples given...
that they just served as an example and not the actual reality
is shown where the scriptures speak of Sodom being restored
some men in this life serve as examples of those who are
'TWICE DEAD" no forgiveness in this age or the age to come.
we have other men,often in the news that serve as an
example of 'evil personified" They gives us a clear look at what
lies in satans and the kingdom of darkness characterisitcs.
Now at the time of Jesus returns we see seperation of sheep
and goats. These men that serve as spiritual 'types' of the
adversary are the 'goats'..those that hear His voice are the
sheep.
In other words twice dead..those that resisted His first
appearance and those still resisting at His secound coming.
They are but serving as an example of the kingdom of
darkness...they never put any faith in what He said the first
time He was here..and they will not receive His words now.
In fact they remain "bound" to the darkness and are unable to
enter in the kingdom of heaven or the New Jerusalem city in
Rev. Ex; pharisee offspring of vipers not entering in kingdom
and preventing others from entering at Jesus 1st Coming
and Rev 21;27 Nothing impure will ever ENTER IT,nor will
anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful at 2nd coming
You see..our corruptible flesh allowed the 'entry' of such things[evil spirit] into our bodies,minds and hearts...
but when we are given the incorruptible body..it will repel
and forbid entrace of such things...thus..outside weeping and
gnashing of teeth....the final assault against the city[Gog] and
fire coming down from heaven and devouring them.Rev20;9,10
there is a 'change'
the dead were judged according to what they had done...
note it is the 'works' that are judged here. the dead are the
Kingdom of darkness..and all of their works are unlawfull and
condemned..for sin in the flesh is condemned to death...besides
they have as always been as good as dead,for they had
another man's wife[are bodies were created for God's spirit to
dwell in..His wife..bear His seed]they corrupted and brought
death to mankind
the other book that is opened is the Book of LIFE...all mankind
has their names written in it
for Jesus their Kinsman redeemer bought them and His works
resulted in the free gift of eternal life to all mankind
after each person is judged according to what he has done...
which no sins will be accounted against mankind..for actually
we have no works of our own..there is only the works of the
Father/SON and the works of the devil....Because we have no
works..Jesus gives us the free gift of eternal life...at that time
satan and the kingdom of darkness are cast from the Lord's presence because their names are not written in the Book of Life
for they are no partakers of LIFE or GOD but are of godlessness
they are death..that is why death and Hades were thrown into
the Lake of fire..because they are the death spirit..they are the
true 'illegitimate men of lawlessness' or 'bastards'
that dared to 'touch' us. OUR God/HUSBAND is a JEALOUS GOD
....for LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH
IT'S JEALOUSY UNYEILDING AS THE GRAVE,
IT BURNS LIKE BLAZING FIRE
LIKE A MIGHTY FLAME
who is satan & the "kingdom of darkness"?
Actual beings?
or..?
Quote from: Molly on July 02, 2009, 07:36:14 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 07:25:43 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 02, 2009, 06:26:17 PM
...
This man is a sorcerer by name even. He works for the devil by choice. He uses spirits to manipulate others. He's a magician who casts spells and tricks people. This is a bad thing to do and carries dire consequences.
...
Can someone do the devils works without it being their choice?
Paul
well, you know, you're dangling forbidden fruit in front of me lol. But, I will bite--yes I think they can because they are just lost and in darkness. That's why Jesus forgives them from the cross. They don't know what they are doing. But, if you know the right thing and do the wrong thing anyways, aren't you in rebellion against God? This is why he deals so harshly with the Israelites when they start worshipping their false gods; they know better.
Yes, if you know what is right thing to do and do opposite then you commit sin.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 08:12:10 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 02, 2009, 07:34:27 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 02, 2009, 06:46:28 PM... Anyway, we will find out soon enough, at least no one will burn in Hell forever if their wrong either way. :laughing7:
Paul
I think this topic is very important because it gets down to how much of a man was Jesus? We must know what comprises a man. For if we believe that Satan is another being separate existing from man then we may have a wrong understanding of what man is. And if we have a wrong understanding of what man is then we may not identify that Jesus came as a man and thus consider Him to be beyond what a man actually is. And to not believe that Jesus came as a man is the spirit of antichrist. So it becomes very important.
Paul
How much of a man was Jesus?
Scripture and Jesus Himself clearly teach... Jesus was 100% a man. A human that was conceived by the Holy Spirit. "The second Adam". Listen to Gabriel, "who stands in the presence of God."
Luke 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God. Now for what reason is Jesus to be called the Son of God? Perhaps, being conceived (Created) by the Holy Spirit?
Listen to Jesus...
Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Listen to Peter...
Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know—
Listen to Paul...
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Jesus was definitely a Man, and all of Him (Body, Soul and Spirit) died on the cross for our sins. As you know... "The wages of sin is death." To believe that not all of man dies at death, (immortal soul) is to believe Satan Himself when he said... "You surely will not die!
Peace,
Paul
Yes, I agree that Jesus was a man. But what were discussing here is whether Satan is a component of man - more specifically the exhibition of man's disobedient nature. If so, then when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity.
Paul
sorry for the delay,had company.
no their not 'beings' they are like a parasite that attches itself
and infiltratres a real 'being' and can cause it to act and think
in ways it was not designed by God to do.
It's 'nature' or mode of behaviour is the opposite of God's
God is order..these are chaos.God is Love these are hate
it is what makes a serpent the GREAT SERPENT..animals
a WILD BEAST, prophets FALSE..
and when attached to mankind..man
of sin.
It is not us or of God,but something of a different nature
it's knowledge does not change it's nature..it is not of love
we need not fear it..just be aware. Jesus was aware and not
afraid.
we may call it our 'carnal' or beastly nature when we find
ourselves behaving as such..but we are not the beast though
we have the mark of it,
we may find ourselves acting like a satan..but we are not satan
though he may have entered us .
if light be truth and love,joy and peace life
darkness is lies and hate,sadness and strife death
the kingdom of darkness is like a heavy veil of oppression
that blocks out the light..truth,LOVE,peace,joy and life..it
seeks to seperate us off from the Love of God, the Light of
Christ.. it is why this world is so miserable..
As far as Jesus goes, the idea that Satan was in Christ's mind is something I do not submit to. Christ was spiritually minded. Remember Paul's words in Romans 8 "For you are not in the flesh if it so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you." Jesus had the mind of his Father when he was tempted/tried. His flesh was completely subdued to the Spirit, which He was given without measure. When the Spirit is given WITHOUT MEASURE, your mind is completely removed from the flesh and you are therefore in heaven as you stand on earth.
I think people misuse the word "tempted" as being that Christ FELT temptation to lust after a woman, or betray his Father. The word "tempt" is the same word for "tried." Christ was tried/tested in all ways like us, yet without sin. In all ways, Christ was submitted to God, and his mind not in the flesh like ours is. We have not been given the Spirit without measure, which is why our minds are continually renewed.
Consider Romans 5, where it says that God's love is revealed in that a righteous man (Christ) died for the ungodly. If satan was in Christ's mind, then Christ had to die for Himself as much as for us, which destroys the principle of Love revealed at the Cross.
Jesus Christ's mind was perfect and not in the flesh, because He was ONE with His father and undivided. Ok, so let's talk about the garden of Gethsemane, which always comes up to prove that Christ had a carnal mind opposed to God. That verse proves the opposite, that even if Jesus did not want to experience the coming cup, that in all ways his mind was submitted to God.
Do you know that the words being spoken by Jesus were the words of His Father through Him? His Father was causing him to speak those words, as admonitions to us, not to show a carnally minded Christ, which never existed. Christ had flesh, but the carnal nature is in the mind. Christ had the mind of God.
satan tempted Jesus externally...if Jesus would have 'received"
satans word and not rejected it..then satan would have
entered into him. sin entered in Adam and Eve same as satan
entered..from another source the thought was presented
[serpent].it's gotta be from without before it can enter in.
Now the flesh is 'weak' in that it is 'corruptible' by these other
spirits that are not of God
Seth, as far as I can see..satan presented his words "to"
Jesus mind...and He rejected and rebuked him..not letting
the words take a toehold in anyway or enter into His heart
just because someone else says something to us, doesn't
mean we have to beleive it or accept it or receive it into
ourselves as truth. In that scenario..it would be a trial from an
outside source....but if sin be already in our flesh[which the
law showed forth] it is already entered into our flesh..,and can
be drawn out thru temptation,
and every word that God speaks will arouse it to rebellion
against God's command [this legacy inherited thru Adam and
Eve]
Sin was not in Jesus flesh nor satan..nor did it enter in..
however He did bear our sin on a torture stake..and say
Father,forgive them,they don't know what they do.
when He laid His flesh down..no liar or theif took it from him
but He laid it down in order to take it back up again...and
guess what?that gave Him the legal right to lift up all fallen
flesh[mankind]To plunder him who had plundered, to pillage
him who had pillaged...to take back what the liar and theif had
stolen...ADAM and Eve's birthright as Sons and Daughters of
God. In essence..He entered into death and bound the strong
man..and carried off his goods[mankind] That is the only
manner in which He came in the 'likeness' of sinful flesh.
I look to the day when ALL REALIZE THE DEPTH AND
INTENSITY OF THE LOVE THAT IS IN THE FATHER AND SON,
willieH: Hi trettep! :hithere:
Quote from: trettep on July 01, 2009, 09:20:47 PM
I often get criticized for claiming that WE are Satan. I don't mean literally that man is Satan but that our carnal nature IS indeed Satan. I believe that "Satan" is a reference to that disobedience that is in us and has its source in us. In other words I don't believe there is some OTHER ENTITY to blame the source of all evil on. That source is born of man's heart. I came to that conclusion when reading of the events in the Garden. It became apparent to me that the Serpent was indeed Adam talking to Eve. Let's consider a few things:
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The word "subtil" is often translated as "prudent" or other more glowing terms in the King James version. Remember, man is being made in God's image.
Notice Eve's response to this question from the serpent:
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Now if Eve is using the plural here of "we" then this means that the Serpent would have knowledge of Adam if indeed the Serpent is not Adam or that Adam is in the company of Eve when this is taking place.
Now notice carefully this verse a bit later:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Notice the above. It was important to include the words "with her". Adam was with Eve when this was taking place. But let's continue.
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Notice how Adam blames Eve. Now why would Adam respond the way he did. Of all the things Adam could have said he said "The woman whom thou gaves to be with me". Think about this for a moment. Adam would find no helpmeet for him and so God makes Eve from his side and gives Eve to Adam. So my belief is that Adam (the serpent) is having concerns about taking the forbidden fruit. He knows that is will make him to know good and evil and he knows that Eve was given to him from God. So if he gets Eve to take of it and give to him then it looks like he is not at fault.
Let's jump ahead to Jeremiah:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Above we learn about the heart of man. Notice it says above ALL things. Certaintly if Satan was a separate entity from man that he will still be part of "all things". So this verse would be saying that man's heart is more wicked then Satan's heart if that was so. It is logical to conclude that Satan is reference to the disobedience exhibition of man's heart and NOT some other entity that we can just blame for our own wrongdoing. There are many more examples of references like the above pointing to man. Consider that man is to have dominion in this world and yet we learn in the New Testament that Satan is the "god of this world". So which is it? Man or Satan? - my answer is that they are part of the same - man's evil heart.
Paul
Amen bro! :goodpost:
Good stuff, Paul... Alas another which has this vision! You have put this in a very convincing writing... Well done!
I also note that THEIR eyes were not OPEN until ADAM ate... Eve had a bite, and nothing is stated as happening from that bite... it was when ADAM ate, that BOTH their eyes were "opened"...
Gen 3:6-7 ...she took of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT [but nothing happened] ...and gave also unto her husband WITH HER, and ["then"] HE DID EAT... and the EYES of THEM BOTH were ["then"] opened... and they knew they were naked...It is also interesting to note the "CURSES" in
Gen 3:14 (of the Serpent) and
Gen 3:17 (of Adam) are
alike:
Gen 3:14 --
and YHVH God said unto the "serpent", Because thou hast done this, thou are CURSED above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and DUST SHALT THOU EAT ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE...Gen 3:17 --
And unto "Adam" he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of they wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying thou shalt NOT eat of it, CURSED is the GROUND for thy sake, in sorrow SHALT THOU EAT OF IT [the dust/ground] ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE......willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: sheilaSeth, as far as I can see..satan presented his words "to"
Jesus mind...and He rejected and rebuked him..not letting
the words take a toehold in anyway or enter into His heart
just because someone else says something to us, doesn't
mean we have to beleive it or accept it or receive it into
ourselves as truth. In that scenario..it would be a trial from an
outside source....but if sin be already in our flesh[which the
law showed forth] it is already entered into our flesh..,and can
be drawn out thru temptation,
:goodpost:
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
As far as Jesus goes, the idea that Satan was in Christ's mind is something I do not submit to. Christ was spiritually minded. Remember Paul's words in Romans 8 "For you are not in the flesh if it so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you." Jesus had the mind of his Father when he was tempted/tried. His flesh was completely subdued to the Spirit, which He was given without measure. When the Spirit is given WITHOUT MEASURE, your mind is completely removed from the flesh and you are therefore in heaven as you stand on earth.
I think people misuse the word "tempted" as being that Christ FELT temptation to lust after a woman, or betray his Father. The word "tempt" is the same word for "tried." Christ was tried/tested in all ways like us, yet without sin. In all ways, Christ was submitted to God, and his mind not in the flesh like ours is. We have not been given the Spirit without measure, which is why our minds are continually renewed.
Consider Romans 5, where it says that God's love is revealed in that a righteous man (Christ) died for the ungodly. If satan was in Christ's mind, then Christ had to die for Himself as much as for us, which destroys the principle of Love revealed at the Cross.
Jesus Christ's mind was perfect and not in the flesh, because He was ONE with His father and undivided. Ok, so let's talk about the garden of Gethsemane, which always comes up to prove that Christ had a carnal mind opposed to God. That verse proves the opposite, that even if Jesus did not want to experience the coming cup, that in all ways his mind was submitted to God.
Do you know that the words being spoken by Jesus were the words of His Father through Him? His Father was causing him to speak those words, as admonitions to us, not to show a carnally minded Christ, which never existed. Christ had flesh, but the carnal nature is in the mind. Christ had the mind of God.
You have to remember it isn't what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out that defiles him. If Jesus didn't have to overcome lust and evil things that come from the self then He didn't overcome as I have to overcome. I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to. The difference is that I sinned (I let evil come forth from me) whereas He didn't.
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 02:06:18 AM
willieH: Hi trettep! :hithere:
Quote from: trettep on July 01, 2009, 09:20:47 PM
I often get criticized for claiming that WE are Satan. I don't mean literally that man is Satan but that our carnal nature IS indeed Satan. I believe that "Satan" is a reference to that disobedience that is in us and has its source in us. In other words I don't believe there is some OTHER ENTITY to blame the source of all evil on. That source is born of man's heart. I came to that conclusion when reading of the events in the Garden. It became apparent to me that the Serpent was indeed Adam talking to Eve. Let's consider a few things:
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
The word "subtil" is often translated as "prudent" or other more glowing terms in the King James version. Remember, man is being made in God's image.
Notice Eve's response to this question from the serpent:
Gen 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Now if Eve is using the plural here of "we" then this means that the Serpent would have knowledge of Adam if indeed the Serpent is not Adam or that Adam is in the company of Eve when this is taking place.
Now notice carefully this verse a bit later:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Notice the above. It was important to include the words "with her". Adam was with Eve when this was taking place. But let's continue.
Gen 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Notice how Adam blames Eve. Now why would Adam respond the way he did. Of all the things Adam could have said he said "The woman whom thou gaves to be with me". Think about this for a moment. Adam would find no helpmeet for him and so God makes Eve from his side and gives Eve to Adam. So my belief is that Adam (the serpent) is having concerns about taking the forbidden fruit. He knows that is will make him to know good and evil and he knows that Eve was given to him from God. So if he gets Eve to take of it and give to him then it looks like he is not at fault.
Let's jump ahead to Jeremiah:
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Above we learn about the heart of man. Notice it says above ALL things. Certaintly if Satan was a separate entity from man that he will still be part of "all things". So this verse would be saying that man's heart is more wicked then Satan's heart if that was so. It is logical to conclude that Satan is reference to the disobedience exhibition of man's heart and NOT some other entity that we can just blame for our own wrongdoing. There are many more examples of references like the above pointing to man. Consider that man is to have dominion in this world and yet we learn in the New Testament that Satan is the "god of this world". So which is it? Man or Satan? - my answer is that they are part of the same - man's evil heart.
Paul
Amen bro! :goodpost:
Good stuff, Paul... Alas another which has this vision! You have put this in a very convincing writing... Well done!
I also note that THEIR eyes were not OPEN until ADAM ate... Eve had a bite, and nothing is stated as happening from that bite... it was when ADAM ate, that BOTH their eyes were "opened"...
Gen 3:6-7 ...she took of the fruit thereof, and DID EAT [but nothing happened] ...and gave also unto her husband WITH HER, and ["then"] HE DID EAT... and the EYES of THEM BOTH were ["then"] opened... and they knew they were naked...
It is also interesting to note the "CURSES" in Gen 3:14 (of the Serpent) and Gen 3:17 (of Adam) are alike:
Gen 3:14 -- and YHVH God said unto the "serpent", Because thou hast done this, thou are CURSED above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and DUST SHALT THOU EAT ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE...
Gen 3:17 -- And unto "Adam" he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of they wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee saying thou shalt NOT eat of it, CURSED is the GROUND for thy sake, in sorrow SHALT THOU EAT OF IT [the dust/ground] ALL THE DAYS OF THY LIFE...
...willieH :cloud9:
GREAT STUFF indeed that you are showing also. I had not considered the same curses before for Adam and the Serpent.
Paul
willieH: Hi my dear brother Seth! :hithere:
A few comments... that you might consider bro...
Carefully stated, and no offense intended, just food for thought:
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
As far as Jesus goes, the idea that Satan was in Christ's mind is something I do not submit to. Christ was spiritually minded. Remember Paul's words in Romans 8 "For you are not in the flesh if it so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you." Jesus had the mind of his Father when he was tempted/tried. His flesh was completely subdued to the Spirit, which He was given without measure. When the Spirit is given WITHOUT MEASURE, your mind is completely removed from the flesh and you are therefore in heaven as you stand on earth.
The presence of
YHVH (divinity/Godhead), was indeed dwelling IN Him making Him thereby the SON of GOD, ...but was not ALL that He was... He was also the SON of MAN... which means that the presence of MAN was IN Him as well...
JESUS was a 2 fold being... He was SON of GOD, for
YHVH was His Father, so 100% of Him was DIVINE because of it... but,
JESUS was the SON of MAN as Mary was His Mother, so 100% of Him was human (MAN) because of this, as well...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMI think people misuse the word "tempted" as being that Christ FELT temptation to lust after a woman, or betray his Father. The word "tempt" is the same word for "tried." Christ was tried/tested in all ways like us, yet without sin.
If He is so tempted (or "tried/tested" as you describe it)...
AS are we... then He had to experience the tuggings of TEMPTATION in the very SAME WAYS that we DO...
He could NOT be "tempted/tried/tested" by the potential LUST of a woman, unless indeed, it came upon Him... (or any other temptation which presents itself to man/woman)
TEMPTATION of itself is NOT SIN... It is the PROPOSAL of SINFUL behavior... and
JESUS OVERCAME the
TEMPTATION to give in to SINFUL behavior... which is WHY He is noted as an OVERCOMER...
If indeed it was NOT POSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then to state Him as "overcoming" TEMPTATION, is a sham...
Where
CHRIST was aligned with GOD and ONE with Him, was in His Heart and in His GENETICS... Aside from
CHRIST, ADAM and Eve... the rest of us are born of SINFUL parents... Mother AND Father...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMIn all ways, Christ was submitted to God, and his mind not in the flesh like ours is. We have not been given the Spirit without measure, which is why our minds are continually renewed.
I agree and disagree with this bro... His mind had to have been ABLE to succumb to SIN or He did not OVERCOME the TEMPTATION to do it...
Here's the deal... If GOD made temptation able to penetrate everything but STEEL and
CHRIST was STEEL ENCASED... then How could it be said He was TEMPTED? And how can it be said that He OVERCAME something that could NOT POSSIBLY penetrate Him? It could be said that He did not submit to Temptation, but it could not be said that He OVERCAME Temptation unless it was possible that IT could have OVERCAME Him...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMConsider Romans 5, where it says that God's love is revealed in that a righteous man (Christ) died for the ungodly. If satan was in Christ's mind, then Christ had to die for Himself as much as for us, which destroys the principle of Love revealed at the Cross.
I think this is amiss...
CHRIST did not DIE to save men from temptation, ...he died for those who have FALLEN INTO IT... And He did so, by ENDURING TEMPTATION and SHUNNING its proposals... The PROPOSALS had to enter His mind, or He could not have ENDURED them...
EXAMPLE: If I am an ALCOHOLIC and PRESENTLY there is NO ALCOHOL to drink, am I still PRESENTLY "TEMPTED" by it to drink IT even though there is NONE PRESENT?
CHRIST was TEMPTED, but SIN is only BORN when one INDULGES in the TEMPTATION which is OFFERED:
James 1:15 --
THEN, when LUST HAS CONCIEVED, it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished bringeth forth death...LUST (or TEMPTATION) must be
ENGAGED before LUST (desire) CONCIEVES (births) SIN...
CHRIST did not ENGAGE the TEMPTATION presented Him, as do we... He ABSTAINED and OVERCAME its urging...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMJesus Christ's mind was perfect and not in the flesh, because He was ONE with His father and undivided. Ok, so let's talk about the garden of Gethsemane, which always comes up to prove that Christ had a carnal mind opposed to God. That verse proves the opposite, that even if Jesus did not want to experience the coming cup, that in all ways his mind was submitted to God.
I see it as MAN wishing to AVOID DEATH...
CHRIST was still a MAN... and MEN will always make an effort to AVOID DEATH...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMDo you know that the words being spoken by Jesus were the words of His Father through Him? His Father was causing him to speak those words, as admonitions to us, not to show a carnally minded Christ, which never existed. Christ had flesh, but the carnal nature is in the mind. Christ had the mind of God.
You are welcome dear brother to continue believing this, however... If
CHRIST indeed did not have the CARNAL urgings which WE DO... then He "OVERCAME" nothing...
The CARNAL nature is more than just the "mind" and its processings...
It is the LUST
of the EYE (as It "TEMPTS"), and the LUST
of the FLESH (as IT "TEMPTS") and the PRIDE
of LIFE (as IT "TEMPTS") --
1 John 2:16If you examine His "wilderness Temptation", all THREE of these were contained IN that presentation:
#1 -- Lust of the
flesh#2 -- Lust of the
Eye#3 -- Pride of
LifeMatt 4:3-10 verse 3 -- and when the tempter came to him he said (#1) "if Thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made breadverse 5-6 -- then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, ...and saith unto Him, (#3) If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down for it is written He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stoneverse 8-9 -- again the devil taketh Him up inot an exceeding high mountain and (#2) SHOWETH Him ALL the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them... and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me... All these things
combined (#1, #2 & #3) are within the experience of the CARNAL NATURE... and
CHRIST had to have overcome them ALL via EXPERIENCING being
TEMPTED OF EACH of THEM (as are WE tempted of them), in order to call Him an
OVERCOMER OF THEM ALL...
(1) In the presentation to the FLESH to change the rocks into food,
JESUS had to overcome the temptation to satisfy His body...
(2) in the presentation to the EYE, in seeing them...
JESUS had to overcome the temptation of the GLORY of all the kingdoms of the world...
(3) and in presentation to His LIFE, knowing the power of
YHVH...
JESUS had to overcome the temptation of (PRIDE of) LIFE to overcome and defer the temptation of God's saving measures to preserve His life...
Peace bro... :Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 04:10:13 AM
willieH: Hi my dear brother Seth! :hithere:
A few comments... that you might consider bro...
Carefully stated, and no offense intended, just food for thought:
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AM
As far as Jesus goes, the idea that Satan was in Christ's mind is something I do not submit to. Christ was spiritually minded. Remember Paul's words in Romans 8 "For you are not in the flesh if it so be that the Spirit of God dwells in you." Jesus had the mind of his Father when he was tempted/tried. His flesh was completely subdued to the Spirit, which He was given without measure. When the Spirit is given WITHOUT MEASURE, your mind is completely removed from the flesh and you are therefore in heaven as you stand on earth.
The presence of YHVH (divinity/Godhead), was indeed dwelling IN Him making Him thereby the SON of GOD, ...but was not ALL that He was... He was also the SON of MAN... which means that the presence of MAN was IN Him as well...
JESUS was a 2 fold being... He was SON of GOD, for YHVH was His Father, so 100% of Him was DIVINE because of it... but,
JESUS was the SON of MAN as Mary was His Mother, so 100% of Him was human (MAN) because of this, as well...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMI think people misuse the word "tempted" as being that Christ FELT temptation to lust after a woman, or betray his Father. The word "tempt" is the same word for "tried." Christ was tried/tested in all ways like us, yet without sin.
If He is so tempted (or "tried/tested" as you describe it)... AS are we... then He had to experience the tuggings of TEMPTATION in the very SAME WAYS that we DO...
He could NOT be "tempted/tried/tested" by the potential LUST of a woman, unless indeed, it came upon Him... (or any other temptation which presents itself to man/woman)
TEMPTATION of itself is NOT SIN... It is the PROPOSAL of SINFUL behavior... and JESUS OVERCAME the TEMPTATION to give in to SINFUL behavior... which is WHY He is noted as an OVERCOMER...
If indeed it was NOT POSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then to state Him as "overcoming" TEMPTATION, is a sham...
Where CHRIST was aligned with GOD and ONE with Him, was in His Heart and in His GENETICS... Aside from CHRIST, ADAM and Eve... the rest of us are born of SINFUL parents... Mother AND Father...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMIn all ways, Christ was submitted to God, and his mind not in the flesh like ours is. We have not been given the Spirit without measure, which is why our minds are continually renewed.
I agree and disagree with this bro... His mind had to have been ABLE to succumb to SIN or He did not OVERCOME the TEMPTATION to do it...
Here's the deal... If GOD made temptation able to penetrate everything but STEEL and CHRIST was STEEL ENCASED... then How could it be said He was TEMPTED? And how can it be said that He OVERCAME something that could NOT POSSIBLY penetrate Him? It could be said that He did not submit to Temptation, but it could not be said that He OVERCAME Temptation unless it was possible that IT could have OVERCAME Him...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMConsider Romans 5, where it says that God's love is revealed in that a righteous man (Christ) died for the ungodly. If satan was in Christ's mind, then Christ had to die for Himself as much as for us, which destroys the principle of Love revealed at the Cross.
I think this is amiss... CHRIST did not DIE to save men from temptation, ...he died for those who have FALLEN INTO IT... And He did so, by ENDURING TEMPTATION and SHUNNING its proposals... The PROPOSALS had to enter His mind, or He could not have ENDURED them...
EXAMPLE: If I am an ALCOHOLIC and PRESENTLY there is NO ALCOHOL to drink, am I still PRESENTLY "TEMPTED" by it to drink IT even though there is NONE PRESENT?
CHRIST was TEMPTED, but SIN is only BORN when one INDULGES in the TEMPTATION which is OFFERED:
James 1:15 -- THEN, when LUST HAS CONCIEVED, it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished bringeth forth death...
LUST (or TEMPTATION) must be ENGAGED before LUST (desire) CONCIEVES (births) SIN...
CHRIST did not ENGAGE the TEMPTATION presented Him, as do we... He ABSTAINED and OVERCAME its urging...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMJesus Christ's mind was perfect and not in the flesh, because He was ONE with His father and undivided. Ok, so let's talk about the garden of Gethsemane, which always comes up to prove that Christ had a carnal mind opposed to God. That verse proves the opposite, that even if Jesus did not want to experience the coming cup, that in all ways his mind was submitted to God.
I see it as MAN wishing to AVOID DEATH... CHRIST was still a MAN... and MEN will always make an effort to AVOID DEATH...
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 01:07:07 AMDo you know that the words being spoken by Jesus were the words of His Father through Him? His Father was causing him to speak those words, as admonitions to us, not to show a carnally minded Christ, which never existed. Christ had flesh, but the carnal nature is in the mind. Christ had the mind of God.
You are welcome dear brother to continue believing this, however... If CHRIST indeed did not have the CARNAL urgings which WE DO... then He "OVERCAME" nothing...
The CARNAL nature is more than just the "mind" and its processings...
It is the LUST of the EYE (as It "TEMPTS"), and the LUST of the FLESH (as IT "TEMPTS") and the PRIDE of LIFE (as IT "TEMPTS") -- 1 John 2:16
If you examine His "wilderness Temptation", all THREE of these were contained IN that presentation:
#1 -- Lust of the flesh
#2 -- Lust of the Eye
#3 -- Pride of Life
Matt 4:3-10
verse 3 -- and when the tempter came to him he said (#1) "if Thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made bread
verse 5-6 -- then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, ...and saith unto Him, (#3) If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down for it is written He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone
verse 8-9 -- again the devil taketh Him up inot an exceeding high mountain and (#2) SHOWETH Him ALL the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them... and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me...
All these things combined (#1, #2 & #3) are within the experience of the CARNAL NATURE... and CHRIST had to have overcome them ALL via EXPERIENCING being TEMPTED OF EACH of THEM (as are WE tempted of them), in order to call Him an OVERCOMER OF THEM ALL...
(1) In the presentation to the FLESH to change the rocks into food, JESUS had to overcome the temptation to satisfy His body...
(2) in the presentation to the EYE, in seeing them... JESUS had to overcome the temptation of the GLORY of all the kingdoms of the world...
(3) and in presentation to His LIFE, knowing the power of YHVH...JESUS had to overcome the temptation of (PRIDE of) LIFE to overcome and defer the temptation of God's saving measures to preserve His life...
Peace bro... :Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH, I think were in the same mind here. I see it that way also.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
If Jesus is a man then he had lusts as we do. But overcame those to not be drawn away with them. I said earlier in the thread why I think this is important to understand because if we think Jesus is not capable of this then we deny that Jesus came as a man (as we are). And that is said to be the spirit of anti-christ.
1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges.
Great stuff.
Paul
40 is an interesting number in the Word.
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 12:20:20 AM
Yes, I agree that Jesus was a man. But what were discussing here is whether Satan is a component of man - more specifically the exhibition of man's disobedient nature. If so, then when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity.
Paul
So you suggesting Jesus when He was being tempted, by Satan it was His (Jesus') own carnal nature that started to offer twisted versions of the Scriptures for Him to perform?
Mat 4:5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, :6 and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for
it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT
AGAINST A STONE.'"
So Jesus' human nature asked Jesus to jump off the pinnacle? And He replyed to himself...
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"
Strange that no where in Scripture does human nature come up to a person and speak, and hold an extended conversation. And this is not how my own human nature works within me from my own personal experience. However, if you want to believe Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself that's cool with me. (Mat 4:9 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.")
Like I said, you will not suffer either way, and I have not found a single person who knows all the truths my self included. We only know in part. As for my part, Satan is a created being, (not a fallen Angel) a tool used for God's plan of the Ages. It matters not who's correct, your status in the resurrection has already been established.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AM
So you suggesting Jesus when He was being tempted, by Satan it was His (Jesus') own carnal nature that started to offer twisted versions of the Scriptures for Him to perform?
I believe it was His own carnal nature that offered the disobedient thoughts.
Quote
Mat 4:5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, :6 and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for
it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT
AGAINST A STONE.'"
So Jesus' human nature asked Jesus to jump off the pinnacle? And He replyed to himself...
Mat 4:7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"
Yes, I believe Jesus carnal nature was desiring Him to push Himself and take advantage of the Power He has as Son of God.
Quote
Strange that no where in Scripture does human nature come up to a person and speak, and hold an extended conversation. And this is not how my own human nature works within me from my own personal experience. However, if you want to believe Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself that's cool with me. (Mat 4:9 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.")
I believe it does all over the place. I believe you just quoted some of those.
Quote
Like I said, you will not suffer either way, and I have not found a single person who knows all the truths my self included. We only know in part. As for my part, Satan is a created being, (not a fallen Angel) a tool used for God's plan of the Ages. It matters not who's correct, your status in the resurrection has already been established.
Paul
Paul, if you believe Satan is the serpent and not man's disobedient nature then you will have to reconcile how Satan can be the most subtl of all creatures made (Gen 3:1) and yet man must still be the most deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9). That will leave you to reconcile Genesis 3:1 with Jeremiah 17:9. How can BOTH be the
most deceitful or wicked?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 06:33:22 AM
Paul, if you believe Satan is the serpent and not man's disobedient nature then you will have to reconcile how Satan can be the most subtl of all creatures made (Gen 3:1) and yet man must still be the most deceitful and wicked (Jer 17:9). That will leave you to reconcile Genesis 3:1 with Jeremiah 17:9. How can BOTH be the most deceitful or wicked?
Paul
Your kidding? Right?
Gen 3:1
The Temptation and the Fall Now1 the serpent 2 was more shrewd 3 than any of the wild animals 4 that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Is it really true that5God 6 said, 'You must not eat from any tree of the orchard'?"7
3
tn The Hebrew word עָרוּם ('arum) basically means "clever." This idea then polarizes into the nuances "cunning" (in a negative sense, see Job_5:12;
Job_15:5), and "prudent" in a positive sense (Pro_12:16; Pro_12:23; Pro_13:16; Pro_14:8; Pro_14:15; Pro_14:18; Pro_22:3; Pro_27:12). This same polarization of
meaning can be detected in related words derived from the same root (see Exo_21:14; Jos_ "It is incurable." For the word "deceitful" compare the usage of the verb in Gen_27:36 and a related noun in 2Ki_10:19. For the adjective "incurable" compare the usage in Jer_15:18. It is most commonly used with reference to wounds or of pain. In Jer_17:16 it is used metaphorically for a "woeful day" (i.e., day of irreparable devastation).
Gen 3:1
Subtil
H6175
ערוּם
‛ârûm
aw-room'Passive participle of H6191;
cunning (usually in a bad sense): - crafty, prudent, subtil.
Next Verse under discussion...
Jer 17:9 The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. 17 Who can understand it?
17
tn Or "incurably deceitful";
Heb "It is incurable." For the word "deceitful" compare the usage of the verb in Gen_27:36 and a related noun in 2Ki_10:19. For the adjective "incurable" compare the usage in Jer_15:18. It is most commonly used with reference to wounds or of pain. In Jer_17:16 it is used metaphorically for a "woeful day" (i.e., day of irreparable devastation).
Jer 17:9
deceitful
H6121
עקב
‛âqôb
aw-kobe'From H6117; in the original sense, a
knoll (as
swelling up); in the denominative sense (transitively)
fraudulent or (intransitively)
tracked: -
crooked, deceitful, polluted.
The real question is how you can connect the two verses to make Satan into billions of beings through out the ages?
Hey, check out the computer bible program e-sword! (It's free too)
Paul
Quote from: SheilaIt is not us or of God,but something of a different nature
it's knowledge does not change it's nature..it is not of love
we need not fear it..just be aware. Jesus was aware and not
afraid.
It really struck me--the way you put this.
Thanks Paul, I already have E-Sword - its good stuff. I recommend it myself also. As for the connection, they are connected the way I see it. The TILT of "cunning" verses "prudent" is left to the translators discrection. For example, a Greek Septuagint translation of the Greek word used there (G5429) actually is translated as "most skilled" (See Apostlic Polygot).
Paul
willieH: Hi brother Paul... Howahya? :hithere:
I'm not Paul (trettep)... but I would like to answer your post...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 12:20:20 AM
Yes, I agree that Jesus was a man. But what were discussing here is whether Satan is a component of man - more specifically the exhibition of man's disobedient nature. If so, then when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMSo you suggesting Jesus when He was being tempted, by Satan it was His (Jesus') own carnal nature that started to offer twisted versions of the Scriptures for Him to perform?
That is how the "carnal nature" works in men, Paul... Did a "horn-headed guy in a red suit, carrying a pitchfork" come up to YOU to tempt you with your FIRST SIN? ...and after that initial sin, ...did "satan" subsequently, present every other temptation in your life since then? :dunno:
Being made in the IMAGE of GOD... we
DO talk to ourselves often... and we
DO answer ourselves as well... so why should it not be so with GOD and with
JESUS?We are REFLECTIONS of them... and outside of FALLING to temptation and SIN... we reflect the invisible GOD and HIS
WORD, in ALL WAYS... which can easily include "thinking or talking to ourselves"...
JESUS was TEMPTED ...
AS... are we:
Heb 4:15 -- So unless this is your experience to have "satan" appear each time and "do the tempting", (it certainly IS NOT mine)... then it was likely not for
JESUS either!
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMMat 4:5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, :6 and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for
it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT
AGAINST A STONE.'"
So Jesus' human nature asked Jesus to jump off the pinnacle? And He replyed to himself...
Hmmm... when you come up to the stop light in your car (with no one with you), and aloud or silently say: "Shall I turn left or right?" Who are you talking to? And then, answer either aloud or silently -- "I think I'll turn right" -- who are you answering?
JESUS dealt with "temptation" the very same way ALL MEN do... action or inaction... (although He was successful in ALL His dealings with it, and we are not -- :mblush:)
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMStrange that no where in Scripture does human nature come up to a person and speak, and hold an extended conversation. And this is not how my own human nature works within me from my own personal experience. However, if you want to believe Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself that's cool with me.
(Mat 4:9 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.")
Cute sarcasm bud... :laughing7: ...but it really surprises me that you should answer this in this fashion...
As far as referencing
JESUS temptation in the wilderness as an ..."EXTENDED conversation"...well, ...this short segment of Scripture (
Matt 4:1-11) with THREE brief and "to the point" questions and answers, can hardly be termed an "
EXTENDED conversation" :dontknow:
If you are submitting to a temptation, then it is the temptation you
worship... You are slave or servant to that which you submit yourself...
And for that matter... when a "knee" is bowed, it is not speaking of a part of your
anatomy... It is speaking of the "knee" or ALLEGIANCE of your heart...
I am quite surprised that you of all people here, take these verses as a "Literal context" as opposed to SPIRITUAL premises being presented and responded to, Spiritually... :dontknow:
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMLike I said, you will not suffer either way, and I have not found a single person who knows all the truths my self included. We only know in part. As for my part, Satan is a created being, (not a fallen Angel) a tool used for God's plan of the Ages. It matters not who's correct, your status in the resurrection has already been established.
This is an UnBiblical belief bro... ("satan" as a "created being")
Where is the Scripture which notes the CREATION of "satan"?
There is no Scriptural account for the "creation" of any other angel either for that matter (at least I haven't found any)... I would appreciate it you know any that you could provide them...
I do not believe ANGELS were ever created... they have always BEEN, as have we...
YHVH is ALL in ALL... and NEVER changes...
Mal 3:6 -- Heb 13:8 -- He NEVER "BECOMES" anything He is NOT already... for that would constitute a CHANGE in entities (God and His
WORD) that are ALREADY PERFECT... :yes:
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Paul... :cloud9:
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 07:22:21 AM
The real question is how you can connect the two verses to make Satan into billions of beings through out the ages?
Forget "billions of beings" --- where does it ever indicate in SCRIPTURE that "satan" is even
ONE BEING? :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Hi WillieH, I know you don't mean offense. No worries. :HeartThrob:
QuoteThe presence of YHVH (divinity/Godhead), was indeed dwelling IN Him making Him thereby the SON of GOD, ...but was not ALL that He was... He was also the SON of MAN... which means that the presence of MAN was IN Him as well...
JESUS was a 2 fold being... He was SON of GOD, for YHVH was His Father, so 100% of Him was DIVINE because of it... but,
JESUS was the SON of MAN as Mary was His Mother, so 100% of Him was human (MAN) because of this, as well...
Yes, Jesus was the Son of Man and he was 100% human, but 0% carnally minded. Why? Because he had 100% of the Spirit.
Romans 8
So then
they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 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.
Luke 3
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son,
in whom I am WELL pleased.
QuoteIf He is so tempted (or "tried/tested" as you describe it)... AS are we... then He had to experience the tuggings of TEMPTATION in the very SAME WAYS that we DO...
That's not actually true Willie. Someone can be tried without feeling temptation. John says that if any man says he is without sin, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him. We have sin. Jesus was tested in all points, YET (this is where the exception comes in ) WITHOUT sin. We are tested WITH sin, he was tested in the same points we are WITHOUT (the word there is APART FROM) sin. So in whatever way Christ was tested like us, it was apart from sin, which is much unlike our own carnal nature.
QuoteHe could NOT be "tempted/tried/tested" by the potential LUST of a woman, unless indeed, it came upon Him... (or any other temptation which presents itself to man/woman)
Sure he could. You could place a woman before him to TEST, TO TRY, or TO TEMPT him, and while
I might feel lust, he would not. What is the difference between Christ and me? I have sin, and He was without sin. The action of testing someone with an object of desire, does not necessitate the feeling of lust.
QuoteIf indeed it was NOT POSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then to state Him as "overcoming" TEMPTATION, is a sham...
It's not a sham when you consider that Jesus overcame the world.
1 John 1
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children,
and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you,
than he that is in the world.
5
They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.John 16
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe?
32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.
33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace.
In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart;
I have overcome the world."
QuoteI agree and disagree with this bro... His mind had to have been ABLE to succumb to SIN or He did not OVERCOME the TEMPTATION to do it...
Jesus overcame the world. It doesn't say he overcame the
feeling of lust.
QuoteHere's the deal... If GOD made temptation able to penetrate everything but STEEL and CHRIST was STEEL ENCASED... then How could it be said He was TEMPTED?
Because there is a fundamental difference between the action of testing, and the result of feeling tempted.
QuoteI think this is amiss... CHRIST did not DIE to save men from temptation, ...he died for those who have FALLEN INTO IT... And He did so, by ENDURING TEMPTATION and SHUNNING its proposals... The PROPOSALS had to enter His mind, or He could not have ENDURED them...
EXAMPLE: If I am an ALCOHOLIC and PRESENTLY there is NO ALCOHOL to drink, am I still PRESENTLY "TEMPTED" by it to drink IT even though there is NONE PRESENT?
CHRIST was TEMPTED, but SIN is only BORN when one INDULGES in the TEMPTATION which is OFFERED:
James 1:15 -- THEN, when LUST HAS CONCIEVED, it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished bringeth forth death...
LUST (or TEMPTATION) must be ENGAGED before LUST (desire) CONCIEVES (births) SIN...
CHRIST did not ENGAGE the TEMPTATION presented Him, as do we... He ABSTAINED and OVERCAME its urging...
WillieH, I am not sure how that addresses what I said about Romans 5.
Romans 5
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--
8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God commended his love for us in that a righteous, Godly man died for the ungodly. That Christ was without sin reveals his love that he died for those who were not without sin. Yes, lust must be engaged before lust conceives an outward sinful act which is what John is talking about. However:
Matt 5
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her
already in his heart.
Do you remember when Paul said that we struggle with sin IN the flesh? That passage from John does not simply define
all sin as being outward working, otherwise you would need to throw out the passages that show that we have sin IN the flesh BEFORE it is worked outwardly. The lust that is concieved in the heart is still sin (adultery in the heart), however, it when the inward sin is conceived it brings forth sin outwardly. To be carnally minded is death, and to work sin brings for the wages of death. While Christ was human, he, while in the flesh retained the mind of the Spirit, not the carnal mind which is death. Christ died to free people from the carnal mind, so he did not die for himself, thereby revealing the love if God in a completely selfless act.
QuoteI see it as MAN wishing to AVOID DEATH... CHRIST was still a MAN... and MEN will always make an effort to AVOID DEATH...
What I see in it is that God was speaking the words of Christ, and that Christ did nothing of himself including his experience at the Garden. God caused Christ to say those words to reveal Christ's complete submission and total lack of a carnal mind, in that, though he felt fear, he did not oppose the righteousness of God nor his will.
QuoteYou are welcome dear brother to continue believing this, however... If CHRIST indeed did not have the CARNAL urgings which WE DO... then He "OVERCAME" nothing...
Yes he did. He overcame the world who were his enemies as he died for them. By commending love to the world, as the world knew him not, he overcame the world by His spirit.
QuoteThe CARNAL nature is more than just the "mind" and its processings...
It is the LUST of the EYE (as It "TEMPTS"), and the LUST of the FLESH (as IT "TEMPTS") and the PRIDE of LIFE (as IT "TEMPTS") -- 1 John 2:16
Every point you described, "of the eye" "of the flesh" "of life" occurs in the mind. The eye does not sin of itself, until the mind concieves what the eye provides and it results in lust within the mind. Have you ever seen someone knocked unconscious? Do they feel any lust of the flesh even though the flesh is alive? Of course not, because THEIR MINDS are not active. The carnal nature is ALL in the mind which is why the solution to the carnal nature is "the renewing of the mind."
QuoteIf you examine His "wilderness Temptation", all THREE of these were contained IN that presentation:
#1 -- Lust of the flesh
#2 -- Lust of the Eye
#3 -- Pride of Life
Matt 4:3-10
verse 3 -- and when the tempter came to him he said (#1) "if Thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made bread
verse 5-6 -- then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, ...and saith unto Him, (#3) If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down for it is written He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone
verse 8-9 -- again the devil taketh Him up inot an exceeding high mountain and (#2) SHOWETH Him ALL the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them... and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me...
All these things combined (#1, #2 & #3) are within the experience of the CARNAL NATURE... and CHRIST had to have overcome them ALL via EXPERIENCING being TEMPTED OF EACH of THEM (as are WE tempted of them), in order to call Him an OVERCOMER OF THEM ALL...
(1) In the presentation to the FLESH to change the rocks into food, JESUS had to overcome the temptation to satisfy His body...
(2) in the presentation to the EYE, in seeing them... JESUS had to overcome the temptation of the GLORY of all the kingdoms of the world...
(3) and in presentation to His LIFE, knowing the power of YHVH...JESUS had to overcome the temptation of (PRIDE of) LIFE to overcome and defer the temptation of God's saving measures to preserve His life...
Yes Jesus had to overcome the testing of Satan. Satan TESTED Jesus with those things, and Jesus revealed why God was WELL pleased with him. WillieH, again, one can be tested without feeling temptation. Satan tried Jesus, no doubt, but there is no suggestion in those passages that Jesus struggled with feelings. Rather the opposite, Jesus revealed that he was "without sin" when he was tested to appeal to the Word. Christ's testing was not for himself, but as admonition to us. God was already well pleased with Christ, yet He showed the world Christ's perfection by showing how someone can be tested without a carnal mind and how the spiritually minded man responds.
The lamb of God: without spot or blemish to be presented as an offering for the ungodly.
Peace to you too bro. Love you.
another consideration...
He is from above...the image of His Father,,who stated..my
thoughts are not your thoughts....His thoughts are higher
....the mind of Christ....
another thing.. in regard to the prince of this world cometh
.he has nothing in me
He was hated because He was not of this world...what is this
world of which there was nothing in Him? showy display of ones
means of life[lust of eyes] 1 John 2;16 for everything in the
world- the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the
boasting of what he has and does- comes not from the
Father,but from the world.
there is a wisdom that is of the world..and a wisdom from
above.
beastly/carnal wisdom is from below[tokogae] wisdom from
above is tree of life. This is why we must be born again of the
spirit. Those who are born of the spirit[wisdom from above]
do not sin,neither can they[what?]wasn't Jesus born of the
spirit? How was He unable to sin then?
what's the deal with being led into the wilderness to be
tempted of the devil?What purpose? why did He specifically
instruct us to pray..LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION? Isn't that
the will of the Father and the Holy spirit? No, God does not
tempt with evil
...and Jesus said 'tempt not God" in response to
the temptor in the wilderness.
If God does not tempt nor try us with
evil, who does? the TEMPTER does.
why did the Holyspirit lead him into the wilderness to let the
devil have a go at him? It was to notify the temptor that the
legal heir was there, Shiloh had come, He who had the legal
right and dominion was there. So what did the evil servant
[satan] do?He crucified His flesh...but MORE THAN FLESH WAS
THERE.It was in the likeness of sinful flesh,but Satan was
unable to overcome it..gain dominion over him.
So he plotted to kill him anyway...and found out that death
could not hold him or gain dominion over him in any way,either.
God laughed. :laughing7:...He is deaths plague :thumbsup:
the old covenant was over,gone the tokogae..new
covenant..tree of life. Sin's law reigning in death through the
lower wisdom[tokogae]old covenant was finished and set aside.
TOL/grace/wisdom from above had come[a greater than
Solomon] :bgdance: :bgdance: :bgdance:
wow, Sheila! :bgdance:
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 08:16:08 AM
willieH: Hi brother Paul... Howahya? :hithere:
I'm not Paul (trettep)... but I would like to answer your post...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 12:20:20 AM
Yes, I agree that Jesus was a man. But what were discussing here is whether Satan is a component of man - more specifically the exhibition of man's disobedient nature. If so, then when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMSo you suggesting Jesus when He was being tempted, by Satan it was His (Jesus') own carnal nature that started to offer twisted versions of the Scriptures for Him to perform?
That is how the "carnal nature" works in men, Paul... Did a "horn-headed guy in a red suit, carrying a pitchfork" come up to YOU to tempt you with your FIRST SIN? ...and after that initial sin, ...did "satan" subsequently, present every other temptation in your life since then? :dunno:
Being made in the IMAGE of GOD... we DO talk to ourselves often... and we DO answer ourselves as well... so why should it not be so with GOD and with JESUS?
We are REFLECTIONS of them... and outside of FALLING to temptation and SIN... we reflect the invisible GOD and HIS WORD, in ALL WAYS... which can easily include "thinking or talking to ourselves"...
JESUS was TEMPTED ...AS... are we: Heb 4:15 -- So unless this is your experience to have "satan" appear each time and "do the tempting", (it certainly IS NOT mine)... then it was likely not for JESUS either!
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMMat 4:5 Then the devil *took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, :6 and *said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for
it is written, 'HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU'; and 'ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT
AGAINST A STONE.'"
So Jesus' human nature asked Jesus to jump off the pinnacle? And He replyed to himself...
Hmmm... when you come up to the stop light in your car (with no one with you), and aloud or silently say: "Shall I turn left or right?" Who are you talking to? And then, answer either aloud or silently -- "I think I'll turn right" -- who are you answering?
JESUS dealt with "temptation" the very same way ALL MEN do... action or inaction... (although He was successful in ALL His dealings with it, and we are not -- :mblush:)
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMStrange that no where in Scripture does human nature come up to a person and speak, and hold an extended conversation. And this is not how my own human nature works within me from my own personal experience. However, if you want to believe Jesus invited himself to fall down before himself and worship himself that's cool with me.
(Mat 4:9 and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.")
Cute sarcasm bud... :laughing7: ...but it really surprises me that you should answer this in this fashion...
As far as referencing JESUS temptation in the wilderness as an ..."EXTENDED conversation"...well, ...this short segment of Scripture (Matt 4:1-11) with THREE brief and "to the point" questions and answers, can hardly be termed an "EXTENDED conversation" :dontknow:
If you are submitting to a temptation, then it is the temptation you worship... You are slave or servant to that which you submit yourself...
And for that matter... when a "knee" is bowed, it is not speaking of a part of your anatomy... It is speaking of the "knee" or ALLEGIANCE of your heart...
I am quite surprised that you of all people here, take these verses as a "Literal context" as opposed to SPIRITUAL premises being presented and responded to, Spiritually... :dontknow:
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 05:38:42 AMLike I said, you will not suffer either way, and I have not found a single person who knows all the truths my self included. We only know in part. As for my part, Satan is a created being, (not a fallen Angel) a tool used for God's plan of the Ages. It matters not who's correct, your status in the resurrection has already been established.
This is an UnBiblical belief bro... ("satan" as a "created being")
Where is the Scripture which notes the CREATION of "satan"?
There is no Scriptural account for the "creation" of any other angel either for that matter (at least I haven't found any)... I would appreciate it you know any that you could provide them...
I do not believe ANGELS were ever created... they have always BEEN, as have we...
YHVH is ALL in ALL... and NEVER changes... Mal 3:6 -- Heb 13:8 -- He NEVER "BECOMES" anything He is NOT already... for that would constitute a CHANGE in entities (God and His WORD) that are ALREADY PERFECT... :yes:
...willieH :cloud9:
What do you mean by the statement that "they have always BEEN, as have we..."?
My take on angels is that it is simply a reference to messengers. An Apostle for example, is one I would call an Angel, as they are SENT with a message.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:48:42 AM
Hi WillieH, I know you don't mean offense. No worries. :HeartThrob:
QuoteThe presence of YHVH (divinity/Godhead), was indeed dwelling IN Him making Him thereby the SON of GOD, ...but was not ALL that He was... He was also the SON of MAN... which means that the presence of MAN was IN Him as well...
JESUS was a 2 fold being... He was SON of GOD, for YHVH was His Father, so 100% of Him was DIVINE because of it... but,
JESUS was the SON of MAN as Mary was His Mother, so 100% of Him was human (MAN) because of this, as well...
Yes, Jesus was the Son of Man and he was 100% human, but 0% carnally minded. Why? Because he had 100% of the Spirit.
Romans 8
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 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.
Luke 3
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am WELL pleased.
QuoteIf He is so tempted (or "tried/tested" as you describe it)... AS are we... then He had to experience the tuggings of TEMPTATION in the very SAME WAYS that we DO...
That's not actually true Willie. Someone can be tried without feeling temptation. John says that if any man says he is without sin, he deceives himself and the truth is not in him. We have sin. Jesus was tested in all points, YET (this is where the exception comes in ) WITHOUT sin. We are tested WITH sin, he was tested in the same points we are WITHOUT (the word there is APART FROM) sin. So in whatever way Christ was tested like us, it was apart from sin, which is much unlike our own carnal nature.
QuoteHe could NOT be "tempted/tried/tested" by the potential LUST of a woman, unless indeed, it came upon Him... (or any other temptation which presents itself to man/woman)
Sure he could. You could place a woman before him to TEST, TO TRY, or TO TEMPT him, and while I might feel lust, he would not. What is the difference between Christ and me? I have sin, and He was without sin. The action of testing someone with an object of desire, does not necessitate the feeling of lust.
QuoteIf indeed it was NOT POSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then to state Him as "overcoming" TEMPTATION, is a sham...
It's not a sham when you consider that Jesus overcame the world.
1 John 1
1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
John 16
31 Jesus answered them, "Do you now believe?
32 Behold, the hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home, and will leave me alone. Yet I am not alone, for the Father is with me.
33 I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world."
QuoteI agree and disagree with this bro... His mind had to have been ABLE to succumb to SIN or He did not OVERCOME the TEMPTATION to do it...
Jesus overcame the world. It doesn't say he overcame the feeling of lust.
QuoteHere's the deal... If GOD made temptation able to penetrate everything but STEEL and CHRIST was STEEL ENCASED... then How could it be said He was TEMPTED?
Because there is a fundamental difference between the action of testing, and the result of feeling tempted.
QuoteI think this is amiss... CHRIST did not DIE to save men from temptation, ...he died for those who have FALLEN INTO IT... And He did so, by ENDURING TEMPTATION and SHUNNING its proposals... The PROPOSALS had to enter His mind, or He could not have ENDURED them...
EXAMPLE: If I am an ALCOHOLIC and PRESENTLY there is NO ALCOHOL to drink, am I still PRESENTLY "TEMPTED" by it to drink IT even though there is NONE PRESENT?
CHRIST was TEMPTED, but SIN is only BORN when one INDULGES in the TEMPTATION which is OFFERED:
James 1:15 -- THEN, when LUST HAS CONCIEVED, it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished bringeth forth death...
LUST (or TEMPTATION) must be ENGAGED before LUST (desire) CONCIEVES (births) SIN...
CHRIST did not ENGAGE the TEMPTATION presented Him, as do we... He ABSTAINED and OVERCAME its urging...
WillieH, I am not sure how that addresses what I said about Romans 5.
Romans 5
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--
8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God commended his love for us in that a righteous, Godly man died for the ungodly. That Christ was without sin reveals his love that he died for those who were not without sin. Yes, lust must be engaged before lust conceives an outward sinful act which is what John is talking about. However:
Matt 5
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Do you remember when Paul said that we struggle with sin IN the flesh? That passage from John does not simply define all sin as being outward working, otherwise you would need to throw out the passages that show that we have sin IN the flesh BEFORE it is worked outwardly. The lust that is concieved in the heart is still sin (adultery in the heart), however, it when the inward sin is conceived it brings forth sin outwardly. To be carnally minded is death, and to work sin brings for the wages of death. While Christ was human, he, while in the flesh retained the mind of the Spirit, not the carnal mind which is death. Christ died to free people from the carnal mind, so he did not die for himself, thereby revealing the love if God in a completely selfless act.
QuoteI see it as MAN wishing to AVOID DEATH... CHRIST was still a MAN... and MEN will always make an effort to AVOID DEATH...
What I see in it is that God was speaking the words of Christ, and that Christ did nothing of himself including his experience at the Garden. God caused Christ to say those words to reveal Christ's complete submission and total lack of a carnal mind, in that, though he felt fear, he did not oppose the righteousness of God nor his will.
QuoteYou are welcome dear brother to continue believing this, however... If CHRIST indeed did not have the CARNAL urgings which WE DO... then He "OVERCAME" nothing...
Yes he did. He overcame the world who were his enemies as he died for them. By commending love to the world, as the world knew him not, he overcame the world by His spirit.
QuoteThe CARNAL nature is more than just the "mind" and its processings...
It is the LUST of the EYE (as It "TEMPTS"), and the LUST of the FLESH (as IT "TEMPTS") and the PRIDE of LIFE (as IT "TEMPTS") -- 1 John 2:16
Every point you described, "of the eye" "of the flesh" "of life" occurs in the mind. The eye does not sin of itself, until the mind concieves what the eye provides and it results in lust within the mind. Have you ever seen someone knocked unconscious? Do they feel any lust of the flesh even though the flesh is alive? Of course not, because THEIR MINDS are not active. The carnal nature is ALL in the mind which is why the solution to the carnal nature is "the renewing of the mind."
QuoteIf you examine His "wilderness Temptation", all THREE of these were contained IN that presentation:
#1 -- Lust of the flesh
#2 -- Lust of the Eye
#3 -- Pride of Life
Matt 4:3-10
verse 3 -- and when the tempter came to him he said (#1) "if Thou be the Son of God, command these stones to be made bread
verse 5-6 -- then the devil taketh Him up into the holy city, and setteth Him on a pinnacle of the temple, ...and saith unto Him, (#3) If Thou be the Son of God cast Thyself down for it is written He shall give His angels charge concerning Thee and in their hands they shall bear Thee up, lest Thou dash Thy foot against a stone
verse 8-9 -- again the devil taketh Him up inot an exceeding high mountain and (#2) SHOWETH Him ALL the Kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them... and saith unto Him, all these things will I give Thee if Thou wilt fall down and worship me...
All these things combined (#1, #2 & #3) are within the experience of the CARNAL NATURE... and CHRIST had to have overcome them ALL via EXPERIENCING being TEMPTED OF EACH of THEM (as are WE tempted of them), in order to call Him an OVERCOMER OF THEM ALL...
(1) In the presentation to the FLESH to change the rocks into food, JESUS had to overcome the temptation to satisfy His body...
(2) in the presentation to the EYE, in seeing them... JESUS had to overcome the temptation of the GLORY of all the kingdoms of the world...
(3) and in presentation to His LIFE, knowing the power of YHVH...JESUS had to overcome the temptation of (PRIDE of) LIFE to overcome and defer the temptation of God's saving measures to preserve His life...
Yes Jesus had to overcome the testing of Satan. Satan TESTED Jesus with those things, and Jesus revealed why God was WELL pleased with him. WillieH, again, one can be tested without feeling temptation. Satan tried Jesus, no doubt, but there is no suggestion in those passages that Jesus struggled with feelings. Rather the opposite, Jesus revealed that he was "without sin" when he was tested to appeal to the Word. Christ's testing was not for himself, but as admonition to us. God was already well pleased with Christ, yet He showed the world Christ's perfection by showing how someone can be tested without a carnal mind and how the spiritually minded man responds.
The lamb of God: without spot or blemish to be presented as an offering for the ungodly.
Peace to you too bro. Love you.
Hi Seth, the scriptures say this:
Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities;
but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. If Jesus couldn't conceive lust and hate in His heart then He was NOT tempted like we are. For we can. And this verse gives credit that He was also as it says in all points that He was tempted like as we are.
If Jesus didn't have a carnal nature to overcome then why come in the Flesh? God's Word says:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin,
condemned sin in the flesh:
Notice it says likeness of SINFUL flesh. It doesn't say nonsinful flesh. The flesh He had - somehow had to be able to sin.
He condemns sin in the flesh but not giving into its own lusts. For that to happen He has to have the lusts conceived in His own heart and more so. Since Jesus knows His own Status as God's Son then think what LEVEL of Pride could have overcame Him? He was far more tempted then all of us. Ever see someone get a little power and how fast they tend to abuse it? That is because they can't overcome the temptation to use it in a way that is self centered. Here you have Jesus with so much power and authority and yet He doesn't give into the temptations. And those temptations came from within His own flesh. If Jesus didn't have a carnal nature to overcome then He can't claim to have put down a carnal nature. We have a carnal nature that needs to be overcome. If Jesus didn't do the same then He cannot be an example to how we shall overcome. To have an evil thought in ones mind is not sin. It is when the evil thought becomes an action that it becomes sin. It is what comes out of a man that defiles him.
Mat 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
They way to think of this is that Jesus had a carnal ability (because He was in the flesh) but never exhibited that carnal ability. So his nature wasn't carnal but divine but the carnal nature was in His flesh but not revealed because the Holy Spirit overcame it. This is what is meant by putting down sin in ones flesh.
Paul
:cloud9: Love your posts on this thread, Sheila........ :thumbsup: Blessings....
Me too!
Me too!
I believe that if Satan were indeed an outside entity then he would never want me to believe that I'm satan at all.
Paul
Quote from: .Sheila..and Jesus said 'tempt not God" in response to
the temptor in the wilderness.
When I read this, I saw for the first time that Jesus was referring to himself when he warned Satan--Don't tempt God.
6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. --Mat 4
Another rebuke to Satan--
4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.--Mat 4
Does God have a mouth?
1 John 3:9
Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
Hi Paul :HeartThrob:
QuoteHi Seth, the scriptures say this:
Heb 4:15
For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
If Jesus couldn't conceive lust and hate in His heart then He was NOT tempted like we are. For we can. And this verse gives credit that He was also as it says in all points that He was tempted like as we are.
Look what that verse says. First of all, the word "as we are, yet" is italic in the KJV, meaning it isn't there originally. The word "without" is "choris" meaning without, besides, apart from:
Mt 14:21
And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, besides (choris) women and children.
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 similarly
besides (choris - without, apart from) sin.
What it is saying is that Jesus was touched with the feeling of our infirmities APART FROM, or BESIDES SIN. Whatever infirmities we have, and there are many, he felt them all ... apart from sin.
QuoteIf Jesus didn't have a carnal nature to overcome then why come in the Flesh? God's Word says:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Notice it says likeness of SINFUL flesh. It doesn't say nonsinful flesh. The flesh He had - somehow had to be able to sin.
Paul, the question is not whether Christ was made flesh. He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh. HOWEVER, the scripture is clear that His mind was not in that flesh but in heaven.
John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man
which IS in heaven.
When I was an ETer, that made no sense to me. I didn't realize that Christ was in Heaven seated with God while he was on the earth speaking to them. The way that is true, is that while Christ was made flesh, his MIND was not IN THE FLESH because the spirit of God dwelled in him. His mind was in heaven, hidden in his Father. The Father kept him from sin, and in doing so, he preserved Christ as a spotless lamb to die for the ungodly, thus revealing his love for humanity. The love of God is in that a pure, completely innocent man was murdered for the sake of his murderers.
Philippians 4:7
And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding,
shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
God did the same thing for Christ. He KEPT Christ's mind! Again, Christ had the Spirit without measure, so without measure his mind was kept in heaven, thus purified and preserved a spotless lamb for the slaughter.
QuoteHe condemns sin in the flesh but not giving into its own lusts. For that to happen He has to have the lusts conceived in His own heart and more so. Since Jesus knows His own Status as God's Son then think what LEVEL of Pride could have overcame Him?
I don't need to think about that. It isn't in the scriptures. He was tested to show that he was not prideful, because his mind was in heaven being kept by his Father.
QuoteEver see someone get a little power and how fast they tend to abuse it? That is because they can't overcome the temptation to use it in a way that is self centered. Here you have Jesus with so much power and authority and yet He doesn't give into the temptations. And those temptations came from within His own flesh. If Jesus didn't have a carnal nature to overcome then He can't claim to have put down a carnal nature. We have a carnal nature that needs to be overcome. If Jesus didn't do the same then He cannot be an example to how we shall overcome.
Of course he could! Think about what you are saying. Jesus didn't need to overcome OF HIS
OWN EFFORTS. That is the whole point of the Gospel! God CHOSE Jesus to be perfected in the Spirit, just as he chooses his elect to be perfected with a measured amount of the Spirit. Jesus didn't need to reach perfection of his own struggles. God was his strength, and Christ entered into "God's rest" without measure. Jesus explicitly told us:
John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "I tell you the truth,
the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
The whole point of the Gospel is that the Godly nature SAVES US not according to our effort, but by renewing our minds according to the pre-election of God. The Holy Spirit is what changes our godless passions, not our feeble struggles. That's the whole point of Christ's mind being kept by God. CHRIST
RESTED in GOD, not struggling in himself. THAT is what we are to see and emulate as we walk in his footsteps.
QuoteThis is what is meant by putting down sin in ones flesh.
Condemnation is from the word meaning "judgment." He judged sin in the flesh. He gave sin a death sentence. That's what that means.
I don't know ,Paul...Go figure
seems to me he'd rather hear that then this ...
I AM THE SON OF GOD or this...
Get behind me Satan! or this
Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be called SONS of
GOD.
seems to me they liked to say 'by the prince of demons he is
driving out demons'[Mark 3;22] Jesus said..How CAN SATAN
drive out Satan?'
I don't know Paul..but it seems to me that you LOVE
..he that Loves is born of God..now maybe that love is
not perfected yet. But,I trust Him that all His sons and
daughters will be....
...tell that fox, I will drive out demons and heal people today
and tomorrow,and on the third day I WILL REACH MY GOAL
SOS 2;15 Catch for us the foxes,the little foxes that ruin the
vineyards,our vineyards that are in bloom
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 08:55:23 PM
...
Quote from: TrettepHe condemns sin in the flesh but not giving into its own lusts. For that to happen He has to have the lusts conceived in His own heart and more so. Since Jesus knows His own Status as God's Son then think what LEVEL of Pride could have overcame Him?
I don't need to think about that. It isn't in the scriptures.
The "Jesus" your describing is NOT a Jesus that can save me. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that can think EVIL as I do and overcome that evil. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that is a MAN just as I am a MAN. If your telling me about a Jesus that couldn't put down sin in his own flesh because he didn't have to (because that wasn't applicable to him) then that "Jesus" is not one that can save me. I need a Christ that is a MAN just as I am a MAN that can save me. What your describing is someone that was of the flesh but not the SAME flesh as a MAN.
Paul
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 08:55:23 PM
...
Quote from: TrettepHe condemns sin in the flesh but not giving into its own lusts. For that to happen He has to have the lusts conceived in His own heart and more so. Since Jesus knows His own Status as God's Son then think what LEVEL of Pride could have overcame Him?
I don't need to think about that. It isn't in the scriptures.
The "Jesus" your describing is NOT a Jesus that can save me. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that can think EVIL as I do and overcome that evil. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that is a MAN just as I am a MAN. If your telling me about a Jesus that couldn't put down sin in his own flesh because he didn't have to (because that wasn't applicable to him) then that "Jesus" is not one that can save me. I need a Christ that is a MAN just as I am a MAN that can save me. What your describing is someone that was of the flesh but not the SAME flesh as a MAN.
Paul
The Jesus that can save you is the one who died for you Paul. You need whatever Jesus God provided for you. You don't get to pick your Jesus's
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
You are jumping to an assumption and the above is a false dilemma. That Christ learned obedience does not necessitate he was at one time disobedient. It means he grew in obedience from the ground up, like a tree, or a vine. He was a blank slate who learned obedience through the suffering he experienced APART from sin.
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:03:30 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:45:33 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 08:55:23 PM
...
Quote from: TrettepHe condemns sin in the flesh but not giving into its own lusts. For that to happen He has to have the lusts conceived in His own heart and more so. Since Jesus knows His own Status as God's Son then think what LEVEL of Pride could have overcame Him?
I don't need to think about that. It isn't in the scriptures.
The "Jesus" your describing is NOT a Jesus that can save me. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that can think EVIL as I do and overcome that evil. The ONLY Jesus that can save me is one that is a MAN just as I am a MAN. If your telling me about a Jesus that couldn't put down sin in his own flesh because he didn't have to (because that wasn't applicable to him) then that "Jesus" is not one that can save me. I need a Christ that is a MAN just as I am a MAN that can save me. What your describing is someone that was of the flesh but not the SAME flesh as a MAN.
Paul
The Jesus that can save you is the one who died for you Paul. You need whatever Jesus God provided for you. You don't get to pick your Jesus's
My point Seth, is that the Jesus that God's Word is describing is one that IS a man AS I'm a man. I must surely pick the one that He tells me to pick.
Paul
Yes, He was a man without sin. You are not. That is why he commends his love to you that while he was sinless, he died for YOU, a one time enemy of God. THAT is the point of Christ being a spotless lamb, the revelation of Love toward you.
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
You are jumping to an assumption and the above is a false dilemma. That Christ learned obedience does not necessitate he was at one time disobedient. It means he grew in obedience from the ground up, like a tree, or a vine. He was a blank slate who learned obedience through the suffering he experienced APART from sin.
I never said it meant that He was ever disobedient but it shows that an aspect of disobedience was necessary to overcome. You can't be considered obedient if you can't become disobedient.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:16:14 PM
Yes, He was a man without sin. You are not. That is why he commends his love to you that while he was sinless, he died for YOU, a one time enemy of God. THAT is the point of Christ being a spotless lamb, the revelation of Love toward you.
Seth, He was spotless because He didn't let the conception of lust in His OWN heart become sin.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
You are jumping to an assumption and the above is a false dilemma. That Christ learned obedience does not necessitate he was at one time disobedient. It means he grew in obedience from the ground up, like a tree, or a vine. He was a blank slate who learned obedience through the suffering he experienced APART from sin.
I never said it meant that He was ever disobedient but it shows that an aspect of disobedience was necessary to overcome. You can't be considered obedient if you can't become disobedient.
Paul
Sure you can, there is the false dilemma. You say "you CANNOT be considered obedience if you cannot become disobedient." That is a false dilemma. You can be considered obedient, by being obedient.
QuoteSeth, He was spotless because He didn't let the conception of lust in His OWN heart become sin.
He was spotless because he was apart from sin. He was spotless because while he was made flesh, he was not in the flesh. He was spotless in that he was not an adulterer in his heart or a murderer due to hate from within. Confining sin to an outward act alone contradicts the scripture. What proceeded outward from Christ did not defile him, because nothing within him was evil, being that he was not in the flesh but in Heaven.
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:20:23 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:06:36 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
You are jumping to an assumption and the above is a false dilemma. That Christ learned obedience does not necessitate he was at one time disobedient. It means he grew in obedience from the ground up, like a tree, or a vine. He was a blank slate who learned obedience through the suffering he experienced APART from sin.
I never said it meant that He was ever disobedient but it shows that an aspect of disobedience was necessary to overcome. You can't be considered obedient if you can't become disobedient.
Paul
Sure you can, there is the false dilemma. You say "you CANNOT be considered obedience if you cannot become disobedient." That is a false dilemma. You can be considered obedient, by being obedient.
Then why did He have to LEARN obedience? If He just already was?
Quote from: Seth
QuoteSeth, He was spotless because He didn't let the conception of lust in His OWN heart become sin.
He was spotless because he was apart from sin. He was spotless because while he was made flesh, he was not in the flesh.
Seth, if Jesus couldn't conceive of evil in His own heart then how could you consider Him to be a man?
Paul
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Here we see that Jesus is made just like we are. He was a man. Shouldn't ALL Things means that He has the same capacity to sin as we do? The next verse answers:
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
The verse here refutes any contrary claim. It shows that Jesus was indeed Tempted. It follows the flow of the previous verse as it pertains to being a man after the same likeness of his brothers. So Jesus was TEMPTED. This is a direct result of being made like unto His brethren. We can't break this verse away from the context and ascribe other meaning to it. Verse 18 shows that being tempted is in context with being made like His brothers.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:30:00 PM
Then why did He have to LEARN obedience? If He just already was?
You just got through telling me that you never said he was disobedient. Are you now saying he was? I already told you how one can learn obedience without being disobedient.
QuoteSeth, if Jesus couldn't conceive of evil in His own heart then how could you consider Him to be a man?
Paul
Yes I consider him to be a man without sin. Just like the scripture says.
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:40:31 PM
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Here we see that Jesus is made just like we are. He was a man. Shouldn't ALL Things means that He has the same capacity to sin as we do? The next verse answers:
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
The verse here refutes any contrary claim. It shows that Jesus was indeed Tempted. It follows the flow of the previous verse as it pertains to being a man after the same likeness of his brothers. So Jesus was TEMPTED. This is a direct result of being made like unto His brethren. We can't break this verse away from the context and ascribe other meaning to it. Verse 18 shows that being tempted is in context with being made like His brothers.
Paul
He was make like unto his brothers APART FROM SIN. I did not deny that Jesus was tested. He suffered BEING tested, not feeling sin in his heart. Two different things. Being apart from sin, he was not subject to the flesh like we are. Spotless lamb.
willieH: Hi brother P... :hithere:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
What do you mean by the statement that "they have always BEEN, as have we..."?
YHVH ...
IS... ALL in ALL... He NEVER CHANGES... that things are occuring IN TIME which is a "PART" of ETERNITY, only means that ALL EVENTS in TIME are also IN HIM and HAVE "ALWAYS BEEN" within Him, yet UNREVEALED...
Example: Eventually, once our course in time is complete, we enter the realm of the Heavenly... Does "Heaven" find its origin in our vision? Or is its vision which has ALWAYS BEEN, being REVEALED (or -- as I believe, "RE-REVEALED") to us?If you observe the Parable of the LOST SON... or the LOST COIN, or the LOST SHEEP... all of these were WITH the OWNER/Father, before becoming "LOST" (destroyed/Apollumi)... they BECAME LOST, then were RETRIEVED... and found themselves where they were BEFORE they became LOST.
YHVH God's "creation" always
IS... for it lies WITHIN Him --
Acts 17:28 ...IN HIM, we live and move and have our BEING...If in fact we are
IN HIM... and
HE never
CHANGES... then we have ALWAYS "BEEN", ...
IN HIM...
We stand on a FINITE platform and are unable to BEHOLD the INFINITE for it is beyond us to SEE (unrevealed to us), however... the INFINITE (which
YHVH IS) beholds the FINITE (time and its participants) before it actually ...IS... (in its chronology) and then REVEALS it to IT, ...in its observance of ITSELF... :laughing7:
THIS realm is ALWAYS a part of ETERNITY, but the events which occur in this REALM, once revealed are not PRACTICED in ETERNITY, other than within the course of TIME... which (time) is SPENT in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... to the CHILDREN of
YHVH which have ALWAYS BEEN...
Example: I know things my grandchildren do not know... Does the knowledge that I hold, begin with them "learning it"? Or has it been present all along... and they ARE unaware of its presence? And does that "revelation" find that the knowledge represents a change in anything? Or is it a representation a "present thing" WITHIN the Children, ...which the Children were just unaware of?
A newborn child has arms, legs, a mind, etc... and the ability to use them IS WITHIN them, ...but the revelation of this PRESENT ability TAKES TIME to unfold in THEIR EXPERIENCE and "OBSERVATION"...Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 05:50:12 PMMy take on angels is that it is simply a reference to messengers.
You are absolutely correct, however... there
ARE ...MESSENGERS... within the FINITE realm of TIME (apostles, human witnesses, etc), and messengers which are within and amongst and FROM the INFINITE (which includes both the finite and infinite)... "Gabriel for example"... was a "messenger" which was NOT finite... but was able to be a part of the FINITE realm because of the ordination of
YHVH for Gabriel, to be part of TIME's course according to
YHVH's PURPOSE for that realm...
JESUS CHRIST gives us another vision of one who WAS here, YET THERE simultaneously --
John 3:13 -- "paints"
CHRIST as HERE, yet THERE... His "ascension" was an event IN TIME, but was already a matter of INFINITY... INFINITY determines the TOTALITY of TIME and declares it to BE, even though it has yet to experience itself...
QuoteAn Apostle for example, is one I would call an Angel, as they are SENT with a message.
I don't disagree with this Paul... but FINITES are NOT the only messengers... We have visitation from the INFINITE, of messengers FROM the INFINITE... which have purposed involvement in the course of the FINITE, by God...
The point being that the messengers of the INFINITE actively partake in the realization and course of the FINITE, ...as the
PURPOSE of
YHVH is to reveal His INFINITE self, to the FINITE, which takes place
IN the FINITE... :heat: :pointlaugh:
...willieH :cloud9:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:40:31 PM
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Here we see that Jesus is made just like we are. He was a man. Shouldn't ALL Things means that He has the same capacity to sin as we do? The next verse answers:
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Check both Hebrews 2 and 5 to see the context in which the testing is:
15 and deliver all those who
through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
The testing described in both 2 and 5 is fear of death, the persecution of the world which Christ overcame.
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:55:13 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:30:00 PM
Then why did He have to LEARN obedience? If He just already was?
You just got through telling me that you never said he was disobedient. Are you now saying he was? I already told you how one can learn obedience without being disobedient.
QuoteSeth, if Jesus couldn't conceive of evil in His own heart then how could you consider Him to be a man?
Paul
I got done telling you he had to overcome an aspect of disobedience which is a reference to the Evil that would be conceived in his heart. If He conceives the evil in His heart and doesn't act on that evil then He has been obedient. I explained that before. I still don't understand your explaination of how one can be obedient if they could never be disobedient.
Quote
Yes I consider him to be a man without sin. Just like the scripture says.
No, you don't believe just like the scripture says. It says that Jesus was a man. A man conceives evil. You don't believe that Jesus conceives evil do you?
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:58:09 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:40:31 PM
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Here we see that Jesus is made just like we are. He was a man. Shouldn't ALL Things means that He has the same capacity to sin as we do? The next verse answers:
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
The verse here refutes any contrary claim. It shows that Jesus was indeed Tempted. It follows the flow of the previous verse as it pertains to being a man after the same likeness of his brothers. So Jesus was TEMPTED. This is a direct result of being made like unto His brethren. We can't break this verse away from the context and ascribe other meaning to it. Verse 18 shows that being tempted is in context with being made like His brothers.
Paul
He was make like unto his brothers APART FROM SIN. I did not deny that Jesus was tested. He suffered BEING tested, not feeling sin in his heart. Two different things. Being apart from sin, he was not subject to the flesh like we are. Spotless lamb.
Then if He was made like unto His brothers then He must be able to conceive sin in His heart then, correct? If not, what is He being tested for? He if couldn't be subject to the flesh and we are then He is not like us, correct?
Notice here that at no time did I say He sinned. I know your probably getting impatient with me comparing Him to a MAN but I do this because the alternative is to declare that He came not as a man and I believe that would be preaching the spirit of antichrist.
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:00:18 PM
willieH: Hi brother P... :hithere:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 05:50:12 PM
What do you mean by the statement that "they have always BEEN, as have we..."?
YHVH ...IS... ALL in ALL... He NEVER CHANGES... that things are occuring IN TIME which is a "PART" of ETERNITY, only means that ALL EVENTS in TIME are also IN HIM and HAVE "ALWAYS BEEN" within Him, yet UNREVEALED...
Example: Eventually, once our course in time is complete, we enter the realm of the Heavenly... Does "Heaven" find its origin in our vision? Or is its vision which has ALWAYS BEEN, being REVEALED (or -- as I believe, "RE-REVEALED") to us?
If you observe the Parable of the LOST SON... or the LOST COIN, or the LOST SHEEP... all of these were WITH the OWNER/Father, before becoming "LOST" (destroyed/Apollumi)... they BECAME LOST, then were RETRIEVED... and found themselves where they were BEFORE they became LOST.
YHVH God's "creation" always IS... for it lies WITHIN Him -- Acts 17:28 ...IN HIM, we live and move and have our BEING...
If in fact we are IN HIM... and HE never CHANGES... then we have ALWAYS "BEEN", ...IN HIM...
We stand on a FINITE platform and are unable to BEHOLD the INFINITE for it is beyond us to SEE (unrevealed to us), however... the INFINITE (which YHVH IS) beholds the FINITE (time and its participants) before it actually ...IS... (in its chronology) and then REVEALS it to IT, ...in its observance of ITSELF... :laughing7:
THIS realm is ALWAYS a part of ETERNITY, but the events which occur in this REALM, once revealed are not PRACTICED in ETERNITY, other than within the course of TIME... which (time) is SPENT in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... to the CHILDREN of YHVH which have ALWAYS BEEN...
Example: I know things my grandchildren do not know... Does the knowledge that I hold, begin with them "learning it"? Or has it been present all along... and they ARE unaware of its presence? And does that "revelation" find that the knowledge represents a change in anything? Or is it a representation a "present thing" WITHIN the Children, ...which the Children were just unaware of?
A newborn child has arms, legs, a mind, etc... and the ability to use them IS WITHIN them, ...but the revelation of this PRESENT ability TAKES TIME to unfold in THEIR EXPERIENCE and "OBSERVATION"...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 05:50:12 PMMy take on angels is that it is simply a reference to messengers.
You are absolutely correct, however... there ARE ...MESSENGERS... within the FINITE realm of TIME (apostles, human witnesses, etc), and messengers which are within and amongst and FROM the INFINITE (which includes both the finite and infinite)... "Gabriel for example"... was a "messenger" which was NOT finite... but was able to be a part of the FINITE realm because of the ordination of YHVH for Gabriel, to be part of TIME's course according to YHVH's PURPOSE for that realm...
JESUS CHRIST gives us another vision of one who WAS here, YET THERE simultaneously -- John 3:13 -- "paints" CHRIST as HERE, yet THERE... His "ascension" was an event IN TIME, but was already a matter of INFINITY... INFINITY determines the TOTALITY of TIME and declares it to BE, even though it has yet to experience itself...
QuoteAn Apostle for example, is one I would call an Angel, as they are SENT with a message.
I don't disagree with this Paul... but FINITES are NOT the only messengers... We have visitation from the INFINITE, of messengers FROM the INFINITE... which have purposed involvement in the course of the FINITE, by God...
The point being that the messengers of the INFINITE actively partake in the realization and course of the FINITE, ...as the PURPOSE of YHVH is to reveal His INFINITE self, to the FINITE, which takes place IN the FINITE... :heat: :pointlaugh:
...willieH :cloud9:
I agree with a lot of what you said there Willie. My view of Jesus is as this:
I see Jesus as being born of a virgin by divine direction. But I see Him being born AS a man and became aware or LEARNED that He was the Christ and because He was givin that Spirit of God, that He was able to learn and partake of things that are heavenly. I don't see Jesus has having always existed. I do see the Word of God as having always existed. I know that Jesus is called the Word of God but I think that is because the Word of God made a home in the man Jesus. Had not that man had the Holy Spirit from birth and had been born of the virgin then I believe He would have simply grown to be like any other man.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 11:03:21 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:40:31 PM
Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Here we see that Jesus is made just like we are. He was a man. Shouldn't ALL Things means that He has the same capacity to sin as we do? The next verse answers:
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
Check both Hebrews 2 and 5 to see the context in which the testing is:
15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery.
16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham.
The testing described in both 2 and 5 is fear of death, the persecution of the world which Christ overcame.
Again, though don't you believe that Jesus should be made just as we are? We can conceive sin in our heart. Shouldn't Jesus have this ability?
Paul
willieH: Hi brother Seth... :hithere:
Btw... it's great having you around these parts again! :friendstu:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:30:00 PM
Then why did He have to LEARN obedience? If He just already was?
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:55:13 PMYou just got through telling me that you never said he was disobedient. Are you now saying he was? I already told you how one can learn obedience without being disobedient.
One cannot "learn"
obedience, unless
DISOBEDIENCE has been presented to one as an option... And that is what TEMPTATION ...does and IS...
If it were NOT POSSIBLE that when the TEMPTATION was presented to
CHRIST, He could not submit to it, then the "OVERCOMING" of TEMPTATION does not actually occur!
The "TEMPTATION" was "OVERCOME" because it was NOT POSSIBLE to DISOBEY... not by OBEDIENCE.
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 10:30:00 PMSeth, if Jesus couldn't conceive of evil in His own heart then how could you consider Him to be a man?
Quote from: Seth on July 03, 2009, 10:55:13 PMYes I consider him to be a man without sin. Just like the scripture says.
But Scripture ALSO SAYS that he WAS
TEMPTED (God cannot be tempted) and therefore TEMPTATION was PART of
CHRIST's experience as a
MAN... which does not equate to SINNING... SINNING is found within the submission to the TEMPTATION...
CHRIST was a
MAN --
1 Tim 2:6 -- Luke 19:10 -- and EVERY
MAN is
TEMPTED in the SAME WAY:
James 1:14 --
but EVERY MAN... [including the "man" CHRIST] ...is TEMPTED, when he is drawn away of his own lust [desire] and enticed...THIS, does NOT mean that one "ENTICED" is SINNING or has SINNED... it is when the ENTICEMENT is
INDULGED [concieved] that SIN is born:
James 1:15 --
THEN, ...when LUST hath CONCIEVED [has been indulged], it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished, bringeth forth death......willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:23:18 PM
I agree with a lot of what you said there Willie. My view of Jesus is as this:
I see Jesus as being born of a virgin by divine direction. But I see Him being born AS a man and became aware or LEARNED that He was the Christ and because He was givin that Spirit of God, that He was able to learn and partake of things that are heavenly. I don't see Jesus has having always existed. I do see the Word of God as having always existed. I know that Jesus is called the Word of God but I think that is because the Word of God made a home in the man Jesus. Had not that man had the Holy Spirit from birth and had been born of the virgin then I believe He would have simply grown to be like any other man.
Paul
That's fine... you are welcome to see things as you do... and only the Holy Spirit of God can further reveal to either of us... guess we shall agree to disagree for the moment concerning the "ETERNAL" state of the Children of the MOST HIGH... :cloud9:
The Parable of the LOST SON, as I said, showed Him as WITH the Father, ...leaving (where he was), then RETURNING (to where he was)...
You cannot LEAVE or RETURN to a place or situation that you have never been in... :reachout:
ALL SONS of GOD are ETERNAL --
Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32 -- You cannot "become"
LOST unless you were
NOT LOST to begin with... :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:42:07 PM
The Parable of the LOST SON, as I said, showed Him as WITH the Father, ...leaving (where he was), then RETURNING (to where he was)...
But it is the Him then where we differ, if indeed we do differ. For the Him, that I see as always being with the Father is the Word of God. After all, it is His actual words. When I speak anything, then those words that I spoke were actually with me at one time and wherever they go they are still mine, I'm the copyright owner to them. They contain attributes of my being.
Quote
You cannot LEAVE or RETURN to a place or situation that you have never been in... :reachout:
ALL SONS of GOD are ETERNAL -- Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32 -- You cannot "become" LOST unless you were NOT LOST to begin with... :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
I believe that once we share that same "being" of God that we then can claim to have always been. So I don't see Jesus as having been born as having ALWAYS BEEN, but once HE was "perfected", then He had always been because He was then that which always was.
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:00:18 PM
THIS realm is ALWAYS a part of ETERNITY, but the events which occur in this REALM, once revealed are not PRACTICED in ETERNITY, other than within the course of TIME... which (time) is SPENT in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... to the CHILDREN of YHVH which have ALWAYS BEEN...
If this realm is always part of eternity...
do we only each experience this realm once?
Or is it always here in case we have to... :sigh: come back to learn or re-learn or learn again, or whatever.
eek.
can't help but think, when I die, I just want to go home and never leave home ever again.
I do have a lot of thoughts about us existing before. So I AM following you on those thoughts, Willie. The thought that this realm is eternal kind of depresses me, though.
Man, I just want to go home.
willieH: Hi Paul... :hithere:
I agree, it is possible that we agree but are expressing with words and viewing with eyes, differently... something we see the same... :mshock:
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:42:07 PM
The Parable of the LOST SON, as I said, showed Him as WITH the Father, ...leaving (where he was), then RETURNING (to where he was)...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMBut it is the Him then where we differ, if indeed we do differ. For the Him, that I see as always being with the Father is the Word of God. After all, it is His actual words. When I speak anything, then those words that I spoke were actually with me at one time and wherever they go they are still mine, I'm the copyright owner to them. They contain attributes of my being.
THIS is my point, bro! We are
YHVH and HE is US... if indeed He
IS "ALL in ALL"...
That He NEVER CHANGES means to me, that He never "becomes" anything... He already IS what He CONTINUALLY, ...IS...
That it is HIS
WORD which "created" Creation, means that the Creation is an EXTENSION of HIM and HIS
WORD...
If this indeed is so... then WE are HIM and HE is US... :dontknow: And THAT is what is BEING REVEALED by this experience in TIME...
The "Creation" is that which proceeds from the MOUTH of GOD... the INVISIBLE
WORD, manifest in VISIBLE terms...
And the REVEALING of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL within the HEART of
YHVH...
Quote from: willieH
You cannot LEAVE or RETURN to a place or situation that you have never been in... :reachout:
ALL SONS of GOD are ETERNAL -- Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32 -- You cannot "become" LOST unless you were NOT LOST to begin with... :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMI believe that once we share that same "being" of God that we then can claim to have always been.
The words you use above "once we" and "then" are TIME oriented terms Paul... and thereby are a "TIME oriented" vision of the ETERNAL...
The only view of the ETERNAL which is indeed valid is the ETERNAL vision of it... GOD calls things that "are not" (in terms of time) as though they were... Which means that from ETERNAL perspective... what GOD declares from His INFINITE position, is ALREADY so... and shall "to the letter" occur in the FINITE realm of TIME, as it is DECLARED from the INFINITE realm of ETERNITY...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMSo I don't see Jesus as having been born as having ALWAYS BEEN, but once HE was "perfected", then He had always been because He was then that which always was.
Again, this is (in part) describing
JESUS from TIME's perspective, instead of completely from HIS ETERNAL state which ...
IS... and which He noted to already be a fact --
John 8:58John 8:58 ...BEFORE Abraham WAS [time confined - finite being] ... I AM [unconfined - infinite being]If the
WORD is ETERNAL... than ALL which proceeds or manifests, FROM IT ...is ETERNAL as well... and is OFFSPRING of it...
Man does not LIVE by bread alone, but [lives or becomes animate] by EVERY
WORD which proceedeth from the MOUTH of GOD... for EVERY
WORD which proceeds from the mouth of GOD, ...is ALIVE and LIFE ITSELF...
If GOD's
WORD brought Creation forth... then Creation is nothing but the MANIFESTATION and EXTENSION of the
WORD, and if it is (which it IS), ...then it has the same ETERNAL state, being an EXTENSION or MANIFESTATION of that
WORD...
...willieH :HeartThrob:
willieH: Hi sister Sparrow... :hithere:
Quote from: sparrow on July 04, 2009, 12:41:42 AM
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:00:18 PM
THIS realm is ALWAYS a part of ETERNITY, but the events which occur in this REALM, once revealed are not PRACTICED in ETERNITY, other than within the course of TIME... which (time) is SPENT in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... to the CHILDREN of YHVH which have ALWAYS BEEN...
If this realm is always part of eternity...
do we only each experience this realm once?
Or is it always here in case we have to... :sigh: come back to learn or re-learn or learn again, or whatever.
eek.
can't help but think, when I die, I just want to go home and never leave home ever again.
I do have a lot of thoughts about us existing before. So I AM following you on those thoughts, Willie. The thought that this realm is eternal kind of depresses me, though.
Man, I just want to go home.
Don't worry sis... NO
"in case we have to come back"...
God is well able to teach us all, in the lifetime HE gives each of us, here in time... all that we need to "KNOW", and what part we play in the "interactive" REVELATION of the "KNOWLEDGE"... :grouppray:
This realm will not BE ETERNAL... but is WITHIN Eternity... which means that its manifestation (where EVIL and GOOD have been contrasted) has ETERNAL implications...
The reason for this realm is the outward EXPRESSION of GOD's HEART... which KNOWS Good and Evil... The only way EVIL can be shown for what it IS... is for it to be MANIFEST for ALL to see... and to FOREVER know...
Don't be depressed sis...
You will traverse this life in TIME, ...ONCE... then you shall be done with it... And IN that experience, you will ETERNALLY KNOW the JOY and LOVE of GOOD... and NEVER AGAIN experience the EVIL which contrasts it, and which by your KNOWLEDGE OF IT... shall MAGNIFY that LOVE and GOOD, FOREVER...
...willieH :egyptdance:
Quote from: willieH on July 04, 2009, 01:03:56 AM
willieH: Hi sister Sparrow... :hithere:
Quote from: sparrow on July 04, 2009, 12:41:42 AM
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:00:18 PM
THIS realm is ALWAYS a part of ETERNITY, but the events which occur in this REALM, once revealed are not PRACTICED in ETERNITY, other than within the course of TIME... which (time) is SPENT in the REVELATION of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL... to the CHILDREN of YHVH which have ALWAYS BEEN...
If this realm is always part of eternity...
do we only each experience this realm once?
Or is it always here in case we have to... :sigh: come back to learn or re-learn or learn again, or whatever.
eek.
can't help but think, when I die, I just want to go home and never leave home ever again.
I do have a lot of thoughts about us existing before. So I AM following you on those thoughts, Willie. The thought that this realm is eternal kind of depresses me, though.
Man, I just want to go home.
Don't worry sis... NO "in case we have to come back"...
God is well able to teach us all, in the lifetime HE gives each of us, here in time... all that we need to "KNOW", and what part we play in the "interactive" REVELATION of the "KNOWLEDGE"... :grouppray:
This realm will not BE ETERNAL... but is WITHIN Eternity... which means that its manifestation (where EVIL and GOOD have been contrasted) has ETERNAL implications...
The reason for this realm is the outward EXPRESSION of GOD's HEART... which KNOWS Good and Evil... The only way EVIL can be shown for what it IS... is for it to be MANIFEST for ALL to see... and to FOREVER know...
Don't be depressed sis...
You will traverse this life in TIME, ...ONCE... then you shall be done with it... And IN that experience, you will ETERNALLY KNOW the JOY and LOVE of GOOD... and NEVER AGAIN experience the EVIL which contrasts it, and which by your KNOWLEDGE OF IT... shall MAGNIFY that LOVE and GOOD, FOREVER...
...willieH :egyptdance:
Willie... :girlheart:
I'm so glad and thankful that you see it that way.
I really understand what you're saying.It's what is in my heart!
God bless you, bro!
:HeartThrob:,
sparrow
getting in my :2c:
i agree,with paul(ttretep)
we will be like him(jesus)...as we overcome the flesh and walk in the spirit...I hope that manifestation comes soon.
blessings
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
willieH: Hi Paul... :cloud9:
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 07:22:21 AM
The real question is how you can connect the two verses to make Satan into billions of beings through out the ages?
Forget "billions of beings" --- where does it ever indicate in SCRIPTURE that "satan" is even ONE BEING? :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
John 8:44 You are of your father,
the Adversary, and the desires of your father you are wanting to do.
He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in
him. Whenever
he may be speaking a lie,
he is speaking of his own, for
he is a liar, and the father of it." :thumbsup:
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 04, 2009, 12:51:26 AM
willieH: Hi Paul... :hithere:
I agree, it is possible that we agree but are expressing with words and viewing with eyes, differently... something we see the same... :mshock:
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:42:07 PM
The Parable of the LOST SON, as I said, showed Him as WITH the Father, ...leaving (where he was), then RETURNING (to where he was)...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMBut it is the Him then where we differ, if indeed we do differ. For the Him, that I see as always being with the Father is the Word of God. After all, it is His actual words. When I speak anything, then those words that I spoke were actually with me at one time and wherever they go they are still mine, I'm the copyright owner to them. They contain attributes of my being.
THIS is my point, bro! We are YHVH and HE is US... if indeed He IS "ALL in ALL"...
That He NEVER CHANGES means to me, that He never "becomes" anything... He already IS what He CONTINUALLY, ...IS...
That it is HIS WORD which "created" Creation, means that the Creation is an EXTENSION of HIM and HIS WORD...
If this indeed is so... then WE are HIM and HE is US... :dontknow: And THAT is what is BEING REVEALED by this experience in TIME...
The "Creation" is that which proceeds from the MOUTH of GOD... the INVISIBLE WORD, manifest in VISIBLE terms...
And the REVEALING of the KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL within the HEART of YHVH...
Quote from: willieH
You cannot LEAVE or RETURN to a place or situation that you have never been in... :reachout:
ALL SONS of GOD are ETERNAL -- Job 38:7 -- Luke 15:11-32 -- You cannot "become" LOST unless you were NOT LOST to begin with... :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMI believe that once we share that same "being" of God that we then can claim to have always been.
The words you use above "once we" and "then" are TIME oriented terms Paul... and thereby are a "TIME oriented" vision of the ETERNAL...
The only view of the ETERNAL which is indeed valid is the ETERNAL vision of it... GOD calls things that "are not" (in terms of time) as though they were... Which means that from ETERNAL perspective... what GOD declares from His INFINITE position, is ALREADY so... and shall "to the letter" occur in the FINITE realm of TIME, as it is DECLARED from the INFINITE realm of ETERNITY...
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:52:51 PMSo I don't see Jesus as having been born as having ALWAYS BEEN, but once HE was "perfected", then He had always been because He was then that which always was.
Again, this is (in part) describing JESUS from TIME's perspective, instead of completely from HIS ETERNAL state which ...IS... and which He noted to already be a fact -- John 8:58
John 8:58 ...BEFORE Abraham WAS [time confined - finite being] ... I AM [unconfined - infinite being]
If the WORD is ETERNAL... than ALL which proceeds or manifests, FROM IT ...is ETERNAL as well... and is OFFSPRING of it...
Man does not LIVE by bread alone, but [lives or becomes animate] by EVERY WORD which proceedeth from the MOUTH of GOD... for EVERY WORD which proceeds from the mouth of GOD, ...is ALIVE and LIFE ITSELF...
If GOD's WORD brought Creation forth... then Creation is nothing but the MANIFESTATION and EXTENSION of the WORD, and if it is (which it IS), ...then it has the same ETERNAL state, being an EXTENSION or MANIFESTATION of that WORD...
...willieH :HeartThrob:
I don't know about those perspectives Willie. I will have to think about them more. My mind tells me that finite can exist in more finite and Jesus spoke to us via a finite perspective which is in the context of an aion. So while it is understood that God is eternal and that there is time eternal it is still context that is finite and discussed by Him from the finite perspective. Even that which is not finite is communicated via the finite since we are in that context when the word "aionios" is used. To me that word is means "age-enduring" which is defines a continuing point but not an end point. And that the end point is actually concealed from our understanding. In other words, I believe Jesus spoke to us from the perspective of a time that is finite to communicate to us what is not finite.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
No my friend...
Christ is simply a title! The Hebrew word Messiah is written in the Greek as Christ. Messiah and Christ are the same word in different languages! The both mean the same thing...
"The Anointed one." Nothing more, nothing less!
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 03:04:28 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
No my friend...
Christ is simply a title! The Hebrew word Messiah is written in the Greek as Christ. Messiah and Christ are the same word in different languages! The both mean the same thing... "The Anointed one." Nothing more, nothing less!
Paul
But you see Paul, in the scriptures Jesus says He is the "Son of Man" and other times He is called the "Son of God". See I'm not alone in making this distinction when even Jesus Christ Himself makes it. And Yes your right the meaning of Christ is "The Annointed". But it is this ANNOINTING that is divine. A man is not divine without it. So if we call Jesus a man then there is an aspect that can't be divine.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 03:04:28 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
No my friend...
Christ is simply a title! The Hebrew word Messiah is written in the Greek as Christ. Messiah and Christ are the same word in different languages! The both mean the same thing... "The Anointed one." Nothing more, nothing less!
Paul
But you see Paul, in the scriptures Jesus says He is the "Son of Man" and other times He is called the "Son of God". See I'm not alone in making this distinction when even Jesus Christ Himself makes it. And Yes your right the meaning of Christ is "The Annointed". But it is this ANNOINTING that is divine. A man is not divine without it. So if we call Jesus a man then there is an aspect that can't be divine.
Paul
Why do you refuse to believe Jesus...
Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me,
a man who has told you the truth,
which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were
never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus'. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:
"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was
not included in the formula. It was included
fifty-six years later at another council. Let's see what this title really means:
Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God's first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah
"Son of God" for he is Israel's representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).
"Son of God" denotes an
intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman's contention that the Hebrew concept of
"son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the
"son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His
"son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.
For Paul,
"Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing
"the Son's solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204).
Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of
"Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God's
anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the
ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the
ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be
synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the
same thing. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:
"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation: Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man applies to Mark's gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:
"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."This is the meaning of the title
"Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the
closest and most
intimate relationship with the Father. Let's take a look at some verses to confirm this.
"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"... "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"... "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).
Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles;
Messiah, king of Zion, and son. "He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"..."Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).
John cannot be clearer on this title; the
Son of God is the
King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its
Jewish authorPaul
Hi Paul, I believe that Jesus Christ is the a Son of Man and Son of God.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
I can't argue with scripture. It tells me that Jesus is the Son of God.
Paul
:cloud9: Trettep (Paul) I see what you are saying and I agree. He has shown me the same things regarding His humanity and having to be taught of His Father. The Seed was not flesh and blood, but it appeared in flesh and blood. All seeds bear fruit after their own kind. His kind was the Father. Blessings...
Matthew 22:45
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mark 12:37
David therefore himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he then his son? And the common people heard him gladly.
1FROM PAUL, a bond servant of Jesus Christ (the Messiah) called to be an apostle, (a special messenger) set apart to [preach] the Gospel (good news) of and from God,
2Which He promised in advance [long ago] through His prophets in the sacred Scriptures--
3[The Gospel] regarding His Son, Who as to the flesh (His human nature) was descended from David,
4And [as to His divine nature] according to the Spirit of holiness was openly designated the Son of God in power [in a striking, triumphant and miraculous manner] by His resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord (the Messiah, the Anointed One).
5It is through Him that we have received grace (God's unmerited favor) and [our] apostleship to promote obedience to the faith and make disciples for His name's sake among all the nations,
6And this includes you, called of Jesus Christ and invited [as you are] to belong to Him.
--Romans 1
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 04:10:40 AM
Hi Paul, I believe that Jesus Christ is the a Son of Man and Son of God.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
I can't argue with scripture. It tells me that Jesus is the Son of God.
Paul
Reading this again--
20And we [have seen and] know [positively] that the Son of God has [actually] come to this world and has given us understanding and insight [progressively] to perceive (recognize) and come to know better and more clearly Him Who is true; and we are in Him Who is true--in His Son Jesus Christ (the Messiah). This [Man] is the true God and Life eternal.--1 John 5
John 11:26
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
:cloud9: Amen, how 'bout that Molly? How indeed could He be David's son if David called Him Lord...... :laughing7: Blessings..... :girlheart:
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 04:10:40 AM
Hi Paul, I believe that Jesus Christ is the a Son of Man and Son of God.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
I can't argue with scripture. It tells me that Jesus is the Son of God.
Paul
I think you do not, I can tell from your post...
QuoteI'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
You can not separate Jesus from his title... which is God's anointed one! (the Christ/Messiah).
Yes, most of us are more familiar with the Greek translation of this word, which is
"Christos" or
"Christ" in English. People have made this title of Jesus into Jesus' surname. But it is
not his name, it is his [/b]title. Jesus Christ means Jesus the Christ (Messiah). When we say that we are Christians, we are saying that we are
Messiahnist, or followers of the Messiah. The definition of Messiah has been practically lost.
Let us see what the
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible has to say about the word "Messiah".
Messiah - Hebrew word signifying
"one who has been anointed." The anointed
agent of Yahweh. The kings of Israel were anointed with oil in the name of God, which symbolized his investiture with the Spirit of God. The term Messiah was later used to designate a
"future king," an expected royal leader from the line of David who would restore the kingdom to Israel. A
king who would make all things new, consecrated as
Yahweh's vicegerent in Israel. This son of David, who was expected by the Jewish nation, was the Messiah par excellence, a term that has been rendered in Greek by
Christos (New American Bible & The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (ZEB), vol.2, pg. 344).
That the Messiah is supposed to be a
king is a well-known fact by anyone who has studied the Bible in depth. Because it was customary to anoint kings, the
phrase "The LORD's anointed" became a synonym for
"king" (ZEB, vol.1, pg. 171). This fact can be verified by many verses. Even on the cross the inscription read,
"The king of the Jews" (Mark 15:26). I will cover a few verses and then list some more for your own study:
Mark 15:32:
"Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross."John 1:40 & 49:
"We have found the Messiah...Rabbi, you are the Son of God; the king of Israel."Luke 19:38:
"Blessed is the king (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord (YHWH).Other verses: Jeremiah 23:5, Daniel 7:13, Psalms 2:6, Zechariah 9:9, Acts 17:7, 2 Timothy 4:1. There are many more.
The Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg.200 says:
"If God's purpose is not to be defeated, the true Messiah = King as God's authentic Servant is the only answer. In Heb. Categories the remedy is centered upon a person and not upon an abstract doctrine or an ideal system. There can be no Messianic kingdom without God's anointed King."As we can see, the Messiah is an
actual king of Israel, the
ideal king of Israel. He is a
man who is
anointed by God's spirit. The Messiah is able to perform mighty signs because God has
anointed him with
His Spirit, not because he is God. It is
God working through Jesus.
These three verses explain this point better than I ever could:
Acts 10:38:
"how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him." Acts 2:22:
"Jesus of Nazareth was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know."Acts 17:31:
"Because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a man he has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead." All the Old Testament Messianic prophecies speak of
a man anointed by God's Spirit. None of them mention that the Messiah is supposed to be God. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol.4 pg.201 states of the Messiah:
"But at all times he is the one who acts in the power and under the guidance of the God of Israel."The confusion lies in that God did not come AS Jesus, He came IN Jesus.
Peace,
Paul
Quote from: Cardinal on July 04, 2009, 05:07:09 AM
:cloud9: Amen, how 'bout that Molly? How indeed could He be David's son if David called Him Lord...... :laughing7: Blessings..... :girlheart:
Psalms 110:1 is an
important O.T. verse that Has God telling us His relationship to His Son.
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psa 110:1) A Psalm of David.
Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament.
It's importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus. Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is "the oracle of Yahweh" (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse. He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God,
but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.
The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is
adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word,
Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (
Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (
adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11).
Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others.
Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, in Psalms 110:1.
adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic)
lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).
Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [
Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my
lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord[here the word is
Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [
adoni]."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states "The form
Adoni ('my lord'), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title
Adonai ('Lord') used of Yahweh.
Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from
adoni [with short vowel] = 'my lords.'"
Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States "lord in the Old Testament is used to translate
Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative."
If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would
not have used "my lord" (
adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah-
Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.
Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that
this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's "lord" (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus.
Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.
Peace,
Paul
Oh great. I'm satan and Jesus is just a man. Things are taking a turn for the worse. :laughing7:
These things have to be discerned spiritually, or you can get yourself in a real mess by over-intellectualizing it.
Maybe that's why those great intellectuals, the Pharisees, stoned Steven --He was making them crazy--
51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
--Acts 7
:cloud9: You ever wonder why His ministry didn't start till age 30? How did God as flesh stand by and see poverty, sickness, and death all around Him prior to age 30, and do nothing? Blessings....
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:57:22 AM
Oh great. I'm satan and Jesus is just a man. Things are taking a turn for the worse. :laughing7:
These things have to be discerned spiritually, or you can get yourself in a real mess by over-intellectualizing it.
Maybe that's why those great intellectuals, the Pharisees, stoned Steven --He was making them crazy--
51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
--Acts 7
What is Jesus teaching Molly?
John 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father (God) , the hour has come; glorify Your Son (Jesus ) , that the Son (Jesus) may glorify You, (God) 2 even as
You (God)
gave Him (Jesus )
authority over all flesh, that to all whom You (God) have given Him, (Jesus ) He may give eternal life. John 17:3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You (God),
the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You (God) have sent.
Molly, why does Jesus, call himself a man, and the Father...the one true God? Aionan life is in knowing the Answer!!
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 11:34:49 PM
willieH: Hi brother Seth... :hithere:
Btw... it's great having you around these parts again! :friendstu:
Hi Willie, it's been great talking to you again. :cloud9:
QuoteOne cannot "learn" obedience, unless DISOBEDIENCE has been presented to one as an option... And that is what TEMPTATION ...does and IS...
If it were NOT POSSIBLE that when the TEMPTATION was presented to CHRIST, He could not submit to it, then the "OVERCOMING" of TEMPTATION does not actually occur!
The "TEMPTATION" was "OVERCOME" because it was NOT POSSIBLE to DISOBEY... not by OBEDIENCE.
This I disagree with. One can learn obedience without disobedience being an option. By the way, I know you are well versed and totally correct about God's sovereignty, so the idea of "possible disobedience" is curious. Consider this, one can learn obedience by starting as a blank slate, neither disobedient nor obedient. Then, one can learn obedience by being grown in it, without necessitating disobedience. Here is a practical example: I can teach my child not to touch the stove, not becuase my child may have touched it, or even wanted to touch it. However, if I sit my child down and explain and show her how hot it gets, she can learn obedience to that rule without ever having to touch the stove first, or having wanted to touch it.
You say something interesting "when the temptation was PRESENTED" That is the distinguishing factor that recognizes that Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmity apart from sin. There is a difference between a temptation PRESENTED and a temptation ENTERING. Christ overcame the the temptation presented, by being without sin in his mind.
QuoteBut Scripture ALSO SAYS that he WAS TEMPTED (God cannot be tempted) and therefore TEMPTATION was PART of CHRIST's experience as a MAN... which does not equate to SINNING... SINNING is found within the submission to the TEMPTATION...
CHRIST was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6 -- Luke 19:10 -- and EVERY MAN is TEMPTED in the SAME WAY:
James 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN... [including the "man" CHRIST] ...is TEMPTED, when he is drawn away of his own lust [desire] and enticed...
THIS, does NOT mean that one "ENTICED" is SINNING or has SINNED... it is when the ENTICEMENT is INDULGED [concieved] that SIN is born:
James 1:15 -- THEN, ...when LUST hath CONCIEVED [has been indulged], it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished, bringeth forth death...
Again, the James scripture is talking about sin in trespass. Jesus talked about sin within the heart. He that looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery already in his heart. JAMES is talking about when the sin in the heart (lust) becomes sin worked outwardly.
Jesus was without sin. Yes it does say he was tested, but it never says that the temptation ENTERED IN.
:HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:13:13 PM
No, you don't believe just like the scripture says. It says that Jesus was a man. A man conceives evil. You don't believe that Jesus conceives evil do you?
Paul
I sure do believe what scripture says. It says that Jesus was made flesh. It says that when the Spirit is in us, we are not in the flesh. It says that Jesus had the Spirit without measure. It says that Christ was a man without sin. It literally says all those things. Yes, a man thinks evil thoughts, when he is not apart from sin.
QuoteThen if He was made like unto His brothers then He must be able to conceive sin in His heart then, correct? If not, what is He being tested for? He if couldn't be subject to the flesh and we are then He is not like us, correct?
Notice here that at no time did I say He sinned. I know your probably getting impatient with me comparing Him to a MAN but I do this because the alternative is to declare that He came not as a man and I believe that would be preaching the spirit of antichrist.
Paul you are not considering ALL scripture in your analysis, and are taking single scriptures and setting them up as blanket statements without comparing scripture to scripture. This will always have bad results. For example:
"Then if He was made like unto His brothers then He must be able to conceive sin in His heart then, correct? If not, what is He being tested for? He if couldn't be subject to the flesh and we are then He is not like us, correct?"
Let's look at all the EXCEPTIONS to Christ being made like unto his brothers.
1) Christ had the Spirit without measure. Did his brothers?
NO.2) Christ was the word made flesh. Were his brothers?
NO.3) Christ was ONE with his Father. Were his brothers?
NO.4) Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Were his brothers?
NO.5) Christ was without sin. Were his brothers?
NO.If you continue to set up one "all" scripture as a blanket without acknowledging the exceptions, you will be wrong.
You say:
Notice here that at no time did I say He sinned. I know your probably getting impatient with me comparing Him to a MAN but I do this because the alternative is to declare that He came not as a man and I believe that would be preaching the spirit of antichrist.You are falling into a judgment of my motives by saying that I am getting impatient with you comparing him to a man. Don't judge my motives, stick to the conversation. Here is the reason I am not impatient with you comparing him to a man: I ALREADY SAID THAT HE IS A MAN. :wacko2:
What I also said is that he was a man APART FROM SIN, which is what the Bible says. At no time did you say he committed a sin, but you are saying that His MIND was disobedient to God by virtue of claiming that his
mind was CARNAL. NOWHERE in scripture will you EVER find at ANY time a scripture that claims that Jesus Christ had a carnal mind. The Scripture OUTRIGHT PROVES that his mind was SPIRITUAL.
I assure you Paul, Jesus Christ had the mind of his Father in Heaven.
Quote from: PieracMolly, why does Jesus, call himself a man, and the Father...the one true God? Aionan life is in knowing the Answer!!
well, I'm pretty tired, and what you are presenting requires a complicated discussion, so I'm not sure I should even try. But, I'll say a few things. Jesus is our forerunner. He is the Way. In that respect, everything he does not only fulfills prophecy, it shows us the way. He is the road, so to speak, --walk down this narrow path and you will get there. So, he makes John baptize him, for instance, even though John is scandalized by the thought (I am not worthy to even tie your shoes). Why? Because he is giving us a pattern to follow, step by step. The pattern is rooted in the natural (Son of Adam) and then it takes flight into the heavenlies [Son of God]. But, John tells us that in the beginning, it started in the heavenlies. He is the Word become flesh--and God has promised us he will write his laws on our minds and hearts--and give us a new heart of flesh. Everything Jesus does on earth, we will do, and greater.
God is Spirit and we are to worship him in spirit. We are not to worship a man--we are to worship God. This is a warning that men continually break to their destruction. But Jesus--
Hebrews 1:6
And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
"fulness'G4138
πλήρωμα
plērōmaplay'-ro-mah
From G4137; repletion or
completion, that is, (subjectively) what fills (as contents, supplement, copiousness, multitude), or (objectively) what is filled (as container, performance, period): - which is put in to fill up, piece that filled up, fulfilling, full, fulness.
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:27:33 AM
Let's look at all the EXCEPTIONS to Christ being made like unto his brothers.
1) Christ had the Spirit without measure. Did his brothers? NO.
2) Christ was the word made flesh. Were his brothers? NO.
3) Christ was ONE with his Father. Were his brothers? NO.
4) Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Were his brothers? NO.
5) Christ was without sin. Were his brothers? NO.
:cloud9: Hi; some points to think on. If you understand the High Calling in Christ Jesus that Paul sought but was out of season for, you understand that ALL ALL ALL of these things are going to be said of those that press in to receive it. And that pressing in requires pressing in past the flesh of Him, because hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Only begotten Son is quite interesting, as Romans 8 talks about all of creation waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. Only begotten means there won't be another one, but because God's Seed is Spirit and is the Word that was from the foundation, we can and have all partaken of that Seed, which has been busy creating a many-membered body, that is also Spirit and will also be the Word made flesh.
There is terrestrial flesh and celestial flesh, and that which is celestial within is going to swallow up that which is terrestrial, ie. mortality swallowed of immortality. Immortality means no more sin, or there could be no immortality. These are they that will know the meaning of, you can't have the Son without the Father, nor the Father without the Son, and to do greater works as He said we would do, means we too must be given the Spirit without measure.
Jesus was the pattern Son, the forerunner of those that enter in behind the veil (High Priestly calling in Christ Jesus), and if there is a forerunner, that means more are to follow. We did not receive His Seed except to be given an opportunity to become firstfruits, the firstfruits of the resurrection (Seed came up out of the earth it was planted in = us). Blessings....
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 03:38:31 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 03:04:28 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 09:53:31 PM
Seth read this:
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Heb 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This is talking about Jesus. He had to LEARN. He had to reach perfection. He couldn't reach that perfection unless He overcame that nature of man that He was. I'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
Paul
No my friend...
Christ is simply a title! The Hebrew word Messiah is written in the Greek as Christ. Messiah and Christ are the same word in different languages! The both mean the same thing... "The Anointed one." Nothing more, nothing less!
Paul
But you see Paul, in the scriptures Jesus says He is the "Son of Man" and other times He is called the "Son of God". See I'm not alone in making this distinction when even Jesus Christ Himself makes it. And Yes your right the meaning of Christ is "The Annointed". But it is this ANNOINTING that is divine. A man is not divine without it. So if we call Jesus a man then there is an aspect that can't be divine.
Paul
Why do you refuse to believe Jesus...
Joh 8:40 "But as it is, you are seeking to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God; this Abraham did not do.
Son of God - This title for Jesus has been given meanings and attributes that were never intended. People have erroneously used the human father-son relationship to describe this title of Jesus'. They have thought that since a human son has the actual essence (made of the same matter) of his father, that therefore, this title implies that Jesus being the Son of God is of the same essence of God. This conclusion will lead you right into the Doctrine of the Trinity. This is the formula they adopted at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD when they said:
"The Son is of the same substance as the Father."
It was at this council that Jesus was first made God. The Holy Spirit interestingly enough was not included in the formula. It was included fifty-six years later at another council. Let's see what this title really means:
Son of God - In the Old Testament Israel is described as God's first-born (Exodus 4:22) and is called His son. There is therefore precedence for calling the Messiah "Son of God" for he is Israel's representative par excellence (ZEB, vol.4, pg.203-204).
"Son of God" denotes an intimate relationship with the Father. It is obvious that sonship must not be understood in a crude pagan way. This bears out Dalman's contention that the Hebrew concept of "son" does not denote an extensive circle of relationships" (ZEB, vol.4, pg. 205). Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:38), God calls King Solomon His "son" in 1 Chronicles 28:6.
For Paul, "Son of God" is essentially a Christological description expressing "the Son's solidarity with God" (ZEB, vol.4, pg.204). Closeness to the Father is the basic meaning of "Son of God"(Ibid). This closeness was a relationship that was shared by God's anointed kings of Israel. Since Jesus is the ideal king of Israel, he is naturally the ideal Son of God. This is how the term came to be synonymous with Messiah and king of Israel. They are all different ways of saying the same thing.
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg. 204 states:
"The last chapter of the first epistle of John makes every possible emphasis upon the principle that Sonship is the mark of Messiahship. The same is the case with the fourth gospel where the Son of God is synonymous with Messiah and occurs more frequently than any other title. Haenchen maintains that the same equation:
Messiah = Son of God = Son of Man
applies to Mark's gospel. The same can be said of the rest of the New Testament."
Aspects of Monotheism pg.90 states:
"The notion that the Davidic king was the son of God is well established in the Hebrew Bible in 2 Samuel 7:14 and in Psalm 2:7. It was only natural then that the coming messianic king should also be regarded as the Son of God. To say that the king was the son of God, however, does not necessarily imply divinization."
This is the meaning of the title "Son of God." Messiah = Son of God = king of Israel = Son of Man. The Messiah does have the closest and most intimate relationship with the Father. Let's take a look at some verses to confirm this.
"The kings of the earth rise up, and the princes conspire together against the LORD and His anointed (Messiah)"... "I myself have set up my king on Zion (Israel)"... "The LORD said to me, "You are my son" (Psalm 2:2,6-7).
Here we see God speaking of the Messiah using all three titles; Messiah, king of Zion, and son.
"He first found his own brother and told him, "We have found the Messiah"..."Rabbi, you are the Son of God: you are the King of Israel" (John 1:41& 49).
John cannot be clearer on this title; the Son of God is the King of Israel. This is the Jewish meaning of "Son of God." Any other definition will take away from the true meaning of the title into something that was never intended by its Jewish author
Paul
Jesus is the King of Israel.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 05:13:02 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 04:10:40 AM
Hi Paul, I believe that Jesus Christ is the a Son of Man and Son of God.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
I can't argue with scripture. It tells me that Jesus is the Son of God.
Paul
I think you do not, I can tell from your post...
QuoteI'm separating here Christ and Jesus because I see a separation in the scriptures.
You can not separate Jesus from his title... which is God's anointed one! (the Christ/Messiah).
Yes, most of us are more familiar with the Greek translation of this word, which is "Christos" or "Christ" in English. People have made this title of Jesus into Jesus' surname. But it is not his name, it is his [/b]title. Jesus Christ means Jesus the Christ (Messiah). When we say that we are Christians, we are saying that we are Messiahnist, or followers of the Messiah. The definition of Messiah has been practically lost.
Let us see what the The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible has to say about the word "Messiah".
Messiah - Hebrew word signifying "one who has been anointed." The anointed agent of Yahweh. The kings of Israel were anointed with oil in the name of God, which symbolized his investiture with the Spirit of God. The term Messiah was later used to designate a "future king," an expected royal leader from the line of David who would restore the kingdom to Israel. A king who would make all things new, consecrated as Yahweh's vicegerent in Israel. This son of David, who was expected by the Jewish nation, was the Messiah par excellence, a term that has been rendered in Greek by Christos (New American Bible & The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible (ZEB), vol.2, pg. 344).
That the Messiah is supposed to be a king is a well-known fact by anyone who has studied the Bible in depth. Because it was customary to anoint kings, the phrase "The LORD's anointed" became a synonym for "king" (ZEB, vol.1, pg. 171). This fact can be verified by many verses. Even on the cross the inscription read, "The king of the Jews" (Mark 15:26). I will cover a few verses and then list some more for your own study:
Mark 15:32: "Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross."
John 1:40 & 49: "We have found the Messiah...Rabbi, you are the Son of God; the king of Israel."
Luke 19:38: "Blessed is the king (Jesus) who comes in the name of the Lord (YHWH).
Other verses: Jeremiah 23:5, Daniel 7:13, Psalms 2:6, Zechariah 9:9, Acts 17:7, 2 Timothy 4:1. There are many more. The Zondervan Pictoral Encyclopedia of the Bible vol. 4 pg.200 says:
"If God's purpose is not to be defeated, the true Messiah = King as God's authentic Servant is the only answer. In Heb. Categories the remedy is centered upon a person and not upon an abstract doctrine or an ideal system. There can be no Messianic kingdom without God's anointed King."
As we can see, the Messiah is an actual king of Israel, the ideal king of Israel. He is a man who is anointed by God's spirit. The Messiah is able to perform mighty signs because God has anointed him with His Spirit, not because he is God. It is God working through Jesus. These three verses explain this point better than I ever could:
Acts 10:38: "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, for God was with him."
Acts 2:22: "Jesus of Nazareth was a man commended to you by God with mighty deeds, wonders, and signs, which God worked through him in your midst, as you yourselves know."
Acts 17:31: "Because He has established a day on which He will judge the world with justice through a man he has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all by raising him from the dead."
All the Old Testament Messianic prophecies speak of a man anointed by God's Spirit. None of them mention that the Messiah is supposed to be God. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible vol.4 pg.201 states of the Messiah:
"But at all times he is the one who acts in the power and under the guidance of the God of Israel."
The confusion lies in that God did not come AS Jesus, He came IN Jesus.
Peace,
Paul
Paul, where are we disagreeing here? Is it because I call Him the Son of God? I do believe that Jesus is indeed the Son of God. I don't believe He IS God. If I did, then I wouldn't call Him the Son of God but rather, then I would call Him God. But I don't believe He is God, I believe He is the Son of God.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 05:21:43 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on July 04, 2009, 05:07:09 AM
:cloud9: Amen, how 'bout that Molly? How indeed could He be David's son if David called Him Lord...... :laughing7: Blessings..... :girlheart:
Psalms 110:1 is an important O.T. verse that Has God telling us His relationship to His Son.
The LORD says to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet." (Psa 110:1) A Psalm of David.
Psalms 110:1 is a unusual verse. It is referred to in the New Testament 23 times and is thus quoted much more often than any other verse from the Old Testament. It's importance must not be overlooked. It is a psalm that tells us the relationship between God and Jesus. Psalms 110:1 is a divine utterance although poorly translated if your version leaves out the original word "oracle". It is "the oracle of Yahweh" (the One God of the Hebrew Bible, of Judaism and New Testament Christianity) to David's lord who is the Messiah, spoken of here 1000 years before he came into existence in the womb of the Virgin Mary.
I want to bring attention to the fact that David's lord is not David's Lord. There should be no capital on the word "lord." The Revised Version of the Bible (1881) corrected the misleading error of other translations which put (and still wrongly put) a capitol L on lord in that verse. He is not Lord God, because the word in the inspired text is not the word for Deity, but the word for human superior- a human lord, not a Lord who is himself God, but a lord who is the supremely exalted, unique agent of the one God.
The Hebrew word for the status of the son of God and Psalms 110:1 is adoni. This word occurs 195 times in the Hebrew Bible and never refers to God. When God is described as "the Lord" (capital L) a different word, Adonai, appears. Thus the Bible makes a careful distinction between God and man. God is the Lord God (Adonai), or when his personal name is used, Yahweh, and Jesus is his unique, sinless, virginally conceived human son (adoni, my lord, Luke 1:43; 2:11). Adonai is found 449 times in the Old Testament and distinguishes the One God from all others. Adonai is not the word describing the son of God, Jesus, in Psalms 110:1. adoni appears 195 times and refers only to a human (or occasionally an angelic) lord, that is, someone who is not God. This should cut through a lot of complicated post Biblical argumentation and create a making which in subtle ways that secures the simple and most basic Biblical truth, that God is a single person and that the Messiah is the second Adam, "the Man Messiah" (1 Tim. 2:5).
Let's have a look at a few Old Testament verses that show us the clear distinction alluded to here. In Genesis 15:2, Abraham prays to God and says, "O LORD, God [Adonai Yahweh], what will you give me, since I am childless?" In another prayer Abraham's servant addresses God: "O LORD, God of my lord Abraham, please grant me success today" (Gen. 24:12). The second word for "my lord" here is adoni which according to any standard Hebrew lexicon means "Lord," "Master," or "owner." Another example is found in David's speech to his men after he had cut off the hem of King Saul's robe and his conscience bothered him: "So he said to his men, far be it from me because of the Lord[here the word is Yahweh, Lord God] that I should do this thing to my lord [adoni]."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, page 157. states "The form Adoni ('my lord'), a royal title (Sam. 29:8), is to be carefully distinguished from the divine title Adonai ('Lord') used of Yahweh. Adonai the special plural form [the divine title] distinguishes it from adoni [with short vowel] = 'my lords.'" Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, page 137. States "lord in the Old Testament is used to translate Adonai when applied to the Divine Being. The [Hebrew] word has a suffix [with a special pointing] presumably for the sake of distinction... between divine and human appellative."
If David the Psalmist had expected the Messiah to be the Lord God he would not have used "my lord" (adoni), but the term used exclusively for the one God, Jehovah- Adonai. Unfortunately, though, many English translations which faithfully preserved this distinction elsewhere capitalize the second "lord" only in Psalms 110:1. This gives a misleading impression that the word is a divine title.
Both the Pharisees and Jesus knew that this inspired verse was crucial in the understanding of the identity of the promised Messiah. Jesus quoted it to show the Messiah would be both the son (descendent) of King David and David's "lord" (see Matt. 22:41-46; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). This key verse, then, quoted more than any other in the New Testament, authorizes the title "lord" for Jesus. Failure to understand this distinction has led to the erroneous idea that whenever the New Testament calls Jesus "Lord" it means he is the Lord God of the Old Testament.
Peace,
Paul
Paul, you do realize don't you that while Jesus is NOT God, that He indeed has God within Him? That ANNOINTING that Jesus received IS God's (The Father) very BEING. Remember the physical is a type of the Spiritual. For example, my own son is not me but my own son has me inside him (via the flesh). Likewise, Jesus has God inside Him via the Spirit. If we listen to the creation we can understand God and His ways as long as we translate what is physical into that which is Spiritual.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:57:22 AM
Oh great. I'm satan and Jesus is just a man. Things are taking a turn for the worse. :laughing7:
These things have to be discerned spiritually, or you can get yourself in a real mess by over-intellectualizing it.
Maybe that's why those great intellectuals, the Pharisees, stoned Steven --He was making them crazy--
51Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
52Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:
53Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
54When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.
55But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
57Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,
58And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.
--Acts 7
Hi Molly, I think once we understand that we are Satan things have taken a turn for the better. If Satan was another entity that we can point our finger at then what would ever be wrong with carnal nature?
Paul
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself...
--2 Cor 5
...feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
Acts 20:28
Quote from: PaulRemember the physical is a type of the Spiritual. For example, my own son is not me but my own son has me inside him (via the flesh). Likewise, Jesus has God inside Him via the Spirit. If we listen to the creation we can understand God and His ways as long as we translate what is physical into that which is Spiritual.
That's good, but in order to make the analogy more correct, your son would have to be an exact replica of you, your clone. Then the analogy would fit better.
9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! --John 14
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:27:33 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 03, 2009, 11:13:13 PM
No, you don't believe just like the scripture says. It says that Jesus was a man. A man conceives evil. You don't believe that Jesus conceives evil do you?
Paul
I sure do believe what scripture says. It says that Jesus was made flesh. It says that when the Spirit is in us, we are not in the flesh. It says that Jesus had the Spirit without measure. It says that Christ was a man without sin. It literally says all those things. Yes, a man thinks evil thoughts, when he is not apart from sin.
QuoteThen if He was made like unto His brothers then He must be able to conceive sin in His heart then, correct? If not, what is He being tested for? He if couldn't be subject to the flesh and we are then He is not like us, correct?
Notice here that at no time did I say He sinned. I know your probably getting impatient with me comparing Him to a MAN but I do this because the alternative is to declare that He came not as a man and I believe that would be preaching the spirit of antichrist.
Paul you are not considering ALL scripture in your analysis, and are taking single scriptures and setting them up as blanket statements without comparing scripture to scripture. This will always have bad results. For example:
"Then if He was made like unto His brothers then He must be able to conceive sin in His heart then, correct? If not, what is He being tested for? He if couldn't be subject to the flesh and we are then He is not like us, correct?"
Let's look at all the EXCEPTIONS to Christ being made like unto his brothers.
1) Christ had the Spirit without measure. Did his brothers? NO.
2) Christ was the word made flesh. Were his brothers? NO.
3) Christ was ONE with his Father. Were his brothers? NO.
4) Christ was the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD. Were his brothers? NO.
5) Christ was without sin. Were his brothers? NO.
If you continue to set up one "all" scripture as a blanket without acknowledging the exceptions, you will be wrong.
You say:
Notice here that at no time did I say He sinned. I know your probably getting impatient with me comparing Him to a MAN but I do this because the alternative is to declare that He came not as a man and I believe that would be preaching the spirit of antichrist.
You are falling into a judgment of my motives by saying that I am getting impatient with you comparing him to a man. Don't judge my motives, stick to the conversation. Here is the reason I am not impatient with you comparing him to a man: I ALREADY SAID THAT HE IS A MAN. :wacko2:
What I also said is that he was a man APART FROM SIN, which is what the Bible says. At no time did you say he committed a sin, but you are saying that His MIND was disobedient to God by virtue of claiming that his mind was CARNAL. NOWHERE in scripture will you EVER find at ANY time a scripture that claims that Jesus Christ had a carnal mind. The Scripture OUTRIGHT PROVES that his mind was SPIRITUAL.
I assure you Paul, Jesus Christ had the mind of his Father in Heaven.
Ok, Seth, well your preaching a Jesus that can't save me. Because the scriptures are clearly showing me that the savior is a man as I am. The Jesus I believe in can ACTUALLY overcome evil desires originating in His own heart. Doesn't sound to me like your savior is capable of that.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: PaulRemember the physical is a type of the Spiritual. For example, my own son is not me but my own son has me inside him (via the flesh). Likewise, Jesus has God inside Him via the Spirit. If we listen to the creation we can understand God and His ways as long as we translate what is physical into that which is Spiritual.
That's good, but in order to make the analogy more correct, your son would have to be an exact replica of you, your clone. Then the analogy would fit better.
9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!
--John 14
Yes, true Molly, so if I was also the Mother then my son would be a direct replica of me. So who is the mother of the Word of God? - God.
Paul
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
The way I understand it Claypot is that by having Christ in us, then that carnal exhibition in us is being destroyed. But yes, I agree that they are two separate entities. For example, if we have Christ and then we do fall back and sin then we can't say that Christ in us sinned for Christ is still faithful, but it is us that have sinned via our spirit which is to bear witness with His Spirit that we are the Sons of God.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: PaulRemember the physical is a type of the Spiritual. For example, my own son is not me but my own son has me inside him (via the flesh). Likewise, Jesus has God inside Him via the Spirit. If we listen to the creation we can understand God and His ways as long as we translate what is physical into that which is Spiritual.
That's good, but in order to make the analogy more correct, your son would have to be an exact replica of you, your clone. Then the analogy would fit better.
9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!
--John 14
Yes, true Molly, so if I was also the Mother then my son would be a direct replica of me. So who is the mother of the Word of God? - God.
Paul
For a physical clone of you, we would only need you. Then, under a microscope, your DNA and your son's would be indistinguishable.
But, the Word was with God from the beginning, and the Word was God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...--John 1
The Word made flesh is the Son--
..(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. --John 1
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
The way I understand it Claypot is that by having Christ in us, then that carnal exhibition in us is being destroyed. But yes, I agree that they are two separate entities. For example, if we have Christ and then we do fall back and sin then we can't say that Christ in us sinned for Christ is still faithful, but it is us that have sinned via our spirit which is to bear witness with His Spirit that we are the Sons of God.
Paul
Hey Paul.
What I see is that Christ is not in us but 'He' is not a 'he' at all. Christ is not PRIMARILY a physical essence. The physical representation of Christ is a vehicle for us to use to arrive at its real meaning which is God Himself, the Spirit, the Spiritual realm and essence.
I don't even see 2 separate entities. You, I, God are all in this craziness together...... the same lump so to speak.
You say Christ is still faithful and I agree. That which is within that is called the Christ is perfect and faithful and will never fail 'us'. It cannot fail for it is God 'Himself' Who is not really a 'Him' but you understand I think.
cp
YES! IT IS POSSIBLE TO LEARN OBEDIANCE WITHOUT
DISOBEDIANCE! All things are possible with God.
Here is How and in what manner Jesus LEARNED OBEDIANCE
and was PERFECTED THROUGH HIS SUFFERING.Without
disobediance ever entering in.
when you suffer for DOING GOOD..you have LEARNED
OBEDIANCE and been perfected through suffering.
IT IS THE UNJUST SUFFERING FOR DOING GOOD THAT
PERFECTS US.[he who has suffered has ceased from sin]
That is why scriptures exhort us to NOT suffer as an
evildoer..but that it is GOD'S GOOD PLEASURE that if we suffer
it be for doing GOOD.
Everytime you do the right thing..and KNOW that it's going to
cost you in some way a harm...you are following after the LORD
and doing HIS WILL. It is of the HOLY SPIRIT IN YOU AND IT IS
THE HOLY SPIRIT'S WORKS.
You can be sinfree and still be tempted and tried in this
manner. And you can dwell in sinful flesh..and the spirit in
you can work in this manner also.
Under the Old Law covenant..it was an eye for an eye justice
system..of which no-one could be declared righteous[everyone
being condemned due to sin in them] For it to be perfectly
fufilled it took a blameless spotless one to fulfill it..and
to suffer the INJUSTICE WILLINGLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL .
IT TOOK THE SPIRIT WITHOUT MEASURE
Every time we do not obey or rebel in someway it is an
injustice to GOD..BUT HE AND HIS SON BEAR THIS IN
WILLINGNESS FOR OUR BENEFIT AND MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER
JUDGEMENT...AND THEIR GRACE AND LONSUFFERING
DOES NOT FAIL TO SEE US THROUGH
Being obediant even unto it costing you your life
IS PERFECTION WHEN DONE OUT OF LOVE FOR YOUR FATHER
AND YOUR BROTHER...THIS IS THE SPIRIT WITHOUT MEASURE
THIS IS THE RIGHTEOUNESS OF GOD
AND THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST THAT IS IMPUGNED TO
US...
GOD IS MORE THAN RIGHTEOUS..HE IS GOOD
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:33:02 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:26:00 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 04, 2009, 05:13:30 PM
Quote from: PaulRemember the physical is a type of the Spiritual. For example, my own son is not me but my own son has me inside him (via the flesh). Likewise, Jesus has God inside Him via the Spirit. If we listen to the creation we can understand God and His ways as long as we translate what is physical into that which is Spiritual.
That's good, but in order to make the analogy more correct, your son would have to be an exact replica of you, your clone. Then the analogy would fit better.
9 Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don't know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father!
--John 14
Yes, true Molly, so if I was also the Mother then my son would be a direct replica of me. So who is the mother of the Word of God? - God.
Paul
For a physical clone of you, we would only need you. Then, under a microscope, your DNA and your son's would be indistinguishable.
But, the Word was with God from the beginning, and the Word was God.
14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...
--John 1
The Word made flesh is the Son--
..(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--John 1
See Molly, when I read that the Word was with God, I actually believe were talking about words. See this is how I have come to know very amazing things from the Bible. Going back to this physical bible typology for a moment lets take your verse and compare it with the physical:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
In the beginning was the Rib, and the Rib was with Adam and the Rib was Adam.
See the comparison?
Paul
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
The way I understand it Claypot is that by having Christ in us, then that carnal exhibition in us is being destroyed. But yes, I agree that they are two separate entities. For example, if we have Christ and then we do fall back and sin then we can't say that Christ in us sinned for Christ is still faithful, but it is us that have sinned via our spirit which is to bear witness with His Spirit that we are the Sons of God.
Paul
Hey Paul.
What I see is that Christ is not in us but 'He' is not a 'he' at all. Christ is not PRIMARILY a physical essence. The physical representation of Christ is a vehicle for us to use to arrive at its real meaning which is God Himself, the Spirit, the Spiritual realm and essence.
I don't even see 2 separate entities. You, I, God are all in this craziness together...... the same lump so to speak.
You say Christ is still faithful and I agree. That which is within that is called the Christ is perfect and faithful and will never fail 'us'. It cannot fail for it is God 'Himself' Who is not really a 'Him' but you understand I think.
cp
So what part do you see being annihilated?
Paul
Thank you Sheila!
I was blessed.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax0EwhLltcE&feature=related
Quote from: PaulSee Molly, when I read that the Word was with God, I actually believe were talking about words. See this is how I have come to know very amazing things from the Bible. Going back to this physical bible typology for a moment lets take your verse and compare it with the physical:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
In the beginning was the Rib, and the Rib was with Adam and the Rib was Adam.
See the comparison?
Paul
Yes.
23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave unto his wife: and
they shall be one flesh. --Gen 1
BTW, wow, Sheila! :grin:
:thumbsup:
So is man's mind then just a container that either God fills with Good or the Devil fills with evil?
Is a mind that has the Holy Spirit the only mind that is not evil?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:20:17 PM
Ok, Seth, well your preaching a Jesus that can't save me. Because the scriptures are clearly showing me that the savior is a man as I am. The Jesus I believe in can ACTUALLY overcome evil desires originating in His own heart. Doesn't sound to me like your savior is capable of that.
I am preaching the Jesus of the Bible. The reason he is able to save you is because he overcame FEAR OF DEATH. Jesus is the very model of our goal in the Spirit.
HE DID NOT STRUGGLE OF HIS OWN POWER. HE RESTED IN GOD who predetermined Christ's sinlessness. That is the admonition to us in Christ's walk, not to struggle of our own power but to rest in the Spirit who preserves and keeps our minds from sin.
You say "Doesn't sound to me like your savior is capable of that." This shows how little you know about the Gospel. Jesus says "I CAN DO NOTHING OF MYSELF." Jesus was
not capable of resisting sin.
Only His Father was, which is why Jesus was kept in His Father doing nothing of himself. That is why his mind was KEPT in the promised land, God's rest. The point of the Gospel is not in our struggle against sin, but to grow enough in the Spirit so that we begin to realize how much we depend on the SPIRIT to keep our minds in heaven with him. And when we receive the full inheritance we will BE LIKE HIM when we see him. Just like Christ we will have the Spirit without measure so that just like Christ if we be tempted of the devil, we will be APART FROM SIN.
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
Jesus was NOT in the bosom of the flesh. He was not in the flesh, but in Heaven, in the bosom of his Father.
Hebrews 2:9-17
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect
through sufferings.
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who
through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
In all things christ was made like unto his brothers, YET APART FROM SIN. The "all things" spoken of in Hebrews 2 is in regard to the FEAR OF DEATH. Compare the temptation of Christ by Satan in the desert to the struggle in the Garden. When Satan presented temptation to Christ, there is NO indication of a struggle against inward sin. However, in the Garden we se an EXPLICIT struggle against the fear of death by which Christ felt our infirmity.
Regarding sin however:
Hebrews 4:9-15
There remaineth therefore
a rest to the people of God. For
he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.
Let
us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 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 apart from sin.
Jesus is UTTERLY CLEAR that lust is sin in the heart. Jesus was WITHOUT sin, which why you don't see the inward struggle with Satan in him. Why? Because he didn't NEED to struggle. He was in God's rest WITHOUT MEASURE. That is why Paul provides the exeption "apart from sin."
willieH: Hey brother P... :hithere:
Quote from: Pierac on July 04, 2009, 02:56:57 AM
Quote from: willieH on July 03, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
willieH: Hi Paul... :cloud9:
Quote from: Pierac on July 03, 2009, 07:22:21 AM
The real question is how you can connect the two verses to make Satan into billions of beings through out the ages?
Forget "billions of beings" --- where does it ever indicate in SCRIPTURE that "satan" is even ONE BEING? :dontknow:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
John 8:44 You are of your father, the Adversary, and the desires of your father you are wanting to do. He was a man-killer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, for truth is not in him. Whenever he may be speaking a lie, he is speaking of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it." :thumbsup:
Paul
Paul... The word ("satan") you above underline as "
ADVERSARY" means ACCUSER... IT is the OPPONENT of the LAW, and IS the force or OPPOSITION that is ENACTED when the LAW is transgressed... Which is WHY
CHRIST addressed PETER as "satan"... Peter was not a "being" named "satan"... but his WORDS presented OPPOSITION to the mission of
CHRIST, and thereby his
words were named "satan" --
Matt 16:23 -- Mark 8:33 -- as
CHRIST later explained in these verses --
Matt 16:23 -- Mark 8:33 --
The words you underline as "he & him" are words (Eikeinos and Autos) which can be translated, "it" or "her" or any other manner of pronoun... so it is up to the concept of the translator, what of these choices (it, he, she, him, etc) appears within the verse (i.e., this translator concieves "satan" as a "he", therefore, all the references in the context TO "satan" are subsequently found as masculine)
This verse only notes that "satan" (whatever "satan" is considered to be), to be "from the BEGINNING" of that which HAS BEGINNING particularly --MAN -- for what ever "satan" is determined to be [he, she, IT], ...is a
MAN-KILLER -- Each "MAN", having a beginning...
It ("satan"/adversity) was noted to be a "man-killer and does not stand in truth" etc...
This verse however, does not indicate that "satan" IS a "
being", nor that "satan" was CREATED...
"satan" is adversity... or adversary... which is OPPONENT to TRUTH... and IS a PERMANENT matter of the ETERNAL KNOWLEDGE of GOOD and EVIL...
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
The way I understand it Claypot is that by having Christ in us, then that carnal exhibition in us is being destroyed. But yes, I agree that they are two separate entities. For example, if we have Christ and then we do fall back and sin then we can't say that Christ in us sinned for Christ is still faithful, but it is us that have sinned via our spirit which is to bear witness with His Spirit that we are the Sons of God.
Paul
Hey Paul.
What I see is that Christ is not in us but 'He' is not a 'he' at all. Christ is not PRIMARILY a physical essence. The physical representation of Christ is a vehicle for us to use to arrive at its real meaning which is God Himself, the Spirit, the Spiritual realm and essence.
I don't even see 2 separate entities. You, I, God are all in this craziness together...... the same lump so to speak.
You say Christ is still faithful and I agree. That which is within that is called the Christ is perfect and faithful and will never fail 'us'. It cannot fail for it is God 'Himself' Who is not really a 'Him' but you understand I think.
cp
So what part do you see being annihilated?
Paul
The carnal 'part' when God is done with it.
cp
Behold I stand at the door and knock and all such ideas are not teaching that we are to come to Christ or Christ is to come to us, these are teachings that are saying that when we finally wake up and see what has been true from all time then 'our eyes are opened'. It is, in a very real sense, like coming to someone or someone filling ones heart to realize what is truth.
In other words, there is a great something taking place within our beings and all of us are part of a greater whole and so on. IMO, as we wake up to the fact that we are not an us and them kind of reality or a me and Jesus or a Satan and God kind of thing, but a whole unit kind of reality, then we enter more and more into salvation, we are working out our salvation as the Divine encourages us to do.
cp
Yes, it's all context..
Terms like Adversary and Accuser are generic and non specific. I could make the sin described as "Lust" into Satan the Adversary. :2c:
How does Paul use the term Satan. for example... can Satan have messengers?
2Co 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me --to keep me from exalting myself!
In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, should the "messenger of Satan" be taken figuratively or literally? When Paul has used the term "messenger" throughout his epistles, he has always referred to a person. This understanding would be consistent with the context of 2 Corinthians 10, 11, 12 and 13 where he is speaking of opponents of the Corinthian church.
The phrase "messenger of Satan" should be taken literally, because Paul is referring to humans who personally oppose him within the context of those who seek to distort the message of Christ. And the "thorn" afflicting Paul does not appear to be limited to his current missionary journey to Corinth.
So what purpose did the "thorn" serve?
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul indicates that he was blessed to be the recipient of many revelations from Jesus Christ, which was an honor that could bring about personal pride and glory. However, God provided Paul human opponents with the intent of causing some kind of "weakness" in Paul, which resulted in his attitude of humility and humbleness.
The "weakness" that Paul writes about is not entirely clear; however, it apparently refers to difficulties caused by other people namely, persecution and insults (2 Cor 11:30-33; 2 Cor 12:10; 2 Cor 13:3-4). Not only did this cause personal pain and suffering for Paul, but the public challenge of his integrity and religious authority made his ministry more
difficult.
What was Paul's response to "a thorn in the flesh"?
What was the Lord's response to Paul? Paul did not like the "thorn in the flesh" and sought to get rid of it (2 Cor 12:8). While he pleaded with the Lord to remove it three times, the Lord said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." In response to Paul's desire, the Lord only gave Paul what he needed. The power of the Lord is more effective and experienced best when one is more dependent on Him; the will of God is not brought about by human effort. Paul's comments indicated his understanding of God's intent in allowing the presence of opponents to his ministry. While it discouraged his spiritual well being, Paul never complained. Instead he changed his outlook and reveled in it when he understood how it deepened his faith and dependence in God. Paul's testimony served as a wonderful example to the Corinthian church on how a Christian can respond to adversity.
From my own studies... Paul's messenger from Satan was more likely a Christian Jew from Jerusalem, who went behind Paul teaching the need to still follow the Law, while Paul taught the law of the Christ which is "Grace." (Gal 2:16) (Gal 6:2)
Paul
Quick questions to help me understand.
1. Where do you think everyone's "self" Satan dwells? Mind, Body, Spirit, or all three?
2. Would you still sin if you were were not "Satan"?
3. What happened to Jesus' Satan? He was ressurected from the dead but Satan has not yet been destroyed?
And I still fail to see the importance? What does it matter? Satan nor you play any role what so ever in which ressurection you will be in. :dontknow:
Satan has no affect on God's Grace or Jesus' faith what so ever.
Paul
willieH: Hi brother S! :hithere:
Quote from: willieHOne cannot "learn" obedience, unless DISOBEDIENCE has been presented to one as an option... And that is what TEMPTATION ...does and IS...
If it were NOT POSSIBLE that when the TEMPTATION was presented to CHRIST, He could not submit to it, then the "OVERCOMING" of TEMPTATION does not actually occur!
The "TEMPTATION" was "OVERCOME" because it was NOT POSSIBLE to DISOBEY... not by OBEDIENCE.
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:10:37 AMThis I disagree with. One can learn obedience without disobedience being an option. By the way, I know you are well versed and totally correct about God's sovereignty, so the idea of "possible disobedience" is curious.
Let me try to put into words "POSSIBILITY" in conjunction with SOVEREIGNTY:
Within the Sovereignty of GOD lie ALL POSSIBILITIES bro... because they occur EXACTLY as the Declaration of
YHVH noted them "end to beginning"... did not remove "POSSIBILITY".
The "choice" of men, is the same thing... Somehow we "choose", but those "choices" are already noted, and we are "choosing" according to that Divine Notation --
Isaiah 46:10-11What I am saying is that ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE with GOD, meaning that
CHRIST had to be truly TEMPTED AS are we, and OVERCAME that TEMPTATION, but COULD have fallen... as the "ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE" with GOD enters in...
That
CHRIST "could have fallen" simply means that ALL THINGS remain POSSIBLE with GOD... but though ALL things are POSSIBLE with God, does NOT MEAN that ALL POSSIBILITIES occur in manifestation...
Had GOD so ordained, ...
CHRIST would have fallen because He was a MAN... but it was NOT ORDAINED that He fall, rather it was ORDAINED that He OVERCOME... eh? :dontknow: (I know that sounds a bit confusing, but to say that
CHRIST "could NOT" have fallen, notes an "IMPOSSIBILITY" with GOD within His Sovereignty...
CHRIST was TRULY TEMPTED as are we, which means He could have fallen... however, THAT "potential fall" is NOT what was ORDAINED of
YHVH to occur, ...so it DID NOT occur...
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:10:37 AMConsider this, one can learn obedience by starting as a blank slate, neither disobedient nor obedient. Then, one can learn obedience by being grown in it, without necessitating disobedience. Here is a practical example: I can teach my child not to touch the stove, not becuase my child may have touched it, or even wanted to touch it. However, if I sit my child down and explain and show her how hot it gets, she can learn obedience to that rule without ever having to touch the stove first, or having wanted to touch it.
I love you bro... :friendstu: and thanks for presenting this "
example scenario" for I have LIVED this scenario with my own son when he was little boy... I did EXACTLY as you propose... I thoroughly explained about a glass "wall heater" and the effects of touching it... Can you GUESS what happened? :laughing7:
I have raised 3 kids (youngest is 32), and am partaking in the rearing of 10 grandkids (oldest is 16, youngest 6 months)... and believe me, the "SCHOOL of LIFE" concerning the concepts of "obedience and disobedience" shall
they TEACH
YOU, as you live the life of a father and grandfather! :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:10:37 AMYou say something interesting "when the temptation was PRESENTED" That is the distinguishing factor that recognizes that Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmity apart from sin. There is a difference between a temptation PRESENTED and a temptation ENTERING. Christ overcame the the temptation presented, by being without sin in his mind.
TEMPTATION is not "presented" by a being... it is presented by that which OPPOSES the LAW which is the standard of HOLINESS...
EXAMPLE: You have NO MONEY, and a piece of bubblegum lying in a box in the store, does not propose to you that you "steal it" to you, neither does a "red guy" jump up and hint to you this possibility... the bubblegum lies within ownership of the store (which possession is rightfully within the LAW), and it is YOUR DESIRE to CHEW IT, that "presents" the TEMPTATION to relieve the store of its possession of it... :dontknow:
It is WITHIN our makeup that this "scenario" which has TWO POSSIBLE OUTCOMES, takes place as
James 1:14 aptly notes... naming this process to be the SAME in EVERY MAN... including
JESUS... who though He was the Son of God, ...was also the SON of MAN...
Regardless of your perception of TEMPTATION... IT, in itself is NOT SIN... It is the OPTION which avails the scenario in which one either OVERCOMES, or SUBMITS TO...
CHRIST OVERCAME... :boogie: ...we SUBMIT... :sigh:
Quote from: willieHBut Scripture ALSO SAYS that he WAS TEMPTED (God cannot be tempted) and therefore TEMPTATION was PART of CHRIST's experience as a MAN... which does not equate to SINNING... SINNING is found within the submission to the TEMPTATION...
CHRIST was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6 -- Luke 19:10 -- and EVERY MAN is TEMPTED in the SAME WAY:
James 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN... [including the "man" CHRIST] ...is TEMPTED, when he is drawn away of his own lust [desire] and enticed...
THIS, does NOT mean that one "ENTICED" is SINNING or has SINNED... it is when the ENTICEMENT is INDULGED [concieved] that SIN is born:
James 1:15 -- THEN, ...when LUST hath CONCIEVED [has been indulged], it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished, bringeth forth death...
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:10:37 AMAgain, the James scripture is talking about sin in trespass. Jesus talked about sin within the heart. He that looks upon a woman with lust has committed adultery already in his heart. JAMES is talking about when the sin in the heart (lust) becomes sin worked outwardly.
The
LUST you are speaking of brother S... is NOT the
desire males have
naturally for females. God gave us to be ATTRACTED to one another, and it is NOT SIN to be attracted to females or vice versa... It is SIN to engage the mind SEXUALLY of a Woman... which is gone beyond "attraction"... and is INWARDLY INDULGING in UNLAWFUL process... and I do NOT suggest JESUS ever did this... The
NATURAL attraction He had for women, as a man, presented FURTHER pondering to Him which He REJECTED...
Desire of WOMAN is not SIN... It is
NATURAL and GIVEN of GOD to men... That I desired my wife because she was beautiful did NOT mean that I had sinned as I observed her beauty... To LUST in the HEART of a WOMAN is to have made a SEXUAL fantasy of HER, not just "desire" her... and wish to get to know her...
Do you think that when GOD gave Eve to Adam, and Adam went "whoa-man" :laughing7: That Adam had therefore SINNED? I do not... I believe that GOD gave Eve to Adam IN HOLINESS... and Adam's first
ATTRACTION to Eve was NOT a SIN... it was a
NATURAL reaction to her beauty, and to the potential companionship they could enjoy...
We live in a LIFE CONTEXT which is MUCH more complicated than in the day of
CHRIST... for on a daily basis, we are assaulted with TEMPTATION, not only in human encounter, but in the presentation of MEDIA and common attitude... which today READILY accepts SINFUL practices as "alternative lifestyles"... :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 04, 2009, 08:10:37 AMJesus was without sin. Yes it does say he was tested, but it never says that the temptation ENTERED IN.
Actually it says He was
TEMPTED in several places in the
WORD... It is your present observation which desires (not lusts :laughing7:) to insert the word "TESTED"... and thereby negating what actually occured.
The biggest difference in our present observations, is that
you must find a way around
James 1:14 and explain how it applies to
JESUS in different way than it applies to ALL "other" MEN, ...I do not...
You are welcome to believe as you do bro... I see it differently. Either
JESUS OVERCAME that which we DO NOT... or it was a sham.
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Telling me I am satan is a lie. Can satan cast out satan?
2 Corinthians 5:7
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Luke 10:19
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
This world belongs to satan. The fact that I am not of this world, proves that I am not satan, nor do I belong to him. He has no dominion over me even though I am in this world.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
--Rom 8
I am not satan, nor was I ever satan, but always predestinated from the beginning to be glorified.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
--Rom 8
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
Quick questions to help me understand.
1. Where do you think everyone's "self" Satan dwells? Mind, Body, Spirit, or all three?
2. Would you still sin if you were were not "Satan"?
3. What happened to Jesus' Satan? He was ressurected from the dead but Satan has not yet been destroyed?
And I still fail to see the importance? What does it matter? Satan nor you play any role what so ever in which ressurection you will be in. :dontknow:
Satan has no affect on God's Grace or Jesus' faith what so ever.
Paul
Satan is spirit - for it is the exhibition of the disobedient nature of man.
Paul
Quote from: claypot on July 05, 2009, 01:02:32 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:48:19 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 04, 2009, 05:29:46 PM
Quote from: claypot on July 04, 2009, 05:18:48 PM
This is a great discussion gang and I want to add my 2 cents.
I just don't think Jesus, God, us and all creation is an individual thing. In other words Jesus is not some isolated person living in Tucson or in Heaven or wherever. Sure there is a human we fasten the name of Jesus Christ to but this is a personification of who and what the Christ really is. Just like there is a human I attach my name and essence to yet my humanness is not really me, yet of course it is me to some degree.
OK, what I want to say is this...................The divine within all of us can never succumb to temptation yet it experiences temptation just because of its association with the flesh. I really think this is what God is trying to teach us. This is not a guy with a halo over here and a being with a pitchfork over there, these are the teachings of each and every person. Within the same lump is the Christ essence and the satan essence and the wisdom essence and so much more. This is all taught in parables and allegories and also using the physical. The physical 'fleshes' out these truthful realities in so many ways.
The Divine within me will never sin, cannot sin. It battles constantly with all that is enmity against It. The flesh essence of all things is a vehicle for God to teach us things. Once it's purpose is complete it will die.
Where this discussion and all discussions get way off base for me is when we start seeing Jesus, God and all things as PRIMARILY separate entities. The usage of the separate entity picture is to make truth and reality palatable to us but I think we have to grow out of this mindset and see God and His words to us for what they are and that is the highway to who and what He is.
cp
The way I understand it Claypot is that by having Christ in us, then that carnal exhibition in us is being destroyed. But yes, I agree that they are two separate entities. For example, if we have Christ and then we do fall back and sin then we can't say that Christ in us sinned for Christ is still faithful, but it is us that have sinned via our spirit which is to bear witness with His Spirit that we are the Sons of God.
Paul
Hey Paul.
What I see is that Christ is not in us but 'He' is not a 'he' at all. Christ is not PRIMARILY a physical essence. The physical representation of Christ is a vehicle for us to use to arrive at its real meaning which is God Himself, the Spirit, the Spiritual realm and essence.
I don't even see 2 separate entities. You, I, God are all in this craziness together...... the same lump so to speak.
You say Christ is still faithful and I agree. That which is within that is called the Christ is perfect and faithful and will never fail 'us'. It cannot fail for it is God 'Himself' Who is not really a 'Him' but you understand I think.
cp
So what part do you see being annihilated?
Paul
The carnal 'part' when God is done with it.
cp
I see that as well. I like the last part you said "when God is done with it" because I believe likewise.
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:15:21 AM
Yes, it's all context..
Terms like Adversary and Accuser are generic and non specific. I could make the sin described as "Lust" into Satan the Adversary. :2c:
How does Paul use the term Satan. for example... can Satan have messengers?
2Co 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me --to keep me from exalting myself!
In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, should the "messenger of Satan" be taken figuratively or literally? When Paul has used the term "messenger" throughout his epistles, he has always referred to a person. This understanding would be consistent with the context of 2 Corinthians 10, 11, 12 and 13 where he is speaking of opponents of the Corinthian church.
The phrase "messenger of Satan" should be taken literally, because Paul is referring to humans who personally oppose him within the context of those who seek to distort the message of Christ. And the "thorn" afflicting Paul does not appear to be limited to his current missionary journey to Corinth.
So what purpose did the "thorn" serve?
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul indicates that he was blessed to be the recipient of many revelations from Jesus Christ, which was an honor that could bring about personal pride and glory. However, God provided Paul human opponents with the intent of causing some kind of "weakness" in Paul, which resulted in his attitude of humility and humbleness.
The "weakness" that Paul writes about is not entirely clear; however, it apparently refers to difficulties caused by other people namely, persecution and insults (2 Cor 11:30-33; 2 Cor 12:10; 2 Cor 13:3-4). Not only did this cause personal pain and suffering for Paul, but the public challenge of his integrity and religious authority made his ministry more
difficult.
What was Paul's response to "a thorn in the flesh"?
What was the Lord's response to Paul? Paul did not like the "thorn in the flesh" and sought to get rid of it (2 Cor 12:8). While he pleaded with the Lord to remove it three times, the Lord said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." In response to Paul's desire, the Lord only gave Paul what he needed. The power of the Lord is more effective and experienced best when one is more dependent on Him; the will of God is not brought about by human effort. Paul's comments indicated his understanding of God's intent in allowing the presence of opponents to his ministry. While it discouraged his spiritual well being, Paul never complained. Instead he changed his outlook and reveled in it when he understood how it deepened his faith and dependence in God. Paul's testimony served as a wonderful example to the Corinthian church on how a Christian can respond to adversity.
From my own studies... Paul's messenger from Satan was more likely a Christian Jew from Jerusalem, who went behind Paul teaching the need to still follow the Law, while Paul taught the law of the Christ which is "Grace." (Gal 2:16) (Gal 6:2)
Paul
Barnabas shows that the "thorn" represented a "terrible nature". And that the reference is applied to those that desire to remove the scarlet (sin) will suffer the
thorn. Those that suffer the terrible nature shall receive a crown. It is interesting to note that He that suffered the terrible nature in an effort to remove all sin had received a CROWN of THORNs. Barnabas went on to say that those desiring the Kingdom must lay hold of the Lord thru tribulation and affliction.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 05, 2009, 05:26:47 PMTelling me I am satan is a lie. Can satan cast out satan?
Yeah, there's no question that Christians claiming to be Satan are cursing the Blood by which they've been sanctified and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace and crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God and holding Him up to public contempt. Zero difference from calling Christ Jesus Himself Satan. Zero difference after experiencing His grace. Zero difference. It's heretical gnosticism, from the pit of Hell, and will burn in Hell for the ages of ages anyone who won't repent of that error. It's the furthest thing from Biblical Christianity. For this reason, among others, according to St. Paul, many of 'em are sick and some of 'em have died! You can't touch the Temple of the Holy Ghost that way, God's Anointeds, and attempt to do harm to His prophets in that way. Not and get away with it. There's no way of doing it and avoiding being given over to a reprobate mind.
Minimally, this is the exaltation of sin consciousness against the Blood of Jesus Christ until the harvest has reached maturity; it's iniquity that's reached fullness, and it's a scattering work
against Him that is not gathering the nations. It's idolatry and being ignorant of the righteousness of God -- seeking to establish one's own righteousness by the ministry of condemnation. It's unquestionably fallen from grace! It's additionally the doctrine of the Kabbalists and Freemasonery. I was in the occult in my preteens and recognize the doctrine all too well!
Quote from: Molly on July 05, 2009, 05:26:47 PM
Telling me I am satan is a lie. Can satan cast out satan?
2 Corinthians 5:7
(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
Luke 10:19
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
This world belongs to satan. The fact that I am not of this world, proves that I am not satan, nor do I belong to him. He has no dominion over me even though I am in this world.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
--Rom 8
I am not satan, nor was I ever satan, but always predestinated from the beginning to be glorified.
30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
--Rom 8
Molly, who is telling you that you are Satan?
Paul's response is right on IMO.
You are not Satan any more than you are Wisdom, but you show characteristics of each.
cp
Quote from: martincisneros on July 05, 2009, 05:59:58 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 05, 2009, 05:26:47 PMTelling me I am satan is a lie. Can satan cast out satan?
Yeah, there's no question that Christians claiming to be Satan are cursing the Blood by which they've been sanctified and doing despite to the Spirit of Grace and crucifying to themselves afresh the Son of God and holding Him up to public contempt. Zero difference from calling Christ Jesus Himself Satan. Zero difference after experiencing His grace. Zero difference. It's heretical gnosticism, from the pit of Hell, and will burn in Hell for the ages of ages anyone who won't repent of that error. It's the furthest thing from Biblical Christianity. For this reason, among others, according to St. Paul, many of 'em are sick and some of 'em have died! You can't touch the Temple of the Holy Ghost that way, God's Anointeds, and attempt to do harm to His prophets in that way. Not and get away with it. There's no way of doing it and avoiding being given over to a reprobate mind. Minimally, this is the exaltation of sin consciousness against the Blood of Jesus Christ until the harvest has reached maturity; it's iniquity that's reached fullness, and it's a scattering work against Him that is not gathering the nations. It's idolatry and being ignorant of the righteousness of God -- seeking to establish one's own righteousness by the ministry of condemnation. It's unquestionably fallen from grace! It's additionally the doctrine of the Kabbalists and Freemasonery. I was in the occult in my preteens and recognize the doctrine all too well!
Let me clarify then because I think this post could be aimed at my comments. At no time do I say that Christians are Satan. I say that we are Satan. This is a direct reference to the disobedient nature of man. So if someone is a Christian then they are no longer disobedient. Also, if we are no longer disobedient, then we are no longer us but rather we are now Him.
Paul
Hi WillieH
Quote from: willieHOne cannot "learn" obedience, unless DISOBEDIENCE has been presented to one as an option... And that is what TEMPTATION ...does and IS...
Let me try to put into words "POSSIBILITY" in conjunction with SOVEREIGNTY:
Within the Sovereignty of GOD lie ALL POSSIBILITIES bro... because they occur EXACTLY as the Declaration of YHVH noted them "end to beginning"... did not remove "POSSIBILITY".
The "choice" of men, is the same thing... Somehow we "choose", but those "choices" are already noted, and we are "choosing" according to that Divine Notation -- Isaiah 46:10-11
What I am saying is that ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE with GOD, meaning that CHRIST had to be truly TEMPTED AS are we, and OVERCAME that TEMPTATION, but COULD have fallen... as the "ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE" with GOD enters in...
That CHRIST "could have fallen" simply means that ALL THINGS remain POSSIBLE with GOD... but though ALL things are POSSIBLE with God, does NOT MEAN that ALL POSSIBILITIES occur in manifestation...
Had GOD so ordained, ...CHRIST would have fallen because He was a MAN... but it was NOT ORDAINED that He fall, rather it was ORDAINED that He OVERCOME... eh? :dontknow: (I know that sounds a bit confusing, but to say that CHRIST "could NOT" have fallen, notes an "IMPOSSIBILITY" with GOD within His Sovereignty...
It's not really confusing becuase you need to factor in something. The reason it was not ordained that he fall is because God himself was keeping his mind. This is really the foundation of the Gospel itself: God's rest. By what Peter described as the impartation of the Divine Nature, it is GOD that changes our desires from carnal and lustful to purified. That is what makes it all of him and not of us, why we do not save ourselves from sin, but rely on the Holy Spirit. The question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have? He had it completely. This is why Paul makes the EXCEPTION that CHrist was "without sin." He was without sin, not by his own struggles against a carnal mind, but by God's Divine intervention. This is why we must rightly divide the difference being presented in the NT between Christ having a fear of death and Christ also being in God's rest concerning SIN.
QuoteI love you bro... :friendstu: and thanks for presenting this "example scenario" for I have LIVED this scenario with my own son when he was little boy... I did EXACTLY as you propose... I thoroughly explained about a glass "wall heater" and the effects of touching it... Can you GUESS what happened? :laughing7:
I have raised 3 kids (youngest is 32), and am partaking in the rearing of 10 grandkids (oldest is 16, youngest 6 months)... and believe me, the "SCHOOL of LIFE" concerning the concepts of "obedience and disobedience" shall they TEACH YOU, as you live the life of a father and grandfather! :laughing7:
Can I guess what happened? I don't have to guess :laughing7:. They disobeyed? But why? Because
they were not without sin. That is why Jesus is an example to them too. :HeartThrob:
QuoteEXAMPLE: You have NO MONEY, and a piece of bubblegum lying in a box in the store, does not propose to you that you "steal it" to you, neither does a "red guy" jump up and hint to you this possibility... the bubblegum lies within ownership of the store (which possession is rightfully within the LAW), and it is YOUR DESIRE to CHEW IT, that "presents" the TEMPTATION to relieve the store of its possession of it... :dontknow:
Or a person can present the temptation. While I understand your theory about Satan not being a being, it is not something that can dogmatically relied upon to analyze Christ's temptation with Satan. WillieH, Satan just means "opposer." If an angel-being is sent by God to oppose something, that being becomes an opposer/satan. You probably could acknoledge that there can be many different types of satans, without the necessity to EXLUDE it as a being. This is another false dilemma. That our own carnal minds can act as an opposer/satan DOES NOT IN ITSELF exclude all other options. Example: PETER WAS A BEING, and what did Jesus call him?
Therefore the temptation presented to Christ was presented externally to him. How do I know this? Because Christ's mind was not in the Flesh, but in the bosom of his Father completely and without measure. Christ's mind was in God's REST and therefore according to GRACE, was kept supernaturally apart from sin. That God supernaturally changes our desires is exactly what the Gospel is about, and why we must GROW in the Spirit and leave ourselves behind.
Quote from: willieHBut Scripture ALSO SAYS that he WAS TEMPTED (God cannot be tempted) and therefore TEMPTATION was PART of CHRIST's experience as a MAN... which does not equate to SINNING... SINNING is found within the submission to the TEMPTATION...
It says he was tempted. And it says he was without sin. Do you agree that Man can tempt God? That is why it says "Do not tempt the Lord your God."
Hebrews 3:8-10
Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness:
When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Wait a minute. God was tempted? Yes he was. But he was not tempted BY SIN. And Christ was also WITHOUT SIN when temptation was presented to him.
Does that mean that God can FEEL tempted by man?
QuoteJames 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN... [including the "man" CHRIST] ...is TEMPTED, when he is drawn away of his own lust [desire] and enticed...
QuoteTHIS, does NOT mean that one "ENTICED" is SINNING or has SINNED... it is when the ENTICEMENT is INDULGED [concieved] that SIN is born:
James 1:15 -- THEN, ...when LUST hath CONCIEVED [has been indulged], it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished, bringeth forth death...
[/quote]
Brother, you are doing exactly what Peter admonished us NOT to do, that is to take a SINGLE scripture and establish it as a single/private interpretation. You do realize that sin is within before it is worked outwardly, according the scriptures right?
QuoteThe LUST you are speaking of brother S... is NOT the desire males have naturally for females. God gave us to be ATTRACTED to one another, and it is NOT SIN to be attracted to females or vice versa... It is SIN to engage the mind SEXUALLY of a Woman... which is gone beyond "attraction"... and is INWARDLY INDULGING in UNLAWFUL process... and I do NOT suggest JESUS ever did this... The NATURAL attraction He had for women, as a man, presented FURTHER pondering to Him which He REJECTED...
Desire of WOMAN is not SIN... It is NATURAL and GIVEN of GOD to men... That I desired my wife because she was beautiful did NOT mean that I had sinned as I observed her beauty... To LUST in the HEART of a WOMAN is to have made a SEXUAL fantasy of HER, not just "desire" her... and wish to get to know her...
I know it is not a sin to be attracted to females. It is a sin to look upon them with lust. This is how I know Jesus never did that.
QuoteActually it says He was TEMPTED in several places in the WORD... It is your present observation which desires (not lusts :laughing7:) to insert the word "TESTED"... and thereby negating what actually occured.
The biggest difference in our present observations, is that you must find a way around James 1:14 and explain how it applies to JESUS in different way than it applies to ALL "other" MEN, ...I do not...
You are welcome to believe as you do bro... I see it differently. Either JESUS OVERCAME that which we DO NOT... or it was a sham.
WillieH, I am not inserting the word "tested." Look it up, the word used is tested, that is what it means.
peirazōto test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.
Jesus was enticed and scrutinized, tested. But nothing suggests that any sinful feeling entered into his mind. And WillieH, what would be a sham is to say that Christ overcame anything of himself. Sinful thoughts were not needed for Christ to overcome. It was his FEAR OF DEATH. By overcoming his fear of death, it made him able to reconcile the world.
Quote from: trettep on July 05, 2009, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
Quick questions to help me understand.
1. Where do you think everyone's "self" Satan dwells? Mind, Body, Spirit, or all three?
2. Would you still sin if you were were not "Satan"?
3. What happened to Jesus' Satan? He was ressurected from the dead but Satan has not yet been destroyed?
And I still fail to see the importance? What does it matter? Satan nor you play any role what so ever in which ressurection you will be in. :dontknow:
Satan has no affect on God's Grace or Jesus' faith what so ever.
Paul
Satan is spirit - for it is the exhibition of the disobedient nature of man.
Paul
I don't understand, are you saying your Spirit is what causes you to sin?
Quote from: trettep on July 05, 2009, 05:58:54 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:15:21 AM
Yes, it's all context..
Terms like Adversary and Accuser are generic and non specific. I could make the sin described as "Lust" into Satan the Adversary. :2c:
How does Paul use the term Satan. for example... can Satan have messengers?
2Co 12:7 Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me --to keep me from exalting myself!
In 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, should the "messenger of Satan" be taken figuratively or literally? When Paul has used the term "messenger" throughout his epistles, he has always referred to a person. This understanding would be consistent with the context of 2 Corinthians 10, 11, 12 and 13 where he is speaking of opponents of the Corinthian church.
The phrase "messenger of Satan" should be taken literally, because Paul is referring to humans who personally oppose him within the context of those who seek to distort the message of Christ. And the "thorn" afflicting Paul does not appear to be limited to his current missionary journey to Corinth.
So what purpose did the "thorn" serve?
In 2 Corinthians 12:7, Paul indicates that he was blessed to be the recipient of many revelations from Jesus Christ, which was an honor that could bring about personal pride and glory. However, God provided Paul human opponents with the intent of causing some kind of "weakness" in Paul, which resulted in his attitude of humility and humbleness.
The "weakness" that Paul writes about is not entirely clear; however, it apparently refers to difficulties caused by other people namely, persecution and insults (2 Cor 11:30-33; 2 Cor 12:10; 2 Cor 13:3-4). Not only did this cause personal pain and suffering for Paul, but the public challenge of his integrity and religious authority made his ministry more
difficult.
What was Paul's response to "a thorn in the flesh"?
What was the Lord's response to Paul? Paul did not like the "thorn in the flesh" and sought to get rid of it (2 Cor 12:8). While he pleaded with the Lord to remove it three times, the Lord said, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." In response to Paul's desire, the Lord only gave Paul what he needed. The power of the Lord is more effective and experienced best when one is more dependent on Him; the will of God is not brought about by human effort. Paul's comments indicated his understanding of God's intent in allowing the presence of opponents to his ministry. While it discouraged his spiritual well being, Paul never complained. Instead he changed his outlook and reveled in it when he understood how it deepened his faith and dependence in God. Paul's testimony served as a wonderful example to the Corinthian church on how a Christian can respond to adversity.
From my own studies... Paul's messenger from Satan was more likely a Christian Jew from Jerusalem, who went behind Paul teaching the need to still follow the Law, while Paul taught the law of the Christ which is "Grace." (Gal 2:16) (Gal 6:2)
Paul
Barnabas shows that the "thorn" represented a "terrible nature". And that the reference is applied to those that desire to remove the scarlet (sin) will suffer the thorn. Those that suffer the terrible nature shall receive a crown. It is interesting to note that He that suffered the terrible nature in an effort to remove all sin had received a CROWN of THORNs. Barnabas went on to say that those desiring the Kingdom must lay hold of the Lord thru tribulation and affliction.
Paul
You need to read the Old Testament more... :laughing7:
Num 33:55 But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, then those whom you allow to remain will be irritants in your eyes and
thorns in your side,
and will cause you trouble in the land where you will be living.
Jos 23:13 know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and
thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.
Trettep, Thorn in the flesh is a well known
Old Testament Hebraic way of saying...
"Pain in the ass!" :laughing7:
Don't seek support for your beliefs, seek the truth! This way you will never be disappointed.
Paul is telling us he has been given a pain in the ass (Person) directly from Satan. And God refused to remove this prick from his life! Can you not relate... :laughing7:
Peace fellow seeker,
Paul
QuoteThe question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have?
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodilyColossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God..."fulness" [of the Godhead]
G4138
πλήρωμα
plērōmaplay'-ro-mah
From G4137;
repletion or completion
"repletion"The condition of being fully supplied or completely filled.
A state of excessive fullness.
Superabundant fullness
Being filled to the point of bursting.
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 02:55:58 AM
QuoteThe question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have?
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God...
"fulness" [of the Godhead]
G4138
πλήρωμα
plērōma
play'-ro-mah
From G4137; repletion or completion
"repletion"
The condition of being fully supplied or completely filled.
A state of excessive fullness.
Superabundant fullness
Being filled to the point of bursting.
Godhead is an incorrect term... The more correct way would read...
Col 2:9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
This is the description of the term Messiah, or Christ! The Anointed one!
As to Col 1:15
Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
How does one who is firstborn of all creation relate to that which is out beginning or end? How is that which has a beginning become to be the image of that with has no beginning?
I know the answer Molly, but I can't show you here on this forum! It's not related to U.R. and too controversial for
our forum!
P.M. me if your interested
Paul
"firstborn" [of all creation]
G4416
πρωτοτόκος
prōtotokos
pro-tot-ok'-os
From G4413 and the alternate of G5088; first born (usually as noun, literally or figuratively): - firstbegotten (-born).
A word combined FROM:
G4413
πρῶτος
prōtos
pro'-tos
Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former.
G4253
πρό
pro
pro
A primary preposition; "fore", that is, in front of, prior (figuratively superior) to. In compounds it retains the same significations: - above, ago, before, or ever. In compounds it retains the same significations.
AND:
G5088
τίκτω
tiktō
tik'-to
A strengthened from of a primary word τέκω tekō (which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses); to produce (from seed, as a mother, a plant, the earth, etc.), literal or figurative: - bear, be born, bring forth, be delivered, be in travail.
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
--Mat 23
Psalm 63:7
Because thou hast been my help, therefore in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice.
God as a mother-hen to his chicks. Superior in all things, before all things--the 'mother' of creation.
16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
--Col 1
Quote from: Pierac on July 06, 2009, 02:05:56 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 05, 2009, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
Quick questions to help me understand.
1. Where do you think everyone's "self" Satan dwells? Mind, Body, Spirit, or all three?
2. Would you still sin if you were were not "Satan"?
3. What happened to Jesus' Satan? He was ressurected from the dead but Satan has not yet been destroyed?
And I still fail to see the importance? What does it matter? Satan nor you play any role what so ever in which ressurection you will be in. :dontknow:
Satan has no affect on God's Grace or Jesus' faith what so ever.
Paul
Satan is spirit - for it is the exhibition of the disobedient nature of man.
Paul
I don't understand, are you saying your Spirit is what causes you to sin?
Paul I'm saying it IS indeed a spirit that causes us to sin. It is known in scripture as the "spirit of disobedience". This is our spirit when we are disobedient.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 04:34:40 AM
Quote from: Pierac on July 06, 2009, 02:05:56 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 05, 2009, 05:30:53 PM
Quote from: Pierac on July 05, 2009, 01:27:42 AM
Quick questions to help me understand.
1. Where do you think everyone's "self" Satan dwells? Mind, Body, Spirit, or all three?
2. Would you still sin if you were were not "Satan"?
3. What happened to Jesus' Satan? He was ressurected from the dead but Satan has not yet been destroyed?
And I still fail to see the importance? What does it matter? Satan nor you play any role what so ever in which ressurection you will be in. :dontknow:
Satan has no affect on God's Grace or Jesus' faith what so ever.
Paul
Satan is spirit - for it is the exhibition of the disobedient nature of man.
Paul
I don't understand, are you saying your Spirit is what causes you to sin?
Paul I'm saying it IS indeed a spirit that causes us to sin. It is known in scripture as the "spirit of disobedience". This is our spirit when we are disobedient.
Paul
Indeed we sin in both Body and Spirit...
2Co 7:1 Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from
all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
But also soul...
KJV Eze 18:20
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
NASB Psa 24:4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood And has not sworn deceitfully.
Trettep we do not need a Spirit called Satan within us to Sin. Man's whole being was corrupt from the beginning! Why? Because man has always been flesh!
1Th 5:23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely;
and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
You can not separate a human being into a body, soul and spirit. As they combine to make up the whole person.
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing,
but the flesh is weak.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Gen 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of
the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Mat 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.
Rom 7:18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me,
that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
So what does this really mean? How does Satan and Jesus himself play into this?
Well, we know that the wages of sin is death!
We also know we have sin in our whole being as shown in the above scriptures... Body , Soul, and Spirit.
A major factor in the meaning of Christ's Atonement concerns the matter of His death.
Did Christ really die? That is, did all of Him die or was it only part (his body as some teach) that died?
This is an important point for us to consider and understand. A vast number of preachers and theologians accept that only part of Christ actually died at the time of His crucifixion while the rest of His personality continued to live without interruption and in a complete conscious and active state. In a word, they are saying that the real Christ did not actually die on the tree of crucifixion.
If Christ did not in fact die (or did not die completely) then His Atonement becomes thoroughly ineffective. This means that you and I, and all Christians, do not have a savior (1 Corinthians 15:12–17). You had better be assured in your mind that Christ did die and that all His person died, or the teaching of Christianity about the efficacy of Christ's Atonement is destroyed.
Note this point. There can be no forgiveness of sins unless someone pays for those sins through the act of death.
"And for this cause he [Christ] is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternall [eonian]
inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator [a contract victim in the Old Testament was an animal sacrifice and in the New Testament it was Christ].
For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is no strength at all while the testator lives" Hebrews 9:15–17
The truth is Christ Jesus did in fact
DIE, just like you and I will die. He did not possess some kind of
"immortal soul" in the Platonic fashion of explanation. Christ did not go to heaven immediately at His death, like so many people imagine Him doing today. He was dead in His grave for three days—thoroughly dead and totally unconscious.
The following scriptures show that Christ Jesus was indeed just like any other human who ever lived on earth. This means that when Jesus became flesh (Luke 1:35) Jesus was like all human beings: He had a body, a soul, and a spirit. The Bible refers, to His body (John 2:21), to His soul (John 12:27), and to His spirit (Mark 8:12).
So here we have Jesus the Christ represented in the full and whole nature of man.
But now we come to
the nitty-gritty. Is it possible for the spirit of humans to have sins on it? Indeed! The apostle Paul said,
"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." 2 Corinthians 7:1
Without doubt, the spirit part of a person can be filthy with sins. Indeed, there are many scriptures that speak about such sins. (1 John 4:6 , Hosea 4:12; 5:4 , Num 5:14 ; 30 , Isaiah 19:14).
Since it is clear that all humans possess a nature of body, soul, and spirit, and
we all have committed sins in the body, the soul, and the spirit, it then follows that Christ (Who also was made up of body, soul, and spirit)
had to take our place in all three areas of His and our nature. The only way that we could be cleansed of our sins in the body, soul, and spirit was for Christ to take those sins on His human nature and die in
His body, in
His soul, and
His spirit.
This means that when Jesus the Christ breathed His last breath and committed His spirit to the Father, He was returning the life-giving element of God that gave Him the ability to live. ( Ecclesiastes 12:7 ).
He, as a conscious personality, was not returning to the Father in heaven because three days later after His resurrection He told Mary "Touch me not; for I have not ascended to my Father" (John 20:17). When Jesus let the spirit of life go back to God,
He died! This happens to all humans when we die (read Ecclesiastes 12:7 again).
Did Jesus' Body, Spirit and Soul stay dead? Peter tells us in ... 1 Peter 3:18, Christ's spirit was once
made alive again. There is great significance to all this.
It must be recognized that the spirit that returned to the Father at Christ's death was not the living
PERSONALITY of Jesus the Christ. Had it been the personality that went back to the Father (with all the factors that constitute the conscious personality), then Jesus' statement after His resurrection three days later
would be an utter contradiction. Christ said,
"Touch me not because I have not yet ascended to my Father" (John 19:17). It is clear the person of Jesus the Christ did not immediately return to heaven!
So, at the crucifixion Christ simply yielded up the spirit that made Him alive. In a word, He died and this means in His body, in His soul and, with no more spirit within Him to sustain His life, He died in spirit as well. Now this teaching of scripture does not set too well with what has become known as "orthodox" Christianity, but it is nonetheless true according to the divine Word of God.
The simple fact is, when Christ yielded up the spirit to the Father in heaven, that spirit was not the conscious personality of Christ returning to God the Father.The Atonement that Christ legally effected for us is a simple doctrine to understand if one applies the basic teachings of the Old and New Testaments on how God deals with sins. Had mankind not adopted the false teaching of the
immortality of the soul" "the immortality of the spirit" principally from
Platonic philosophy, the Atonement would have been understood long ago. (1Ti 6:16) But man has not wanted the teachings of the Scripture to prevail in this matter.
They want to believe the first lie of the serpent that man would not die if he sinned. Of course, God said just the opposite (Genesis 2:17) and man has been dying in body, soul, and spirit ever since.
Yes, we all die in the same fashion as did God's own Son, Jesus the Christ[/b].Indeed Jesus died like all men. However, Jesus was special... He was God's Son (Luke 1:35) Made to be an offering for sin! (Isa 53:10)...
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death[/u], but the free gift of God is eternal life
in[/u] Christ Jesus our Lord.
2Co 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Jesus paid all the wages of sin for us!
the wage of death, in all body, spirit and soul!So, What happened to Jesus' own
"Satan" trettep?
Paul
Quote from: PieracDid Jesus' Body, Spirit and Soul stay dead? Peter tells us in ... 1 Peter 3:18, Christ's spirit was once made alive again. There is great significance to all this.
What Bible are you reading? The King James says this--
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Peter 3:18
His body might be in the grave, but he's not.
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: PieracDid Jesus' Body, Spirit and Soul stay dead? Peter tells us in ... 1 Peter 3:18, Christ's spirit was once made alive again. There is great significance to all this.
What Bible are you reading? The King James says this--
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Peter 3:18
His body might be in the grave, but he's not.
The wages for sin is ? 18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:When? After He was seated at the right hand of God? Or while his body was dead in a hole in the ground? 1Peter3:18 has no time line attached sister, You assume Jesus could only talk to the dead while he was dead, yet you say he was not dead? Think about it. :wink1:
Paul
Quote from: Pierac on July 06, 2009, 07:23:44 AM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: PieracDid Jesus' Body, Spirit and Soul stay dead? Peter tells us in ... 1 Peter 3:18, Christ's spirit was once made alive again. There is great significance to all this.
What Bible are you reading? The King James says this--
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Peter 3:18
His body might be in the grave, but he's not.
The wages for sin is ?
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
When? After He was seated at the right hand of God? Or while his body was dead in a hole in the ground? 1Peter3:18 has no time line attached sister, You assume Jesus could only talk to the dead while he was dead, yet you say he was not dead? Think about it. :wink1:
Paul
As if they could kill the Spirit of God...
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.--John 10
How is he going to take his life up again if he doesn't exist to take it up again?
..the second man is the Lord from heaven--1 Cor 15:47
willieH: Hi brother S... :hithere:
I will split this into 2 parts as the answer will be quite long! :heat:
PART UNO...Quote from: willieHOne cannot "learn" obedience, unless DISOBEDIENCE has been presented to one as an option... And that is what TEMPTATION ...does and IS...
Let me try to put into words "POSSIBILITY" in conjunction with SOVEREIGNTY:
Within the Sovereignty of GOD lie ALL POSSIBILITIES bro... because they occur EXACTLY as the Declaration of YHVH noted them "end to beginning"... did not remove "POSSIBILITY".
The "choice" of men, is the same thing... Somehow we "choose", but those "choices" are already noted, and we are "choosing" according to that Divine Notation -- Isaiah 46:10-11
What I am saying is that ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE with GOD, meaning that CHRIST had to be truly TEMPTED AS are we, and OVERCAME that TEMPTATION, but COULD have fallen... as the "ALL THINGS are POSSIBLE" with GOD enters in...
That CHRIST "could have fallen" simply means that ALL THINGS remain POSSIBLE with GOD... but though ALL things are POSSIBLE with God, does NOT MEAN that ALL POSSIBILITIES occur in manifestation...
Had GOD so ordained, ...CHRIST would have fallen because He was a MAN... but it was NOT ORDAINED that He fall, rather it was ORDAINED that He OVERCOME... eh? :dontknow: (I know that sounds a bit confusing, but to say that CHRIST "could NOT" have fallen, notes an "IMPOSSIBILITY" with GOD within His Sovereignty...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMIt's not really confusing becuase you need to factor in something. The reason it was not ordained that he fall is because God himself was keeping his mind. This is really the foundation of the Gospel itself: God's rest. By what Peter described as the impartation of the Divine Nature, it is GOD that changes our desires from carnal and lustful to purified. That is what makes it all of him and not of us, why we do not save ourselves from sin, but rely on the Holy Spirit. The question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have? He had it completely.
May I interrupt this for a moment -- mm-kay?
GOD ordains EVERYTHING...
JESUS "not sinning" is as ordained as PHARAOH not letting the children GO...
We are actually LIVING parts of
YHVH... and He is about revealing to the BODY, what the HEAD has ALWAYS KNOWN -- Good and Evil...
JESUS as the SON of GOD, had the DIVINE nature... but as the SON of MAN, He NATURALLY had the NATURE of MAN... which means that the proposals of the FLESH would arise in Him, and it is over those proposals that He OVERCAME... (which by the way was ORDAINED before it occured --
Rev 13:8)
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMThis is why Paul makes the EXCEPTION that CHrist was "without sin." He was without sin, not by his own struggles against a carnal mind, but by God's Divine intervention. This is why we must rightly divide the difference being presented in the NT between Christ having a fear of death and Christ also being in God's rest concerning SIN.
CHRIST was "without sin" because He OVERCAME Temptation bro... If GOD made it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then there is something IMPOSSIBLE for GOD... GOD still, even though He had ORDAINED
CHRIST to be sin-less... included the actual OVERCOMING of TEMPTATION, for there is NOTHING that is IMPOSSIBLE for GOD...
Quote from: willieHI love you bro... :friendstu: and thanks for presenting this "example scenario" for I have LIVED this scenario with my own son when he was little boy... I did EXACTLY as you propose... I thoroughly explained about a glass "wall heater" and the effects of touching it... Can you GUESS what happened? :laughing7:
I have raised 3 kids (youngest is 32), and am partaking in the rearing of 10 grandkids (oldest is 16, youngest 6 months)... and believe me, the "SCHOOL of LIFE" concerning the concepts of "obedience and disobedience" shall they TEACH YOU, as you live the life of a father and grandfather! :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMCan I guess what happened? I don't have to guess :laughing7:. They disobeyed? But why? Because they were not without sin. That is why Jesus is an example to them too. :HeartThrob:
You missed my point... teaching someone obedience does NOT accomplish it as you suggested in your post bro... Obedience is LEARNED through EXPERIENTIAL living... and in the NATURAL, unassisted by GOD, we shall FAIL every time, to OBEY...
But when we submit to HIM and HIS POWER... we are able to OVERCOME as did our SAVIOR... for we have submitted ourselves to Spiritual VICTORY in HIS
WORD, instead of the Natural DEFEAT found within ours...
CHRIST learned obedience... by LIVING and being TESTED, in the very same WAYS we are... the big difference is POWER. You and I have BEEN CONCLUDED to UNBELIEF by the same POWER which CONCLUDED Him TO BELIEVE!
JESUS was the FIRST Son to LEARN COMPLETE and PERFECT Obedience... for all Sons before Him, depended upon it...
Quote from: willieHEXAMPLE: You have NO MONEY, and a piece of bubblegum lying in a box in the store, does not propose to you that you "steal it" to you, neither does a "red guy" jump up and hint to you this possibility... the bubblegum lies within ownership of the store (which possession is rightfully within the LAW), and it is YOUR DESIRE to CHEW IT, that "presents" the TEMPTATION to relieve the store of its possession of it... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMOr a person can present the temptation. While I understand your theory about Satan not being a being, it is not something that can dogmatically relied upon to analyze Christ's temptation with Satan. WillieH, Satan just means "opposer." If an angel-being is sent by God to oppose something, that being becomes an opposer/satan. You probably could acknoledge that there can be many different types of satans, without the necessity to EXLUDE it as a being.
I don't need the complication brother... I spent 25 years believing that there was this POWERFUL being with which I did battle... I could not see "him", I could not begin to KNOW what He knew, I could not match "his" antiquity in my vapor of a life... and then it was revealed to me WHAT "satan" IS...
Through much fussing with Craig, did GOD make the revelation actually occur... "satan" is the single most POWERFUL entity on the earth... "He" is worshipped, feared, written about, worried about, more than anything... Motion pictures and TV productions come out DAILY about "him"... it is ridiculously the single LARGEST deception there IS in the human race!
"satan" is a part of your Natural makeup as a human being Seth... it is the ability to "choose" to transgress the Command of God... No fantasy of a "red guy, with a flowing cape, a pitchfork in one hand, a sceptre in the other"... ordering the human race around like puppets...
Name me one instance where you have seen "him" Seth. Be honest. "satan" is the single LARGEST decieving element within Christianity which spends as much time on "him" as it does on God... When all along... IT is as much a part of YOU as your teeth or your arms & legs... IT is that which you DIE DAILY to... the YOU which is the OPPOSER of the Command of God, not some mythical imagined "devil" :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMThis is another false dilemma. That our own carnal minds can act as an opposer/satan DOES NOT IN ITSELF exclude all other options. Example: PETER WAS A BEING, and what did Jesus call him?
If you examine the text closely Seth... you will SEE that
JESUS was addressing "Peter's" agreement with MEN... and with the tainted WAYS of MEN, and not GOD... Re-read it for yourself:
Matt 16:23 --
but He turned and said unto Peter -- get thee behind Me "satan", thou are an offense unto Me, for [here it comes, bro, hope you get this!] ----> THOU SAVOREST NOT the THINGS that BE OF GOD, but THOSE that BE OF MEN -- such as the "THINGS" that Peter... had just spoken!!!
These are the THINGS of MEN, Seth: (verses 21-22)
from that time forth began JESUS to shew unto His disciples, how that HE MUST GO unto JERUSALEM, and SUFFER MANY THINGS of the elders and chief priests and scribes, ...and BE KILLED and be RAISED AGAIN the third day... Then PETER took Him, and began to rebuke Him, saying [the things of men] --BE IT FAR FROM THEE, Lord... THIS SHALL NOT BE UNTO THEE...It was THIS RENOUNCEMENT that was "satan", and was that which
CHRIST spoke against, for it was the THINGS of MEN... it was NOT Peter that
CHRIST spoke against... for goodness sake, bro... He, just 3 verses before, had NOTED that PETER would be GIVEN THE KEYS of the Kingdom of HEAVEN!!
CHRIST is here noting that PETER's words (not Peter himself), was that which was NOT in HARMONY with GOD and HIS
WORD...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMTherefore the temptation presented to Christ was presented externally to him. How do I know this? Because Christ's mind was not in the Flesh, but in the bosom of his Father completely and without measure. Christ's mind was in God's REST and therefore according to GRACE, was kept supernaturally apart from sin. That God supernaturally changes our desires is exactly what the Gospel is about, and why we must GROW in the Spirit and leave ourselves behind.
No amount of preaching by either of us shall change the other Seth... Just like leaving behind ET, and the "trinity", ...have I left the Halloween character that most Christianity believes in... You are welcome to keep it...
It is more than obvious to me that it is not your time to know this... and it is honorable for you to maintain your faith, until such time as GOD reveals... I walked 25 years without the understanding of the truth of the Salvation of ALL... so I am well aquainted with the DIVINE process... Only GOD can teach us bro...
Quote from: willieHBut Scripture ALSO SAYS that he WAS TEMPTED (God cannot be tempted) and therefore TEMPTATION was PART of CHRIST's experience as a MAN... which does not equate to SINNING... SINNING is found within the submission to the TEMPTATION...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMIt says he was tempted. And it says he was without sin. Do you agree that Man can tempt God? That is why it says "Do not tempt the Lord your God."
I do not believe that
JESUS was GOD... He was the SON of GOD... He even noted that He had a GOD --
Mark 15:34 -- Matt 27:46 -- GOD was not tempted,
JESUS ...was! GOD is SPIRIT, ...
JESUS was a MAN --
1 Tim 2:6Scripture notes it as you well know --
Heb 4:15Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMHebrews 3:8-10
Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: When your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years. Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do alway err in their heart; and they have not known my ways.
Wait a minute. God was tempted? Yes he was. But he was not tempted BY SIN. And Christ was also WITHOUT SIN when temptation was presented to him.
Does that mean that God can FEEL tempted by man?
Sorry Seth, but this TEMPTATION of GOD is NOT the TEMPTATION of men... God noted that men TRIED Him by PROVOCATION... and DID recieve His anger because of it... they wandered for FORTY YEARS... instead of crossing over...
NO... "temptation" which is noted in
Ps 95:8-11 which is quoted in
Heb 3:8-10... is NOT temptation to SIN... this was MEN PROVOKING GOD... NOT "tempting" Him to do EVIL... which is the SUBJECT we are discussing concerning the TEMPTATION of MEN... (of which
CHRIST is numbered)
So the answer to your question -- Can MAN TEMPT GOD (concerning EVIL)? is
NO... God cannot be TEMPTED (with EVIL)... He can however be PROVOKED... which is WHAT HAPPENED in this scenario...
To be continued in PART
DOS...
...willieH :cloud9:
willieH: Hi Seth... :hithere:
PART DOS:Quote from: willieHJames 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN... [including the "man" CHRIST] ...is TEMPTED, when he is drawn away of his own lust [desire] and enticed...
Quote from: willieHTHIS, does NOT mean that one "ENTICED" is SINNING or has SINNED... it is when the ENTICEMENT is INDULGED [concieved] that SIN is born:
James 1:15 -- THEN, ...when LUST hath CONCIEVED [has been indulged], it bringeth forth SIN and SIN when it is finished, bringeth forth death...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMBrother, you are doing exactly what Peter admonished us NOT to do, that is to take a SINGLE scripture and establish it as a single/private interpretation. You do realize that sin is within before it is worked outwardly, according the scriptures right?
I have listed MANY verses which combine with one another to establish that "satan" is NOT a being, nor that
IT is a "he"... That you cannot answer this verse, serves defeat to your arguement of "satan" as being, ...as far as I am concerned...
Here is what YOU CALL, ..."one verse" :laughing7:
The Scriptures state:
(1) CHRIST was a
MAN --
1 Tim 2:6(2) CHRIST was
TEMPTED (to SIN) --
Matt 4:1-11 (3) That GOD CANNOT be TEMPTED (with EVIL) --
James 1:13 --
CHRIST was...
(4) That EVERY MAN is TEMPTED in the same MANNER --
James 1:14 --
CHRIST was a
MAN(5) That
CHRIST was
TEMPTED ...
AS... are we in
ALL POINTS --
Heb 4:15 (6) There is not even a mention of "satan" in the
WORD, until
1 Chron 21:1... there are only 19 mentions of "satan" in all the OT, FOURTEEN of those NINETEEN are in JOB... which many consider a PARABOLIC or METAPHORIC writing... leaving only FIVE verses in the entire OT... in which "satan" appears... :pitiful:
Much like the FALLACY of
HELL, ...is its "keeper" preached to ears eager to hear negativity...
The
GOSPEL is
PEACE bro... there is no room for the furthering of this myth which only displaces GOD in its attentions...
I pray you might lose this attention... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieHThe LUST you are speaking of brother S... is NOT the desire males have naturally for females. God gave us to be ATTRACTED to one another, and it is NOT SIN to be attracted to females or vice versa... It is SIN to engage the mind SEXUALLY of a Woman... which is gone beyond "attraction"... and is INWARDLY INDULGING in UNLAWFUL process... and I do NOT suggest JESUS ever did this... The NATURAL attraction He had for women, as a man, presented FURTHER pondering to Him which He REJECTED...
Desire of WOMAN is not SIN... It is NATURAL and GIVEN of GOD to men... That I desired my wife because she was beautiful did NOT mean that I had sinned as I observed her beauty... To LUST in the HEART of a WOMAN is to have made a SEXUAL fantasy of HER, not just "desire" her... and wish to get to know her...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMI know it is not a sin to be attracted to females. It is a sin to look upon them with lust. This is how I know Jesus never did that.
I believe this is what you believe, brother Seth... but
JESUS was TEMPTED as are all men... When faced with that TEMPTATION, ...He did not INDULGE the TEMPTATION, ...and THAT is the separation between Him and US.
JESUS, however was TEMPTED to do this, or He was NOT TEMPTED as are we... Nor was He TEMPTED in ALL POINTS that we are TEMPTED...
Quote from: willieHActually it says He was TEMPTED in several places in the WORD... It is your present observation which desires (not lusts :laughing7:) to insert the word "TESTED"... and thereby negating what actually occured.
The biggest difference in our present observations, is that you must find a way around James 1:14 and explain how it applies to JESUS in different way than it applies to ALL "other" MEN, ...I do not...
You are welcome to believe as you do bro... I see it differently. Either JESUS OVERCAME that which we DO NOT... or it was a sham.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMWillieH, I am not inserting the word "tested." Look it up, the word used is tested, that is what it means.
peirazō
to test (objectively), that is, endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline: - assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt (-er), try.
This is semantics... Like saying "the HOOD" and "the NEIGHBORHOOD" are 2 different things... The "temptation" we are discussing is a TEST... but it is a MORAL "test"... I am just saying that to call it a "test" is to reduce it from what is actually being discussed...
JESUS did not OVERCOME a TEST... He OVERCAME TEMPTATION... The word TEMPTATION describes more accurately the TYPE of TEST He endured...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMJesus was enticed and scrutinized, tested. But nothing suggests that any sinful feeling entered into his mind.
Where did I suggest this Seth? I did not such a thing... this is strawman tactic bro... I, in all our discussion have NEVER SUGGESTED that
JESUS allowed SIN to enter His mind. Which would be that HE CONSIDERED doing what was PROPOSED... He however DID listen to the proposals... and it is with the MIND that a proposal is HEARD...
Here it is in a nutshell: I am saying that if a Woman comes up to you, provocatively and whispers to you that she wants you... THIS is a TEMPTATION... and that YOUR EARS heard HER WHISPER, and HER PROPOSAL, does NOT mean that YOU HAVE SINNED...
What shall be SIN is if you ACCEPT her proposal, or you ENTERTAIN it in thought.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMAnd WillieH, what would be a sham is to say that Christ overcame anything of himself.
I agree 100% with this... He OVERCAME, by the POWER of
YHVH within... which is exactly HOW this is accomplished IN US as well... the WORD deciding our action, instead of OUR NATURE... which
CHRIST had (as a MAN), whether or not you accept it...
QuoteSinful thoughts were not needed for Christ to overcome. It was his FEAR OF DEATH. By overcoming his fear of death, it made him able to reconcile the world.
Sorry bro, but TEMPTATION is NOT SIN... indulging TEMPTATION is ...whether in THOUGHT, WORD or action...
TEMPTATION is PROPOSAL... SIN is the acceptance and indulgence of the proposal... :dontknow:
:Peace:
...willieH :cloud9:
QuoteThe word "subtil" is often translated as "prudent" or other more glowing terms in the King James version. Remember, man is being made in God's image.
actually, the word subtle =`
aruwm which the serpent was.
NOW compare to """naked"" which adam and eve are said to be:
arowm from H6191 (in its original sense)
aruwmThat is the connection here to zero in on :thumbsup:
adam and eve """"naked"" FLESH.
dirt, earth, lower, carnality, all tie together in how they were NAKED!!!
peace
euty.....er um chuckt
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 02:55:58 AM
QuoteThe question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have?
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God...
"fulness" [of the Godhead]
G4138
πλήρωμα
plērōma
play'-ro-mah
From G4137; repletion or completion
"repletion"
The condition of being fully supplied or completely filled.
A state of excessive fullness.
Superabundant fullness
Being filled to the point of bursting.
:angel4:
amen. He had the Holy Spirit without measure. The title of this thread is "You ARE satan." What is the motivating logic to say that? That to be a man means that we have a natural spirit of disobedience in us.
As Paul (trittep) said: "If Jesus didn't have to overcome lust and evil things that come from the self then He didn't overcome as I have to overcome. I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to."
Now, let's ask ourselves, what is the logical conclusion about Jesus based on the logic and TITLE of this thread? If I, as a man without a full amount of the Spirit, therefore AM satan, what does that make Jesus, if he is like me? You see where it leads. The logical conclusion would have to be: Jesus is Satan.
But I am sure nobody who holds the same logic would actually say those three words, seeing as how blasphemous it would but all signs would have to point there.
QuoteMay I interrupt this for a moment -- mm-kay?
LOL, mm-kay? That was funny. You have always had a good sense of humor.
QuoteGOD ordains EVERYTHING... JESUS "not sinning" is as ordained as PHARAOH not letting the children GO...
We are actually LIVING parts of YHVH... and He is about revealing to the BODY, what the HEAD has ALWAYS KNOWN -- Good and Evil...
JESUS as the SON of GOD, had the DIVINE nature... but as the SON of MAN, He NATURALLY had the NATURE of MAN... which means that the proposals of the FLESH would arise in Him, and it is over those proposals that He OVERCAME... (which by the way was ORDAINED before it occured -- Rev 13:8)
That Christ was the son of Man does NOT in any way necessitate that sinful desires in his MIND would occur. The reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle. Christ's emotional struggle dealt with fear of death, which is the very context when the NT deals with Christ's likeness to us. However, Paul, concerning God's rest, is very clear to insert that Christ struggled emotionally, APART from sin. That is because the Gospel is consistent. Christ is our model to grow enough in the Spirit, that we do not struggle emotionally with sin, but rest always in God who IS our strength. Concerning the fear of death, it behooved God to make Christ like us in all things that he may overcome that fear and we may overcome the world as he did.
QuoteCHRIST was "without sin" because He OVERCAME Temptation bro... If GOD made it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then there is something IMPOSSIBLE for GOD... GOD still, even though He had ORDAINED CHRIST to be sin-less... included the actual OVERCOMING of TEMPTATION, for there is NOTHING that is IMPOSSIBLE for GOD...
John says that is is not possible for God to lie. It says God CANNOT lie. Hebrews 6:18 Titus 1:2
Nothing is impossible with God concerning the salvation of man. Christ was without sin, because he was WITHOUT sin, including sin in his mind and heart. That includes desire.
QuoteYou missed my point... teaching someone obedience does NOT accomplish it as you suggested in your post bro... Obedience is LEARNED through EXPERIENTIAL living... and in the NATURAL, unassisted by GOD, we shall FAIL every time, to OBEY...
Brother, I also think you missed my point. The teacher in my example was me to show how obedience can be learned without disobedience being an issue. The referrence was to how Christ learned obedience through suffering the persecution of the world. Christ learned obedience not necessitating disobedience be present first. His sufferings taught him to GROW in obedience, not turn from disobedience. The example I gave was to show how that disobedience is NOT an automatic necessity for learning obedience. If God taught Christ to learn through suffering, he learned it in the same way that I would teach my child to do this or that without waiting for her to be disobedient.
Quote"satan" is a part of your Natural makeup as a human being Seth... it is the ability to "choose" to transgress the Command of God... No fantasy of a "red guy, with a flowing cape, a pitchfork in one hand, a sceptre in the other"... ordering the human race around like puppets...
Name me one instance where you have seen "him" Seth. Be honest. "satan" is the single LARGEST decieving element within Christianity which spends as much time on "him" as it does on God... When all along... IT is as much a part of YOU as your teeth or your arms & legs... IT is that which you DIE DAILY to... the YOU which is the OPPOSER of the Command of God, not some mythical imagined "devil"
Bro, I never said Satan was a red guy in a cape. I just see that satan is a general term which does not relegate it to being a single entity at all times, OR a single concept OR condition at all times. Anything and anyone can be an opposer, and it just depends on what God sets in opposition to who and at what time. I don't believe in a blanket definition of "satan" because the Bible doesn't teach one.
QuoteIf you examine the text closely Seth... you will SEE that JESUS was addressing "Peter's" agreement with MEN... and with the tainted WAYS of MEN, and not GOD... Re-read it for yourself:
Matt 16:23 -- but He turned and said unto Peter -- get thee behind Me "satan", thou are an offense unto Me, for [here it comes, bro, hope you get this!] ----> THOU SAVOREST NOT the THINGS that BE OF GOD, but THOSE that BE OF MEN -- such as the "THINGS" that Peter... had just spoken!!!
I think you are reading into that past what it really says. It says, UNTO PETER "Get behind me satan, YOU (Peter) are an offense unto me because (for the reason that) YOU (Peter) savor not the things of of but of men. Peter is the satan because HIS DESIRES were in opposition to God.
The offense to Jesus, Jesus said, was Peter himself because of his mindset, and that is what made Peter in opposition to the things of God.
QuoteNo amount of preaching by either of us shall change the other Seth... Just like leaving behind ET, and the "trinity", ...have I left the Halloween character that most Christianity believes in... You are welcome to keep it...
When did I say I believed in the trinity? I don't believe in the trinity. You jumped to a conclusion about me. I am not talking about Christ as being a member of the trinity, I am talking about where his MINDSET was at. Contrary to Peter, Jesus's mind was in the bosom of his father. It isn't that Christ was a God separate and individually from his Father, or even equal to his father. It was that Christ thought it not robbery to be CONSIDERED equal to God (which the Bible also says). The reason for that is that Christ's MIND was kept by God and he was not in the flesh but in the Spirit.
QuoteI do not believe that JESUS was GOD... He was the SON of GOD... He even noted that He had a GOD -- -- GOD was not tempted, JESUS ...was! GOD is SPIRIT, ...JESUS was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6
Scripture notes it as you well know -- Heb 4:15
I don't know why you are bringing the trinity doctrine into this because it is definitely a strawman argument Willie. I love you bro, but you are way off track of what I am saying. I NEVER said that Jesus is God of his own nature. He thinks it not robbery to be CONSIDERED equal to God (Philippians 2:6-7), but I never said he IS God of his own nature. The reason he is CONSIDERED equal to God is by the fullness of God in him. That is why He is lower than His father, but higher than us. Still, I have no idea how this has anything to do with what I said.
QuoteSorry Seth, but this TEMPTATION of GOD is NOT the TEMPTATION of men... God noted that men TRIED Him by PROVOCATION... and DID recieve His anger because of it... they wandered for FORTY YEARS... instead of crossing over...
And the point being in that, is that temptation is an ACT of testing and trying. Christ was a man, but like unto us to the point of being apart from sin.
QuoteI have listed MANY verses which combine with one another to establish that "satan" is NOT a being, nor that IT is a "he"... That you cannot answer this verse, serves defeat to your arguement of "satan" as being, ...as far as I am concerned...
Here is what YOU CALL, ..."one verse"
The Scriptures state:
(1) CHRIST was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6
(2) CHRIST was TEMPTED (to SIN) -- Matt 4:1-11
(3) That GOD CANNOT be TEMPTED (with EVIL) -- James 1:13 -- CHRIST was...
(4) That EVERY MAN is TEMPTED in the same MANNER -- James 1:14 -- CHRIST was a MAN
(5) That CHRIST was TEMPTED ...AS... are we in ALL POINTS -- Heb 4:15
(6) There is not even a mention of "satan" in the WORD, until 1 Chron 21:1... there are only 19 mentions of "satan" in all the OT, FOURTEEN of those NINETEEN are in JOB... which many consider a PARABOLIC or METAPHORIC writing... leaving only FIVE verses in the entire OT... in which "satan" appears...
Much like the FALLACY of HELL, ...is its "keeper" preached to ears eager to hear negativity...
The GOSPEL is PEACE bro... there is no room for the furthering of this myth which only displaces GOD in its attentions...
I pray you might lose this attention...
There are many strawmen arguments there WilliH. I will list them: I never said that Christ IS God. I never said that Satan is a keeper of hell. My referrence to not interpreting a scripture solely had nothing to do with your interpretation of satan. It had to do with the definition of sin.
Romans 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth IN me.
Romans 7:20
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth IN me.
Romans 7:23
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.
Lust, the very desire itself, is sin in the heart according to Christ. And if THAT is seized upon, or "concieved" then it produces sin. It is sin producing sin if you harmonize. Lust is an inward act of sin in the HEART, as Jesus said. Now for them who do not have the Spirit, who are in the flesh, they war with God's law. But for them who have GROWN in the spirit, they rest. For them who are WITHOUT sin, which includes "sin dwelling within" they are at COMPLETE rest because they do not war with God. The struggle with sin is in the mind FIRST, because sin is in the flesh. But if the mind is renewed and kept by God, in the Bosom of the father, and not in the flesh, the war is over.
You say, regarding Job, "which many consider a PARABOLIC or METAPHORIC writing" So what if they consider it to be metaphoric. Something can be metaphoric and still have a literal root. I consider the entire Bible to be metaphoric, which does not mean I believe that nothing in it literally happened.
Job could have been afflicted by a being (not the keeper of hell *eyeroll*) but a BEING, or any given SPIRIT wandering to and fro on the earth and the writing could STILL be metaphoric.
QuoteI believe this is what you believe, Seth... but JESUS was TEMPTED as are all men... When faced with that TEMPTATION, ...He did not INDULGE the TEMPTATION, ...and THAT is the separation between Him and US.
JESUS, however was TEMPTED to do this, or He was NOT TEMPTED as are we... Nor was He TEMPTED in ALL POINTS that we are TEMPTED...
He was tested by satan in all points APART from sin.
QuoteThis is semantics... Like saying "the HOOD" and "the NEIGHBORHOOD" are 2 different things...
The "temptation" we are discussing is a TEST... but it is a MORAL test... I am just saying that to call it a "test" is to reduce it from what is actually being discussed...
JESUS did not OVERCOME a TEST... He OVERCAME TEMPTATION... The word TEMPTATION describes more accurately the TYPE of TEST He endured...
I am not reducing it, I am DISTINGUISHING it so that you understand HOW I am distinguishing it. And since you know that God can be tempted, it bears some distinguishing language to understand HOW God was tempted. Jesus overcame a test WillieH. It is the same word. Was it just semantics to you when you found out that Sheol and Hades were not the same as the Hell of the Evangelical world?
QuoteWhat shall be SIN is if you ACCEPT her proposal, or you ENTERTAIN it in thought.
You talk about sin's proposal and the pull of the flesh. Those are all feelings. The proposal is in the mind WillieH. There is no desire, or a "pull" without the mind being present to feel that pull. Christ is clear that the DESIRING after what is forbidden is a commitment of adultery in the heart. The desire is the "pull of the flesh." The feeling of lust IS the proposal to sin outwardly and is a sin of itself. Christ was braindead to sin as we are learning to be. The proposal to sin was not in his mind, it was from a test given to him of a spirit which was not in him, that is satan. That is not to say that "satan" is always this or always that. From the immediate context of the passage, and the overall sum of the word is how I determine what satan is in each particular case. The opposer can be anything.
Quotewhich CHRIST had (as a MAN), whether or not you accept it...
I accept that Christ was a man, but a man apart from sin. That means whether or not there was sin in his flesh - like it is with us - or not, does not matter. That his mind was not in the flesh, is the point. For Christ, there was no war like there is with us. Yes he was in all points tested, and apart from sin. He had been seized to Heaven by God even as as he was on earth speaking to his followers.
QuoteSorry bro, but TEMPTATION is NOT SIN... indulging TEMPTATION is ...whether in THOUGHT, WORD or action...
TEMPTATION is PROPOSAL... SIN is the acceptance and indulgence of the proposal...
I know that being tested with sin is not a sin in itself. However I do know that the "poposal to sin" if it is internal IS a thought or feeling toward what is forbidden. Itself that is sin, according to Jesus, and it is what Christ was apart from. Since Christ was not carnally minded (which was outright stated in the beginning of this thread, I conclude the difference in "testing" is not in an eternal emotional temptation to sin, but a testing to sin by which Christ revealed just how spiritual his mind already was. Without a carnal mind, there is no "pull of the flesh." OUr minds are part carnal and part spiritual insomuch as we do not have a FULL MEASURE of the Holy Spirit. But when we have have been given our full measure of the spirit, "when we see him," having the full inheritance, our minds will be completely converted to God's pure and spiritual mind like Christ's was.
Peace to you too bro. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 06:38:52 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 02:55:58 AM
QuoteThe question is, how much of the impartation of the Divine Nature did CHrist have?
Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily
Colossians 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God...
"fulness" [of the Godhead]
G4138
πλήρωμα
plērōma
play'-ro-mah
From G4137; repletion or completion
"repletion"
The condition of being fully supplied or completely filled.
A state of excessive fullness.
Superabundant fullness
Being filled to the point of bursting.
:angel4:
amen. He had the Holy Spirit without measure. The title of this thread is "You ARE satan." What is the motivating logic to say that? That to be a man means that we have a natural spirit of disobedience in us.
As Paul (trittep) said: "If Jesus didn't have to overcome lust and evil things that come from the self then He didn't overcome as I have to overcome. I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to."
Now, let's ask ourselves, what is the logical conclusion about Jesus based on the logic and TITLE of this thread? If I, as a man without a full amount of the Spirit, therefore AM satan, what does that make Jesus, if he is like me? You see where it leads. The logical conclusion would have to be: Jesus is Satan.
But I am sure nobody who holds the same logic would actually say those three words, seeing as how blasphemous it would but all signs would have to point there.
Let's take Satan out of the issue for a moment and look at what your saying. If Satan is like a man (any man) so we must assume a man that doesn't have the Holy Spirit. Would that mean that Jesus is still Holy if He is then like a man that doesn't have the Holy Spirit? In other words isn't being a man without the Holy Spirit just as bad as being Satan?
Paul
Wait a minute. You said let's take satan out of the issue, then you start talking about satan. Confusing.
The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
--Mat 20:28
"ransom"
G3083
λύτρον
lutron
loo'-tron
From G3089; something to loosen with, that is, a redemption price (figuratively atonement): - ransom.
The death of Christ is the redemption price for my life. This is what satan set up in the garden. Jesus gave himself as a ransom for me.
1Hear this, all ye people; give ear, all ye inhabitants of the world:
7-8Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life, for the ransom of their life is costly and can never suffice.
--Psalm 49
My Lord and my God. I am humbled beyond tears.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PM...
That Christ was the son of Man does NOT in any way necessitate that sinful desires in his MIND would occur. The reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle.
Seth, is there such thing as "sinful desire"? That is a term that I don't find in God's Word. What is a sinful desire? God even thinks Evil. For after man learned Good and Evil this is what it says:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as
one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Scriptures are pretty clear that the desire precedes the "sin".
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
So this term "sinful desires" is a fallacy. A red herring.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:53:28 PM
Wait a minute. You said let's take satan out of the issue, then you start talking about satan. Confusing.
Well, let me make it less confusing - Is a man Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
Luke 2:11
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
Matthew 1:23
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PM...
That Christ was the son of Man does NOT in any way necessitate that sinful desires in his MIND would occur. The reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle.
Seth, is there such thing as "sinful desire"? That is a term that I don't find in God's Word. What is a sinful desire? God even thinks Evil. For after man learned Good and Evil this is what it says:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Scriptures are pretty clear that the desire precedes the "sin".
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
So this term "sinful desires" is a fallacy. A red herring.
Paul
The word "sinful desires" is a fallacy simply because the actual phrase is not in the Bible, the King James? In that case claiming that "Jesus Christ had a carnal mind" is also a red herring, since that is an unscriptural phrase. The sinful desires I am talking about are desires RELATED to the sin in our members:
1 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (epithumia).
epithumia
From G1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden): - concupiscence, desire, lust (after).
Matthew 5:28
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust (epithumia) after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Looking on a woman to desire after her (epithumia) is a committment of adultery in the heart. That is ONE way that Christ is not like unto his brothers, by way of being APART from sin in the flesh described by Romans 7. If we have all looked upon a woman to desire after her (epithumia), Christ did not do that.
So the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:53:28 PM
Wait a minute. You said let's take satan out of the issue, then you start talking about satan. Confusing.
Well, let me make it less confusing - Is a man Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
What do mean by holy? Set apart?
QuoteSo the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
that would be coveting..right?
well either way im screwed. but wait, while me flesh desires to sin me mind/spirit desires God.
Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
We are either FREE or not, one who contols himself not to commit adultry yet lust's all day long is as much a slave as the one who commits, UNLESS.....
this is where i usually hear:
""so you are saying its ok to sin""" :sigh:
chuckt
14Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the grave from their dwelling.
15 But God will ransom my soul from the power of Sheol,...
--Psalm 49
.... the man Christ Jesus;
6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
--1 Tim 2
Quote from: chuckt on July 06, 2009, 08:45:14 PM
QuoteSo the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
that would be coveting..right?
well either way im screwed. but wait, while me flesh desires to sin me mind/spirit desires God.
We are either FREE or not, one who contols himself not to commit adultry yet lust's all day long is as much a slave as the one who commits, UNLESS.....
Exactly. The desire to sin is what occurs in the mind. Think about this. If we are braindead, when can we have lust, or any "pull of the flesh." The so-called "pull of the flesh" does not exist without the mind. And we are made to be braindead when we are baptized in Christ's death. Without the mind present in the flesh, the desires aren't there.
3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
--1 Tim 2
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: chuckt on July 06, 2009, 08:45:14 PM
QuoteSo the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
that would be coveting..right?
well either way im screwed. but wait, while me flesh desires to sin me mind/spirit desires God.
We are either FREE or not, one who contols himself not to commit adultry yet lust's all day long is as much a slave as the one who commits, UNLESS.....
Exactly. The desire to sin is what occurs in the mind. Think about this. If we are braindead, when can we have lust, or any "pull of the flesh." The so-called "pull of the flesh" does not exist without the mind. And we are made to be braindead when we are baptized in Christ's death. Without the mind present in the flesh, the desires aren't there.
yes but wouldnt the ""mind"" consist of that which is above and that which is below? so to speak?
what of this:
Rom 7:25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
1) the mind, comprising alike the faculties of perceiving and understanding and those of feeling, judging, determining
a) the intellectual faculty, the understanding
b) reason in the narrower sense, as the capacity for spiritual truth, the higher powers of the soul, the faculty of perceiving divine things, of recognising goodness and of hating evil
c) the power of considering and judging soberly, calmly and impartially
2) a particular mode of thinking and judging, i.e thoughts, feelings, purposes, desires
isnt this why the renewing of the mind is so important? if our mind is full of unloving, bad, evil, what will be left after the fire?
im remindeed of these:
Hbr 5:14 But solid food belongs to those who are of
full age, [that is], those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Chapter 13
1 If I should be speaking in the languages of men and of the messengers, yet should have no love, I have become resounding copper or a clanging cymbal.
2 And if I should have prophecy and should be perceiving all secrets and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so as to transport mountains, yet have no love, I am nothing.
3 And if ever I should be morselling out all my possessions, and if I should be giving up my body, that I should be boasting, yet may have no love, in nothing do I benefit.
4 Love is patient, is kind. Love is not jealous. Love is not bragging, is not puffed up,
5 is not indecent, is not self-seeking, is not incensed, is not taking account of evil,
6 is not rejoicing in injustice, yet is rejoicing together with the truth,
7 is forgoing all, is believing all, is expecting all, is enduring all.
8 Love is never lapsing: yet, whether prophecies, they will be discarded, or languages, they will cease, or knowledge, it will be discarded.
9 For out of an instalment are we knowing, and out of an instalment are we prophesying.
10 Now whenever maturity may be coming, that which is out of an instalment shall be discarded.
11 When I was a minor, I spoke as a minor, I was disposed as a minor, I took account of things as a minor. Yet when I have become a man, I have discarded that which is a minor's. 12 For at present we are observing by means of a mirror, in an enigma, yet then, face to face. At present I know out of an instalment, yet then I shall recognize according as I am recognized also.
13 Yet now are remaining faith, expectation, love -- these three. Yet the greatest of these is love.
for me i know the serpent/satan eats dust.
chuckt
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 08:26:03 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 08:01:18 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PM...
That Christ was the son of Man does NOT in any way necessitate that sinful desires in his MIND would occur. The reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle.
Seth, is there such thing as "sinful desire"? That is a term that I don't find in God's Word. What is a sinful desire? God even thinks Evil. For after man learned Good and Evil this is what it says:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Scriptures are pretty clear that the desire precedes the "sin".
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
So this term "sinful desires" is a fallacy. A red herring.
Paul
The word "sinful desires" is a fallacy simply because the actual phrase is not in the Bible, the King James? In that case claiming that "Jesus Christ had a carnal mind" is also a red herring, since that is an unscriptural phrase. The sinful desires I am talking about are desires RELATED to the sin in our members:
1 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust (epithumia).
epithumia
From G1937; a longing (especially for what is forbidden): - concupiscence, desire, lust (after).
Matthew 5:28
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust (epithumia) after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Looking on a woman to desire after her (epithumia) is a committment of adultery in the heart. That is ONE way that Christ is not like unto his brothers, by way of being APART from sin in the flesh described by Romans 7. If we have all looked upon a woman to desire after her (epithumia), Christ did not do that.
So the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
Seth, that is only once the desire has conceived. Did you not read the verse I posted?
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Why did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin? Why didn't he just say lust is sin? Don't see that verse 14 is showing that "conceived" means when the lust has drawn one away and enticed them then it brings forth sin. If you remove being drawn away and being enticed from lust then you don't have sin. See how God's Word is refuting what your attempting to say. You trying to make it out that the desire is sin which absolutely CONTRARY to what God's Word is showing here.
Paul
Quote from: chuckt on July 06, 2009, 09:11:25 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 08:51:09 PM
Quote from: chuckt on July 06, 2009, 08:45:14 PM
QuoteSo the Bible is clear that the desire TO sin IS a sin.
that would be coveting..right?
well either way im screwed. but wait, while me flesh desires to sin me mind/spirit desires God.
We are either FREE or not, one who contols himself not to commit adultry yet lust's all day long is as much a slave as the one who commits, UNLESS.....
Exactly. The desire to sin is what occurs in the mind. Think about this. If we are braindead, when can we have lust, or any "pull of the flesh." The so-called "pull of the flesh" does not exist without the mind. And we are made to be braindead when we are baptized in Christ's death. Without the mind present in the flesh, the desires aren't there.
yes but wouldnt the ""mind"" consist of that which is above and that which is below? so to speak?
It only consists of what is below if you don't have the fullness of God in you, which we do not. We only have it in earnest of the redemption. Christ's mind did not consist of what is below because "he was in the bosom" of his Father. The point of the Gospel is to be seized away from the flesh. That is why Paul says, "You are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit if it so be that the Spirit of God is within you." Christ was made flesh, but his mind was above, not divide like us who are not fully matured in the Spirit.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 08:31:17 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:53:28 PM
Wait a minute. You said let's take satan out of the issue, then you start talking about satan. Confusing.
Well, let me make it less confusing - Is a man Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
What do mean by holy? Set apart?
The same Holy as in Holy Spirit. So answer the question. Can a man be Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 09:14:56 PM
Seth, that is only once the desire has conceived. Did you not read the verse I posted?
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Why did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin? Why didn't he just say lust is sin? Don't see that verse 14 is showing that "conceived" means when the lust has drawn one away and enticed them then it brings forth sin. If you remove being drawn away and being enticed from lust then you don't have sin. See how God's Word is refuting what your attempting to say. You trying to make it out that the desire is sin which absolutely CONTRARY to what God's Word is showing here.
Paul
To understand what James is saying, understand where sin is FIRST according to Romans 7. SIN is in the flesh. It wars against the mind. That is what makes it lust.
The desire is a sin according to Christ. The desire itself is a committal in the heart. THEREFORE, when James says that when lust/desires (epithuma) has concieved (been seized upon) it brings
FORTH SIN. And sin brings death. James does not say lust is sin, not because he is denying that it is, but because he is talking about when it comes forth.
Don't you know that sin can produce more sin?
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 09:17:10 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 08:31:17 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 08:08:20 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:53:28 PM
Wait a minute. You said let's take satan out of the issue, then you start talking about satan. Confusing.
Well, let me make it less confusing - Is a man Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
What do mean by holy? Set apart?
The same Holy as in Holy Spirit. So answer the question. Can a man be Holy if he doesn't have the Holy Spirit?
Paul
I need you to be clearer Paul. People have varying opinions as to what holy means. Please be clearer.
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted,
when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then
when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanōsool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is,
seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch,
conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
The longing and the desire is sin committed in the heart according our Lord. John is simply saying how sin in the mind seized upon produces sin. That he doesn't replace the word "lust" with "sin" is not a denial that it is.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 09:38:30 PM
The longing and the desire is sin committed in the heart according our Lord. John is simply saying how sin in the mind seized upon produces sin. That he doesn't replace the word "lust" with "sin" is not a denial that it is.
There are steps here.
You have to meet all the steps to give birth to [conceive] the sin which then holds you prisoner unto death. You can go through all these steps without ever touching the woman is what Jesus tells us.
This is a favorite topic on Lifetime TV so I know about these things. :laughing7:
"conceive"gestate: have the idea for; "He conceived of a robot that would help paralyzed patients"; "This library was well conceived"
think: judge or regard; look upon; judge; "I think he is very smart"; "I believe her to be very smart"; "I think that he is her boyfriend"; "The racist conceives such people to be inferior"
become pregnant; undergo conception; "She cannot conceive"; "My daughter was conceived in Christmas Day"
There are steps: Sin committed in the heart = sinful desire/lust >>> Lust conceived produces sin.
Sin producing sin. That is the death described in Romans 7. Sin producing all kinds of covetousness until it becomes exeeding sinful.
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 09:47:12 PM
There are steps: Sin committed in the heart = sinful desire/lust >>> Lust conceived produces sin.
Sin producing sin. That is the death described in Romans 7. Sin producing all kinds of covetousness until it becomes exeeding sinful.
1}Tempted
2)drawn away of his own lust
3)enticed
4)conception
5)gives birth to sin
6)when finished gives birth to death.
You wouldn't believe the ridiculous problems people get into on lifetime tv because of a silly desire--murder,mayhem, life in prison, children's lives ruined, the whole ball of wax. :laughing7:
Our thoughts are very important--because, although people treat them as 'fantasy,' they eventually will lead to action.
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:54:03 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 09:47:12 PM
There are steps: Sin committed in the heart = sinful desire/lust >>> Lust conceived produces sin.
Sin producing sin. That is the death described in Romans 7. Sin producing all kinds of covetousness until it becomes exeeding sinful.
1}Tempted
2)drawn away of his own lust
3)enticed
4)conception
5)gives birth to sin
6)when finished gives birth to death.
You wouldn't believe the ridiculous problems people get into on lifetime tv because of a silly desire--murder,mayhem, life in prison, children's lives ruined, the whole ball of wax. :laughing7:
Our thoughts are very important--because, although people treat them as 'fantasy,' they eventually will lead to action.
Right. Man is tempted WHEN he is "
drawn away of his own lust." People who ignore the full scripture who say that Christ was tempted internally by sin, need to decide whether or not he was "drawn away by his own lust." If not then sin did not tempt him. Without the drawing away = no internal temptation. Christ could only be tempted by sin, if he was "drawn away with his own lust." Since lust is a sin in the heart, and Christ was apart from sin, sin could not tempt him because he was never drawn away BY lust. He was not a sinner in his heart to even have the desire.
The Bible says that
The Spirit of God led Christ to the mount to be tested of the devil. When the devil tested him, is there any case made that the devil "drew Christ away of Christ's own lust and enticed Him?" NO. Jesus gave immediate answers from the Word. The only struggle we see was when Christ wrestled with his fear of death.
If "satan" is the carnal mind in this case, we must conclude that Christ's carnal mind (an unscriptural phrase) "
drew him away of
his own lust, and enticed him."
I see absolutely no indication of that. All indications I find in the scriptures (especially Hebrews 2 and 5) concerning Christ's likeness to our temptations have to do with "fear of death." When it comes to the "feeling of our infirmity" Paul rings in clear with the exception: "apart from sin."
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 09:24:15 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 09:14:56 PM
Seth, that is only once the desire has conceived. Did you not read the verse I posted?
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Why did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin? Why didn't he just say lust is sin? Don't see that verse 14 is showing that "conceived" means when the lust has drawn one away and enticed them then it brings forth sin. If you remove being drawn away and being enticed from lust then you don't have sin. See how God's Word is refuting what your attempting to say. You trying to make it out that the desire is sin which absolutely CONTRARY to what God's Word is showing here.
Paul
To understand what James is saying, understand where sin is FIRST according to Romans 7. SIN is in the flesh. It wars against the mind. That is what makes it lust.
The desire is a sin according to Christ. The desire itself is a committal in the heart. THEREFORE, when James says that when lust/desires (epithuma) has concieved (been seized upon) it brings FORTH SIN. And sin brings death. James does not say lust is sin, not because he is denying that it is, but because he is talking about when it comes forth.
Don't you know that sin can produce more sin?
Wait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
Paul
willieH: Hi brother S... :hithere:
Before I continue our conversation, I would like to say that always it has been and IS a pleasure speaking with you. Even though we see this particular subject from different views, we are able to maintain respect for one another... I really appreciate this... I go to another forum, where hardly a post goes by without someone dissing what I said, instead of presenting their opposing viewpoint... Nice talkin with you my brother! :happygrin:
Quote from: willieHMay I interrupt this for a moment -- mm-kay?
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PM
LOL, mm-kay? That was funny. You have always had a good sense of humor.
:laughing7:
Quote from: willieHGOD ordains EVERYTHING... JESUS "not sinning" is as ordained as PHARAOH not letting the children GO...
We are actually LIVING parts of YHVH... and He is about revealing to the BODY, what the HEAD has ALWAYS KNOWN -- Good and Evil...
JESUS as the SON of GOD, had the DIVINE nature... but as the SON of MAN, He NATURALLY had the NATURE of MAN... which means that the proposals of the FLESH would arise in Him, and it is over those proposals that He OVERCAME... (which by the way was ORDAINED before it occured -- Rev 13:8)
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMThat Christ was the son of Man does NOT in any way necessitate that sinful desires in his MIND would occur.
I have not suggested that
CHRIST entertained SIN in His mind... I have continually stated that TEMPTATION was proposed to HIM, as it is proposed to US... via the NATURE of the FLESH, and in the mind which is
LEARNING OBEDIENCE...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMThe reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle. Christ's emotional struggle dealt with fear of death, which is the very context when the NT deals with Christ's likeness to us.
Though I did not address this when you said it earlier, I will now -- I do not believe that
CHRIST "feared death"... it is an assumption to deduce that FEAR was present in Him... I more view
CHRIST, having been given "pre-vision" of the TORMENT that He was to endure on the WAY to that DEATH... was that "cup" which He prayed might be passed.
He knew He was going to be beaten, ridiculed, whipped, etc... and as one might easily agree, this is hardly something one would be "looking forward" to... I also believe that He was completely confident that He would RISE from DEATH... so in
that, I do not see Him as "FEARING" death... (you are welcome to believe otherwise, guess we will find out for sure one day!)
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMHowever, Paul, concerning God's rest, is very clear to insert that Christ struggled emotionally, APART from sin. That is because the Gospel is consistent. Christ is our model to grow enough in the Spirit, that we do not struggle emotionally with sin, but rest always in God who IS our strength. Concerning the fear of death, it behooved God to make Christ like us in all things that he may overcome that fear and we may overcome the world as he did.
I don't find a great degree of disagreement with you here... As I said... I do not believe He struggled with fear of DEATH, I believe He struggled with the distaste for the TORTURE and PAIN that was coming... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHCHRIST was "without sin" because He OVERCAME Temptation bro... If GOD made it IMPOSSIBLE for Him to SIN... then there is something IMPOSSIBLE for GOD... GOD still, even though He had ORDAINED CHRIST to be sin-less... included the actual OVERCOMING of TEMPTATION, for there is NOTHING that is IMPOSSIBLE for GOD...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMJohn says that is is not possible for God to lie. It says God CANNOT lie. Hebrews 6:18 Titus 1:2
Nothing is impossible with God concerning the salvation of man. Christ was without sin, because he was WITHOUT sin, including sin in his mind and heart. That includes lust.
About IMPOSSIBLE... It is "impossible" for God to LIE because He is TRUTH... How can WHITE be BLACK? Even in this... GOD is ALMIGHTY... and NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE, except that which HE proposes to be so... The athiests ask -- "can God make a rock too heavy for Him to lift?" And I say YES... for in the Creation of this "rock" He PURPOSES it to
NOT be LIFTED...
About the supposition that EVIL was not proposed to the mind of
CHRIST, ...That is YOUR POSITION of view bro, not mine... I believe that
CHRIST was a MAN, in
EVERY WAY that a MAN, ...
IS... to include enduring the
proposals of TEMPTATION in the FLESH... You are welcome to see it otherwise, and for the record, I spent many years (about 30) in the same mindset, that you presently hold... :shakepoint:
I also spent 25 years believing either that
HELL or
Annhilation would be the "end" of MANY... I KNOW better these days, ...and also KNOW that the belief I held (
Hell or Annhilation), though it was held IN SINCERITY, ...was short of the TRUTH... :nod:
Quote from: willieHYou missed my point... teaching someone obedience does NOT accomplish it as you suggested in your post bro... Obedience is LEARNED through EXPERIENTIAL living... and in the NATURAL, unassisted by GOD, we shall FAIL every time, to OBEY...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMBrother, I also think you missed my point.
:omg: BOY! ...we're just a couple of "point missers" aren't we? :pointlaugh: :laugh: (just kidn') :wink1:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMThe teacher in my example was me to show how obedience can be learned without disobedience being an issue. The referrence was to how Christ learned obedience through suffering the persecution of the world. Christ learned obedience not necessitating disobedience be present first. His sufferings taught him to GROW in obedience, not turn from disobedience. The example I gave was to show how that disobedience is NOT an automatic necessity for learning obedience. If God taught Christ to learn through suffering, he learned it in the same way that I would teach my child to do this or that without waiting for her to be disobedient.
Around the "rosey" do we "ring" eh? :laughing7: ...Obedience is just like any other principle presented in the wisdom of our Creator, Seth... The OPPOSITE of a concept plays a PIVOTAL PART in the definition of the PRINCIPLES and LAWS He presents! EVIL is the other side of a 2 edged sword... GOOD also stems from the SAME ROOT...
OBEDIENCE cannot be, without DISOBEDIENCE... The 2 are INSEPARABLE... One LIGHTS up understanding of the presence of the OTHER...
Only via the very SAME PRESENTATION to transgress the COMMAND of GOD... can OBEDIENCE be displayed in the face of DISOBEDIENCE... Both were done by MEN --
ADAM=Disobedient to the COMMAND of GOD
<!> CHRIST=Obedient to the COMMAND of GOD --
1 Cor 15:22 -- Rom 5:19Quote from: willieH"satan" is a part of your Natural makeup as a human being Seth... it is the ability to "choose" to transgress the Command of God... No fantasy of a "red guy, with a flowing cape, a pitchfork in one hand, a sceptre in the other"... ordering the human race around like puppets...
Name me one instance where you have seen "him" Seth. Be honest. "satan" is the single LARGEST decieving element within Christianity which spends as much time on "him" as it does on God... When all along... IT is as much a part of YOU as your teeth or your arms & legs... IT is that which you DIE DAILY to... the YOU which is the OPPOSER of the Command of God, not some mythical imagined "devil"
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMBro, I never said Satan was a red guy in a cape.
I was messin' witya... I realize that I am quite sarcastic about this myth... :laughing7:
Don't you see brother... This whole thing has grown into a WORLD WIDE mythology, which is ENJOYED by the WORLD? "satan" is an ICON in this world bro! He has the "spotlight" that rightly belongs to GOD, even in the RELIGION and THEOLOGY of Christianity!
QuoteI just see that satan is a general term which does not relegate it to being a single entity at all times. Anything and anyone can be an opposer.
Well... you have a pretty unique belief in this myth bro (no offense)... Most see "Him" as a "Him" not a "Them"... they just believe that "he" has innumerable "cronies" that "he" orders around... which is even MORE ridiculous. Where were these innumerable "demons" in the OT? Were they on vacation in the Bahamas? :laughing7:
Let's put it this way (forgive my facetiousness):
Does it make more sense for a car manufacturer to put "cig lighters" in their cars as part of their manufactured "makeup" or hire innumerable people to drive alongside them, with cigarette lighters in case the drivers of their cars, wanted to have a "smoke"? :dunno:
Does my example sound RIDICULOUS? Of course it does... and THAT is the point... There are only 4 verses in the OT which mention "devils", and only 5 verses (outside of Job) that mention "satan"... Whattupwidat? Is this not a PIVOTAL TOPIC? Why does GOD pretty much IGNORE it?
JESUS did not come to present NEW problems... He came REPAIR OLD ONES...
Quote from: willieHIf you examine the text closely Seth... you will SEE that JESUS was addressing "Peter's" agreement with MEN... and with the tainted WAYS of MEN, and not GOD... Re-read it for yourself:
Matt 16:23 -- but He turned and said unto Peter -- get thee behind Me "satan", thou are an offense unto Me, for [here it comes, bro, hope you get this!] ----> THOU SAVOREST NOT the THINGS that BE OF GOD, but THOSE that BE OF MEN -- such as the "THINGS" that Peter... had just spoken!!!
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMI think you are reading into that past what it really says. It says, UNTO PETER "Get behind me satan, YOU (Peter) are an offense unto me because YOU (Peter) savor not the things of of but of men. Peter is the satan because HIS DESIRES were in opposition to God.
This is another of the "God LOVES the sinner, but HATES the sin" variety bro... :nod:
It is NOT Peter who is distasteful to
CHRIST... as is DISPLAYED in the extremely close proximity of the CONTEXT which avails the GRAND notation that
JESUS would be giving Peter the KEYS to the Kingdom of HEAVEN... :boogie:
It is this little set of WORDS which came OUT of Peter, that
CHRIST got "miffed" at... (if one is "miffed" are they in fact, "miffing"? :laughing7: --- am I just "miffing" something here? :laughing7:)
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMThe offense to Jesus, Jesus said, was Peter himself because of his mindset, and that is what made Peter in opposition to the things of God.
Whatever brother S... Is not the "mindset" the
words he spoke? And in this "mindset" is Peter not showing his ignorance?
As I have said... the school of life has much to teach you in the coming years... and as it does... your dedication and heart toward God will bring you into a position which will be quite formidable in the understanding and teaching of the
WORD.
That said... there are things you have yet to gain in that process bro... and I do not in any way "dis" you for that... You WILL see one day, that "satan" is the portion of MAN which is found in his DISOBEDIENT and NATURAL
will, that must give way to the WILL of
YHVH...
Quote from: willieHNo amount of preaching by either of us shall change the other Seth... Just like leaving behind ET, and the "trinity", ...have I left the Halloween character that most Christianity believes in... You are welcome to keep it...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMWhen did I say I believed in the trinity? I don't believe in the trinity. You jumped to a conclusion about me. I am not talking about Christ as being a member of the trinity, I am talking about where his MINDSET was at.
I did not conclude you in any way, ...and was not speaking of
YOU Seth... sorry for the misunderstanding... I don't know what you believe concerning the "trinity"... so let's not get off the path on that one... mmkay? :laughing7: ...I was noting
MY EXPERIENCE... "have ...
I... left"
I was making known to you, things which ...
I... once believed and have since (through study, and seeking and LIVING), learned
otherwise... THAT is what the pathway of LIFE, is all about!
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMContrary to Peter, Jesus's mind was in the bosom of his father. It isn't that Christ was a God separate and individually from his Father, or even equal to his father. It was that Christ thought it not robbery to be CONSIDERED equal to God (which the Bible also says). The reason for that is that Christ's MIND was kept by God and he was not in the flesh but in the Spirit.
I do not contest this... But in order for
CHRIST to OVERCOME, ...He had to have been faced with THAT which faces us... You are welcome to believe otherwise...
CHRIST's "equality" with GOD, was found in the fact that the ENTIRETY of
YHVH GOD was dwelling IN HIM... along with the MAN which was the SON of MAN...
Quote from: willieHI do not believe that JESUS was GOD... He was the SON of GOD... He even noted that He had a GOD -- -- GOD was not tempted, JESUS ...was! GOD is SPIRIT, ...JESUS was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6
Scripture notes it as you well know -- Heb 4:15
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMI don't know why you are bringing the trinity doctrine into this because it is definitely a strawman argument Willie. I love you bro, but you are way off track of what I am saying. I NEVER said that Jesus is God of his own nature. He thinks it not robbery to be CONSIDERED equal to God (Philippians 2:6-7), but I never said he IS God of his own nature. The reason he is CONSIDERED equal to God is by the fullness of God in him. That is why He is lower than His father, but higher than us. Still, I have no idea how this has anything to do with what I said.
My words were a reaction to yours bro, when you said:
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 12:53:10 AMIt says he was tempted. And it says he was without sin. Do you agree that Man can tempt God? That is why it says "Do not tempt the Lord your God."
to which I replied:
Quote from: willieHI do not believe that JESUS was GOD... He was the SON of GOD... He even noted that He had a GOD -- Mark 15:34 -- Matt 27:46 -- GOD was not tempted, JESUS ...was! GOD is SPIRIT, ...JESUS was a MAN -- 1 Tim 2:6
Then you brought up
Heb 3:8-10 which is a quote of
Psalm 95:8-11 which is in reference to
Ex 17:2-7, which is NOT "TEMPTATION" to do EVIL and NOT the same manner of "TEMPTATION" that
CHRIST OVERCAME! :heat:
Quote from: willieHSorry Seth, but this TEMPTATION of GOD is NOT the TEMPTATION of men... God noted that men TRIED Him by PROVOCATION... and DID recieve His anger because of it... they wandered for FORTY YEARS... instead of crossing over...
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 07:10:28 PMAnd the point being in that, is that temptation is an ACT of testing and trying. Christ was a man, but like unto us to the point of being apart from sin.
Testing or trying is done in many different contexts Seth... The mention you used of GOD being TEMPTED in Exodus, is NOT to do EVIL... it was "testing" which was PROVOCATION...
The TEMPTATION we are discussing here is that of the PRESENTATION of EVIL to MAN... and that "satan" is either the "presenter" as a being or the "presenter" as a PRINCIPALITY which is PART of the NATURAL Makeup of MAN...
YOU determine it an ACT, because YOU percieve it is presented by an EXTERNAL intelligence you wish to name as "satan"
I percieve and determine that it is a PART of the NATURAL and CREATED NATURE of Human beings, one of which was
JESUS CHRIST... and that NO "sentient" external being is necessary for TEMPTATION to propose itself to ANY MAN, including
CHRIST...
TEMPTATION is NOT... SIN. TEMPTATION is the INVITATION to SIN.
CHRIST was INVITED to do so... Whether by your perception of "satan" as a "being" or my perception of "satan" as the NATURAL WILL of MAN...
In any event,
CHRIST was INVITED to SIN... He refused. The INVITATION itself is NOT SIN... and that has been well discussed and documented by me in this convo several times...
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:33:21 PM
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"
G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanō
sool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is, seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch, conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
Yes, Molly, your seeing it! This is what Jesus was able to do. He was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him, and those originated within Him and yet He didn't let them draw Him away and entice Him and thus those thoughts could not bring forth sin. It is in this way that He is a man just like all of us. Notice that James says those applies the temptation to our OWN lusts. So the only way Jesus could even be tempted was to have His OWN lusts. So Jesus showed that via the Holy Spirit that He received that He was able to put down sin (by not giving into temptation - that arose in His own flesh). This is why He is the author of our salvation. He did it! Via the Holy Spirit.
Paul
Quote from: willieH on July 06, 2009, 10:54:16 PM
willieH: Hi brother S... :hithere:
Before I continue our conversation, I would like to say that always it has been and IS a pleasure speaking with you. Even though we see this particular subject from different views, we are able to maintain respect for one another... I really appreciate this... I go to another forum, where hardly a post goes by without someone dissing what I said, instead of presenting their opposing viewpoint... Nice talkin with you my brother! :happygrin:
Hi, I'm sort of a bystander, for now, here in this converstation ... :laughing7:
but just had to post that I noticed this too, and have been blessed by it.
Peace to you both. :thumbsup:
sparrow
Quote from: Seth on July 06, 2009, 10:13:53 PM
Right. Man is tempted WHEN he is "drawn away of his own lust."
Correct!
QuotePeople who ignore the full scripture who say that Christ was tempted internally by sin, need to decide whether or not he was "drawn away by his own lust."
...
But nobody here says this. Nobody I'm seeing here says that Christ was tempted BY SIN. No, what people here are saying is that Jesus was tempted by lust just as James is saying.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:33:21 PM
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"
G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanō
sool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is, seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch, conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
Yes, Molly, your seeing it! This is what Jesus was able to do. He was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him, and those originated within Him and yet He didn't let them draw Him away and entice Him and thus those thoughts could not bring forth sin. It is in this way that He is a man just like all of us. Notice that James says those applies the temptation to our OWN lusts. So the only way Jesus could even be tempted was to have His OWN lusts. So Jesus showed that via the Holy Spirit that He received that He was able to put down sin (by not giving into temptation - that arose in His own flesh). This is why He is the author of our salvation. He did it! Via the Holy Spirit.
Paul
well, yeah, but...
QuoteHe was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him,
no no no nooo
'evil' and Jesus do not go in the same sentence together.
34Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.--Luke 4
QuoteI do not contest this... But in order for CHRIST to OVERCOME, ...He had to have been faced with THAT which faces us... You are welcome to believe otherwise...
Yeah, he smashed satan between the eyes with the Holy Scripture.
But, just being in the presence of satan is exhausting.
So much evil...
...Trying to kill the Son of God by tempting him to prove himself by jumping off a high building...
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 11:40:37 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:33:21 PM
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"
G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanō
sool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is, seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch, conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
Yes, Molly, your seeing it! This is what Jesus was able to do. He was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him, and those originated within Him and yet He didn't let them draw Him away and entice Him and thus those thoughts could not bring forth sin. It is in this way that He is a man just like all of us. Notice that James says those applies the temptation to our OWN lusts. So the only way Jesus could even be tempted was to have His OWN lusts. So Jesus showed that via the Holy Spirit that He received that He was able to put down sin (by not giving into temptation - that arose in His own flesh). This is why He is the author of our salvation. He did it! Via the Holy Spirit.
Paul
well, yeah, but...
QuoteHe was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him,
no no no nooo
'evil' and Jesus do not go in the same sentence together.
34Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
--Luke 4
So you don't believe that Jesus could know Good AND Evil?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 11:51:08 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 11:40:37 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:33:21 PM
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"
G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanō
sool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is, seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch, conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
Yes, Molly, your seeing it! This is what Jesus was able to do. He was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him, and those originated within Him and yet He didn't let them draw Him away and entice Him and thus those thoughts could not bring forth sin. It is in this way that He is a man just like all of us. Notice that James says those applies the temptation to our OWN lusts. So the only way Jesus could even be tempted was to have His OWN lusts. So Jesus showed that via the Holy Spirit that He received that He was able to put down sin (by not giving into temptation - that arose in His own flesh). This is why He is the author of our salvation. He did it! Via the Holy Spirit.
Paul
well, yeah, but...
QuoteHe was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him,
no no no nooo
'evil' and Jesus do not go in the same sentence together.
34Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
--Luke 4
So you don't believe that Jesus could know Good AND Evil?
Paul
Of course he knew good and evil. He's God.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:--Gen 3
But, you can't have evil thoughts and be the Holy One of God.
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 12:02:09 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 11:51:08 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 11:40:37 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 06, 2009, 10:56:12 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 09:33:21 PM
Quote from: PaulWhy did James have to say that WHEN lust has conceived it brings forth sin?
Exactly.
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
"conceived"
G4815
συλλαμβάνω
sullambanō
sool-lam-ban'-o
From G4862 and G2983; to clasp, that is, seize (arrest, capture); specifically to conceive (literally or figuratively); by implication to aid: - catch, conceive, help, take.
What starts out as a longing or a desire becomes a prison cell with a life sentence. It's a different seed that is conceiving with our own desire, bringing forth a bitter fruit--sin unto death.
Yes, Molly, your seeing it! This is what Jesus was able to do. He was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him, and those originated within Him and yet He didn't let them draw Him away and entice Him and thus those thoughts could not bring forth sin. It is in this way that He is a man just like all of us. Notice that James says those applies the temptation to our OWN lusts. So the only way Jesus could even be tempted was to have His OWN lusts. So Jesus showed that via the Holy Spirit that He received that He was able to put down sin (by not giving into temptation - that arose in His own flesh). This is why He is the author of our salvation. He did it! Via the Holy Spirit.
Paul
well, yeah, but...
QuoteHe was able to have evil thoughts that tempted Him,
no no no nooo
'evil' and Jesus do not go in the same sentence together.
34Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God.
--Luke 4
So you don't believe that Jesus could know Good AND Evil?
Paul
Of course he knew good and evil. He's God.
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:
--Gen 3
But, you can't have evil thoughts and be the Holy One of God.
So how do you know Evil without having Evil thoughts?
Paul
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According
Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that
the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "
I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not
His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
His flesh was tempted by hubris, avarice and ambition.
But I'm not sure He owned them.
The prince of the air can enter and exit — in a breath.
QuoteSo how do you know Evil without having Evil thoughts?
Paul
You don't have to have evil thoughts to know evil, just be able to discern good and evil and look around.
I'm not plotting all day long to steal everyone's last dime, but I know it's evil when I see it.
"to know" good and evil
H3045
ידע
yâda‛yaw-dah'
A primitive root; to know
(properly to ascertain by seeing)
Lust can have a sexual application yet it can mean a strong desire too.
Can we lust after God?
cp
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 07, 2009, 01:02:13 AM
His flesh was tempted by hubris, avarice and ambition.
But I'm not sure He owned them.
Satan couldn't touch him.
30Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.--John 14
Does anyone here consider that evil and sin are 2 different things?
cp
God watches a little girl get raped and does nothing to stop it. For a person to do this it is a sin yet for God it is not. Evil is being acted out yet sin arises for one and not another.
Hmmmmmm, just thinking.
cp
willieH: Hi brother S...
QuoteBefore I continue our conversation, I would like to say that always it has been and IS a pleasure speaking with you. Even though we see this particular subject from different views, we are able to maintain respect for one another... I really appreciate this... I go to another forum, where hardly a post goes by without someone dissing what I said, instead of presenting their opposing viewpoint... Nice talkin with you my brother!
Likewise, my bro. I have learned much from you and even in this convo, I stand to learn even if we have some differing points of view.
QuoteI have not suggested that CHRIST entertained SIN in His mind... I have continually stated that TEMPTATION was proposed to HIM, as it is proposed to US... via the NATURE of the FLESH, and in the mind which is LEARNING OBEDIENCE...
Right. I am also stating that temptation was proposed to him. I suppose the difference is in what proposed and how that proposition occurs. "Temptation proposed" is a pretty vague impression to me. What I think it means as you say it (and correct me if I am not reading you right) is that the proposal is the urge, or as Paul (trittep) put it "thinking bad thoughts." Thinking bad thoughts and having urges to sin IS a sin committed in the heart. I also agree that temptation was proposed, but the spirit that proposed it was not in his mind.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 12:10:28 PM
The reason is that having the Divine Nature is what is responsible from RESTING from sinful desires not of our personal struggle. Christ's emotional struggle dealt with fear of death, which is the very context when the NT deals with Christ's likeness to us.
Though I did not address this when you said it earlier, I will now -- I do not believe that CHRIST "feared death"... it is an assumption to deduce that FEAR was present in Him... I more view CHRIST, having been given "pre-vision" of the TORMENT that He was to endure on the WAY to that DEATH... was that "cup" which He prayed might be passed.
He knew He was going to be beaten, ridiculed, whipped, etc... and as one might easily agree, this is hardly something one would be "looking forward" to... I also believe that He was completely confident that He would RISE from DEATH... so in that, I do not see Him as "FEARING" death... (you are welcome to believe otherwise, guess we will find out for sure one day!)
When I say "fear of death" am not talking necessarily about what Jesus KNEW would happen, more about what he felt. He suffered . The fear of death is desribed in Hebrews 2 and 5 where it talks about in what ways Christ was tempted like us and overcame. His brothers also had the fear of death. While apart from sin, Christ felt our infirmities and was tempted in all ways like us. Hebrews 5: Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." Perhaps "feared" is better understood as "respected" as in God heard Him because Christ respected and revered God. However the strong crying and tears we see is in regard to "the suffering" that Hebrews talks about "in the days of his Flesh." That has to do with death. I do not see that the testing of suffering had to do with a suffering regarding sin, but in suffering death, and the clear reference is to the Garden, when Christ was about to suffer death.
QuoteAbout the supposition that EVIL was not proposed to the mind of CHRIST, ...That is YOUR POSITION of view bro, not mine...
Well, I do believe it was proposed to the mind of Christ. But the proposal was dead in that Christ's mind was not within the flesh. We both agree that there was a proposal.
QuoteBOY! ...we're just a couple of "point missers" aren't we? (just kidn')
LOL
QuoteAround the "rosey" do we "ring" eh? ...Obedience is just like any other principle presented in the wisdom of our Creator, Seth... The OPPOSITE of a concept plays a PIVOTAL PART in the definition of the PRINCIPLES and LAWS He presents! EVIL is the other side of a 2 edged sword... GOOD also stems from the SAME ROOT...
OBEDIENCE cannot be, without DISOBEDIENCE... The 2 are INSEPARABLE... One LIGHTS up understanding of the presence of the OTHER...
That we understand the concept of obedience in that disobedience EXISTS, we have no argument. We agree on that.
However IN PRACTICE, it is DEFINITELY possible for Christ to learn obedience without first necessitating disobedience. It doesn't say that Christ learned obedience through "trial and error." It just says that he learned obedience through "suffering." Someone who is already obedient can still learn obedience when the test becomes tougher. There is no indication that Christ had to fail first in order to learn like we do.
to learn: to gain or acquire knowledge or skill, or commit to memory.
That is all learning is. To gain or aquire. Learning does not necessitate first losing or falling, only gaining. If I learn through suffering math class that 1+1 = 2 it's not that I was opposed to that. It was simply unlearned info that I gained.
QuoteI was messin' witya... I realize that I am quite sarcastic about this myth...
Don't you see brother... This whole thing has grown into a WORLD WIDE mythology, which is ENJOYED by the WORLD? "satan" is an ICON in this world bro! He has the "spotlight" that rightly belongs to GOD, even in the RELIGION and THEOLOGY of Christianity!
I get that, and I don't hold their opinion about it.
QuoteWell... you have a pretty unique belief in this myth bro (no offense)... Most see "Him" as a "Him" not a "Them"... they just believe that "he" has innumerable "cronies" that "he" orders around... which is even MORE ridiculous. Where were these innumerable "demons" in the OT? Were they on vacation in the Bahamas?
LOL. Satan was made into a proper noun, a capitalized name, which I do out of habit. I just read the text to find out what the opposer is in each case that "satan" is mentioned. I take it verse by verse and try to stay away from blanket definitions of it.
QuoteLet's put it this way (forgive my facetiousness):
Does it make more sense for a car manufacturer to put "cig lighters" in their cars as part of their manufactured "makeup" or hire innumerable people to drive alongside them, with cigarette lighters in case the drivers of their cars, wanted to have a "smoke"?
No that wouldn't make sense. But it does make sense to have a many-membered body of Christ when Jesus could have still done it all himself.
QuoteJESUS did not come to present NEW problems... He came REPAIR OLD ONES...
His parables created some problems for those without the Spirit, along with his intention that they not be understood. ;-)
QuoteThis is another of the "God LOVES the sinner, but HATES the sin" variety bro...
It is NOT Peter who is distasteful to CHRIST... as is DISPLAYED in the extremely close proximity of the CONTEXT which avails the GRAND notation that JESUS would be giving Peter the KEYS to the Kingdom of HEAVEN...
It is this little set of WORDS which came OUT of Peter, that CHRIST got "miffed" at... (if one is "miffed" are they in fact, "miffing"? --- am I just "miffing" something here? )
I didn't say Peter was distasteful to Christ. At least I didn't mean that if I did. It doesn't even say Christ was angry. He just turned and spoke. I try not to assume the emotional content of it. It just says what it says. That there is a grand meaning is possible. But Peter was definitely the opposer at that moment.
QuoteThat said... there are things you have yet to gain in that process bro... and I do not in any way "dis" you for that... You WILL see one day, that "satan" is the portion of MAN which is found in his DISOBEDIENT and NATURAL will, that must give way to the WILL of YHVH...
WillieH, I don't deny that Satan CAN be a portion of man. I said ANYTHING can be an opposer. But, I take verse by verse to see what satan is referring to in whatever context.
QuoteI do not contest this... But in order for CHRIST to OVERCOME, ...He had to have been faced with THAT which faces us... You are welcome to believe otherwise...
Right, he overcame the world, and all its persecutions. Concerning sin, God already overcame that for him. Concerning sin, he rested, which is why he was apart from sin. Concerning the world, Christ was not apart from the persecutions and sufferings it provided. He was tested in all feelings of our infirmities...apart from sin.
QuoteThen you brought up Heb 3:8-10 which is a quote of Psalm 95:8-11 which is in reference to Ex 17:2-7, which is NOT "TEMPTATION" to do EVIL and NOT the same manner of "TEMPTATION" that CHRIST OVERCAME!
Ok, now I see where the trinity thing came in. Thanks for clearing it up. My whole point of showing the temptation of God, was to show why I was using the word "tested" and "tempted." In English, we use the word "tempted" when describing what we feel, and "tested" to describe what someone presents. We have more words in English so they take on all different kinds of nuances. In the Greek its the same word so we have to use the context to determine what kind of "testing" it is.
That is why I said that Christ was tested, but not tempted, meaning that because he was without sin, there was nothing to war with his mind. So I agreed that the test was happening, but not according to a "pull of the flesh."
QuoteThe TEMPTATION we are discussing here is that of the PRESENTATION of EVIL to MAN... and that "satan" is either the "presenter" as a being or the "presenter" as a PRINCIPALITY which is PART of the NATURAL Makeup of MAN...
YOU determine it an ACT, because YOU percieve it is presented by an EXTERNAL intelligence you wish to name as "satan"
I percieve and determine that it is a PART of the NATURAL and CREATED NATURE of Human beings, one of which was JESUS CHRIST... and that NO "sentient" external being is necessary for TEMPTATION to propose itself to ANY MAN, including CHRIST...
Yes that the difference. The difference is in what we each believe to be acting as the opposer or deciever. I think you have decided that IN ALL CASES the opposer is the "natural and created" - I noticed you avoided "carnal" - nature is in every human including Christ. Since I do not believe Christ's mind was within the flesh, that satan would have been too muffled to be heard by Christ. That is why I believe that IN THIS CASE, the spirit testing Christ was not within his nature as a Spiritual man. The nature of a Spiritual man is made different the nature of the natural or carnal man. In that respect Christ was much different from us. Regarding the suffering of death he was in all points the same.
QuoteTEMPTATION is NOT... SIN. TEMPTATION is the INVITATION to SIN.
Scripturally, to be tempted is to be "drawn away of your own lust and enticed." Lust had to exist. Sin produces lust Romans 7:8. Christ was without sin, so sin could not produce lust in him, and lust could not draw him away and entice him.
QuoteBut nobody here says this. Nobody I'm seeing here says that Christ was tempted BY SIN. No, what people here are saying is that Jesus was tempted by lust just as James is saying.
The miscommunication is occurring by us not agreeing with where sin starts. SIN produces lust, what sin? The sin in our members. How does sin produce lust, by warring with our minds. Sin is the tempter because it creates the lust that tempts us. I should have been more clear about that.
What is necessary for Jesus to be tempted (drawn away of his own lust and enticed): That lust be present. What Paul called the "sin in me" is what produced lust in the first place. Christ being without sin, with a mind not in the flesh, could not be drawn away of his own lust and enticed because his mind was not at war with sin. His mind was not in the flesh at all.
Seth,
Perhaps you could write it all down in one new thread and leave a link as a referral.
HI Beloved Servant. I never thought about doing that. What does it accomplish?
Well, perhaps, you could remove all doubt.
I'm reminded of the second book of Timothy.
It is a quick, poignant read.
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts?
Paul
Through Christ — I am not feeble at all.
I don't even like that word.
Now, I can do all.
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 01:14:03 AM
QuoteSo how do you know Evil without having Evil thoughts?
Paul
You don't have to have evil thoughts to know evil, just be able to discern good and evil and look around.
I'm not plotting all day long to steal everyone's last dime, but I know it's evil when I see it.
"to know" good and evil
H3045
ידע
yâda‛
yaw-dah'
A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing)
Ok, Molly so believe that Jesus can't have evil thoughts. So you would agree that is unlike a man correct? We can have evil thoughts, correct?
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 02:07:24 AM
QuoteBut nobody here says this. Nobody I'm seeing here says that Christ was tempted BY SIN. No, what people here are saying is that Jesus was tempted by lust just as James is saying.
The miscommunication is occurring by us not agreeing with where sin starts. SIN produces lust, what sin? The sin in our members. How does sin produce lust, by warring with our minds. Sin is the tempter because it creates the lust that tempts us. I should have been more clear about that.
What is necessary for Jesus to be tempted (drawn away of his own lust and enticed): That lust be present. What Paul called the "sin in me" is what produced lust in the first place. Christ being without sin, with a mind not in the flesh, could not be drawn away of his own lust and enticed because his mind was not at war with sin. His mind was not in the flesh at all.
James, pretty much tells us when sin starts in the verses that I quoted from James but you didn't like that understanding.
Paul
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 07, 2009, 03:19:34 AM
Through Christ — I am not feeble at all.
I don't even like that word.
Now, I can do all.
So what about Jesus, could he be touched by our infirmaties?
Paul
This one is for Seth and Molly:
Jesus said:
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Was the flesh in Jesus weak also?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 01:14:03 AM
QuoteSo how do you know Evil without having Evil thoughts?
Paul
You don't have to have evil thoughts to know evil, just be able to discern good and evil and look around.
I'm not plotting all day long to steal everyone's last dime, but I know it's evil when I see it.
"to know" good and evil
H3045
ידע
yâda‛
yaw-dah'
A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing)
Ok, Molly so believe that Jesus can't have evil thoughts. So you would agree that is unlike a man correct? We can have evil thoughts, correct?
Paul
Not if we stay in him--
deliver me from evil--
God is faithful. He will not let you be tempted any more than you can take. But when you are tempted, God will give you a way out so that you can stand up under it. --1 Cor 10:13
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 07:41:52 AM
Quote from: Pierac on July 06, 2009, 07:23:44 AM
Quote from: Molly on July 06, 2009, 06:33:48 AM
Quote from: PieracDid Jesus' Body, Spirit and Soul stay dead? Peter tells us in ... 1 Peter 3:18, Christ's spirit was once made alive again. There is great significance to all this.
What Bible are you reading? The King James says this--
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
1Peter 3:18
His body might be in the grave, but he's not.
The wages for sin is ?
18For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
When? After He was seated at the right hand of God? Or while his body was dead in a hole in the ground? 1Peter3:18 has no time line attached sister, You assume Jesus could only talk to the dead while he was dead, yet you say he was not dead? Think about it. :wink1:
Paul
As if they could kill the Spirit of God...
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.
--John 10
How is he going to take his life up again if he doesn't exist to take it up again?
..the second man is the Lord from heaven
--1 Cor 15:47
Molly let's review John 10 in context of the whole New Testament! John 10:17-18
"I lay down my life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have power to lay it down, and power to take it up again. This commandment I have received from my Father."The argument is that Jesus is saying that he will raise himself, and since in other verses it says that God raised Jesus, then Jesus must be God.
First let me say that just plain common sense destroys this argument. The Bible is very clear that Jesus died. It does not say that part of him died, it says
"Jesus died" (all of him). The
Platonic argument that only his human side died is just that,
Platonic(from Greek philosophy). Even if you believe that, if only part of him died, then he is not truly dead.
So if we say that Jesus raised himself, we then have to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not dead because he is alive enough to raise himself. So our only alternative is to say that the word of God is wrong when it says that Jesus died. So now we are in a position that says that the Bible is incorrect. This is ludicrous, the Bible is not wrong and it is utterly clear that Jesus died.
This also brings up the point that if Jesus is Almighty God, and God is immortal, how can you kill God?
Look at what the NAB has to says about this verse:
Footnote on Jn. 10:17-18: "Power to take it up again" – contrasts the role of the Father as the efficient cause of the resurrection in Acts 2:24, 4:10 etc. Romans 1:4, 4:24.
Now let us see what this verse really means.
First the word here translated as
"power" is
exousia. It occurs just over 100 times, in a majority of these occurrences the RV translates it as
"authority," and 10 times as
"right." It is not the common word for
"power" which is
dunamis which means - power, strength, ability.
Both AV and RV translate exousia as
"right," for instance, in Rev. 22:14:
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right (exousia) to the tree of life."This obviously does not mean that obeying God's commands gives a man the phisical power to raise himself from the dead to immortality, but that he is thereby granted a right to it.
Even more to the point is Jn 1:12:
"But to those that did accept him he gave power (exousia, RV- right) to become children of God." The AV margins gives
"right or privilege." Believers have been given the
right or
privilege of becoming children of God, they have not been given the power to become the children of God.
These passages above illustrate what Jesus meant when he said he had exousia – the right to take up his life again after having laid it down in death.
As to who actually raised Jesus from the dead, the Scriptures leave not the slightest doubt. Time after time we are told that God raised him from the dead. Consider very particularly the record in Acts 2 for a clear understanding of the relation between Christ and God. Acts 2:22 states,
"Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN accredited by God to by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him."It then says in verse 24,
"But God raised him up."Then in verses 25-28 it speaks of the promise that God made to David.
"For David says of him: Because you (GOD) will not abandon my soul (Jesus) to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption."Verse 30 -32 goes on to say on the same subject:
"But since he was a prophet (David) and knew that God had sworn an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants upon his thrown, he foresaw and spoke of the resurrection of the Messiah, that neither was he abandoned to the netherworld nor did his flesh see corruption. GOD RAISED THIS JESUS, of this we are all witnesses."This next verse is about as clear as it can get:Acts 10:40 –
This MAN God raised on the third day."Here are a few more verses which all state that God raised Jesus from the dead. Please look them all up.
Acts 3:15 Ephesians 1:19-21 Heb. 13:20 Acts 13:30, 33, 34, 37 Acts 17:31 Rom. 6:4 2 Cor. 4:14 Gal. 1:1 Pt. 1:21
One thing to especially notice of John 10:17-18 is, it says:
"I have the power to take it up again. This commandment I have received from my Father."It will be remarkably noted that the very context of these verses quoted to support the Trinity are directly
contrary to the all-powerful, co-equal, none greater or less theory. The Father gave his Son a commandment. This is not equality.
One last thing, let us look at another verse on the same subject to see even more clearly that Jesus did not say or mean that he would resurrect himself. We go to Mark 14:58:
"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple made with hands and within three days I will build another not made with hands." If we insist that when Jesus says that he will build another temple that it means that he will resurrect himself, then when he says that he will destroy the temple, that has to mean that he will kill himself.
Did Jesus kill himself? No. Someone else did it. Did Jesus raise himself? No. Someone else did it, God. You cannot have it both ways. You must apply the same rule to both sides. – It is very clear who raised Jesus. Let us end this study with two verses.
Acts 3:13 –
"The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has glorified his servant Jesus."Who glorified his servant? The God of Abraham, Jacob,
the God of our ancestors. Do you interpret the verse above as if Jesus is the God of our ancestors? Of course not. Jesus is his servant.
Acts 5:30 –
"The God of our ancestors raised Jesus."So who raised Jesus?
A. Jesus.
B. The God of our ancestors.
C. Obama, American's Messiah (joke).
If you picked any answer but B you have not been paying attention. :wink1:
Paul
Philippians 4:13
He lives in and through me.
I'm no longer my own.
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 03:33:13 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:26:52 AM
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 01:14:03 AM
QuoteSo how do you know Evil without having Evil thoughts?
Paul
You don't have to have evil thoughts to know evil, just be able to discern good and evil and look around.
I'm not plotting all day long to steal everyone's last dime, but I know it's evil when I see it.
"to know" good and evil
H3045
ידע
yâda‛
yaw-dah'
A primitive root; to know (properly to ascertain by seeing)
Ok, Molly so believe that Jesus can't have evil thoughts. So you would agree that is unlike a man correct? We can have evil thoughts, correct?
Paul
Not if we stay in him--deliver me from evil--
God is faithful. He will not let you be tempted any more than you can take. But when you are tempted, God will give you a way out so that you can stand up under it.
--1 Cor 10:13
So then by those conclusions you would say that Jesus was only made after the likeness of a righteous man, correct?
Paul
Hi guys, this is slightly off-topic... but not really though.
Why do you all think that Jesus wept? (before he brought Lazarus back from the dead.)
Was he feeling the grief that WE feel when our loved ones pass over?
Why did he weep?
Any input would be appreciated!
Thanks!
sparrow
Quote from: sparrow on July 07, 2009, 03:41:04 AM
Hi guys, this is slightly off-topic... but not really though.
Why do you all think that Jesus wept? (before he brought Lazarus back from the dead.)
Was he feeling the grief that WE feel when our loved ones pass over?
Why did he weep?
Any input would be appreciated!
Thanks!
sparrow
Because He felt the grief of those that grieved for lazarus.
Paul
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
The flesh is the sin.
That's all.
He wept not for the death, but for the lack of life.
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:15:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts?
Paul
Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.
Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself
likewise took part of the same; IN THAT
through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested? Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.
If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.
Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren,
concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).
The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
Hi Paul, You know I believe that no one on this earth or any other world could have laid a hand on Jesus unless he allowed it. I consider him the most powerful being in the universe. He is the Creator of the universe.
He hands himself over to satan to pay the ransom for me.
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
--Act 8:32
He did that for me. He didn't have to do that.
Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
So, yes, he did lay his life down by choice, and the scripture says --
I have ....power to take it up again.
--John10
Ok let's look at it all--
"I have"
G2192
ἔχω
echō
ekh'-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh'-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):
"power"
G1849
ἐξουσία
exousia
ex-oo-see'-ah
From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
"to take"
G2983
λαμβάνω
lambanō
lam-ban'-o
A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [probably objective or active, to get hold of; whereas G1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while G138 is more violent, to seize or remove])
Here is an important word which is translated as 'it'
"it"
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons
"again"
G3825
πάλιν
palin
pal'-in
Probably from the same as G3823 (through the idea of oscillatory repetition); (adverbially) anew, that is, (of place) back, (of time) once more, or (conjugationally) furthermore or on the other hand: - again.
That word autos is the base for our word, automatic, meaning by itself. It means 'self.'
What he is saying then is ---Molly's translation---I hold the power to take back [my life] by myself.
And, this is Jesus the man talking.
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:42:34 AM
Quote from: sparrow on July 07, 2009, 03:41:04 AM
Hi guys, this is slightly off-topic... but not really though.
Why do you all think that Jesus wept? (before he brought Lazarus back from the dead.)
Was he feeling the grief that WE feel when our loved ones pass over?
Why did he weep?
Any input would be appreciated!
Thanks!
sparrow
Because He felt the grief of those that grieved for lazarus.
Paul
That's what I've always thought, too.
It's very comforting to me that Jesus wept.
and even moreso that when Lazarus was raised, his family was overjoyed.
Some say there will be no reunion, our loved ones here will have no special meaning over there. I think this is wrong and I think it casts love into a lot of confusion and darkness.
Well, sorry to go off-topic, but since folks are talking about the human side of Jesus, etc. it just made me think of that.
thanks,
sparrow
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
Yes the flesh is our weakest link, so Jesus comes in the resemblence [likeness] of this flesh to condemn sin in the flesh--not us, sin. That means, goodbye sin--
"condemn"G2632
κατακρίνω
katakrinōkat-ak-ree'-no
From G2596 and G2919;
to judge against, that is,
sentence: -
condemn, damn.55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. --1 Cor 15
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:02:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:15:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts?
Paul
Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.
Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; IN THAT through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested? Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.
If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.
Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren, concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).
The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.
What we have established is that MY Jesus is one that is a man like I am. Yours is NOT a man like you are - since you
can have lust in your heart. My Jesus was capable of sin.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 04:20:51 AM
Hi Paul, You know I believe that no one on this earth or any other world could have laid a hand on Jesus unless he allowed it. I consider him the most powerful being in the universe. He is the Creator of the universe.
He hands himself over to satan to pay the ransom for me.
He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:
--Act 8:32
He did that for me. He didn't have to do that.
Matthew 26:53
Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
So, yes, he did lay his life down by choice, and the scripture says --
I have ....power to take it up again.
--John10
Ok let's look at it all--
"I have"
G2192
ἔχω
echō
ekh'-o
A primary verb (including an alternate form σχέω scheō skheh'-o used in certain tenses only); to hold (used in very various applications, literally or figuratively, direct or remote; such as possession, ability, contiguity, relation or condition):
"power"
G1849
ἐξουσία
exousia
ex-oo-see'-ah
From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.
"to take"
G2983
λαμβάνω
lambanō
lam-ban'-o
A prolonged form of a primary verb, which is used only as an alternate in certain tenses; to take (in very many applications, literally and figuratively [probably objective or active, to get hold of; whereas G1209 is rather subjective or passive, to have offered to one; while G138 is more violent, to seize or remove])
Here is an important word which is translated as 'it'
"it"
G846
αὐτός
autos
ow-tos'
From the particle αὖ au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a baffling wind; backward); the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the compound of G1438) of the third person, and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons
"again"
G3825
πάλιν
palin
pal'-in
Probably from the same as G3823 (through the idea of oscillatory repetition); (adverbially) anew, that is, (of place) back, (of time) once more, or (conjugationally) furthermore or on the other hand: - again.
That word autos is the base for our word, automatic, meaning by itself. It means 'self.'
What he is saying then is ---Molly's translation---I hold the power to take back [my life] by myself.
And, this is Jesus the man talking.
But don't you see Molly, isn't the Jesus I'm proclaiming much more of a man then yours? The one I'm proclaiming could have lust in His heart but not allow it to bring forth sin. The Jesus I'm proclaiming never sinned but was in every way (and more so) tempted then I am and yet is as much as a man as I am.
Paul
Quote from: sparrow on July 07, 2009, 04:30:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:42:34 AM
Quote from: sparrow on July 07, 2009, 03:41:04 AM
Hi guys, this is slightly off-topic... but not really though.
Why do you all think that Jesus wept? (before he brought Lazarus back from the dead.)
Was he feeling the grief that WE feel when our loved ones pass over?
Why did he weep?
Any input would be appreciated!
Thanks!
sparrow
Because He felt the grief of those that grieved for lazarus.
Paul
That's what I've always thought, too.
It's very comforting to me that Jesus wept.
and even moreso that when Lazarus was raised, his family was overjoyed.
Some say there will be no reunion, our loved ones here will have no special meaning over there. I think this is wrong and I think it casts love into a lot of confusion and darkness.
Well, sorry to go off-topic, but since folks are talking about the human side of Jesus, etc. it just made me think of that.
thanks,
sparrow
No problem Sparrow, I see the connection and don't believe it is a diversion because of the way you put it.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 04:46:11 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
Yes the flesh is our weakest link, so Jesus comes in the resemblence [likeness] of this flesh to condemn sin in the flesh--not us, sin. That means, goodbye sin--
"condemn"
G2632
κατακρίνω
katakrinō
kat-ak-ree'-no
From G2596 and G2919; to judge against, that is, sentence: - condemn, damn.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
56The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
57But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
--1 Cor 15
But doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
QuoteBut don't you see Molly, isn't the Jesus I'm proclaiming much more of a man then yours? The one I'm proclaiming could have lust in His heart but not allow it to bring forth sin. The Jesus I'm proclaiming never sinned but was in every way (and more so) tempted then I am and yet is as much as a man as I am.
Paul
well, he can be tempted--satan stood in front of him and offered him the whole world (fine print: if you bow down and worship me). That's a temptation. So he was tempted. How would you respond to that? Would you start thinking about all the power and money and throw the rest of us under the bus? :happygrin:
I can't personally see Jesus desiring that or even entertaining it for a minute, and he certainly doesn't seem to pause before his reply.
What we are watching there is a spiritual warfare, which Jesus wins.
Quote from: Molly on July 07, 2009, 05:08:39 AM
QuoteBut don't you see Molly, isn't the Jesus I'm proclaiming much more of a man then yours? The one I'm proclaiming could have lust in His heart but not allow it to bring forth sin. The Jesus I'm proclaiming never sinned but was in every way (and more so) tempted then I am and yet is as much as a man as I am.
Paul
well, he can be tempted--satan stood in front of him and offered him the whole world (fine print: if you bow down and worship me). That's a temptation. So he was tempted. How would you respond to that? Would you start thinking about all the power and money and throw the rest of us under the bus? :happygrin:
I can't personally see Jesus desiring that or even entertaining it for a minute, and he certainly doesn't seem to pause before his reply.
What we are watching there is a spiritual warfare, which Jesus wins.
Sure he was under temptation but my question is - Is not my Jesus (the one I'm proclaiming) more of a man than yours?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:50:05 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:02:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:15:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts?
Paul
Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.
Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; IN THAT through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested? Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.
If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.
Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren, concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).
The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.
What we have established is that MY Jesus is one that is a man like I am. Yours is NOT a man like you are - since you can have lust in your heart. My Jesus was capable of sin.
Paul
As I have said Paul and as I have continually said: recongnize exeptions when they are presented. Don't ignore them. Jesus was like you in me. Exception: We have sin. Jesus was without sin. Sorry Paul but that is a MAJOR exception in to how Christ is like us.
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:52:25 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.
QuoteBut doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:17:43 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:50:05 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:02:41 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:15:19 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
QuoteWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
James is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust. If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself? I suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
This is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us. You say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already. If your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
So what your saying Seth is that Jesus cannot sympathize with our feebleness in having lust in our hearts?
Paul
Can he sympathize? He can sympathize. He can have compassion regarding our feebleness in having lust in our hearts. He was tested and we are tested.
Hebrews 2:14-18
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; IN THAT through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through FEAR OF DEATH were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Wherefore (SO THEN) in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
With what was Christ tested? With what are we tested? Reference 1 Thessalonians 3. Christ was a partaker of flesh and blood, IN THAT (ie to the intent that) THROUGH DEATH he might destroy him who the power of death, the devil. Christ was made like unto his brothers in those ways. The problem you have is that you are not recognizing the exceptions provided in scripture.
If I say I ate "all apples" except the ones in Washington. You can't take "ate all apple" and say that I ate all apples in the world. There are many ways that Christ is not like his brothers, which I covered, and one of them is being WITHOUT SIN. Are YOU without sin? No? Well then you have one way that Christ is not like you. You have sin in your members. Christ was without sin.
Christ was made a partaker of flesh and blood so that through death he might destroy him who had the power of death. He meant to deliver them who through fear of death were subject to bondage. SO THEN in all things he was made to be like his brethren, concerning what he was just talking about: mortality and fear of death, not a carnal mind. He wasn't even talking about temptation of lust at all! At least apply the right temptation to the context. That is why he is able to make reconciliation to the people, because he was tested with the suffering of death, and he passed the test and died. It is by his death we are reconciled (Romans 5).
The reconciliation is not in that Christ felt lust and overcame it. It is in that he overcame the test of DEATH and now can succor them who are tested the same.
What we have established is that MY Jesus is one that is a man like I am. Yours is NOT a man like you are - since you can have lust in your heart. My Jesus was capable of sin.
Paul
As I have said Paul and as I have continually said: recongnize exeptions when they are presented. Don't ignore them. Jesus was like you in me. Exception: We have sin. Jesus was without sin. Sorry Paul but that is a MAJOR exception in to how Christ is like us.
You see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine. But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.
Paul
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
Before I answer your reply, I saw this... and I have problems with it... :mshrug:
Quote from: trettepWait, let's back up. You haven't answered to James yet. You have not yet told me why James says when lust conceives it brings forth sin. You keep trying to tell me that lust is sin. You have yet to explain why James had to say that lust BRINGS FORTH SIN. You haven't told me why James doesn't call Lust itself sin.
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AMJames is not saying that lust comes first and sin comes second: According Romans 7:8 SIN WITHIN produces lust.
Sorry to immediately disagree, but I do... :winkgrin:
Lets break
James 1:14-15 down... a bit at a time...
James 1:14 --
but EVERY MAN is TEMPTED --
[This is defining TEMPTATION of EVERY MAN, which does not disinclude ANY which are considered MEN... including CHRIST]James 1:14 --
WHEN [the "TEMPTATION" is NOW on the scene] he [any man] is DRAWN AWAY of HIS OWN LUST [desire] and ENTICED... James 1:15 --
THEN [the LUST has already "drawn away" and "enticed" the subject] WHEN [another "when" or moment in the chronology of this process] LUST has CONCIEVED [which means "SEIZED"],
it bringeth forth SIN [LUST must CONCEIVE/SEIZE the subject, before SIN enters]James 1:14-15 definitely poses an ORDER to the manifestation of SIN... SIN is not present IN TEMPTATION... desire is prompted from within MAN, and thereby is the TEMPTATION presented... then ...THEN ...it moves to the next step which is "seizing or concieving",
then SIN is realized.
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself?
Sorry bro, but this is all over the place... the way you put it, we have SIN within, and that SIN produces LUST, which produces SIN... :wacko2:
That is NOT the process the Bible notes...
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AMI suppose it depends on how it is manifested: dead or alive? Lust to the one with the Spirit is dead and therfore not only not a sin, but not felt. But lust to the one without the spirit is alive, and is a committal of sin in the heart.
Now you are really confusing the issue bro... It is a SIMPLE process... which begins with the NATURAL MAN, and the desires within each of us, as created by
YHVH...
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AMThis is to say that in response to your words: "when Satan was tempting Jesus then it would mean that the thoughts of disobedience originated in Jesus' mind and thus not some external entity." and "I think bad thoughts so if Jesus is a man like me then He did to." The "thinking of bad thoughts" is when lust is seized upon and become sin, which is when the sin of lusting is alive to us.
That we who are NO LONGER innocent are endeavoring to view the process from a SINFUL standpoint is part of our dilemma...
That a "bad thought" was presented to
JESUS (either via your perception "satan" or mine) does NOT mean that hearing that proposal either in thought or presented in words by an external entity, does not mean that HEARING it is SIN...
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AMYou say: "For our flesh has these urgings. That is what flesh does. It has urges and you make the wonderful point that if Jesus overcame then what did He overcome if not His own urges."
The urge after a woman is a sin committed in the heart already.
I disagree... urges are NATURAL... it is the UNLAWFUL gratifying of those URGES, that enters into SIN.
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AMIf your mind is not in the flesh then lust is does not produce the sin of "bad thoughts" and therefore is dormant. But does the urge occur in the mind or the flesh? According to Romans 7, the struggle in our flesh is in the mind, and is when the law of sin in our members wars with the law of our mind. If our mind is not in our members but is in the Spirit, then the the war is ceased. This is why Christ was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and in all ways tempted like us .... here is the exception....without sin.
Sorry bro, ...I just do not see your very "orthodox-like" vision as true... This is one way the "church" is decieved of itself... giving POWER to a being that does not exist... and spending WAY too MUCH attention on that (mythical) "being"...
CHRIST was NOT "tempted" as are we, unless He endured and progressed through the VERY SAME
process concerning TEMPTATION that WE DO... :dontknow:
I agree that His outcome was different and FAR BETTER than ours... but the scenario was the SAME... which gives Him credit for OVERCOMING that process, where WE ...did NOT.
...willieH :HeartThrob:
QuoteYou see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine. But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.
Paul
It isn't just that he did not sin. He was WITHOUT sin (hamartia). Where does Paul say the sin is: within. That is the sin that produces lust.
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:19:38 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:52:25 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.
QuoteBut doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."
Ahh, so since the word is also used here:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of men:
So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said. So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.
We obviouisly have a different perspective. I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:19:38 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:52:25 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.
QuoteBut doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."
Ahh, so since the word is also used here:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said. So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.
We obviouisly have a different perspective. I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.
Paul
So Paul, do you believe Jesus biological father was Joseph?
I gotta tell you guys that this thread is doing nothing for the Glory of God our Father and His beloved Son, our Brother and Friend, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Where is your treasure?
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 07, 2009, 05:28:19 AM
I gotta tell you guys that this thread is doing nothing for the Glory of God our Father and His beloved Son, our Brother and Friend, The Lord Jesus Christ.
Where is your treasure?
Perception is our reality. As a man thinketh....
WHERE IS YOUR TREASURE?
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:22:14 AM
QuoteYou see Seth, your Jesus didn't sin and neither did mine. But MY JESUS was CAPABLE of SINNING and yet did NOT sin and thus His victory over SIN is greater than those that are NOT CAPABLE of SINNING.
Paul
It isn't just that he did not sin. He was WITHOUT sin (hamartia). Where does Paul say the sin is: within. That is the sin that produces lust.
The Jesus I'm preaching is WITHOUT sin. Again, the Jesus I'm preaching is CAPABLE of Sin and doesn't sin. That is a greater victory than the Jesus that isn't capable of sin.
Paul
Amen. Zeek. Amen.
QuoteLets break James 1:14-15 down... a bit at a time...
James 1:14 -- but EVERY MAN is TEMPTED -- [This is defining TEMPTATION of EVERY MAN, which does not disinclude ANY which are considered MEN... including CHRIST]
James 1:14 -- WHEN [the "TEMPTATION" is NOW on the scene] he [any man] is DRAWN AWAY of HIS OWN LUST [desire] and ENTICED...
James 1:15 -- THEN [the LUST has already "drawn away" and "enticed" the subject] WHEN [another "when" or moment in the chronology of this process] LUST has CONCIEVED [which means "SEIZED"], it bringeth forth SIN [LUST must CONCEIVE/SEIZE the subject, before SIN enters]
James 1:14-15 definitely poses an ORDER to the manifestation of SIN... SIN is not present IN TEMPTATION... desire is prompted from within MAN, and thereby is the TEMPTATION presented... then ...THEN ...it moves to the next step which is "seizing or concieving", then SIN is realized.
WillieH I went through the same stepts. I said that every man is tempted WHEN he is drawn away by lust. Then lust when conceived brings forth sin. This means that in order to BE TEMPTED by lust, lust must exist within. What produces lust? According to Paul,
Sin produces lust according to warring of the law of our mind versus the sin in us. Then lust produces sin. YOu don't agree that sin can produce sin? Example: The sin in the members produces lust, sexual thoughts to a woman - adultery in the heart. Lust seized upon produces sin (like engaging in forinication). Fornication can then produce other kinds of sin and so forth.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 12:55:12 AM
If anything, sin within first produces lust, then lust conceived produces sin, and death is when sin slays us. Is lust sin of itself?
Sorry bro, but this is all over the place... the way you put it, we have SIN within, and that SIN produces LUST, which produces SIN... :wacko2:
That is NOT the process the Bible notes...
Actually it is:
Romans 7:5-8
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But
sin, taking occasion by the commandment,
wrought (brought forth, produced) in me all manner of
concupiscence (lust). For without the law sin was dead.
How does lust get into us? Where does it come from? It is by being carnal, sold under sin. Being "we are in the flesh" is when these motions of sin work in us producing forth lust in us, when a man is in the flesh and not the Spirit. Lust cannot be worked forth within Christ because he was not in the flesh but 100% in the Spirit. Lust is produced within man by the sin within him, the carnal mind (which is automatically at emnity with God and his law). Without this sin in us, whence lust? Here is how that works:
Romans 7
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
It is the law of sin in our members warring against the mind which is carnal by which lust is produced within us. BY that lust we are tempted. That is how lust is produced within us by sin. Again, it is when we are in the flesh that these motions of sin occur, and when lust is worked into us by that sin. But we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in us, like Christ.
QuoteThat a "bad thought" was presented to JESUS (either via your perception "satan" or mine) does NOT mean that hearing that proposal either in thought or presented in words by an external entity, does not mean that HEARING it is SIN...
The difference here is that with your version of satan being the nature of natural man in Christ, the thought is internal. By an external entity the thought need not enter in to the mind of Christ whose mind was kept by God in his rest.
QuoteI disagree... urges are NATURAL... it is the UNLAWFUL gratifying of those URGES, that enters into SIN.
Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known
LUST (epithumia), except the law had said,
Thou shalt NOT covet (epithumio - lust).
Lust is unlawful Willie. And sin taking occasion by the commandment brings forth lawlessness in us. This is why when Jesus references "you shalt not commit adultery" he says if a man lusts after a woman, he has already committed lawlessness in his heart.
BTW, since when is what is natural to man automatically lawful to God? It's natural to blink. But it is also natural for men to lust. Blinking is not against God's law, but lust is. It is in our nature, as Paul establishes. God is in the business of CHANGING us from our natural selves into the image of His Son, which is why little ol' natural us, must die and be reborn. The reason God made something natural to us unlawful, is because that gives us the ability to SEE the lust being produced by the sin in us, so that he can deliver us from the urges which are contrary to Him.
The carnal mind is EMNITY with God. Did you or I have a choice in the mind we were given? Of course not. The carnal mind is NATURALLY at emnity with Him, which is why he delivers us from it.
QuoteSorry bro, ...I just do not see your very "orthodox-like" vision as true... This is one way the "church" is decieved of itself... giving POWER to a being that does not exist... and spending WAY too MUCH attention on that (mythical) "being"...
CHRIST was NOT "tempted" as are we, unless He endured and progressed through the VERY SAME process concerning TEMPTATION that WE DO... :dontknow:
Actually when I was young I thought as you did. I thought that Christ had feelings of lust but did not actually act on them. I was taught that by my very traditional church. Then I changed when I saw what the Word said, that Christ was tempted in all ways like us apart from sin. Christ being without sin in him, sin could not produce lust which is unlawful. Without lust, he was never drawn away and enticed by it within himself. This is why Paul provides the exception: Christ was in God's rest.
QuoteI agree that His outcome was different and FAR BETTER than ours... but the scenario was the SAME... which gives Him credit for OVERCOMING that process, where WE ...did NOT.
The Word gives Christ credit for overcoming the world. However it gives his Father credit for all that Christ did. So, the credit goes to the Father for overcoming sin on Christ's behalf by keeping him in God's rest. And the Father gets credit for comforting Christ and giving him power to overcome the world.
:HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:19:38 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:52:25 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.
QuoteBut doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."
Ahh, so since the word is also used here:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said. So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.
We obviouisly have a different perspective. I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.
Paul
He definitely was a man. And he was in the likeness of a man in his appearance. Yet you ignore the exceptions, the ways in which Christ was like God in his mind and in his power.
A natural desire or urge (normal), temptation (enticement or allurement; draw), lust (of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life; covet), lasciviousness or licentiousness (unrestrained thought, or a disregard for the law; lawless), sin (willful act; disobedient), death (end of life; also called spiritual death).
Are all thoughts evil and/or sinful?
Or just those due to an immoral (licentious or lascivious) conduct or character?
When should we hold captive our thoughts, having restraint?
Where exactly is the line drawn in the sand?
peacemaker
Man,
you punks just can't give it up.
Beloved servant, why call us punks. We are just having a discussion dude. Relax.
Quote from: Zeek on July 07, 2009, 05:27:33 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 05:24:23 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 05:19:38 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 04:52:25 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 07, 2009, 04:04:05 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 07, 2009, 03:45:16 AM
Here comes a suprise to Molly and Seth:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Sinful flesh. Is this a mistake? Could Jesus really have had flesh that was CAPABLE of SINNING?
Paul
Yes he could have flesh. But not sin. The flesh is not capable of sinning. PEOPLE are capable of sinning. The flesh does nothing without agreement in the mind first. That is why it is the warring of the law of the mind, with the law of the sin in our members that produces lust. So he came in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh and was also WITHOUT sin. He came in the likeness of sinful flesh but was not in the flesh because the Spirit of God was in him. Read the rest of the chapter.
It says He came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But you say flesh is not capable of sinning.
Paul
What is capable of sinning is the MAN, the PERSON that yields to the lust produced by sin.
QuoteBut doesn't "likeness" mean the "same type of" which would mean that Jesus had sinful flesh?
Paul
It just means similitude, similar which does not require "same."
Ahh, so since the word is also used here:
Php 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
So since you say this means similiar then we can just plug that in and see that similiar doesn't mean "same" as you said. So that verse would mean that he was made SIMILIAR to men but as you said not same.
We obviouisly have a different perspective. I believe He was INDEED and DEFINATELY a MAN.
Paul
So Paul, do you believe Jesus biological father was Joseph?
No, I don't. I believe Jesus was born by the virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit.
Paul
It's gone on too long for the apostles of God.
This forum is read by non-members.
I mentioned earlier 2 Timothy.
Now humble yourselves before the Lord and wait on His Spirit.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 07, 2009, 06:09:07 AM
Man,
you punks just can't give it up.
Not imprisoned, nor inclined to be sexually submissive.
solution:.....((( for some here anyway )))
immaculate conception :happygrin:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS248US254&q=immaculate+conception
chuckt
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
No amount of further discussion shall find a change in either of us bro... You are welcome to believe as you
do, and it is so ORDAINED that you do... just as my belief so ORDAINED to
be as it presently,
IS.
The biggest difference between us concerning this discussion, is that I once believed as DO you... that has changed... :declare:
I also once believed for a time, in (the false doctrines of) HELL, Annhilation, Separation from God, "accepting
CHRIST", the "millennium, Easter, Sinner's prayers, "going to Heaven", fallen angels (to mention just a few)... Via prayer, study and time, ...these beliefs have been eliminated and replaced...
I (obviously) believe differently on this subject than do you, and much like speaking with another (which I often do), about the Salvation of ALL and find after a few posts, that it is "going nowhere", (1) does not call to me to abandon what I now believe, because the other does not see Salvation as do I... and (2) the other endeavors to preach to me, that which I have left behind... (been there, done that)...
Causes me to move on... I said what I needed to say... and leave it as information which can be accepted or rejected, and depart the discussion...
I guess there comes a time in discussion when we must agree to disagree, and leave what we have said for the considerations of others who are delving into the same areas of GOD's
WORD...
IMO -- DELIVERANCE is not just from SIN... it is from FALSE TEACHINGS which live in the Natural mind, and can only be changed from FALLACY to TRUTH, by GOD, ...at HIS decision...
ALL have been CONCLUDED in UNBELIEF --
Rom 11:32 -- which does not "just entail" Salvation... but the detailed TRUTHS as well...
GOD lives in our hearts bro, and it is in the SEARCH of our HEARTS that GOD avails the Scriptures to us, ...
Those that continue to fervently and faithfully SEARCH shall FIND --
Jer 29:13 -- but it is in DESIRE to SEARCH WITH the WHOLE HEART, that within a process, that WHOLE HEART which GOD LIVES IN, is REVEALED to us... For HIS WORD
IS in our hearts, being REVEALED...
No worries bro... You are a great friend, and I am so glad you are once again here... Even though there will be positions of disagreement between us from time to time, ...it is only because we are both learning, and pursuing that our understandings might differ
"in the moment", and it is up to God, when each
"moment" of DELIVERANCE in any area (for either of us) takes place...
We have posted enough back & forth to see it is obvious, both of us shall not convince the other at this time...
One thing I do know, is that
both our lives and hearts are BEING MOLDED in HIS HAND...
And am proud to name you as my brother! :handshake: :friendstu:
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Hi WillieH, thanks for your post and the grace you have shown in disagreement. Contrary to what one has said in the latter part of this thread, this conversation has been important and graciously conducted, particularly between you and me. It is refreshing when, rather than insults etc, people just present their opinions objectively.
We both have had a bit of a mirror opposite process in this issue. Whereas you once believed what I do, I once believed as you do. Along with all the other doctrines of hell, eternal torment, trinity etc, I was taught by my church people and even my mom, opposite to what I now believe.
That's ironic. But anyway, thanks for the conversation. Love you too bro.
:HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 07, 2009, 11:39:13 PM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
No amount of further discussion shall find a change in either of us bro... You are welcome to believe as you do, and it is so ORDAINED that you do... just as my belief so ORDAINED to be as it presently, IS.
The biggest difference between us concerning this discussion, is that I once believed as DO you... that has changed... :declare:
I also once believed for a time, in (the false doctrines of) HELL, Annhilation, Separation from God, "accepting CHRIST", the "millennium, Easter, Sinner's prayers, "going to Heaven", fallen angels (to mention just a few)... Via prayer, study and time, ...these beliefs have been eliminated and replaced...
I (obviously) believe differently on this subject than do you, and much like speaking with another (which I often do), about the Salvation of ALL and find after a few posts, that it is "going nowhere", (1) does not call to me to abandon what I now believe, because the other does not see Salvation as do I... and (2) the other endeavors to preach to me, that which I have left behind... (been there, done that)...
Causes me to move on... I said what I needed to say... and leave it as information which can be accepted or rejected, and depart the discussion...
I guess there comes a time in discussion when we must agree to disagree, and leave what we have said for the considerations of others who are delving into the same areas of GOD's WORD...
IMO -- DELIVERANCE is not just from SIN... it is from FALSE TEACHINGS which live in the Natural mind, and can only be changed from FALLACY to TRUTH, by GOD, ...at HIS decision...
ALL have been CONCLUDED in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- which does not "just entail" Salvation... but the detailed TRUTHS as well...
GOD lives in our hearts bro, and it is in the SEARCH of our HEARTS that GOD avails the Scriptures to us, ...
Those that continue to fervently and faithfully SEARCH shall FIND -- Jer 29:13 -- but it is in DESIRE to SEARCH WITH the WHOLE HEART, that within a process, that WHOLE HEART which GOD LIVES IN, is REVEALED to us... For HIS WORD IS in our hearts, being REVEALED...
No worries bro... You are a great friend, and I am so glad you are once again here... Even though there will be positions of disagreement between us from time to time, ...it is only because we are both learning, and pursuing that our understandings might differ "in the moment", and it is up to God, when each "moment" of DELIVERANCE in any area (for either of us) takes place...
We have posted enough back & forth to see it is obvious, both of us shall not convince the other at this time...
One thing I do know, is that both our lives and hearts are BEING MOLDED in HIS HAND...
And am proud to name you as my brother! :handshake: :friendstu:
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
willieH, we seem to have a lot in common in our beliefs.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 08, 2009, 03:37:09 AM
Quote from: willieH on July 07, 2009, 11:39:13 PM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
No amount of further discussion shall find a change in either of us bro... You are welcome to believe as you do, and it is so ORDAINED that you do... just as my belief so ORDAINED to be as it presently, IS.
The biggest difference between us concerning this discussion, is that I once believed as DO you... that has changed... :declare:
I also once believed for a time, in (the false doctrines of) HELL, Annhilation, Separation from God, "accepting CHRIST", the "millennium, Easter, Sinner's prayers, "going to Heaven", fallen angels (to mention just a few)... Via prayer, study and time, ...these beliefs have been eliminated and replaced...
I (obviously) believe differently on this subject than do you, and much like speaking with another (which I often do), about the Salvation of ALL and find after a few posts, that it is "going nowhere", (1) does not call to me to abandon what I now believe, because the other does not see Salvation as do I... and (2) the other endeavors to preach to me, that which I have left behind... (been there, done that)...
Causes me to move on... I said what I needed to say... and leave it as information which can be accepted or rejected, and depart the discussion...
I guess there comes a time in discussion when we must agree to disagree, and leave what we have said for the considerations of others who are delving into the same areas of GOD's WORD...
IMO -- DELIVERANCE is not just from SIN... it is from FALSE TEACHINGS which live in the Natural mind, and can only be changed from FALLACY to TRUTH, by GOD, ...at HIS decision...
ALL have been CONCLUDED in UNBELIEF -- Rom 11:32 -- which does not "just entail" Salvation... but the detailed TRUTHS as well...
GOD lives in our hearts bro, and it is in the SEARCH of our HEARTS that GOD avails the Scriptures to us, ...
Those that continue to fervently and faithfully SEARCH shall FIND -- Jer 29:13 -- but it is in DESIRE to SEARCH WITH the WHOLE HEART, that within a process, that WHOLE HEART which GOD LIVES IN, is REVEALED to us... For HIS WORD IS in our hearts, being REVEALED...
No worries bro... You are a great friend, and I am so glad you are once again here... Even though there will be positions of disagreement between us from time to time, ...it is only because we are both learning, and pursuing that our understandings might differ "in the moment", and it is up to God, when each "moment" of DELIVERANCE in any area (for either of us) takes place...
We have posted enough back & forth to see it is obvious, both of us shall not convince the other at this time...
One thing I do know, is that both our lives and hearts are BEING MOLDED in HIS HAND...
And am proud to name you as my brother! :handshake: :friendstu:
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
willieH, we seem to have a lot in common in our beliefs.
Paul
I have been noticing the very same thing brother Paul... :thumbsup:
...willieH :cloud9:
BTW, Paul, though we have disagreed on this issue, I bear you no hard feelings or anything like that.
We both have :2c: and I am glad we are able to share them.
:Peace:
BTW, Molly, does this happen on Lifetime? :laughing7:
QuoteBTW, Molly, does this happen on Lifetime?
Nope. On Lifetime, everyone dies, goes to jail, or has his life ruined. :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on July 08, 2009, 06:47:28 PM
BTW, Paul, though we have disagreed on this issue, I bear you no hard feelings or anything like that.
We both have :2c: and I am glad we are able to share them.
:Peace:
BTW, Molly, does this happen on Lifetime? :laughing7:
I understand Seth.
Paul
I must say that this was the most civil discussion on satan I have read. You all were very kind and undemeaning in your responses. You all have provoked some thought within myself regarding sin.
Are evil thoughts sin? If I get Seth, he seems to think so. You make a good argument, but it doesn't feel right in my spirit that evil thoughts are sin. I am reminded of the old adage: Birds may fly overhead, but don't let them make a nest.
I am wondering if the birds flying overhead are just thoughts of good and evil. We are human, we have an intellectual brain and these thoughts they come and go. When I go to the store with my child I am careful to watch my child as I know all manner of evil that a pedafile could do. Is it a sin that I can think of the evil that can be done to my child? If Jesus' body was hungry was it evil that his mind knew he could turn the rocks into bread? Was it evil that he knew he could rule the world? Was it evil that he knew angles would bear him up if he ended his misery? Having knowledge isn't evil, it is the foothold it grabs onto in the flesh. Fortunately this knowledge didn't have a foothold because Jesus' mind was in the spirit. Jesus knew these things would end the suffering in his flesh, but didn't entertain them his mind was in the spirit.
If we have evil thoughts, are they lustful automatically because we thought them or can they just be knowledge that presents itself?
QuoteAre evil thoughts sin? If I get Seth, he seems to think so. You make a good argument, but it doesn't feel right in my spirit that evil thoughts are sin. I am reminded of the old adage: Birds may fly overhead, but don't let them make a nest.
Hi Sarah,
Here are my thoughts on that. The Law says "Do not lust." Whoever commits sin commits unlawfulness for sin is unlawfulness (1 John 3:4). Therefore, the Bible shows us that we are unlawful creatures in our borne carnal nature. The fact that sin within us creates lust, and that lust is unlawful, and that lust is sin, is not something that "I think so" but what the scripture actually says. The LAW of Moses thus makes it unlawful to be naturally carnally ourselves.
The reason this is so, is unto the conversion. That the Law does this thing, to reveal us to be BOUND, against our will (read Romans 8) to vanity (hopelessness), is to also BIND us to hope. We did not ask to be "carnal, sold into sin." Did you? Did I? Of course not. When you read Romans 7 do you see where it says that under the law, we seek to do good, but CANNOT, because the sin in us causes us to do what we don't want to do, and therefore, it is not us who do it, but the sin in us? Do you see how it says that sin takes advantage of the law to work forth in us all forms of unlawful lust? What's the point of all that?
That we crave deliverance. If one does not think to lust is wrong, or that as you put it, evil thoughts are sin, why should that person need deliverance? Christ told the Pharisees that He came not to heal the healthy, but the ones who need healing, or at least the ones who admit they need it.
That end is the
EXACT PURPOSE of the Law.
But here is the rub. It is by the virtue of our natural lusts being unlawful that God sees fit TO DELIVER US from them. That is how the Law led to the Gospel.
QuoteIf we have evil thoughts, are they lustful automatically because we thought them or can they just be knowledge that presents itself?
If we have evil thoughts, they are simply the result of the sin within us. Sarah, in your opinion which of these is better: to be delivered from only the acts that result from the evil thoughts, or being delivered from the sin in the flesh that causes the thoughts themselves?
Quotewhich of these is better: to be delivered from only the acts that result from the evil thoughts, or being delivered from the sin in the flesh that causes the thoughts themselves?
I expect to be delivered from the desire to sin, where 'not-sinning' isn't a fight, but a way of being. Even in this state I don't see myself never hearing inwardly an evil thought, but that those thoughts are just passing and stir no desire. It would just be a recognition within myself that the enemy is still trying but he has no place in me.
I see that lusting is sinful, hands down, but just a passing thought? This is where I'm hung up.
Some see it as an invisible 'being' wandering the earth whispering temptation in your ear, I see it as (for lack of a better way of explaining) a computer chip installed in every person that tests. The computer chip isn't the person anymore than your arm is you, but it is within you.
QuoteI expect to be delivered from the desire to sin, where 'not-sinning' isn't a fight, but a way of being. Even in this state I don't see myself never hearing inwardly an evil thought, but that those thoughts are just passing and stir no desire. It would just be a recognition within myself that the enemy is still trying but he has no place in me.
Well, by definition the lust in question that the law forbids is a desire. The question in this thread has been, in what ways has Christ been tested/tempted. If he was tempted in all ways like us, then the desire/lust would be there as it is with us, not just passing thoughts that stir no desire. That is the crux of the whole conversation. However, if Christ is in all points tested with the exception being without sin, then no lust is generated in him, that he would be unlawful in his mind to have those desires. The question is, are the lustful desires sin? Clearly they are. But Christ was without sin. Passing thoughts? I still believe that ANY thought generated in our minds which are contrary to God are from a carnal mind at emnity with God. This is good so we can be delivered from all.
Some topics, like this one, I seem to be able to understand the truth in Spirit but it gets somewhat convoluted to me when I see it in words.
So, here is where I get confused:
You need a desire for something to be tempted of it, right?
An example for me would be caviar, some love it so much they pay a high price for a small amount.
I find it repulsive, I simply can not be tempted by it.
So, when Jesus was tempted He must have also had the desire for what was brought before Him?
Only if he was tempted while not being without sin. The exception to Christ feeling our infirmities and being tempted in all ways like us, is in him being without sin, and us NOT. Romans 7 shows that sin produces lust in us, and even that lust is unlawful. Being without sin = no sin to produce lust in Christ and no lust in him for him to be drawn away and enticed.
In the flesh, Jesus Christ was a visible image of our final deliverance.
Maybe His soul desired but His Spirit overcame and that reconciled things.
I don't believe that is so, and here is the reason. Notice in Ephesians 2:1 how it draws a distinction between "trespass" and "sin." And, notice how Hebrews does not say that Christ was tempted in all ways like us, yet "without trespass." No, it says, "without sin." Being apart from sin means that Christ was apart from the very operator that produces lust in the first place. The Law reveals to man that he is lawless within himself even before he realizes it. Being without sin, however, Jesus Christ is able to say "If you have seen me, you have seen the father." That is because in the Father is no sin. The Bible is clear on all the ways Christ was made like us, and in all the ways he was like his father. You cannot take the former and exclude the latter.
Remember Jesus' words: "You have not because you ask not." If we don't have expectation of being rid of even the most fleeting evil thoughts, even if they produced no lust/desire, then why would you ask? And asking not, why would you recieve?
I have every expectation of being delivered of EVERYTHING that is contrary to God when we receive the "weight of Glory" in the age to come. That we do not have it now, does not mean we should accept our carnal infirmity as a lasting condition. If passing evil thoughts are something you want to be without, whether or not they produce lust/desire (where I think that the passing thought is a revelation of desire) then ask. If you don't think having those thoughts is a problem, then don't ask, and don't receive.
Quote from: Sarah on July 13, 2009, 06:40:23 PM
I expect to be delivered from the desire to sin, where 'not-sinning' isn't a fight, but a way of being.
:thumbsup: The resurrected, immortal body.
Quote from: Sarah on July 13, 2009, 06:40:23 PM
I see it as (for lack of a better way of explaining) a computer chip installed in every person that tests. The computer chip isn't the person anymore than your arm is you, but it is within you.
NICE! I think this comment also fits very well in the 'being delivered from the law' (and the original topic from which that one was started) as well. I.e., it addresses my original question of Paul struggling to do what he wanted (and doing what he didn't want), then stating "it is no longer I that do it, but the sin that dwells in me". Very good explanation that just is really clear and resonated with me. Good find, Sarah! :thumbsup:
Hi Seth. I think that part's just a given. It will happen, it's built into God's plan. In the meantime, we will struggle. Not that we shouldn't ask for help, ability to overcome...hmmmm...that's an interesting concept you bring up, have to think about that one. But I think now we struggle, God brings us along into maturity as part of the outcome of those struggles, then total deliverance in the "end".
It's the outcome, the end result of God's salvation. The resurrected, glorified, immortal body will be a much different deal than what we are currently dealing with. IMO, in God's eyes it's (the same as) already done..."who WILL deliver me...I thank God, Jesus Christ"...guaranteed result of the "down payment". IMO, it's part of our hope of glory, part of the outcome/reward for our suffering for Christ.
Reading just today. When Paul was converted in Acts, Ananias was afraid of "Saul"...God told him he had been specially chosen. Part of his being chosen was "I will show him how many things it behoves him for My name to suffer." !! Then, later in Romans, we get the statement from Paul, "who will deliver me...Jesus Christ". As I understand, a picture of the process, the plan. It will happen. But ultimately, in a resurrected body. My :2c:. (Another post for the "being delivered from the law" thread) :Oops: :laughing7:.
God's blessing, James.
Quote from: jabcat on July 13, 2009, 08:46:24 PM
Hi Seth. I think that part's just a given. It will happen, it's built into God's plan. In the meantime, we will struggle. Not that we shouldn't ask for help, ability to overcome...hmmmm...that's an interesting concept you bring up, have to think about that one. But I think now we struggle, God brings us along into maturity as part of the outcome of those struggles, then total deliverance in the "end".
It's the outcome, the end result of God's salvation. The resurrected, glorified, immortal body will be a much different deal than what we are currently dealing with. IMO, in God's eyes it's (the same as) already done..."who WILL deliver me...I thank God, Jesus Christ"...guaranteed result of the "down payment". IMO, it's part of our hope of glory, part of the outcome/reward for our suffering for Christ.
Reading just today. When Paul was converted in Acts, Ananias was afraid of "Saul"...God told him he had been specially chosen. Part of his being chosen was "I will show him how many things it behoves him for My name to suffer." !! Then, later in Romans, we get the statement from Paul, "who will deliver me...Jesus Christ". As I understand, a picture of the process, the plan. It will happen. But ultimately, in a resurrected body. My :2c:. (Another post for the "being delivered from the law" thread) :Oops: :laughing7:.
God's blessing, James.
Right, but here is what I am responding to, when Sarah said:
I expect to be delivered from the desire to sin, where 'not-sinning' isn't a fight, but a way of being. Even in this state I don't see myself never hearing inwardly an evil thought, but that those thoughts are just passing and stir no desire.My question is: Why not? Do you, Sarah, want to hear evil thoughts inwardly? If not, then ask to be delivered from all! Jesus said: if a man asks for an egg, will God give him a scorpion? If you ask for something good, why would God not give it to you? That was my point about asking not and recieving not.
The Bride says to those on the outside of the bride: All those who thirst, come drink. But in order to drink, one must accept that they are thirsty. If even the most fleeting thoughts do not make someone thirsty to be rid of them, then why drink from the water that does wash away those thoughts? You see what I mean?
Yes, and Amen!
You've got me thinking though. Thinking about that whole topic of the struggle's built in...we will do it. It's part of the process. Failing, falling, asking for forgiveness, learning to make the better choice next time..."the things he will suffer for my name's sake"...all built in. Yet also, praying to escape from temptation, praying for strength to overcome, which, YES, I do believe in. However, again, got me to thinking about how all this fits together. His will, our prayers, our struggles...how it all works.
I guess we struggle/trust/pray/look to Him our Author and Finisher...and the bottom line is, He's working all according to His will and provides the strength for the journey. Then He ultimately delivers us in immortality.
When you get all that figured out, let me know :laughing7:.
P.S. Maybe I should split these last several posts (or at least copy them) into the "being delivered" thread?
I wasn't sure if I should answer the law part here or in the "delivered from the law" thread so I posted separately, just in case you wanted to move it to keep everything in one thread.
The fact that Paul suffered is clear, but the question is, did he suffer under grace, or did he place himself back under the law to suffer under sin. Again, that we struggle with sin, is one thing, that we struggle with sin under the law, is another. And, did Paul really not know who would deliver us from the body of sin? Of course he did. Then why ask? Because he is describing his experience when he was not delivered from the law and not under grace, when he did not know who Jesus was at all. That is why Romans 8 describes NOW, as opposed to Romans 7's THEN.
Though people understand that we have a struggle with sin. I think they mistake Romans 7 as a description of that. Romans 7 only describes struggle with sin, when we are under the law, which we are not supposed to place ourselves under for righteousness. Our struggle with sin is under grace, wherein we are delivered from, NOT under the law, wherein we are kept in sin.
Yeah, I hear you. I don't think he went back under the Law AT ALL. He taught us against doing so.
Later at work I'll look at what to do with these posts. Right now I'm going to go make tea :bigGrin:.
Why don't I simply understand this?
[ All confused; Beloved Servant quietly slips out the side door when no one was watching. ]
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 13, 2009, 09:29:57 PM
Why don't I simply understand this?
[ All confused; Beloved Servant quietly slips out the side door when no one was watching. ]
LOL, gone fishin?
lol, no.
I was reading Romans 12
Heb 10
5 Therefore, as He was coming into the world, He said:
You did not want sacrifice and offering,
but You prepared a body for Me.
He had a special body, half human, half divine, prepared for him by the Father.
Psalm 40
7Then said I, Behold, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me;
8 I delight to do Your will, O my God; yes, Your law is within my heart.
BServ, I'm watching :search:. If you do go fishin', come back. I really do get a kick out of Peter's statement, following a lot of stress and things that had been happening. In the KJV he says to the others, "I go a'fishing". Love it!
I don't think this is an easy-to-understand topic...see my meanderings over the last few posts...we struggle, we pray, we fall/fail, God forgives, offers choices anew, we choose, we learn and grow, yet all the while God working all according to His will/directing our way...I think it's a process we only partly understand. As with many others. And if anyone acts like they do understand it all, for my money, be suspicious :mblush:.
Just us struggling with this topic now is part of THE struggle of our growing and learning, IMO.
He promises us the same body--
Hebrews 8:10
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will imprint My laws upon their minds, even upon their innermost thoughts and understanding, and engrave them upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
1 Corinthians 15:57
But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
That's why Jab, I was reading Romans chapter 12.
4 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office:
5 So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
Yes, for now we all have parts of the whole--an earnest of the gift--
But, when the sons are made manifest, each will have the whole--a hologram--each part making up the body being the whole thing, complete in itself.
Hebrews 9:11
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands...
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 13, 2009, 09:40:37 PM
lol, no.
I was reading Romans 12
Can you explain in more detail the confusion that you have in the chapter?
I'll try to guess to see if I am close. You called out the "simplicity" mentioned in Romans 12. And you are asking why it doesn't seem simple in this thread? I think, if that is what you are referring to, then how I understand it is that the TRUTH is simple. However, UNDERSTANDING the truth takes work because we do not have perfect clarity in our human minds. This is why Paul says to "study to show thyselves approved of God." Coming to the simple truths takes some study and talk. You understand the simple truth of all being saved right? But for me, it took much study to ARRIVE at that simple truth, because my mind is not as cloud-free as God's mind is.
OK, well then, confused again.
Shouldn't the teaching be simple to understand?
Maybe I had a simple teacher when hearing of the salvation of all.
Simple to understand? Yes of course. But until you ARRIVE at the understanding...
That is why some people think that UR is hard to understand, until they have seen all the evidence. But once they see it: Surprise! It's simple!
Did you see how you had us read the entire chapter of Romans 12, then left it to us to disseminate that you were referring to simplicity? You were referring to simplicity, but causing us to work to get to your point.
Your point was about simplicity, but your method was round-about, so GETTING to the point was not as simple as after we arrived at it. It's the same thing with any truth of God. The truth is simple, but we must CONFORM OUR MINDS to it, and that is what takes the work.
... and we arrive there through faith.
willieH: Hi Seth... :hithere:
quick comment bro... :friendstu:
We all must be careful not to be STIFF NECKED in our observations, for it is this type of stance which the JEWS took and caused them to be unable to accept the propositions of GRACE by
CHRIST, and is also this "neck problem" keeps the "Christian" church, from accepting the Salvation of ALL... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 13, 2009, 07:00:28 PM
QuoteI expect to be delivered from the desire to sin, where 'not-sinning' isn't a fight, but a way of being. Even in this state I don't see myself never hearing inwardly an evil thought, but that those thoughts are just passing and stir no desire. It would just be a recognition within myself that the enemy is still trying but he has no place in me.
QuoteWell, by definition the lust in question that the law forbids is a desire.
No offense dear bro... but (IMO) you have far overcomplicated what actually took place concerning
CHRIST... In order to have
OVERCOME what
WE DO NOT... He had to have been placed in the VERY SAME POSITION... That being, ...the
point where NATURAL (lawful) "DESIRE" is beckoned to become UNNATURAL (unlawful)...
Desire (of itself) is NOT, ..."LUST"... I mentioned it before, that NATURAL ATTRACTION between Male & Female, is NOT SIN (which
CHRIST had to have had)... It is the UNNATURAL ATTRACTION between humans that is SIN... and which COMPROMISES our hearts...
The NATURAL attraction is a "DESIRE" and it was created within the LAW as GOOD... For GOD not only created, but also gave EVE to ADAM... :dontknow: And claimed this as GOOD... For EVERYTHING He "made" was/is - GOOD --
Gen 1:31 (which also includes EVIL -- the creation of EVIL was "GOOD", because it's presence, in contrast and in part, defines GOOD)
The flesh BY NATURE has the "DESIRE" to EAT, as well as many other NATURAL "desires" which are LAWFUL... it is the TEMPTATION which was proposed to
CHRIST of an UNLAWFUL NATURE that He OVERCAME, and DEFEATED.
ANY fleshly "desire" can transfer from LAWFULNESS into SINFULNESS (unlawfulness) -- GLUTTONY is the SINFUL practice of the LAWFUL creation of appetite... DRUNKENESS is the SINFUL practice of the LAWFUL creation of thirst... SLOTHFULNESS is the SINFUL practice of the LAWFUL creation of EXERCISE, ...etc
It is the
INDULGENCE of
IMPROPER "DESIRE" to engage something which is a TRANSGRESSION of LAW, that produces the "LUST" (desire) which "gives birth" to SIN...
It can occur to me, (I can THINK) to be LAZY (slothful), but because the thought occured to me is NOT SIN... for the equal and OPPOSITE thought of PRODUCTIVITY is also presented in the same MOMENT... It is the INDULGENCE of the UNLAWFUL presentation that LUST begins its journey in me...
Whenever one is presented with the VOICE of TEMPATION... the EQUAL VOICE of DENYING that TEMPTATION is also presented simulataneously...
Upon the fall of man, ...
YHVH even noted that Eve's "DESIRE" would be unto her husband --
Gen 3:16 -- this is a NATURAL ATTRACTION... and NOT a LUST...
JESUS even recommended that ones "desires" be made known in prayer -- --
It is quite interesting that
JESUS noted the words "desire and desired" which are commonly translated LUST, in conjunction with His own feelings:
Luke 22:15 --
and He said unto them, ...with DESIRE [#G1939] I have DESIRED [#G1937] to eat this passover with you before I suffer...That
JESUS did NOT SIN, means that these "DESIRES" were NOT SINFUL... even though the words He used in this context, commonly refer to FORBIDDEN "longings"... :dontknow:
What I see in this, is that we must view from GOD's vision of men, rather than our own, for it is via the NATURAL that our view proceeds, and can get intermingled with the SPIRITUAL... In other words, the JEWS were so
STIFFNECKED about the Scriptures that they do not see the RELAXATION within them... PEACE is the ETERNAL vision of GOD... and within DIVINE PEACE, are those who are experiencing the imprisonment of LUST, seen with the COMPASSIONATE eyes of LOVE... :HeartThrob:
Too often in our observations and conversations with one another, we take a HARDENED -- "by the book" or "according to the TEXT" position, instead of knowing that GOD, in His intention to enable His Children to gain the "knowledge"... must bear suffering, and IN that suffering is His DIVINE COMPASSION and MERCY enabled and enacted... :dontknow:
In summary... Neither the STAUNCH position of
LUST=THIS versus LUST=THAT -- that any of us might (and in fact HAVE) engaged on either side of this convo... in the final analysis, it's core probably contains portions of BOTH.
I say this, because GOD created or revealed EVIL... and even though He is FOREVER GOOD, ...IN His creation of TIME.
He created or revealed what is OPPOSITE of Himself, that it might be availed to us WHAT and WHO He really
is... and for ALL, upon the conclusion of TIME, ...that JOY shall be ours Forever! What a plan! :happyclap: :myahoo:
...willieH :cloud9:
Willie,
I don't see what I am seeing to be complicated at all. I see it very simply. Lust that produces sin is unlawful. Desiring to do good is not the same desire that leads to sin.
Simply put: Christ was without sin. Sin produces lusts which are contrary to God's Law. Christ was apart from that which produces lust contrary to God's law. That's simple
QuoteIt is the INDULGENCE of IMPROPER "DESIRE" to engage something which is a TRANSGRESSION of LAW, that produces the "LUST" (desire) which "gives birth" to SIN...
And you say I overcomplicate? :grin:
Lust (the improper desire) is against God's law. Desiring to do good is not. Sin produces all manner of lust contrary to God's law. Christ was without sin. No sin, no lust produced, no being drawn away by one's own lust to be enticed by it. Done. Very simple.
Sin in our members (the sin in me) produces lust. Lust seized upon produces sin. That's so very simple.
Does anyone know why God would outlaw something that comes so naturally to us? Maybe to deliver us from things we find so natural, but God sees as that which makes us incomplete.
willieH: Hi Seth... :hithere:
Quote from: Seth on July 13, 2009, 10:57:49 PM
Willie,
I don't see what I am seeing to be complicated at all. I see it very simply. Lust that produces sin is unlawful. Desiring to do good is not the same desire that leads to sin.
Simply put: Christ was without sin. Sin produces lusts which are contrary to God's Law. Christ was apart from that which produces lust contrary to God's law. That's simple
:Whistle: You Scripturally put "the cart before the horse" bro... The Scripture does NOT
say "SIN
[cart] produces
[horse] LUST"... it SAYS:
James 1:14 ...and when LUST [horse] hath concieved, IT ... bringeth FORTH, ...[cart] SIN Quote from: willieHIt is the INDULGENCE of IMPROPER "DESIRE" to engage something which is a TRANSGRESSION of LAW, that produces the "LUST" (desire) which "gives birth" to SIN...
Quote from: Seth on July 13, 2009, 10:57:49 PMAnd you say I overcomplicate? :grin:
:laughing7: You had
that hard of time understanding what I said? :laughhand:
I certainly didn't overcomplicate bro, ...I just (in my own words) quoted the SCRIPTURAL order in which
SIN comes FORTH... and you know it bro... you just do not wish to face the truth in it... :shakepoint: ...and that's okay with me... :wink1: But others need to recognize that the vision you presently hold, is a bit obscured (veiled) here...
MANY argue against
CHRIST being a MAN as well... and thereby create an IDOL of Him, which
CHRIST Himself refused to do --
Matt 19:17 -- Mark 10:18Quote from: Seth on July 13, 2009, 10:57:49 PMLust (the improper desire) is against God's law. Desiring to do good is not. Sin produces all manner of lust contrary to God's law. Christ was without sin. No sin, no lust produced, no being drawn away by one's own lust to be enticed by it. Done. Very simple.
You
repeat an
order (to the manifestation of SIN) contrary to Scripture... :sigh:
"Sin [cart] produces all manner of lust [horse]"Sorry bro, ... but as I read "your observation" of
JESUS' temptation, ...He wasn't really
"tempted" at ALL, ...
AS... we are... Nor to the DEGREE we are
tempted...
According to you: His "temptation" was a
"walk in the park"... compared to the
WAR in which we participate... He had NO real TUG at His integrity, nor did He have to WIN over EVIL... for He did not TRULY and ACTUALLY face it...
Neither did
HE OVERCOME, ...
where...
WE do not... :dontknow:
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
So then WW,
If may repeat my earlier post from this morning from whence came this present discussion:
Some topics, like this one, I seem to be able to understand the truth in Spirit but it gets somewhat convoluted to me when I see it in words.
So, here is where I get confused:
You need a desire for something to be tempted of it, right?
An example for me would be caviar, some love it so much they pay a high price for a small amount.
I find it repulsive, I simply can not be tempted by it.
So, when Jesus was tempted He must have also had the desire for what was brought before Him?
QuoteYou Scripturally put "the cart before the horse" bro... The Scripture does NOT say "SIN [cart] produces [horse] LUST"... it SAYS:
James 1:14 ...and when LUST [horse] hath concieved, IT ... bringeth FORTH, ...[cart] SIN
Willie, actually the horse before the cart is "being carnal sold under sin." That is where it all starts. All men are carnal SOLD UNDER SIN. Jesus was without sin. All men, apart from Christ are born into unlawfulness in their minds. The purpose of the LAW: to bring SIN to life within us and by producing lust within those who seek to obey the commandment: "do not lust." Then, sin becomes exeeding and is thereby revealed as sin.
Notice that James does not say that Lust concieved brings forth sin IN OUR MEMBERS (limbs, body parts). Paul is very clear that the sin in our members precedes lust - itself is contrary to God's law.
Clearly stated:
Romans 7
20 Now if I do that I would not,
it is no more I that do it,
but sin that dwelleth in me.
SIN IS THE DOER OF SIN (unlawfulness)! What does the law say: YOU SHALL NOT LUST. What does sin do? Produces lust.
He just said so. Sin is the one producing the lust, when do not want to lust. And if we want avoid lust, but still have lust then it is THE SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME that produces it. That is exactly why Paul speaks of lust being produced by sin that is
already in us, and comes alive when met with the law.
Sin that is in the members cannot produce lust within one who is "not in the flesh but in the Spirit if the Spirit of God dwells in him."
QuoteI certainly didn't overcomplicate bro, ...I just (in my own words) quoted the SCRIPTURAL order in which SIN comes FORTH... and you know it bro...
YOu shouldn't assume what I know or do not. Because if you are saying that I know what you say is true and am denying, you would be calling me a liar. We were having a good conversation before so I hope it doesn't descend into that kind of thing.
QuoteDesire (of itself) is NOT, ..."LUST"...
You are obfuscating lust. By definition epithumia is a desire for something. That is why, as even you pointed out:
It is quite interesting that JESUS noted the words "desire and desired" which are commonly translated LUST, in conjunction with His own feelings.Exactly. That is exactly my point. When the Law says: Do not lust/desire, it is saying do not improperly desire. That is why one seek to be delivered "from this body of death" that produces it. Sin in our members, this body of death,
produces the desire.
Christ being without sin, unlawful desire could not be produced in him. That is exactly my point. Christ was not SUBJECTED to a body of death which produces those desires, because he was not in the flesh but in the Spirit.
You said: "It is the INDULGENCE of IMPROPER "DESIRE" to engage something which is a TRANSGRESSION of LAW, that produces the "LUST" (desire)"
You added the "indulgence" part even though you acknowledged that epithumia is a feeling and a desire in and of itself. The desire TO sin IS improper AND unlawful.
QuoteSorry bro, ... but as I read "your observation" of JESUS' temptation, ...He wasn't really "tempted" at ALL, ...AS... we are... Nor to the DEGREE we are tempted...
According to you: His "temptation" was a "walk in the park"... compared to the WAR in which we participate... He had NO real TUG at His integrity, nor did He have to WIN over EVIL... for He did not TRULY and ACTUALLY face it...
His temptation was in suffering death for us to bring reconciliation to the world.
The only reason we participate in a war is because we have not fully entered into God's.....now see this word....REST.
Jesus did overcome, the world. Sin was already overcome for him by God's rest. That is the example we are to follow by following Christ into that promised land, not in our own feeble struggles, but by GOD's HAND in our minds to change our former affections by his own choosing.
How can a house divided, stand?
When our Lord God Jesus Christ spoke, He never spoke more than a few hundred Words, and they were awed.
And often, at the end of a parable, He said: "Let those who have ears to hear..."
The parable was used, perhaps, not to teach the masses but to keep the deaf from hearing.
Each man in is own order.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 12:29:24 AM
How can a house divided, stand?
When our Lord God Jesus Christ spoke, He never spoke more than a few hundred Words, and they were awed.
And often, at the end of a parable, He said: "Let those who have ears to hear..."
Right dude. He spoke a few parables and they were just as blind as they ever were. Count the words of the Book of Romans. That's what Paul had to say about the Gospel.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 13, 2009, 11:56:57 PMt.
I find it repulsive, I simply can not be tempted by it.
So, when Jesus was tempted He must have also had the desire for what was brought before Him?
He was tempted by suffering death. Look at the context. When Paul mentions the "feeling of our infirmity, in all points tested/tempted like us" what does he say right after that? APART FROM SIN.
Jesus had no unlawful desire towards woman. Just having the desire is unlawful because God is going to deliver us from everything he convicted us for.
Seth, I love ya man.
And, you may be right in your teachings and they may edify others.
But as I read your words, I simply can not understand what it is you are trying to convey.
My point is, you are not the right teacher for me — that's all.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 12:51:46 AM
Seth, I love ya man.
And, you may be right in your teachings and they may edify others.
But as I read your words, I simply can not understand what it is you are trying to convey.
My point is, you are not the right teacher for me — that's all.
Well, I am not attempting to be your teacher. Just sharing what I believe. :HeartThrob:
I think God would have us step back from Scripture once in a while and put the spirit of the message into words we are used to. God knew we would change and meanings of words would change as people continued on so this is how I see it..........
When a hot chick walked by Jesus I think He appreciated her 'hotness' while not lusting. He was probably much like Adam when Eve came along. Notice Eve is called Woman? Get it.....WOOOOOOO!!!!! MANNNN!!!! She could have been called Wowzer!!!!!! but no, Adam took one look and said "WOOO MAN!!!" I bet Eve was one hot babe.
So now, was Jesus tempted? I would think to be tempted a thought that is not appropriate would have to be presented to His mind like "Wouldn't you want to do the nasty with that hot chick?" Kind of like "You're hungry, turn the stones into bread."
With the stone bread, Jesus rejected the temptation and the temptor thus no sin evolved even though He was tempted just like us. So with the hot chick analogy, Jesus would have said something like "For one 'doing the nasty' is vulgar and two, having sex with a woman that God did not make you one with is a sin and three, calling women hot chicks and hot babes will get you in trouble with Me so scram, Satan."
Just my thoughts......
cp
Cute there CP.
But Jesus knew who He was; so much that one hot chick could not do it, neither could a hundred or a thousand.
Satan paraded before Him the same tempts that befell the first Adam.
But THIS time, the result is much different.
By His obedience He reconciled creation.
The first Adam failed (no surprise ), so God created a second Adam of Himself (the Word made Flesh); however not from the dust of the earth this time, but from the dust the creature.
Oh, the wonder of it!
QuoteWith the stone bread, Jesus rejected the temptation and the temptor thus no sin evolved even though He was tempted just like us.
I agree with you.
I agree that Jesus was presented with proposition to sin. And I also agree that he did not feel the improper desire, which is lawlessness to God of itself. The proposition was rejected outright. That is why Jesus was not tempted of his own lusts, because he didn't have any. His mind was above his body.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 01:37:58 AM
Cute there CP.
But Jesus knew who He was; so much that one hot chick could not do it, neither could a hundred or a thousand.
Satan paraded before Him the same tempts that befell the first Adam.
But THIS time, the result is much different.
I agree. That is my point. Jesus did not walk through a church service type of world where all he would hear was 'praise the Lord' talk. He walked where He was going to hear and see things to tempt any real person. Jesus was tempted to by-pass the cross IMO yet He overcame even that with a 'Not My will but yours be done' attitude.
My point is, being tempted is not sin, giving in to temptation is a sin. Am I missing something here? Doesn't everyone agree with this? Being tempted does not mean we are weak in any way, giving in to it does. Jesus was not weak in any area.
cp
Quote from: claypot on July 14, 2009, 01:44:58 AM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 01:37:58 AM
Cute there CP.
But Jesus knew who He was; so much that one hot chick could not do it, neither could a hundred or a thousand.
Satan paraded before Him the same tempts that befell the first Adam.
But THIS time, the result is much different.
I agree. That is my point. Jesus did not walk through a church service type of world where all he would hear was 'praise the Lord' talk. He walked where He was going to hear and see things to tempt any real person. Jesus was tempted to by-pass the cross IMO yet He overcame even that with a 'Not My will but yours be done' attitude.
RIGHT! He was tempted with suffering death, and he overcame the world.
QuoteMy point is, being tempted is not sin, giving in to temptation is a sin. Am I missing something here? Doesn't everyone agree with this? Being tempted does not mean we are weak in any way, giving in to it does. Jesus was not weak in any area.
Being tempted of the devil to sin is not a sin. However the desire to sin is against God's law. Jesus, being the visible image of the invisible God did not have sin to produce the same lusts in us.
I agree that by being tempted of the devil is not a sin. However the proposition on this thread is that the devil is within us, and by default was also in Christ. They say that the devil is the carnal mind, and that Christ had a carnal mind. That is my disagreement. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING in the Bible says that Christ's MIND was carnal, even if his flesh was. ALL scriptural signs point to Him being Spiritually minded.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 01:43:51 AM
QuoteWith the stone bread, Jesus rejected the temptation and the temptor thus no sin evolved even though He was tempted just like us.
I agree with you.
I agree that Jesus was presented with proposition to sin. And I also agree that he did not feel the improper desire, which is lawlessness to God of itself. The proposition was rejected outright. That is why Jesus was not tempted of his own lusts, because he didn't have any. His mind was above his body.
:thumbsup:
and each one is tempted, by his own desires being led away and enticed, 15 afterward the desire having conceived, doth give birth to sin, and the sin having been perfected, doth bring forth death.jms1.14
Jesus not wanting to go to the cross.............His own desire yet this desire never conceived thus no sin.
cp
Desiring not to die, and lusting after a woman are two different things. One is expressly unlawful, and the other is not. Jesus was in all points tempted like us, apart from sin, just as the Bible says.
CP, do you think Jesus's mind was the Devil, or that the Devil was in Christ?
Look at the title of this thread: You ARE Satan. Look at the reasoning: the carnal mind is Satan, and Christ had a carnal mind. What do we conclude? Jesus Christ is Satan?
He is spiritually minded. Nothing less.
Which is why He has no sin.
No temptation of this world is could be great enough.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 02:02:55 AM
He is spiritually minded. Nothing less.
Which is why He has no sin.
No temptation of this world is could be great enough.
EXACTLY!
Seth, you wrote......
I agree that by being tempted of the devil is not a sin. However the proposition on this thread is that the devil is within us, and by default was also in Christ. They say that the devil is the carnal mind, and that Christ had a carnal mind. That is my disagreement. Nothing, absolutely NOTHING in the Bible says that Christ's MIND was carnal, even if his flesh was. ALL scriptural signs point to Him being Spiritually minded.
Who is saying Christ has a carnal mind? I think He had a mind like any man, don't you? A carnal mind IMO is a corrupted mind wouldn't you agree? To get a carnal mind one would have to give in to Satan who I believe is the personification of the carnal mind.
Satan was obviously present in the mind of Jesus in the sense Jesus received anti God thoughts like entertaining the thought of not going to the cross BUT Jesus always perfectly resisted 'him' thus temptation yet no sin.
Are you saying you are disagreeing that the devil is the carnal mind or that Jesus had a carnal mind?
cp
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 02:02:55 AM
He is spiritually minded. Nothing less.
Which is why He has no sin.
No temptation of this world is could be great enough.
But it tried, right?
cp
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 02:01:10 AM
Desiring not to die, and lusting after a woman are two different things. One is expressly unlawful, and the other is not. Jesus was in all points tempted like us, apart from sin, just as the Bible says.
CP, do you think Jesus's mind was the Devil, or that the Devil was in Christ?
Look at the title of this thread: You ARE Satan. Look at the reasoning: the carnal mind is Satan, and Christ had a carnal mind. What do we conclude? Jesus Christ is Satan?
I see the Devil personified in the Bible yet there really is never a person called the Devil except people like Peter but I think you and I agree that Peter was not the Devil as so many think of the Devil. I see the Devil as an essence that, when obeyed, becomes part of a persons essence. Jesus never obeyed the 'Devil'.
cp
It's time Saints:
That we know who we are in Christ Jesus
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEbrzvfjUw8
CP, somebody's nature is the innate or essential qualities that make up a person. We must look at the scripture and decide whether we believe Christ had a carnal nature, or a Spiritual nature, and whether or not Christ's carnal nature was ABLE to struggle with a Spiritual nature. All these things occur in our minds. If Christ had a carnal nature, it had to be in his mind, because if a sinful desire enters the mind, that reveals the mind to be carnal and not Spiritual.
Jesus's devil could not be a carnal mind he didn't have. :HeartThrob:
overcome AS I HAVE overcome
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieHYou Scripturally put "the cart before the horse" bro... The Scripture does NOT say "SIN [cart] produces [horse] LUST"... it SAYS:
James 1:14 ...and when LUST [horse] hath concieved, IT ... bringeth FORTH, ...[cart] SIN
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMWillie, actually the horse before the cart is "being carnal sold under sin." That is where it all starts. All men are carnal SOLD UNDER SIN. Jesus was without sin.
Sorry bro... but
ALL MEN, includes the
MAN,
JESUS... He was BORN of a SINFUL mother...
You have already noted that it is your belief that SIN is in the members...
CHRIST had human, fleshly members as do we... :dontknow: One of our "members" is the MIND!
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMNotice that James does not say that Lust concieved brings forth sin IN OUR MEMBERS (limbs, body parts). Paul is very clear that the sin in our members is that which is at war with our minds, PRODUCING lust.
:laughing7: -- This actually makes me giggle a bit... It is the FLESHLY "members" which makes suggestion to the MIND "member", bro... My tummy is growling... suggesting to me (my mind) that it is TIME to FEED it... :dontknow:
The cart is still before the horse bro...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMAnd James is clear that the lust produced by that sin, being "carnal and sold under sin" is what, siezed upon produces sin.
Please! :mshock:
James does NOT put it that way Seth!
YOU put it that way!
JAMES says: "LUST brings forth SIN"...
YOU SAY: "SIN brings forth LUST that brings forth SIN"...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMby Sin in the members, producing lust, concieved produces sin. Lust in our minds SHOWS that we are already sold under sin before we knew it.
YOUR "NATURAL MIND" is a MEMBER of
YOU... :dontknow: Not just the "meat parts"... The NATURAL HEART of man is DESPARATELY Wicked --
Jer 17:9 --
Where you might be missing the point, is that
CHRIST had BOTH the mind of
YHVH, for the fullness of DIVINITY dwelt IN Him, and also He confessed to having a "WILL" of His own --
Luke 22:42 -- which, in this verse notes as TWO SEPARATE entities (His "will"
and GOD's "WILL") -- Not to mention He CONFESSED to being BOTH the SON of
MAN (with the mind of man - which Could be tempted) and SON of GOD (with the mind of GOD - which COULD NOT be tempted)
I believe you are creating your own vision of this to accomodate your belief bro...
JESUS had HUMAN FLESH... you cannot sidestep this FACT... And it is YOUR ARGUEMENT that SIN is IN the members of human flesh... :dontknow:
When one is converted to
CHRIST... one STILL remains either submitted or unsubmitted, for TWO dwell in each ONE... I live in me, and
CHRIST lives in
me (not just in my flesh)... and it is my REASONABLE service to sacrifice "MY WILL" in favor of the WILL of
YHVH --
Rom 12:1 -- which is what
CHRIST did, and which is what we must do in following Him.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMAs Paul clearly states:
Romans 7
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
This is speaking of a BELIEVER (Paul) who is NOW SUBMITTED to
CHRIST, and who is STILL at WAR with that which he has ALWAYS been at war... The only thing that has changed is WHICH VOICE he is listening to...
CHRIST (inward man) and the SPIRITUAL "WILL" of the FATHER, ...as opposed to formerly -- The VOICE of His MEMBERS and HIS NATURAL "WILL"...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMSIN IS THE DOER OF SIN (unlawfulness)!
I think you misunderstand this whole scenario bro... The "I" that Paul is, is no longer the NATURAL man and "will", rather the "I" that Paul now is, is the SPIRITUAL man, which is CHRIST and the "WILL" of
YHVH...
If sin persists... it is the NATURAL portion of himself, which yet exists... and IS the "DOER" of the SIN... and CONFESSION of that SIN is due OF HIM --
1 John 1:8-9Let's see... If Peter & Paul are arguing, and Paul picks up a gun and shoots Peter... Who (sinfully) killed Peter, Seth? :dunno: ...if you can't figure it out, I'll tell you -- PAUL killed Peter! NOT his "members"...
You fail to read the whole story bro... for PAUL at the end of this dissertation, notes:
Rom 7:24 --
O wretched man, that ...I ---> AM... How could He say this? He just said the SIN was no longer being DONE by Him? :wacko2:
I'll tell you why... Because regardless of our SPIRIT conversion... we remain IN the CARNAL... and SIN which occurs AFTER conversion, must be CONFESSED -- As John aptly notes about BELIEVERS:
1 John 1:8 --
If we SAY that WE have NO SIN -- we DECIEVE ourselves, and the TRUTH is NOT -- in us.And John counsels these BELIEVERS, who are SUBMITTED to
JESUS -- yet STILL find SIN that is THEIRS to claim:1 John 1:9 If we CONFESS ...OUR... sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousnessThis verse notes clear ownership of SIN to belong to the believer, and NOT to blame it on the BODY (members)... as if it is the BODY's fault the SIN took place... Please! REASON must accompany our conclusions or our conclusions are WITHOUT REASON...
When you go before GOD in judgment... are you going to blame your MEMBERS for your sin, Seth? Or will you "man-up" and offer REASON, and HUMILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY to Him for what
YOU DID... (
you AND your members)
It is CLEAR that the BODY and MIND have to agree in order for SIN to occur... and IT must be CONFESSED as YOUR OWN, and not to give GOD --
"the body made me do it" defense, ...which is every bit as weak as the
"devil made me do it" defense... :laughing7:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMHe just said so. Sin is the one producing the lust
That is what you see Seth, because that is what you
wish to see... the TRUTH is otherwise... YOU are still YOU... even though you are now ONE in agreement with the INWARD man
(CHRIST), ...
YOU... and your SINFUL self, shall surface from time to time, and CONFESSION is therefore in order...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMwhen we want to do good. And if we want to do good, but do bad (by unlawfully lusting for women) then it is THE SIN THAT DWELLETH IN ME that does it.
Give me a break bro... It is the Natural Mind (will) responding to the desires of the flesh, which brings forth this, not just your "members" alone.
The SIN that "dwells in men" is the combination of the NATURAL MIND and the NATURAL desires of the body, that compose the IMPRISONED WILL of man...
And the SIN that dwelleth in YOU is the Natural
YOU... and your CARNAL/Natural self... which fails to YIELD... and IS the cause and accountable person for the disobedience...
If you are YIELDED to the INWARD man (the
WORD) -- then SIN shall not occur... but as John notes so kindly in --
1 John 2:1 -- this WILL occur, and GOD knows it shall, and He and His SON together have made the necessary method and availability to access the needed reconciliation...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMThat is exactly why Paul speaks of lust being produced by sin that is already in us, and comes alive when met with the law.
You continue to self-decieve bro... Paul and John BOTH taught that SIN which proceeds from us, are
OUR SINS... We cannot put the blame on the BODY and sidestep the real culprit -- in doing so we SELF DECIEVE --
1 John 1:8If you can't see it, you can't see it... Just as an ET'er won't see UR... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHI certainly didn't overcomplicate bro, ...I just (in my own words) quoted the SCRIPTURAL order in which SIN comes FORTH... and you know it bro...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMYOu shouldn't assume what I know or do not. Because if you are saying that I know what you say is true and am denying, you would be calling me a liar.
Calm down little brother... didn't mean to ruffle your feathers... :friendstu:
If you cannot recognize the order which you are presently viewing is NOT what Scripture notes... then it is the same STRONG VEILING which is cast over the eyes of Calvinists which cannot see that they are NOT the only ones which GOD shall SAVE...
We all have our individual pathways to walk, with much to learn... the important thing is to keep REASON within our hearts, as we continue to search for more... often, we
all hold on to things which should be "let go"... :sigh:
Since learning of the Salvation of ALL MEN... the LORD has revealed an almost COMPLETELY different observation of what the Scriptures say... I am still learning DAILY... and am GLAD to make the changes...
PEACE is what the Scriptures are about... and more and more, I see that
PEACE in them... GOD of
PEACE, GOSPEL of
PEACE... "
PEACE be unto you" ...is the wish of just about every letter salutation, beginning with it and at times ending with it...
2 John 3 -- 3 John 14 -- Jude 2 -- 2 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 5:14 -- Philemon 3 -- Titus 1:3 -- 1 Tom 1:2 -- 2 Thess 1:2 -- 2 Thess 3:16 -- 1 Thess 1:1 -- 1 Thess 5:23 -- Col 1:2 -- Phil 1:2 -- Eph 1:2 -- Eph 6:23 -- Gal 1:3 -- Gal 6:16 -- 2 Cor 1:2 -- 2 Cor 13:11 -- 1 Cor 1:2 -- Rom 1:7 Quote from: willieHSorry bro, ... but as I read "your observation" of JESUS' temptation, ...He wasn't really "tempted" at ALL, ...AS... we are... Nor to the DEGREE we are tempted...
According to you: His "temptation" was a "walk in the park"... compared to the WAR in which we participate... He had NO real TUG at His integrity, nor did He have to WIN over EVIL... for He did not TRULY and ACTUALLY face it...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMHis temptation was in suffering death for us to bring reconciliation to the world.
Boy me-bratha :afFro: ...you jump from "temptation" and make IT the summary of His MISSION...
Part of His mission was to OVERCOME temptation... SUFFERING DEATH was taking that VICTORY, as well as His sufferings, ministry and fruit of all that, to and through DEATH, ...OVERCOMING, ...DEATH with LIFE...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 12:03:11 AMThe only reason we participate in a war is because we have not fully entered into God's.....now see this word....REST.
Jesus did overcome, the world. Sin was already overcome for him by God's rest. That is the example we are to follow by following Christ into that promised land, not in our own feeble struggles, but by GOD's HAND in our minds to change our former affections by his own choosing.
If this is your attempt at recognizing SOVEREIGNTY, then bless you, and I agree... the WHOLE
schmeer was already noted before it happened... so in terms of SOVEREIGNTY, ...
it as do ALL THINGS, occured at the notation of the ALMIGHTY, ...and the "OVERCOMING" was already a matter of FACT in ETERNITY and was accomplished before it began...
But concerning the CHRONLOGY of FINITE TIME...
CHRIST was TEMPTED
AS are we in ALL POINTS... yet without SIN... LUST brings forth SIN, not the other way around...
Even your arguement that SIN exists in the members, still places
CHRIST IN those "members"...
You are welcome to remain where you are bro, and until God makes any change in that stance, ...are encouraged to do so... Part of FAITH is to stand up for it... but while you stand strong, ...remain a vessel into which MORE can be poured...
I speak to you in opposition having already traveled the road you travel (and I did hear you came "my way" and have changed since)...
That said, may GOD use either your words, my words, or neither... at His descretion, as others read our conversation! And may He change either of us down the pathway if indeed we need change according to His WILL and PURPOSE...
:Peace:
...willieH :icon_king:
willieH: Hi BS... :hithere:
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 02:20:21 AM
overcome AS I HAVE overcome
:goodpost:
The MAN
JESUS "overcame" by submission to the power of the
WORD of
YHVH, and obedience to His WILL as is stated in the
WORD... which is EXACTLY how "we overcome"...
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty
and I will adore You
He was the Word
Is the word
And is the Word to come
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 02:42:57 AM
He was the Word
Is the word
And is the Word to come
Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.
QuoteQuote from: willieH
You Scripturally put "the cart before the horse" bro... The Scripture does NOT say "SIN [cart] produces [horse] LUST"... it SAYS:
James 1:14 ...and when LUST [horse] hath concieved, IT ... bringeth FORTH, ...[cart] SIN
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
Willie, actually the horse before the cart is "being carnal sold under sin." That is where it all starts. All men are carnal SOLD UNDER SIN. Jesus was without sin.
Sorry bro... but ALL MEN, includes the MAN, JESUS... He was BORN of a SINFUL mother...
You have already noted that it is your belief that SIN is in the members... CHRIST had human, fleshly members as do we... One of our "members" is the MIND!
No Willie. The mind is not a body part. The physical BRAIN is the member. The MIND can be removed from the flesh by being in the Spirit thereby adopting the mind of the Father. That is why we are told to "have the mind of Christ" Corinthians 2:16. It doesn't say to find his physical brain and put it in your head.
Being a man is not enough. Christ was a man born of a sinful mother. However, he was a man without sin.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
Notice that James does not say that Lust concieved brings forth sin IN OUR MEMBERS (limbs, body parts). Paul is very clear that the sin in our members is that which is at war with our minds, PRODUCING lust.
-- This actually makes me giggle a bit... It is the FLESHLY "members" which makes suggestion to the MIND "member", bro... My tummy is growling... suggesting to me (my mind) that it is TIME to FEED it...
The cart is still before the horse bro...
Don't confuse the brain with the mind. The reason that sin is in our flesh, is because as Christ said "What is flesh is flesh, and what is spirit is spirit." Flesh is naturally below and beneath the spirit. It misses the mark NATURALLY. The lust that is produced BY that flesh enters into a mind that doesn't want it. The mind then SUCCUMBS, or is placed in SUBJECTION to what it did not want. That is why our minds need renewing, and why we need to "put on the mind of Christ."
Romans 7:22-23
For
in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body,
waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner
of the law of sin at work within my members.
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
And James is clear that the lust produced by that sin, being "carnal and sold under sin" is what, siezed upon produces sin.
Please!
James does NOT put it that way Seth! YOU put it that way!
JAMES says: "LUST brings forth SIN"...
YOU SAY: "SIN brings forth LUST that brings forth SIN"...
No the Bible says that, bro. James is talking about LUST. Lust is lawlessness. Sin oes the sin in us brother. Paul makes the clear distinction between
"I" who wants to do good: the inner man, and "the body of this death"
which produces lust CONTRARY to the desires of our mind.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
by Sin in the members, producing lust, concieved produces sin. Lust in our minds SHOWS that we are already sold under sin before we knew it.
YOUR "NATURAL MIND" is a MEMBER of YOU... Not just the "meat parts"... The NATURAL HEART of man is DESPARATELY Wicked -- Jer 17:9 -- [
I believe you are creating your own vision of this to accomodate your belief bro... JESUS had HUMAN FLESH... you cannot sidestep this FACT... And it is YOUR ARGUEMENT that SIN is IN the members of human flesh...
When one is converted to CHRIST... one STILL remains either submitted or unsubmitted, for TWO dwell in each ONE... I live in me, and CHRIST lives in me (not just in my flesh)... and it is my REASONABLE service to sacrifice "MY WILL" in favor of the WILL of YHVH -- Rom 12:1 -- which is what CHRIST did, and which is what we must do in following Him.
I never denied that Jesus had human flesh. Being that Christ had the fullness of God in him That is what made him without sin WillieH. Christ was not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Again, do not confuse the brain with the mind. The CARNAL mind is what is emnity with God not just the mind, or the brain. Christ's mind was SPIRITUAL, which is why he was not in the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Even Christ had flesh Willie, he was a man. He was a man without sin. He was not in the flesh but in the Spirit.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
As Paul clearly states:
Romans 7
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
This is speaking of a BELIEVER (Paul) who is NOW SUBMITTED to CHRIST, and who is STILL at WAR with that which he has ALWAYS been at war... The only thing that has changed is WHICH VOICE he is listening to... CHRIST (inward man) and the SPIRITUAL "WILL" of the FATHER, ...as opposed to formerly -- The VOICE of His MEMBERS and HIS NATURAL "WILL"...
If it is speaking of a believer, it would only be a believer who is submitting himself to the Law so that sin can deceive him and grow more sinful. Nothing in the Bible says that Christ "listened to the voice of his members."
The sin is in the members. Christ was APART FROM SIN.
QuoteLet's see... If Peter & Paul are arguing, and Paul picks up a gun and shoots Peter... Who (sinfully) killed Peter, Seth? ...if you can't figure it out, I'll tell you -- PAUL killed Peter! NOT his "members"...
You fail to read the whole story bro... for PAUL at the end of this dissertation, notes:
Rom 7:24 -- O wretched man, that ...I ---> AM... How could He say this? He just said the SIN was no longer being DONE by Him?
He says that he is a wretched man WHY? Because he wants to do good but the sin in him is causing him to do bad. That is what makes a man wretched to be
SOLD ...as...a.....SLAVE.....to....sin.You could tell me that Paul killed Peter, but you would be missing the source. I would tell YOU, then, PAUL would have been a SLAVE to SIN.
If Paul was under the law, and sin in him contradicted the law to not commit murder, and
Paul wished to do good but the sin in him produced murderous lust, then the sin in him would be the killer. And our being sold in SLAVERY to sin is what would make us wretched in binding us to do evil when we want to do good.
So yes, the sin in him would be committing the murder, when he wants to do good. And THAT slavery is what would make him wretched.
SLAVERY IS BENG UNDER BONDAGE AGAINST YOUR WILL TO SOMETHING YOU DON'T WANT TO DO.Quote1 John 1:8 -- If we SAY that WE have NO SIN -- we DECIEVE ourselves, and the TRUTH is NOT -- in us.
And John counsels these BELIEVERS, who are SUBMITTED to JESUS -- yet STILL find SIN that is THEIRS to claim:
1 John 1:9 If we CONFESS ...OUR... sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
This verse notes clear ownership of SIN to belong to the believer, and NOT to blame it on the BODY (members)... as if it is the BODY's fault the SIN took place... Please! REASON must accompany our conclusions or our conclusions are WITHOUT REASON...
Paul is clear that we have two laws within us: the
law of sin in our members, and the
law of our minds. One law becomes submitted to the other according to the body of sin. The sin in our members produces lust in us, that wars with our mind. That is the separation that Paul is talking about, between when
we want to do good but cannot. That we cannot do good when we want to reveals that it is "no longer I who do it, but the sin in us." THAT IS SLAVERY.
QuoteWhen you go before GOD in judgment... are you going to blame your MEMBERS for your sin, Seth? Or will you "man-up" and offer REASON, and HUMILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY to Him for what YOU DID... (you AND your members)
No, as you have often stated. Are you ready for your own words:
WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE, BUT WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE. Do you recognize those words?
QuoteIt is CLEAR that the BODY and MIND have to agree in order for SIN to occur... and IT must be CONFESSED as YOUR OWN, and not to give GOD -- "the body made me do it" defense, ...which is every bit as weak as the "devil made me do it" defense...
LOL THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT PAUL SAYS!
WOW He says that the law of the mind is OPPOSED to the law of sin in our members. That is what makes it a struggle. Not only that he says that SIN PRODUCES LUST
AGAINST OUR WILL. Dude are you really reading it?
WillieH, what in the world do you think slavery is?
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
He just said so. Sin is the one producing the lust
That is what you see Seth, because that is what you wish to see... the TRUTH is otherwise... YOU are still YOU... even though you are now ONE in agreement with the INWARD man (CHRIST), ...YOU... and your SINFUL self, shall surface from time to time, and CONFESSION is therefore in order...
Willie, the words will never dissapear. Sin produces lust. PERIOD. Not only does sin produce lust, it does so
AGAINST THE WILL OF OUR MINDS.
QuoteThe SIN that "dwells in men" is the combination of the NATURAL MIND and the NATURAL desires of the body, that compose the IMPRISONED WILL of man...
And the SIN that dwelleth in YOU is the Natural YOU... and your CARNAL/Natural self... which fails to YIELD... and IS the cause and accountable person for the disobedience...
You are not reading Romans 7 carefully enough. We are "the inner man." WE WANT TO DO GOOD. The sin in our members produces BAD. That is why Paul says IF I WANT TO DO GOOD BUT CANNOT, IT IS NO LONGER I WHO DO IT BUT THE SIN IN ME.
Do you see how Paul draws the difference between "SIN" and "I?"
This being so, does God still hold us accountable though we are not responsible? YES! He holds us accountable so that we can be delivered!
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
That is exactly why Paul speaks of lust being produced by sin that is already in us, and comes alive when met with the law.
You continue to self-decieve bro... Paul and John BOTH taught that SIN which proceeds from us, are OUR SINS... We cannot put the blame on the BODY and sidestep the real culprit -- in doing so we SELF DECIEVE -- 1 John 1:8
Identifying the thing responsible does not absolve from accountability. We DO have sin in us. But here is the rub: WE ARE SOLD AS SLAVES.
Romans 8: We are bound over into vanity by he who bound us to hope.
We do own our sins, yet we are not responsible for HAVING SIN. We are are nevertheless held accountable so that we can be delivered from sin.
QuotePEACE is what the Scriptures are about... and more and more, I see that PEACE in them... GOD of PEACE, GOSPEL of PEACE... "PEACE be unto you" ...is the wish of just about every letter salutation, beginning with it and at times ending with it... 2 John 3 -- 3 John 14 -- Jude 2 -- 2 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 5:14 -- Philemon 3 -- Titus 1:3 -- 1 Tom 1:2 -- 2 Thess 1:2 -- 2 Thess 3:16 -- 1 Thess 1:1 -- 1 Thess 5:23 -- Col 1:2 -- Phil 1:2 -- Eph 1:2 -- Eph 6:23 -- Gal 1:3 -- Gal 6:16 -- 2 Cor 1:2 -- 2 Cor 13:11 -- 1 Cor 1:2 -- Rom 1:7
Right. And being without sin is what caused Christ to be at peace. That is what it means to be in God's rest.
Quotee-bratha ...you jump from "temptation" and make IT the summary of His MISSION... Part of His mission was to OVERCOME temptation... SUFFERING DEATH was taking that VICTORY, as well as His sufferings, ministry and fruit of all that, to and through DEATH, ...OVERCOMING, ...DEATH with LIFE...
And all this overcoming is done by His father within him. Christ credited himself nothing. That is why by God's rest, he was without sin.
Yes Molly
We are priests
Who minister between the creation and the creator
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 04:17:48 AM
Yes Molly
We are priests
Who minister between the creation and the creator
Are we also the word of God?
Acts 6:7
And the word of God increased..."increased"G837
αὐξάνω
auxanōowx-an'-o
A prolonged form of a primary verb;
to grow ("wax"), that is,
enlarge (literally or figuratively, actively or passively): - grow (up), (give the)
increase.
WE ARE HIS VERY BEING, IT IS NOT I BUT CHRIST.
I must decrease so He may increase!
foul wretched flesh, there is no hope in self.
:cloud9: Amen.......the Word/Spirit becoming flesh.......Blessings.....
willieH: Hi Seth... :hithere:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMNo Willie. The mind is not a body part. The physical BRAIN is the member. The MIND can be removed from the flesh by being in the Spirit thereby adopting the mind of the Father.
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...
CHRIST is the HEAD of the Church which IS HIS BODY, in which HIS MIND resides and IS that which gives (SPIRITUAL) ANIMATION to HIS BODY...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMThat is why we are told to "put on. Being a man is not enough. Christ was a man born of a sinful mother. However, he was a man without sin.
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...
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
Notice that James does not say that Lust concieved brings forth sin IN OUR MEMBERS (limbs, body parts). Paul is very clear that the sin in our members is that which is at war with our minds, PRODUCING lust.
-- This actually makes me giggle a bit... It is the FLESHLY "members" which makes suggestion to the MIND "member", bro... My tummy is growling... suggesting to me (my mind) that it is TIME to FEED it...
The cart is still before the horse bro...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMDon't confuse the brain with the mind.
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. :grin:
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
And James is clear that the lust produced by that sin, being "carnal and sold under sin" is what, siezed upon produces sin.
Please!
James does NOT put it that way Seth! YOU put it that way!
JAMES says: "LUST brings forth SIN"...
YOU SAY: "SIN brings forth LUST that brings forth SIN"...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMNo the Bible says that, bro. James is talking about LUST. Lust is lawlessness. Sin does the sin in us brother. Paul makes the clear distinction between "I" who wants to do good: the inner man, and "the body of this death" which produces lust CONTRARY to the desires of our mind.
Again bro... you take a portion of Scripture and re-adjust it to your perception instead of noting what IT SAYS... you note it to "say" what YOU SAY it SAYS...
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...
The TEMPTATION itself, is NOT SIN... you wish to propose SIN is already in the members, but it is not so... SIN wars in the members when TEMPTATION via LUST, has concieved it.
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
by Sin in the members, producing lust, concieved produces sin. Lust in our minds SHOWS that we are already sold under sin before we knew it.
YOUR "NATURAL MIND" is a MEMBER of YOU... Not just the "meat parts"... :laughing7:
The NATURAL HEART of man is DESPARATELY Wicked -- Jer 17:9
I believe you are creating your own vision of this to accomodate your belief bro... JESUS had HUMAN FLESH... you cannot sidestep this FACT... And it is YOUR ARGUEMENT that SIN is IN the members of human flesh...
When one is converted to CHRIST... one STILL remains either submitted or unsubmitted, for TWO dwell in each ONE... I live in me, and CHRIST lives in me (not just in my flesh)... and it is my REASONABLE service to sacrifice "MY WILL" in favor of the WILL of YHVH -- Rom 12:1 -- which is what CHRIST did, and which is what we must do in following Him.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMChrist had the fullness of God in him. That is what made him without sin WillieH. Again, do not confuse the brain with the mind. The CARNAL mind is what is emnity with God not just the mind, or the brain. Christ's mind was SPIRITUAL, which is why he was not in the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Again Seth... I am not confused... so please don't insinuate that I am... :dontknow:
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.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMEven Christ had flesh Willie, he was a man. He was a man without sin. He was not in the flesh but in the Spirit.
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. :dontknow:
QuoteQuote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
As Paul clearly states:
Romans 7
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
This is speaking of a BELIEVER (Paul) who is NOW SUBMITTED to CHRIST, and who is STILL at WAR with that which he has ALWAYS been at war... The only thing that has changed is WHICH VOICE he is listening to... CHRIST (inward man) and the SPIRITUAL "WILL" of the FATHER, ...as opposed to formerly -- The VOICE of His MEMBERS and HIS NATURAL "WILL"...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMIf it is speaking of a believer, it would only be a believer who is submitting himself to the Law so that sin can deceive him and grow more sinful. Nothing in the Bible says that Christ "listened to the voice of his members."
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? :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMThe sin is in the members. Christ was APART FROM SIN.
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...
Quote from: willieHLet's see... If Peter & Paul are arguing, and Paul picks up a gun and shoots Peter... Who (sinfully) killed Peter, Seth? ...if you can't figure it out, I'll tell you -- PAUL killed Peter! NOT his "members"...
You fail to read the whole story bro... for PAUL at the end of this dissertation, notes:
Rom 7:24 -- O wretched man, that ...I ---> AM... How could He say this? He just said the SIN was no longer being DONE by Him?
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMHe says that he is a wretched man WHY? Because he wants to do good but the sin in him is causing him to do bad. That is what makes a man wretched to be SOLD as a slave to sin.
Let's face it bro... there is nothing either of us can say that the other shall agree upon concerning the TEMPTATION of
CHRIST...
SIN is NOT in the members as a MEMBER... it is the DESIRES of the FLESH which prompt TEMPTATION which bring forth the WAR between the SPIRIT (inward man) and the members (including the MIND in MAN)...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMIf Paul was under the law, and sin in him contradicted the law to not commit murder, and Paul wished to do good but the sin in him produced murderous lust, then the sin in him would be the killer. And our being sold in SLAVERY to sin is what would make us wretched in binding us to do evil when we want to do good.
And we would then send his SIN to the electric chair Seth? :laughing7: Come on dude... If PAUL is sinning... it is HE which must confess that SIN... not only that, but if he truly is stating that He has no sin and that it is His BODY which is the culprit... then he is SELF DECEIVING as noted by John --
1 John 1:8You misunderstand Pauls words bro... Paul is not saying that he is no longer accountable for SIN in himself... The Son he has become in
JESUS is not the sinner, the MAN that HE IS, is the sinner... In the SPIRIT he serves the LAW of GOD, but in the FLESH (which includes his MIND as a MAN), the LAW of SIN... which is WHY he finds that
he (Paul) ..."does" what
he (Paul) ..."does not wish to do"... TWO "he's" in opposition... son of man, Son of God
Quote from: willieH1 John 1:8 -- If we SAY that WE have NO SIN -- we DECIEVE ourselves, and the TRUTH is NOT -- in us.
And John counsels these BELIEVERS, who are SUBMITTED to JESUS -- yet STILL find SIN that is THEIRS to claim:
1 John 1:9 If we CONFESS ...OUR... sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness
This verse notes clear ownership of SIN to belong to the believer, and NOT to blame it on the BODY (members)... as if it is the BODY's fault the SIN took place... Please! REASON must accompany our conclusions or our conclusions are WITHOUT REASON...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMPaul is clear that we have two laws within us: the law of sin in our members, and the law of our minds. One law becomes submitted to the other according to the body of sin. The sin in our members produces lust in us, that wars with our mind. That is the separation that Paul is talking about, between when we want to do good but cannot. That we cannot do good when we want to reveals that it is "no longer I who do it, but the sin in us."
Are you really convinced Seth, that YOU do not do YOUR sin any longer? And that when YOU "sin", that YOU are not accountable for it? :mshock:
Will you say to God... "Hey Paul said that it was no longer him sinning, but the SIN in
his members doing the sin... and it's the same in my case! ...I... didn't SIN, ...MY body... did it." Are you hearing yourself?
It is the "satan" or adversary within you which has brought forth this self-deception...
And when you come before GOD's Judgment... are you gonna present the
"my body made me do it" defense? Sorry brother S... but I shall not fool myself in such ways.
It is just a lot of double talk... No offense brother Seth, ...you are welcome to believe this baloney... and try to convince yourself it is true... as for me, NO THANKS! :mnah:
In order for TEMPTATION to have been OVERCOME by
CHRIST... it had to be PRESENTED to
CHRIST, as it has in ALL other MEN... Not only THAT, but -- we aren't even in His "league"... what is extremely difficult for us... is mere pidlets to Him... :laughing7:
Our members are NOT SINFUL of themselves (including the WILL/mind)... but they DO contain DESIRES... which when submitted to, can be SINFUL... and bring it forth.
Quote from: willieHWhen you go before GOD in judgment... are you going to blame your MEMBERS for your sin, Seth? Or will you "man-up" and offer REASON, and HUMILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY to Him for what YOU DID... (you AND your members)
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMNo, as you have often stated. Are you ready for your own words: WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE, BUT WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE. Do you recognize those words?
Ahem... ah... hem... did I not just STATE ACCOUNTABILITY Seth? Where did I say we were
RESPONSIBLE Seth? I said no such thing... :mnah:
I DID SAY: We ARE -- ACCOUNTABLE -- which would be UNNECESSARY according to your thinking, for YOU are not "doing" your SINS... your MEMBERS are the culprits...
So is it also your "vision" that your BODY must stand before GOD,
without YOU and GIVE ACCOUNT for its SINFULNESS, Seth? (cuz after all, YOU are not doing the sin, so there is nothing for
YOU to give "account" for is there? :rolleye:)
Quote from: willieHIt is CLEAR that the BODY and MIND have to agree in order for SIN to occur... and IT must be CONFESSED as YOUR OWN, and not to give GOD -- "the body made me do it" defense, ...which is every bit as weak as the "devil made me do it" defense...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMLOL THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT PAUL SAYS! He says that the law of the mind is OPPOSED to the law of sin in our members. That is what makes it a struggle. Not only that he says that SIN PRODUCES LUST AGAINST OUR WILL. Dude are you really reading it?
Then SIN did not ENTER
by ADAM, ...it entered BY GOD creating IT within Him according to your thinking Seth...
It was
IN his (and Eve's) members to begin with, if I am to follow you into your ditch... for SIN according to your perception of Paul's words is
IN the MEMBERS... No temptation is even necessary... SIN is there to begin with... What a lot of HOGWASH! :thumbdown: (no offense bro, but it is HOGWASH)
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
He just said so. Sin is the one producing the lust
That is what you see Seth, because that is what you wish to see... the TRUTH is otherwise... YOU are still YOU... even though you are now ONE in agreement with the INWARD man (CHRIST), ...YOU... and your SINFUL self, shall surface from time to time, and CONFESSION is therefore in order...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMWillie, the words will never dissapear. Sin produces lust. PERIOD. Not only does sin produce lust, it does so AGAINST THE WILL OF OUR MINDS.
PERIOD? :laughing7: Please bro, you know better than to serve me a "PERIOD"! :laugh:
SIN does not produce LUST... :pitiful:
LUST produces SIN... :yes:
You correct what the Scriptures SAY and insert your beliefs in their place... :dontknow: Not interested. :thumbdown:
Quote from: willieHThe SIN that "dwells in men" is the combination of the NATURAL MIND and the NATURAL desires of the body, that compose the IMPRISONED WILL of man...
And the SIN that dwelleth in YOU is the Natural YOU... and your CARNAL/Natural self... which fails to YIELD... and IS the cause and accountable person for the disobedience...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMYou are not reading Romans 7 carefully enough. We are "the inner man." WE WANT TO DO GOOD. The sin in our members produces BAD. That is why Paul says IF I WANT TO DO GOOD BUT CANNOT, IT IS NO LONGER I WHO DO IT BUT THE SIN IN ME.
Seth... the HEART (mind of MAN) of itself, is DESPARATELY WICKED and DECEITFUL above ALL! --
Jer 17:9 -- ...WE do not wish to do GOOD... we wish to SIN... The mind of man in its natural state is DEPRAVED.
The INWARD MAN is not YOU... the INWARD MAN is
CHRIST... IN YOU... It is only the GOODNESS of GOD ...which is IN YOU... that leads you to REPENTENCE, Seth... You don't repent because YOU wish to do GOOD... you "repent" because
CHRIST ...in you, leads you to it...
CHRIST stated that He would NEVER leave us... which means that in order for these words to be TRUE, He has ALWAYS been within us... it is the REVELATION of HIM ...in us... that occurs... otherwise the word NEVER cannot be utilized... for the word "NEVER" means NOT AT ANY TIME... and includes prior, during and after...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMDo you see how Paul draws the difference between "SIN" and "I?"
This being so, does God still hold us accountable though we are not responsible? YES! He holds us accountable so that we can be delivered!
I believe I DO see what Paul is saying... but I do not percieve your vision as revealed concerning his words...
Quote
Quote from: Seth on Today at 05:03:11 PM
That is exactly why Paul speaks of lust being produced by sin that is already in us, and comes alive when met with the law.
You continue to self-decieve bro... Paul and John BOTH taught that SIN which proceeds from us, are OUR SINS... We cannot put the blame on the BODY and sidestep the real culprit -- in doing so we SELF DECIEVE -- 1 John 1:8
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMIdentifying the thing responsible does not absolve from accountability. We DO have sin in us. But here is the rub: WE ARE SOLD AS SLAVES.
Seth... it is YOU which have introduced the word "
responsible"... I have not used this term concerning SIN, nor shall I...
Also I have not denied that we have SIN in us... rather I have opposed the process which you have imagined it to occur in us... and agree with what the BIBLE SAYS it is... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMRomans 8: We are bound over into vanity by he who bound us to hope.
We do own our sins, yet we are not responsible for HAVING SIN. We are are nevertheless held accountable so that we can be delivered from sin.
I don't know why you are arguing "responsibility", I have not noted it... Maybe you are arguing with yourself... :laughing7:
Quote from: willieHPEACE is what the Scriptures are about... and more and more, I see that PEACE in them... GOD of PEACE, GOSPEL of PEACE... "PEACE be unto you" ...is the wish of just about every letter salutation, beginning with it and at times ending with it... 2 John 3 -- 3 John 14 -- Jude 2 -- 2 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 1:2 -- 1 Pet 5:14 -- Philemon 3 -- Titus 1:3 -- 1 Tom 1:2 -- 2 Thess 1:2 -- 2 Thess 3:16 -- 1 Thess 1:1 -- 1 Thess 5:23 -- Col 1:2 -- Phil 1:2 -- Eph 1:2 -- Eph 6:23 -- Gal 1:3 -- Gal 6:16 -- 2 Cor 1:2 -- 2 Cor 13:11 -- 1 Cor 1:2 -- Rom 1:7
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 03:19:28 AMRight. And being without sin is what caused Christ to be at peace. That is what it means to be in God's rest.
I agree with this, which is why I posted it... :cloud9:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
:cloud9: I agree Willie..... :thumbsup: Blessings.....
!
QuoteNo 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."
QuoteNo 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. :dontknow:
QuoteI 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.
By the way, I am not trying to be your teacher. Just sharing what I believe. :smile:
QuoteJames 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.
:dsunny:
QuoteAgain 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.
QuoteYou 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. Christ was a man, and he was in all ways tempted like us APART FROM SIN. He was not in the flesh but in the Spirit as the Spirit of God dwelled in him without measure.
:dsunny:
QuoteOkay, 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. HIS mind which also delighted after the Law of God was not ENSLAVED to sin. 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.
QuoteAgain... 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."
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.
QuoteSIN is NOT in the members as a MEMBER.
I never said that sin is in the members "as a member." I just quoted the Bible that says "sin is in the members."
QuoteAnd we would then send his SIN to the electric chair Seth?
GOOD GRIEF WILLIEH. The answer is NO! PAUL WOULD BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE. BUT, he would not have been RESPONSIBLE for his sin. He would not be CAUSAL. The sin would be causal, NOT Paul. That is why it is called "slavery." That is why the sin within us does the sin, but we are still held accountable.
QuoteAre you really convinced Seth, that YOU do not do YOUR sin any longer? And that when YOU "sin", that YOU are not accountable for it?
When I want to do good, and cannot, it is no longer I who do it but the sin in me. That would be slavery. But I am STILL held accountable for the sin that does what I would not want to do. The reason for that accountability is to be delivered from sin.
QuoteAnd when you come before GOD's Judgment... are you gonna present the "my body made me do it" defense?
UM NO? :laughing7:
God will already know that it was not me, but the sin in me that does it. BUT he will make me accountable so that I can be delivered.
Wow bro. You are not paying attention.
QuoteOur members are NOT SINFUL of themselves (including the WILL/mind)... but they DO contain DESIRES... which when submitted to, can be SINFUL... and bring it forth.
More unscriptural statments. Our members DO contain sin. NOT ONLY THAT, but they produce desires which are BY DEFINITION unlawful. The law says "Do not sin." What does sin produce? LUST....which itself is unlawful.
T
he law of our minds wish to do good. Sin produces lust contrary to what our minds want. That is simply what it says.QuoteAhem... ah... hem... did I not just STATE ACCOUNTABILITY Seth? Where did I say we were RESPONSIBLE Seth? I said no such thing...
I DID SAY: We ARE -- ACCOUNTABLE -- which would be UNNECESSARY according to your thinking, for YOU are not "doing" your SINS... your MEMBERS are the culprits...
I SEE the difference in responsibility versus accountability. WillieH DID GOD HOLD PHARAOH ACCOUNTABLE? If God had planned for Pharoah to disobey him, then why hold him responsible. Pharoah was not RESPONSIBLE for disobeying God, for GOD himself hardened Pharoah's heart. But God DID hold him accountable unto his glory. The Potter and the clay.
The fact that Paul says "IF I WANT TO GOOD, AND I CANNOT, THEN IT IS NO LONGER I WHO DOES IT, BUT THE SIN IN ME" shows that man is not RESPONSIBLE or CAUSAL for the sin, but he is still held ACCOUNTABLE.
He said those words and YOU have to face them. Within those words PAUL shows that while we were not responsible we are still held accountable.
QuoteThen SIN did not ENTER by ADAM, ...it entered BY GOD creating IT within Him according to your thinking Seth...
It was IN his (and Eve's) members to begin with, if I am to follow you into your ditch... for SIN according to your perception of Paul's words is IN the MEMBERS... No temptation is even necessary... SIN is there to begin with... What a lot of HOGWASH! (no offense bro, but it is HOGWASH)
UM, sin being in the members is BIBLICAL. The temptation occurs when a man is carried away BY lust and enticed.
The sin in the members brings forth lust CONTRARY to the law of our mind.That is why the sin in our members is AT WAR with the law of our minds.
QuoteSeth... the HEART (mind of MAN) of itself, is DESPARATELY WICKED and DECEITFUL above ALL! -- Jer 17:9 -- ...WE do not wish to do GOOD... we wish to SIN... The mind of man in its natural state is DEPRAVED.
WillieH, the sin in our members is what CAUSES US to want to sin. IT PRODUCES LUST.
That means that our inward sin OVERRIDES our desire to to that which is good and creates LUST, so that when we wanted to not lust, we lusted anyway. That's called slavery.
Romans 7
For we know that the law is spiritual:
but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not (I try not to do): for what I would (WANT),
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 (WANT - like obeying the commandment not to have unlawful desire) 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 THE SIN IN ME. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
But I see another law in my members, WARRING against the law of my mind, and bringing
ME into
CAPTIVITY to the law of sin which is in my members.
It is 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. :dontknow:
QuoteSeth... 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 on sin itself creating lawlessness within us. And he puts the accountability on us that we can be delivered..
Romans 11:32
For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
Who is responsible for the disobedience there? God. Yet he still judges people for being so. Same thing. God knows that it is the SIN in us that causes us to do and think unlawful things. But he makes us accountable so that he can have mercy by judging that sin out of us.
You see how "Whatever is not of faith is sin" right? And you see God BLINDING people to be without faith, right? So you see there that GOD is claiming the causal responsibility, yet still making man accountable.
If you can see that, why is it so hard to see that when a person want to do good, and cannot, then it is no longer them who do it, but the sin in them? And why having seen that, is it so hard to accept that God STILL holds us accountable in the same way he does in Romans 11?
Am I the only one that knew the 13th page would bring confusion?
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AM
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. :dontknow:
QuoteSeth... 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 :bigGrin: :thumbsup:. We know Who is the Victor!
Yes,
but evil is such a terrible thing to know.
It confounds me how people befriend it.
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 :thumbsup:.
Dishonor here, at His service.
Apart from Him, there is no good thing in me.
Quote from: jabcat on July 14, 2009, 07:50:05 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AM
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. :dontknow:
QuoteSeth... 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 :bigGrin: :thumbsup:. 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.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 14, 2009, 08:07:15 AM
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: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
QuoteNo 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMSorry 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMNo 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMVery well. :dontknow:
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...
Quote from: willieHI 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.
QuoteThe 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
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMBy the way, I am not trying to be your teacher. Just sharing what I believe. :smile:
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"... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHJames 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMAnd 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...
Quote from: willieHAgain 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.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMChrist 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... :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHYou 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.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMIt'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... :dontknow: ...as they bark their Orthodoxy against the Salvation of ALL... stating their vision is PLAINLY stated in Scripture... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMChrist 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMHe was not in the flesh but in the Spirit as the Spirit of God dwelled in him without measure.
whatever... more repetition... :sigh:
Quote from: willieHOkay, 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?
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMThe 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... :sigh:
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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMHIS 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMIn 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!
Quote from: willieHAgain... 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMSin 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... :dontknow:
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? :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:33:11 AMGod'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... :happygrin:
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... :heat: I deal with this same merry-go-round REPETITION with Grandchildren that refuse to listen so, ...I think I'll close here... :faint: 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... :sigh:
If I see you trying to argue something new that hasn't been addressed, I'll jump in... G'nite -- :happytired: :lazy:
:Peace:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
QuoteSorry 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteThat 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.
QuoteAs 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.
QuoteNothing 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.
QuoteAs 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
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 fromNow 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.
QuoteYour 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.
QuoteNever 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.
QuoteHow 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.QuoteGod'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.
QuoteCHRIST 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:
QuoteSIN 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.
:cloud9: 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....
QuoteThe 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: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieHSorry 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMWillieH, 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? :laughing7: 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
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMThe 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMThe 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...
QuoteI 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMVeiled 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. :dontknow: (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)
Quote from: willieH"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?"
QuoteYes, 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! :laughing7: 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? :dunno: ...well then, you don't get it. :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMHave 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... :rolleye:
Quote from: willieHAs 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"...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMWell, 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.
:laugh: "haughty"? :laughing7: ...wow! Look who is talking! Is the tantrum :btantrum: 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 - :blahgreen: " ...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.
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMWhen 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 July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PM
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 fromNow 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. :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHYour version of CHRIST, is one which is out of touch with MAN...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMMy 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? :laughing7: -- jus kidn'ya bro... I love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)
Quote from: willieHNever 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!
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMBut 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMAnd, 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...
Quote from: willieHGod's SOVEREIGNTY is not the issue Seth...
Quote from: Seth on July 14, 2009, 07:22:45 PMGod'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. :dontknow:
Quote from: willieHCHRIST 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 4:1-11TEMPTATION is the DOORWAY to SIN...
CHRIST did NOT walk through it, He slammed it SHUT -- forever...
Quote from: willieHwhat's next?
Well?
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Willie and Seth, may I ask you both who or what you think Jesus Christ is?
cp
QuoteThe "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.
QuoteOur 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.
QuoteNever 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.
melosa member,
limb: a member of the human body
nousthe intellect, that is,
mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication meaning: - mind, understanding.
memeh
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.
QuoteAll 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.
QuotePart 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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote"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.
QuoteIf 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.
QuoteIt 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.
QuoteHe 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.
:dsunny:
QuoteI love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)
I love you too bro. :HeartThrob:
QuoteI 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteSee 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.
QuoteThat 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. :Chinscratch:
QuoteTEMPTATION 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
Quote from: willieH
what's next?
Well?
Wednesday is next.
Quote from: peacemaker on July 07, 2009, 05:54:37 AM
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?
Temptedpeirazo 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
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: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
Quote from: willieHNever said it was... The HEAD is a MEMBER of the BODY
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMRomans 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" :laughing7:
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...
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMYou 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! :laugh: :pointlaugh: -- 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMNot only that, you are mistaking the MIND for the HEAD.
Again another assumption of YOUR
MIND... :laughing7: 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.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMThe 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"...
Quote from: willieHPart of the "body of this death" is the NATURAL MIND which listens to the beckoning of the FLESH, Seth...
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMNo 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... :dontknow:
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 -- :dontknow:
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.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuote from: willieHThis 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... :dontknow:
What I argue with is "YOUR contention", that states that SIN is present in the body TO BEGIN WITH...
Quote from: willieH"haughty"? ...wow! Look who is talking! Is the tantrum over, or can I expect more as I go along in this answer?
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMWillieH, 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... :pitiful: ...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 Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuoteIf 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"... :dontknow: I do not use such terminology... I believe what I believe, and state it as best as I am able... :thumbsup:
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... :boyheart:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuoteIt 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"... :dontknow:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuote from: willieHHe 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!
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMWhat 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... :mnah: -- Please note the verse(s) which state this...
Try selling this contradiction elsewhere bro, ...I don't buy it... :mnah:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuoteI 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.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuote from: willieHThe 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.
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMThat 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...
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AMQuoteSee 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... :laughing7: 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... :sigh:
:Peace: bro... :HeartThrob:
...willieH :icon_king:
QuoteThere 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. :laughing7:
QuoteWhen 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.
QuoteIs 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, a
s 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.
:laughing7:
QuoteTo "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.
QuoteThe 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."QuoteSeth, 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.
QuoteQuoteHe 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.
QuoteQuote 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
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. :laughing7: 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 l
aw 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.
:cloud9: Just wanted to say I really appreciate seeing the spirit of Christ in both of you as you agree to disagree. :thumbsup: Blessings....
"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
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: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 12:43:41 AM
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"... :sigh:
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... :upset:
Pretty pathetic Seth... and well below what you are capable of... :pitiful:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 12:43:41 AM
QuoteThere 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. :laughing7:
QuoteWhen 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.
QuoteIs 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.
:laughing7:
QuoteTo "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.
QuoteThe 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."
QuoteSeth, 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.
QuoteQuoteHe 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.
QuoteQuote 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
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. :laughing7: 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... :sigh:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 12:43:41 AM
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"... :sigh:
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... :upset:
Pretty pathetic Seth... and well below what you are capable of... :pitiful:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
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.
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.
:thewife: Seth!!!
:thewife: Willie!!!
knock it off now.
I love you both.
yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.
We're all on our own path that God put us on, right?
We don't need to PROVE we're right or the other person is wrong.
Just SHARE.
ok?
and Willie... now, you know I love ya... but come on give a brother a break. Just let him share without y'know... jumping on him. We're all God's children. And we ALL see through the glass darkly. We will ALL one day understand things so much better, and we will all learn, and perhaps have some of our beliefs STAY and some of our beliefs FALL AWAY. In time.
just love you guys, that's all.
and I'm glad to see Seth back on the forum.
And Willie... I always love reading your posts.
so... as your sister, can't ya'll kinda chill out a little on each other?
dangit.
:thewife: <----look, my poor little arm is getting tired. Look at that little stick arm, and that giant rolling pin. That little arm has NO muscle at all, how in the heck am I even holding that thing up????
thanks guys.
love,
sparrow
p.s. for future reference, anyone here can toss rolling pins at me if I'm need of it, too.
ok? I say this as a reminder for MYSELF as well, guys...
:HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Quote from: sparrow on July 17, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
...we ALL see through the glass darkly. We will ALL one day understand things so much better, and we will all learn, and perhaps have some of our beliefs STAY and some of our beliefs FALL AWAY. In time.
:HeartThrob: :HeartThrob: :HeartThrob:
Right on! Good reminder to me/us all! Amen. :2thumbs:
Sometimes I want to argue, and God's spoken to me about that recently. Sometimes I state things as if I really know them instead of "this is what I see right now, and God may show me more clearly later on". I agree Sparrow, we all see through a glass darkly. Sometimes we act as if that only applies to the other guy :icon_rr:. I told a fella the other day that if we run across someone that acts like they've got it all figured out, be suspicious (so he immediately became suspicious of me :laughing7:).
Thanks again for reminding me. Your brother, James (the lesser).
Me too Sparrow, same thing he is dealing with me about lately..
Quote from: Sarah on July 12, 2009, 08:54:29 PM
I must say that this was the most civil discussion on satan I have read. You all were very kind and undemeaning in your responses. You all have provoked some thought within myself regarding sin.
Are evil thoughts sin? If I get Seth, he seems to think so. You make a good argument, but it doesn't feel right in my spirit that evil thoughts are sin. I am reminded of the old adage: Birds may fly overhead, but don't let them make a nest.
I am wondering if the birds flying overhead are just thoughts of good and evil. We are human, we have an intellectual brain and these thoughts they come and go. When I go to the store with my child I am careful to watch my child as I know all manner of evil that a pedafile could do. Is it a sin that I can think of the evil that can be done to my child? If Jesus' body was hungry was it evil that his mind knew he could turn the rocks into bread? Was it evil that he knew he could rule the world? Was it evil that he knew angles would bear him up if he ended his misery? Having knowledge isn't evil, it is the foothold it grabs onto in the flesh. Fortunately this knowledge didn't have a foothold because Jesus' mind was in the spirit. Jesus knew these things would end the suffering in his flesh, but didn't entertain them his mind was in the spirit.
If we have evil thoughts, are they lustful automatically because we thought them or can they just be knowledge that presents itself?
Hi Sarah, God's Word answers your question here:
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Lust can bring forth sin. So this means the initial thought of evil is NOT sin. Here is part of Gill's commentary on these verses which I thought reflects it more:
Quote
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived,.... A proposal of pleasure or profit being made, agreeable to lust, or the principle of corrupt nature, sinful man is pleased with it; and instead of resisting and rejecting the motion made, he admits of it, and receives it, and cherishes it in his mind; he dallies and plays with it; he dwells upon it in his thoughts, and hides it under his tongue, and in his heart, as a sweet morsel, and forsakes it not, but contrives ways and means how to bring it about; and this is lust's conceiving. The figure is used in Psa_7:14 on which Kimchi, a Jewish commentator, has this note;
"he (the psalmist) compares the thoughts of the heart להריון, "to a conception", and when they go out in word, this is "travail", and in work or act, this is "bringing forth".''
And so it follows here,
it bringeth forth sin; into act, not only by consenting to it, but by performing it:
and sin, when it is finished: being solicited, is agreed to, and actually committed:
bringeth forth death; as the first sin of man brought death into the world, brought a spiritual death, or moral death upon man, subjected him to a corporeal death, and made him liable to an eternal one; so every sin is deserving of death, death is the just wages of it; yea, even the motions of sin work in men to bring forth fruit unto death. Something like these several gradual steps, in which sin proceeds, is observed by the Jews, and expressed in much the like language, in allegorizing the case of Lot, and his two daughters (i);
"the concupiscent soul (or "lust") stirs up the evil figment, and imagines by it, and it cleaves to every evil imagination, שמתעברת, "until it conceives a little", and produces in the heart of man the evil thought, and cleaves to it; and as yet it is in his heart, and is not "finished" to do it, until this desire or lust stirs up the strength of the body, first to cleave to the evil figment, and then תשלום הרעה, "sin is finished"; as it is said, Gen_19:36.''
Paul
This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.
People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 13, 2009, 07:42:29 PM
Maybe His soul desired but His Spirit overcame and that reconciled things.
That is exactly what happened. Jesus overcame the evil desires that originated in His own Flesh so that they didn't "BRING FORTH" sin.
Paul
:cloud9: The idea that He didn't originates within the RCC belief that He was BORN 100% divine, which means that we couldn't possibly do what He did, yet it says that we will do greater works.
He was taught of Father thru the HS he received, just as we are. Only difference is He received His at birth, because Father had to show with a TYPE AND SHADOW BORN UNDER THE LAW, what was to happen to us with the new birth, ie. our soul/womb receives the Spirit/Seed and will eventually birth the Son of promise, rending the veil (amniotic bag) that HE might be seen. Blessings....
Jesus learned things.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
Notice He had to learn OBEDIENCE. Obedience would mean the ABILITY to NOT sin. So if Jesus couldn't think evil thoughts as some here believe then it would mean that He NEVER LACKED ability.
Paul
Quote from: sparrow on July 17, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
:thewife: Seth!!!
:thewife: Willie!!!
knock it off now.
I love you both.
yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.
Sparrow, you are right.
I apologize to the forum for my reaction to WillieH's words. Had he not invoked Craig, I probably would not have responded, or just said "ok we disagree, thanks for the convo." But when he used Craig to jab at me, it hurt, but not for me, I hurt for Craig. He had issues that he even expressed he was working on etc etc. But when WillieH said that, it just reminded me how much I wish Craig the best and I hope he is happier now and in a better place in life, in his emotions etc.
To me, it was just not right to bring someone's name into the conversation when he is not here. That is just gossip and hurtful to him. It was just slanderous and could serve to turn people against Craig who either don't know him or haven't met him. That was just low to me.
But I apologize for my reaction. I reacted to that in the moment and I shouldn't have contributed to the spirit that it created.
:HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 04:43:04 PM
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 13, 2009, 07:42:29 PM
Maybe His soul desired but His Spirit overcame and that reconciled things.
That is exactly what happened. Jesus overcame the evil desires that originated in His own Flesh so that they didn't "BRING FORTH" sin.
Paul
Hi Paul, I have enjoyed your writing, and believe that you can speak on these things civilly. I have actually really enjoyed reading your writing in the Works thread. So I look forward to discussing this with you. :HeartThrob:
Paul evil desires originate from SIN
in the flesh, not just "the flesh." The flesh itself is SINFUL in that sin is IN it. Now Jesus came in the likeness of sinful flesh. If you believe that such a thing means that he had sinful flesh (not just the representation of it), that he had sin in his members, that's fine. It doesn't really matter.
What matters most as represented in Romans 7 is, where was his MIND at. Is evil desire able to penetrate a PERFECTLY spiritual mind? Paul reveals that evil desires are put to death the more our minds are spiritual. Now, as stated, Jesus Christ was without SIN. Which means He was without sin to BRING FORTH. What Apostle Paul is showing us is that when we are CLOTHED with flesh, and have the Holy Spirit, it becomes our intercessor between the body and the mind. The Spirit CRUCIFIES the flesh with all it's what? AFFECTIONS AND LUSTS.
So we need to simply ask ourselves:
1) Was Jesus clothed with flesh? Yes.
2) Do evil desires (lust) originate according to the sin in the flesh? Yes.
3) But did Jesus have the Spirit without measure? Yes.
4) Was he not in the flesh but in the spirit, since he had the fulness of God in him? Yes.
5) THEREFORE WAS HIS FLESH CRUCIFIED WITH ALL ITS AFFECTIONS AND LUSTS? Yes.
That is why Christ being without sin means he didn't have evil desires, because then his mind would be at war, if he had a CARNAL mind. Having a SPIRITUAL mind means that the lusts created by the flesh are put to death with the body.
You asked: then why did Jesus come in the flesh? My answer: to be the VISIBLE IMAGE of THE INVISIBLE GOD. Jesus christ is the VISIBLE IMAGE of a PURELY SPIRITUAL MIND. Jesus Christ, while clothed in flesh was a picture of GOD HIMSELF. That God knows evil does not mean that GOD, our Father, has lustful desires. God cannot be tempted with sin. Jesus Christ was his very VISUAL IMAGE. That is the point of him coming in the flesh yet having a purely spiritual mind.
Jesus Christ is the picture of our goal. Clothed in flesh, however he says:
If you have seen me you have seen the Father.That's really bold.
QuoteNotice He had to learn OBEDIENCE.
I talked about this but it bears repeating. Learning is simply gaining information. When I learned that 1+1=2 does not mean that I thought CONTRARY to that before. I simply had no opinion. One can learn from a place of neutrality. Jesus did not have to be disobedient in order to grow in obedience.
Jesus took on sinful flesh:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
If Jesus flesh was not of the ability to sin then He wasn't given sinful flesh. Additionally, it says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. This would obviously include His own flesh. So this means that somehow Jesus had to condemn sin in His own flesh. Therefore, desires that could result in sin must arise in His heart that He was able to subdue via the Spirit before it could become sin.
Paul
Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!
40How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!
41Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
42They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
--Psalm 78
They would tempt God himself if given the chance. Jesus is the Holy One of Israel. Even the demons know who he is [" the Holy One of God" Lk 4:34] It is Jesus versus the flesh, and Jesus wins. Because he is our king, we, too, can win this battle.
Psalm 89:18
For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
Jesus took on sinful flesh:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
If Jesus flesh was not of the ability to sin then He wasn't given sinful flesh. Additionally, it says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. This would obviously include His own flesh. So this means that somehow Jesus had to condemn sin in His own flesh. Therefore, desires that could result in sin must arise in His heart that He was able to subdue via the Spirit before it could become sin.
Paul
:cloud9: AMEN Paul. What makes it so hard to see is not understanding that the Son/Seed He sent was SPIRIT, as each Seed bears fruit after it's OWN KIND, and the Father is a Spirit who bears Spirit Seed.
This Seed came in the likeness of sinful flesh (flesh man Jesus), or another way to say it, is that it too was lowered into this bondage of corruption, which is what sinful flesh IS.
It is this SPIRIT SEED that was given Him in the womb, the wheat that is raised up TOGETHER with the tares in the field of Matt. 13 that is the natural man, that OVERCOMES the tares/sinful flesh. This is the anointing from within.
This is why He overcame sin IN THE FLESH, beginning with His own. This Seed is He who both DESCENDED (into flesh beginning with the man Jesus) and ASCENDED (back to origination point) back to the glory that He had before.
We too, were as spirits lowered into flesh/bondage of corruption, but He subjected the same in hope, ie. Christ/Spirit Seed in you, hope of glory/ascending back to origination point.
When He received the anointing from without (dove), then His ministry began. In like fashion, when we receive the baptism in the HG which does the WORKS, our ministry to the body should begin.
If you add the anointing from within with the anointing from without, you have inner layer of gold inside the Ark of the Covenant, followed by the outer layer of gold, both of which cover the "sheetim" (had to change spelling because of board restrictions) wood, which is as our/his humanity.
This is the pattern and cannot be broken, He WAS/IS the PATTERN SON. Following this pattern brings us to Romans 8 talking about the SONS of God who are going to be manifested, yet He is called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
Only begotten means THERE'S ONLY ONE, but He became a many membered body which is SPIRIT, ie. a HARVEST from the ONE SEED.
And He did say when you've seen ME you've seen the Father, but the '"me" there was the Spirit/Seed that came from the Father, and therefore was the express image of the Father.
This is the revelation upon which He builds His church, ie. Peter flesh and blood (not even His) have revealed this to you, but your Father which is in heaven. What was revealed?
Thou art the Christ/Spirit Seed/Anointed one. In other words, WHO is it you hear talking to you, Peter? This is why we are told that hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh but after the Spirit.
The flesh of Him is "gone" in that it was consumed from the glory which was within, ie. MORTALITY covered up of IMMORTALITY, which is the PATTERN.
He was given pre-eminence as the FIRSTBORN of many brethren. He was not firstborn of the FLESH! He was firstborn of the SPIRIT!
Name denotes nature and there is no other NATURE under heaven like this name/nature, BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED, from this bondage of corruption we have been lowered into.
In My Father's house are many mansions. In the older Strong's 'mansions' there runs into a meaning of "nests". The booths of the feast of Tabernacles are as NESTS. They are 'nests' for the overcoming 'eagles'. He goes to prepare a place for us, that where He is, we might be also.
Where is He and how did He get there? The pattern is above. Blessings....
Quote from: Molly on July 17, 2009, 08:25:26 PM
40How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!
41Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
42They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
--Psalm 78
They would tempt God himself if given the chance. Jesus is the Holy One of Israel. Even the demons know who he is [" the Holy One of God" Lk 4:34] It is Jesus versus the flesh, and Jesus wins. Because he is our king, we, too, can win this battle.
Psalm 89:18
For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
The Lord is our defense. Isn't that amazing? He is a DEFENDER.
What does Romans 8 show that the Lord defends us from? Our own FLESH.
How can Jesus come in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet be without sin? Paul, remember, it does not say, that he was tempted in all ways, yet did not bring sin forth. It says he was without sin itself.
What must be in place for someone to have sinful flesh, yet be WITHOUT sin itself?
The flesh must be
CRUCIFIED!
And the question is, can our flesh be crucified while we are clothed in it? OF COURSE! Jesus Christ said: IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME, YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER. The Holy Spirit is our DEFENDER!
The Spirit defends our minds from our flesh, and the lusts created by it. Jesus did not have evil desire. His....flesh....was....crucified.
His literal crucifixion was a picture of the righteousness his father already gave him. THAT is why Jesus DID NOT DIE FOR HIMSELF BUT FOR THE UNGODLY.
So Card,
Maybe we're in the nests NOW.
Instead of waiting for tabernacles, it might be more like — getting ready to LEAVE THE NEST!
:cloud9: Yes, Beloved Servant........the feast of Tabernacles HAS COME. Blessings....
42Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths:
--Lev 23
"booths"
H5521
סכּה
sûkkâh
sook-kaw'
Feminine of H5520; a hut or lair: - booth, cottage, covert, pavilion, tabernacle, tent.
43That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
--Lev 23
The Israelites were given a place to stay seven days out of the year, during the Feast of Tabernacles. But, Jesus gives us a place to stay permenantly.
John 14:2
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
"mansions"
G3438
μονή
monē
mon-ay'
From G3306; a staying, that is, residence (the act or the place): - abode, mansion.
G3306
μένω
menō
men'-o
A primary verb; to stay (in a given place, state, relation or expectancy): - abide, continue, dwell, endure, be present, remain, stand, tarry (for), X thine own.
My goodness, Cardinal, he is giving us new bodies. :mshock:
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
--Rev 21
[the] "tabernacle" [of God]
G4633
σκηνή
skēnē
skay-nay'
Apparently akin to G4632 and G4639; a tent or cloth hut (literally or figuratively): - habitation, tabernacle.
Molly said, "My goodness, Cardinal, he is giving us new bodies. Mshock"
:cloud9: Yes He is Molly........if you take the 7 days allotted for feast of Tabernacles
MULTIPLIED times He who IS the 7th day it = JUBILEE. Be fruitful and MULTIPLY.
Wanted to also add, that in Jubilee every man's land/possession was returned to him. What did we lose? Our glory that we had before the foundation of the world = glorified body "land".
Truly we have been sojourners in a STRANGE LAND, NOT our possession. The glorified body is not something we have never had, but rather what we had BEFORE when we were one with Him from the foundation. He is returning our land/new earth to us. Blessings....
Where are you RLV?
17For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
18But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
19And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying.
20There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.
21And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them.
22They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them.
24And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear.
25The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
--Isa 65
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 07:19:11 PM
Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!
His mind was Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit). And yes He wasn't in the flesh (pertaining to abiding by the flesh). See I have a DIFFERENT understanding of what Spirit means than you obviously. To me Spirit is a behavior. And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. Sure Jesus can have sinful flesh and be without sin but this doesn't mean that His mind never has thoughts that could lead to sin (should He not have The Spirit to overcome them).
I believe that last point is where we differ.
Paul
Quote from: Cardinal on July 17, 2009, 09:09:47 PM
Molly said, "My goodness, Cardinal, he is giving us new bodies. Mshock"
:cloud9: Yes He is Molly........if you take the 7 days allotted for feast of Tabernacles
MULTIPLIED times He who IS the 7th day it = JUBILEE. Be fruitful and MULTIPLY.
Wanted to also add, that in Jubilee every man's land/possession was returned to him. What did we lose? Our glory that we had before the foundation of the world = glorified body "land".
Truly we have been sojourners in a STRANGE LAND, NOT our possession. Blessings....
Where are you RLV?
He is making our bodies, our flesh, into a tabernacle for himself. :mshock:
34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.
35Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. --Daniel 2
Quote from: Cardinal on July 17, 2009, 08:35:09 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
Jesus took on sinful flesh:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
If Jesus flesh was not of the ability to sin then He wasn't given sinful flesh. Additionally, it says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. This would obviously include His own flesh. So this means that somehow Jesus had to condemn sin in His own flesh. Therefore, desires that could result in sin must arise in His heart that He was able to subdue via the Spirit before it could become sin.
Paul
:cloud9: AMEN Paul. What makes it so hard to see is not understanding that the Son/Seed He sent was SPIRIT, as each Seed bears fruit after it's OWN KIND, and the Father is a Spirit who bears Spirit Seed.
This Seed came in the likeness of sinful flesh (flesh man Jesus), or another way to say it, is that it too was lowered into this bondage of corruption, which is what sinful flesh IS.
It is this SPIRIT SEED that was given Him in the womb, the wheat that is raised up TOGETHER with the tares in the field of Matt. 13 that is the natural man, that OVERCOMES the tares/sinful flesh. This is the anointing from within.
This is why He overcame sin IN THE FLESH, beginning with His own. This Seed is He who both DESCENDED (into flesh beginning with the man Jesus) and ASCENDED (back to origination point) back to the glory that He had before.
We too, were as spirits lowered into flesh/bondage of corruption, but He subjected the same in hope, ie. Christ/Spirit Seed in you, hope of glory/ascending back to origination point.
When He received the anointing from without (dove), then His ministry began. In like fashion, when we receive the baptism in the HG which does the WORKS, our ministry to the body should begin.
If you add the anointing from within with the anointing from without, you have inner layer of gold inside the Ark of the Covenant, followed by the outer layer of gold, both of which cover the "sheetim" (had to change spelling because of board restrictions) wood, which is as our/his humanity.
This is the pattern and cannot be broken, He WAS/IS the PATTERN SON. Following this pattern brings us to Romans 8 talking about the SONS of God who are going to be manifested, yet He is called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
Only begotten means THERE'S ONLY ONE, but He became a many membered body which is SPIRIT, ie. a HARVEST from the ONE SEED.
And He did say when you've seen ME you've seen the Father, but the '"me" there was the Spirit/Seed that came from the Father, and therefore was the express image of the Father.
This is the revelation upon which He builds His church, ie. Peter flesh and blood (not even His) have revealed this to you, but your Father which is in heaven. What was revealed?
Thou art the Christ/Spirit Seed/Anointed one. In other words, WHO is it you hear talking to you, Peter? This is why we are told that hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh but after the Spirit.
The flesh of Him is "gone" in that it was consumed from the glory which was within, ie. MORTALITY covered up of IMMORTALITY, which is the PATTERN.
He was given pre-eminence as the FIRSTBORN of many brethren. He was not firstborn of the FLESH! He was firstborn of the SPIRIT!
Name denotes nature and there is no other NATURE under heaven like this name/nature, BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED, from this bondage of corruption we have been lowered into.
In My Father's house are many mansions. In the older Strong's 'mansions' there runs into a meaning of "nests". The booths of the feast of Tabernacles are as NESTS. They are 'nests' for the overcoming 'eagles'. He goes to prepare a place for us, that where He is, we might be also.
Where is He and how did He get there? The pattern is above. Blessings....
Great post Cardinal.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 17, 2009, 08:25:26 PM
40How oft did they provoke him in the wilderness, and grieve him in the desert!
41Yea, they turned back and tempted God, and limited the Holy One of Israel.
42They remembered not his hand, nor the day when he delivered them from the enemy.
--Psalm 78
They would tempt God himself if given the chance. Jesus is the Holy One of Israel. Even the demons know who he is [" the Holy One of God" Lk 4:34] It is Jesus versus the flesh, and Jesus wins. Because he is our king, we, too, can win this battle.
Psalm 89:18
For the LORD is our defence; and the Holy One of Israel is our king.
The Lord is our defense. Isn't that amazing? He is a DEFENDER.
What does Romans 8 show that the Lord defends us from? Our own FLESH.
How can Jesus come in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet be without sin? Paul, remember, it does not say, that he was tempted in all ways, yet did not bring sin forth. It says he was without sin itself.
What must be in place for someone to have sinful flesh, yet be WITHOUT sin itself?
The flesh must be CRUCIFIED!
And the question is, can our flesh be crucified while we are clothed in it? OF COURSE! Jesus Christ said: IF YOU HAVE SEEN ME, YOU HAVE SEEN THE FATHER. The Holy Spirit is our DEFENDER!
The Spirit defends our minds from our flesh, and the lusts created by it. Jesus did not have evil desire. His....flesh....was....crucified.
His literal crucifixion was a picture of the righteousness his father already gave him. THAT is why Jesus DID NOT DIE FOR HIMSELF BUT FOR THE UNGODLY.
But He was tempted in all ways as we are and did NOT BRING FORTH SIN. That is what the scriptures are INDEED showing us.
Paul
:cloud9: AMEN Paul.........Blessings....
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
How degenerating is this becoming..
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 08:33:09 AM
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.
Do you think that I cannot see through this Seth?
More NAME calling from you, first I am
"haughty", then my beliefs are
"wishing", and now I am deduced
"HYPOCRITE"... at the conclusion of
you making this quite
PUBLIC accusation that I have publicly SPITED a brother behind his back...
All this by a brother (you) which says he "LOVES" me? :mshock:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: willieHI love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)
I love you too bro. :HeartThrob:
This is how you relate LOVE to another Seth?
Good thing YOU are not truly my judge, for if you were, I would be smeared all over the place... but I forgive you for these personal attacks... :cloud9:
I did not demean Craig... I proposed that you have been researching his approach to discussion... which during DISCUSSION, demeaned another within the conversation, demoting the other's belief by often comparing that "belief" to his own... which produced comments such as you have made to me in this thread, such as "you are MISTAKEN"... :dontknow:
Craigs manner of discussion is a matter of PUBLIC record... and I do not SPITE Craig by saying this, ...I note his method, which you appear to be following... :dontknow: (reducing another via name-calling ["haughty+hypocrite"] and condescending commentary ["wishing"+"mistaken"] which are not viable arguements nor do they logically or spiritually address the topic :sigh:)
That you cannot see this is evidence of blindness bro...
Here is what I said:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 12:43:41 AM
Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "
YOU reduced my belief to "wishing", Seth... and that is exactly the type of thing Craig did... wherein is the "spite"? If the "shoe fits", well you know what to do... :dontknow:
It was often Craig's way to reduce another's beliefs which were in disagreement with his own, by such wordings as you chose to apply to me, above (in
RED), which, if you really examine yourself brother Seth... were unnecessary...
That I do not bow down to your understandings, produces such unfounded commentary... as to name that which is SINCERELY in my heart, and has been to date researched and believed by me (whether it, in the final analysis is correct or incorrect), as... "WISHING". :sigh:
Then following that up with the accusation that I PURPOSELY demeaned Craig before all... which was not my intention... You know nothing of my heart concerning him... I love him as a brother and (God knows) have devoted much time in prayer on his behalf... even though we were often in opposition in discussion... much
AS you and I are at present...
I plan to address your "apology" to the forum as well... (some "apology" -- :sigh:)
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 09:39:20 PM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
How degenerating is this becoming..
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 08:33:09 AM
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.
Do you think that I cannot see through this Seth?
More NAME calling from you, first I am "haughty", then my beliefs are "wishing", and now I am deduced "HYPOCRITE"... at the conclusion of you making this quite PUBLIC accusation that I have publicly SPITED a brother behind his back...
All this by a brother (you) which says he "LOVES" me? :mshock:
Quote from: Seth on July 15, 2009, 01:23:46 AM
Quote from: willieHI love ya, just believe you are mistaken in your view of this subject)
I love you too bro. :HeartThrob:
This is how you relate LOVE to another Seth?
Good thing YOU are not truly my judge, for if you were, I would be smeared all over the place... but I forgive you for these personal attacks... :cloud9:
I did not demean Craig... I proposed that you have been researching his approach to discussion... which during DISCUSSION, demeaned another within the conversation, demoting the other's belief by often comparing that "belief" to his own... which produced comments such as you have made to me in this thread, such as "you are MISTAKEN"... :dontknow:
Craigs manner of discussion is a matter of PUBLIC record... and I do not SPITE Craig by saying this, ...I note his method, which you appear to be following... :dontknow: (reducing another via name-calling ["haughty+hypocrite"] and condescending commentary ["wishing"+"mistaken"] which are not viable arguements nor do they logically or spiritually address the topic :sigh:)
That you cannot see this is evidence of blindness bro...
Here is what I said:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 12:43:41 AM
Wishing it will not make it so WillieH. Christ was not enticed by lust, for as it says, "he was without sin. "
YOU reduced my belief to "wishing", Seth... and that is exactly the type of thing Craig did... wherein is the "spite"? If the "shoe fits", well you know what to do... :dontknow:
It was often Craig's way to reduce another's beliefs which were in disagreement with his own, by such wordings as you chose to apply to me, above (in RED), which, if you really examine yourself brother Seth... were unnecessary...
That I do not bow down to your understandings, produces such unfounded commentary... as to name that which is SINCERELY in my heart, and has been to date researched and believed by me (whether it, in the final analysis is correct or incorrect), as... "WISHING". :sigh:
Then following that up with the accusation that I PURPOSELY demeaned Craig before all... which was not my intention... You know nothing of my heart concerning him... I love him as a brother and (God knows) have devoted much time in prayer on his behalf... even though we were often in opposition in discussion... much AS you and I are at present...
I plan to address your "apology" to the forum as well... (some "apology" -- :sigh:)
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.
This stuff has nothing to do with the topic, so I'll just leave it to the mods.
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 07:19:11 PM
Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!
His mind was Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit). And yes He wasn't in the flesh (pertaining to abiding by the flesh). See I have a DIFFERENT understanding of what Spirit means than you obviously. To me Spirit is a behavior. And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. Sure Jesus can have sinful flesh and be without sin but this doesn't mean that His mind never has thoughts that could lead to sin (should He not have The Spirit to overcome them).
I believe that last point is where we differ.
Paul
You said: "To me Spirit is a behavior. And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. To me, this is where we differ:"
The Holy Spirit is a being (not like a third part in a trinity just in case anyone gets that impression). When I see "Holy Spirit" I see not just a behavior but God himself. WALKING by the Spirit is the behavior. HAVING the Spirit causes us to WALK by the Spirit because the Spirit HIMself, puts to death the flesh and all its lusts. You see what I mean?
The POWER of God's Spirit is why people are able to perform miracles. The Holy Spirit simply being a behavior does not cause the dead to rise, prophecy, miraculous healing etc. The Spirit is referred to as a self. But if the Holy Spirit was what you are referring to as "someone's spirit" it isn't just about BEHAVIOR:
someone's spirit as from the dictionary is:
an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.That goes beyond behavior as in ACTION, but is the seat of our emotions. If Christ had God's Spirit in THAT way, still no sinful desires could be arisen in him.
The Spirit is our Lord. God himself IS Spirit, not just a behavior. Christ is within us BY the Spirit. The Bible shows us that "sinful thoughts" ORIGINATE with sin itself, the sin that is in our flesh. Christ not being IN the flesh, and having His father within him means that his flesh was crucified.
That is why he didn't have sinful thoughts. To be without sin means no sinful thoughts (lust) could be created by it, and it means that (this is where we DO agree) no seizing upon that lust to bring any sin forth. That Christ was without those carnal desires shows how SELFLESS his sacrifice was. He did not need to die for himself (to get rid of the desires for final) but he died FOR US.
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
What kind of "apology" is this, Seth? :feint:
You make it sound as if I am "discussing Craig" (as in Gossip)... and furthermore insinuate that I wish to demean him, which I DO NOT! ...I love Craig... and when I say I love you, I mean that as well... Your "apology" is hardly that. It is another vehicle you seek to utilize in this conversation, to demote me.
If APOLOGY was your intent... you would leave it at... "Hey Sparrow -- you're right... I apologize for my part in this" ---->
THE END!
However that is NOT "the end" is it Seth?
I mean no harm to anyone... but just as one might allude to Hitler in conversation... though we mean no harm to Hitler, ...his example serves as a reference in discussion we might refer to...
THAT kind of referral is NOT the
BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION commentary within your supposed "apology":
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PM
Quote from: sparrow on July 17, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
:thewife: Seth!!!
:thewife: Willie!!!
knock it off now.
I love you both.
yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.
Sparrow, you are right.
If an apology was your intent Seth, then it could have concluded with the above quote, "Sparrow, you are right", but it DID NOT, did it? It was NOT your intent to apologize... It was your intent to further the negativity as evidenced here:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMI apologize to the forum for my reaction to WillieH's words. Had he not invoked Craig, I probably would not have responded, or just said "ok we disagree, thanks for the convo." But when he used Craig to jab at me, it hurt, but not for me, I hurt for Craig.
Spare me the piousness Seth... Try being honest, ...In your finger pointing above, you note the intention of this post, which is NOT apology... it is to try to name me as negative...
I did not "use Craig" to jab at you... I was alluding to the style in which you are conversing with me... is much in the same manner he used... I DID
NOT MENTION ANY details of that "manner", other than the comment about
YOU, noting my beliefs as "WISHING", was sorrowful (and it STILL IS)...
Here is my comment, Please show where I noted any details that might be derogatory to Craig:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
This only displays that you might be adopting some of Craig's ways of addressing others... nothing more. Your commentary about my beliefs as a type of
"wishing" is
out of line, and it is THAT for which you should make apology...
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMHe had issues that he even expressed he was working on etc etc. But when WillieH said that, it just reminded me how much I wish Craig the best and I hope he is happier now and in a better place in life, in his emotions etc.
We all have "issues" we are working on brother Seth... I am not without fault... but that has not inhibited you from trying to point them out (whether they are there or not), has it?
Nor is your effort concluded there, as you continue
your "apology" agenda:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMTo me, it was just not right to bring someone's name into the conversation when he is not here. That is just gossip and hurtful to him. It was just slanderous and could serve to turn people against Craig who either don't know him or haven't met him. That was just low to me.
Where did I turn anyone "against Craig" in my comment? I was pointing out to
YOU, which you desire to avoid, that your "wishing" comment to me was out of line...
BLOWING out of proportion what I said, by noting me:
(1) a
gossip (I made no gossip, just alluded to discussive mannerisms, which are true, and which YOU are using.)(2) slanderer (I said nothing slanderous, just alluded to you studying under Craig" ... what "slander" is made in that? It is your INSINUATIONS which are SLANDEROUS) ...
(3) hurtful (you herein step on my neck, to show yourself as "righteous" by this "display" of "great compassion" for Craig, ...by cutting me down in doing so! How is one better than the other, Seth?)...(4) could serve to turn others against Craig
(what a lot of BS... I said nothing that could turn others "against Craig".)(5) Low...
(well, all this is, is a summary of your judgment of a comment which did not contain ALL the details which YOU have endeavored to make PUBLIC)This is an APOLOGY? Taking me and RAKING me over the coals PUBLICLY? This is YOUR LOVE on display for me, Seth? :sigh: I'm overwhelmed! :mblush:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMBut I apologize for my reaction. I reacted to that in the moment and I shouldn't have contributed to the spirit that it created.
:HeartThrob:
I notice how you deflect any FAULT from yourself, by noting "I shouldn't have contributed to
THE SPIRIT IT CREATED"...
How transparent brother. When one apologizes in REPENTENCE... it does not include ANY other one's faults... only your own...
That you apologized by further banging ME against the wall is a pretty HOLLOW apology... a "devil made me do it" apology, naming willieH as said "devil" :thumbdown:
...willieH :sigh:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 10:44:08 PM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
What kind of "apology" is this, Seth? :feint:
You make it sound as if I am "discussing Craig" (as in Gossip)... and furthermore insinuate that I wish to demean him, which I DO NOT! ...I love Craig... and when I say I love you, I mean that as well... Your "apology" is hardly that. It is another vehicle you seek to utilize in this conversation, to demote me.
If APOLOGY was your intent... you would leave it at... "Hey Sparrow -- you're right... I apologize for my part in this" ----> THE END!
However that is NOT "the end" is it Seth?
I mean no harm to anyone... but just as one might allude to Hitler in conversation... though we mean no harm to Hitler, ...his example serves as a reference in discussion we might refer to...
THAT kind of referral is NOT the BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION commentary within your supposed "apology":
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PM
Quote from: sparrow on July 17, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
:thewife: Seth!!!
:thewife: Willie!!!
knock it off now.
I love you both.
yes, I know....
we all have our arguments about stuff.
but do it with love.
Sparrow, you are right.
If an apology was your intent Seth, then it could have concluded with the above quote, "Sparrow, you are right", but it DID NOT, did it? It was NOT your intent to apologize... It was your intent to further the negativity as evidenced here:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMI apologize to the forum for my reaction to WillieH's words. Had he not invoked Craig, I probably would not have responded, or just said "ok we disagree, thanks for the convo." But when he used Craig to jab at me, it hurt, but not for me, I hurt for Craig.
Spare me the piousness Seth... Try being honest, ...In your finger pointing above, you note the intention of this post, which is NOT apology... it is to try to name me as negative...
I did not "use Craig" to jab at you... I was alluding to the style in which you are conversing with me... is much in the same manner he used... I DID NOT MENTION ANY details of that "manner", other than the comment about YOU, noting my beliefs as "WISHING", was sorrowful (and it STILL IS)...
Here is my comment, Please show where I noted any details that might be derogatory to Craig:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 08:10:54 AM
willieH: Hi Seth... :cloud9:
There isn't much point in addressing your last post other than this sorrowful portion (have you been studying under Craig?):
This only displays that you might be adopting some of Craig's ways of addressing others... nothing more. Your commentary about my beliefs as a type of "wishing" is out of line, and it is THAT for which you should make apology...
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMHe had issues that he even expressed he was working on etc etc. But when WillieH said that, it just reminded me how much I wish Craig the best and I hope he is happier now and in a better place in life, in his emotions etc.
We all have "issues" we are working on brother Seth... I am not without fault... but that has not inhibited you from trying to point them out (whether they are there or not), has it?
Nor is your effort concluded there, as you continue your "apology" agenda:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMTo me, it was just not right to bring someone's name into the conversation when he is not here. That is just gossip and hurtful to him. It was just slanderous and could serve to turn people against Craig who either don't know him or haven't met him. That was just low to me.
Where did I turn anyone "against Craig" in my comment? I was pointing out to YOU, which you desire to avoid, that your "wishing" comment to me was out of line...
BLOWING out of proportion what I said, by noting me:
(1) a gossip (I made no gossip, just alluded to discussive mannerisms, which are true, and which YOU are using.)
(2) slanderer (I said nothing slanderous, just alluded to you studying under Craig" ... what "slander" is made in that? It is your INSINUATIONS which are SLANDEROUS) ...
(3) hurtful (you herein step on my neck, to show yourself as "righteous" by this "display" of "great compassion" for Craig, ...by cutting me down in doing so! How is one better than the other, Seth?)...
(4) could serve to turn others against Craig (what a lot of BS... I said nothing that could turn others "against Craig".)
(5) Low... (well, all this is, is a summary of your judgment of a comment which did not contain ALL the details which YOU have endeavored to make PUBLIC)
This is an APOLOGY? Taking me and RAKING me over the coals PUBLICLY? This is YOUR LOVE on display for me, Seth? :sigh: I'm overwhelmed! :mblush:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 06:46:28 PMBut I apologize for my reaction. I reacted to that in the moment and I shouldn't have contributed to the spirit that it created.
:HeartThrob:
I notice how you deflect any FAULT from yourself, by noting "I shouldn't have contributed to THE SPIRIT IT CREATED"...
How transparent brother. When one apologizes in REPENTENCE... it does not include ANY other one's faults... only your own...
That you apologized by further banging ME against the wall is a pretty HOLLOW apology... a "devil made me do it" apology, naming willieH as said "devil" :thumbdown:
...willieH :sigh:
Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized for my actions.
That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.
willieH: :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:18:06 PM
Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.
Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...
As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is
SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...
I said nothing
derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have
WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...
I forgive you for all of the above... :friendstu:
...willieH :sigh:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 10:51:33 PM
willieH: :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:18:06 PM
Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.
Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...
As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...
I said nothing derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...
I forgive you for all of the above... :friendstu:
...willieH :sigh:
She simply acknowledged your tendency to jump on people. You are doing right now. Again, this all has nothing to do with the topic, so I will let the mods handle it.
willieH: :sigh:
Again SETH! --
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:49:40 PM
Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized for my actions.
That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.
Tantamount? :laughing7:
Come on bro... you are clinging to something which is ridiculous, and it is YOU which have demeaned
me several times, for which you are
UNAPOLOGETIC... so please, ...get off your "righteous" pedestal :soap:
Name the slander and gossip... referring to you as possibly "studying under him", is not gossip... :rolleye:
You have slandered me several times in this convo, as well as demeaned my faith... :sigh:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 10:57:40 PM
willieH: :sigh:
Again SETH! --
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:49:40 PM
Again WillieH, Sparrow was able to see the attitude in your posts to me up to this point. My apology was for MY BEHAVIOR. Bringing Craig into this was wrong. But my reaction to that was where I needed to apologize. So I did. I apologized for my actions.
That however, does not mean I don't think that what you did was tantamount to gossip and slander, but that I shouldn't have reacted to it and fed into it.
Tantamount? :laughing7:
Come on bro... you are clinging to something which is ridiculous, and it is YOU which have demeaned me several times, for which you are UNAPOLOGETIC... so please, ...get off your "righteous" pedestal :soap:
Name the slander and gossip... referring to you as possibly "studying under him", is not gossip... :rolleye:
You have slandered me several times in this convo, as well as demeaned my faith... :sigh:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....
willieH: Hi sister S... :hithere:
Just wanted to make a quick reply to your post here:
Quote from: sparrow on July 17, 2009, 08:36:48 AM
and Willie... now, you know I love ya... but come on give a brother a break. Just let him share without y'know... jumping on him. We're all God's children. And we ALL see through the glass darkly.
Good counsel sis... :boyheart:
Even though Seth has belittled my faith to "WISHING" and that he has noted me as a HYPOCRITE, a GOSSIP, a SLANDERER, as well as MISTAKEN, and "HAUGHTY" (arrogant), I do believe you to be correct... :mblush:
Sorry if our conversation has been hard on you and others here... I apologize for my part.
...willieH :HeartThrob:
willieH: :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 11:04:34 PM
You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....
It was YOU which have demeaned (attacked) me, Seth...
You don't see it? --- You don't see it.
I'm done with you. And in that, I wish you no ill... :boyheart:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 11:11:47 PM
willieH: :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 11:04:34 PM
You just attack, attack, attack. You just keep going and going and going....
It was YOU which have demeaned (attacked) me, Seth...
You don't see it? --- You don't see it.
I'm done with you. And in that, I wish you no ill... :boyheart:
...willieH :HeartThrob:
Ok. I wish you no ill will either. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:23:46 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 09:20:10 PM
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 07:19:11 PM
Paul you are not acknowledging what I said. Even if Jesus came in sinful flesh, it doesn't matter. His mind was Spiritual. He was not IN the flesh. The Bible is clear that we LOSE the ability to sin the more we enter into the Spirit, by having the flesh crucified with all it's affections and lusts. Do you know that you can be clothed in flesh, yet NOT IN the flesh? Christ could have sinful flesh, and be without sin by NOT BEING IN the flesh but in the SPIRIT.
Jesus condemned (judged) sin in the flesh. How so? By having the Holy Spirit!
His mind was Spiritual (of the Holy Spirit). And yes He wasn't in the flesh (pertaining to abiding by the flesh). See I have a DIFFERENT understanding of what Spirit means than you obviously. To me Spirit is a behavior. And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. Sure Jesus can have sinful flesh and be without sin but this doesn't mean that His mind never has thoughts that could lead to sin (should He not have The Spirit to overcome them).
I believe that last point is where we differ.
Paul
You said: "To me Spirit is a behavior. And the Holy Spirit is a very SPECIFIC Behavior. To me, this is where we differ:"
The Holy Spirit is a being (not like a third part in a trinity just in case anyone gets that impression). When I see "Holy Spirit" I see not just a behavior but God himself. WALKING by the Spirit is the behavior. HAVING the Spirit causes us to WALK by the Spirit because the Spirit HIMself, puts to death the flesh and all its lusts. You see what I mean?
The POWER of God's Spirit is why people are able to perform miracles. The Holy Spirit simply being a behavior does not cause the dead to rise, prophecy, miraculous healing etc. The Spirit is referred to as a self. But if the Holy Spirit was what you are referring to as "someone's spirit" it isn't just about BEHAVIOR:
someone's spirit as from the dictionary is:
an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.
That goes beyond behavior as in ACTION, but is the seat of our emotions. If Christ had God's Spirit in THAT way, still no sinful desires could be arisen in him.
The Spirit is our Lord. God himself IS Spirit, not just a behavior. Christ is within us BY the Spirit. The Bible shows us that "sinful thoughts" ORIGINATE with sin itself, the sin that is in our flesh. Christ not being IN the flesh, and having His father within him means that his flesh was crucified.
That is why he didn't have sinful thoughts. To be without sin means no sinful thoughts (lust) could be created by it, and it means that (this is where we DO agree) no seizing upon that lust to bring any sin forth. That Christ was without those carnal desires shows how SELFLESS his sacrifice was. He did not need to die for himself (to get rid of the desires for final) but he died FOR US.
Seth, I know we disagree about this. I continue to declare a Jesus that is much more like a man than the one that you preach. You do agree don't you?
Paul
No I don't agree with that. We both preach Jesus the man. I think the Jesus you preach is more like a man whose flesh was not slain by the Spirit. I preach a Jesus in the absence sin.
I preach "the visible image of the invisible God." :HeartThrob:
Seth, when you get a chance please describe the two spirits here:
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Paul
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:56:36 PM
Quote from: willieH on July 17, 2009, 10:51:33 PM
willieH: :sigh:
Quote from: Seth on July 17, 2009, 10:18:06 PM
Sparrow is able to see the spirit in your posts to me, and she was wise to see it. At least you are here to defend yourself, and Craig was not.
Please do not try to use sister Sparrow against me Seth... I am capable of hearing her words... and they were intended for both of us, as she (being the sweet and peaceful one she is) sees an agitated interaction between us... and wishes it to subside...
As far as the SPIRIT in my posts, it is SINCERE... You have tried to demean it with comments such as "haughty" (arrogance), "mistaken" (teaching), "hypocrite" (as if you have no hypocrisy), and then naming my beliefs as "WISHING"...
I said nothing derogatory about Craig, just asked if you have been studying under him... You have WAY overexaggerated my reference to him...
I forgive you for all of the above... :friendstu:
...willieH :sigh:
She simply acknowledged your tendency to jump on people. You are doing right now. Again, this all has nothing to do with the topic, so I will let the mods handle it.
I haven't seen where Willie has been disrespectful Seth. You both have two opposing views and both trying to persaude the other of the "light" in your viewpoints. This is how debate works. Now if one of you has the "Light" and the other is in opposition then one of you has "darkness". So it should be very important to seek out that Light and for that to happen, there needs to be a warm embrace towards mutual edification and not self pontification. Now we all have a place in the Kingdom but lets embrace each other as brothers for WE ARE INDEED BROTHERS not just now but FOREVERMORE.
Now I have said Seth that we are in disagreement, not to hinder the discussion on this topic with you but that we might seek out a piece of Light that we can follow a path from together.
Paul
Quote from: aspiring son on July 17, 2009, 04:38:59 PM
This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.
People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:03:54 AM
No I don't agree with that. We both preach Jesus the man. I think the Jesus you preach is more like a man whose flesh was not slain by the Spirit. I preach a Jesus in the absence sin.
I preach "the visible image of the invisible God." :HeartThrob:
But the question is "more" like a man. The Jesus I'm preaching is definately MORE like man then the one your preaching. The Jesus I'm preaching can actually have evil thoughts in His heart. Man does that. The Jesus you preach doesn't have desires that need to be supressed by the Holy Spirit.
Paul
QuoteNow I have said Seth that we are in disagreement, not to hinder the discussion on this topic with you but that we might seek out a piece of Light that we can follow a path from together.
Paul
I agree. I have learned many things by being part of this forum. And as I said, I have seen AWESOME observations from you that I agree with. This we disagree with. You demeanor to me is respectful and even if it was not I would try (and sometimes I fail) to remain intact and not give in to my own temptations :HeartThrob:
That is why I like talking to you about it. We don't have to agree, but we will learn even in our disagreements if we remain in one. That is what I hope for anyway.
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?
Quote from: aspiring son on July 17, 2009, 04:38:59 PM
This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.
People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Amen Brandon.
Also Brother Paul (not picking on you, using as an example) , you mention "this is how debate works". We probably mostly have either missed it, or many of us (all/me) forget it. But as a general "rule", debate is actually discouraged on TM since approximately the past 6-8 months. PERSONALLY, MY
PERSONAL opinion is, there is VERY little room for all-out debate in the body of Christ. I think it's WAY too easy to either get into the wrong spirit, come across as a bad witness (let not your good be evil spoken of/give no occasion to stumble), or at least be perceived that way. We are indeed to contend for sound doctrine, to "declare and teach these things", etc., but (there may be and I just don't know it) I know of no place in scripture where actual debate is encouraged.
In my opinion, when I dig my heels in and debate, I'm very likely going to end up eventually making a fool of myself. Because many of the things I'm so adamant and dogmatic about today (even to the point of forgetting that my
main task is to love you as myself) I will be corrected on later by the Father and shown a more accurate, excellent way. And bottom line, even though we often act as if it's not the case, as Sparrow said, we ALL see through a glass darkly.
Maybe because I've been so guilty (to use a Paulinian phrase, the "chiefest of sinners") my personal reaction to someone coming across as a "know-it-all"/a teacher/there's just no possiblity I could be wrong here, etc., is actually quite negative. I walk away with a bad taste in my mouth, and actually may end up giving less credence (or paying less attention) to what they (I) do say. When I do it myself, I've usually painted myself into a corner, end up needing to apologize, and "eat crow". Not very appetizing.
There's a whole feast spread before us if we share and partake in the love and gentleness of our Example.
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?
But let's get down to specifics here Seth. Because it is the specifics that can't reveal falsehood. I am going to use your words to debate you. I often use this tactic. Now let's get more specific. You say that the words might "not necessarily" mean the same in that verse. So please define each one. Refer to the first instance as "spirit definition1" and "spirit definition2" respectively for the occurences in that verse so we can better understand. Because this verse is VERY important because as I READ it - there are TWO spirits being mentioned there and I understand them in a manner that is potentially very different than what you may preach to others and if we are about mutual edification into the Faith so that we all are of the same mind (that which is in Jesus Christ) then we can't all have opposing views and should work this out to eliminate the darkness that we may possess.
So please define those as you see them in concise but to the point descriptions if you will.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Paul, tell me your thoughts on this statement: "These boxes are not very light. Can you turn on the light?"
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:32:56 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?
But let's get down to specifics here Seth. Because it is the specifics that can't reveal falsehood. I am going to use your words to debate you. I often use this tactic. Now let's get more specific. You say that the words might "not necessarily" mean the same in that verse. So please define each one. Refer to the first instance as "spirit definition1" and "spirit definition2" respectively for the occurences in that verse so we can better understand. Because this verse is VERY important because as I READ it - there are TWO spirits being mentioned there and I understand them in a manner that is potentially very different than what you may preach to others and if we are about mutual edification into the Faith so that we all are of the same mind (that which is in Jesus Christ) then we can't all have opposing views and should work this out to eliminate the darkness that we may possess.
So please define those as you see them in concise but to the point descriptions if you will.
Paul
Paul, what you are asking me to do is actually contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
I cannot hold one verse up as a solo interpretation. I have acknowledge ALL the Bible's definition of "spirit." The word spirit comes from the world "breath" or "life." The Bible says "God IS spirit."
It is impossible, therefore, to interpret a verse self-contained, apply an opinion from within that verse, then expand that definition as applying to ALL occurrences of "spirit."
Do you understand why I would want to stick with 2 Peter 1:20?
Addendum to my previous post: Thus the forum title "Discussion Forum" rather than "Debate Forum". And I'd rather not have to debate that :laughing7:.
Quote from: jabcat on July 18, 2009, 12:31:42 AM
Quote from: aspiring son on July 17, 2009, 04:38:59 PM
This is not applied to willie or seth, but going along with what jabcat and sparrow is saying.
People are going to be afraid to ask questions and share their points of view if the authority attitude of knowing "all" is what they're going to get. People want answers, but they want to know that they are not the only one's with hard questions about our Father. Most of us have been through a lot to be where we are now. The babylonian church systems, false teachings that seem to be burned in our minds, loss of fellowship, etc. I think for the most part we do a good job of nurturing people hear. But it's definitely something we need to stay diligent in. Let's just make this a reminder of that.
Grace and peace,
Brandon
Amen Brandon.
Also Brother Paul (not picking on you, using as an example) , you mention "this is how debate works". We probably mostly have either missed it, or many of us (all/me) forget it. But as a general "rule", debate is actually discouraged on TM since approximately the past 6-8 months. PERSONALLY, MY PERSONAL opinion is, there is VERY little room for all-out debate in the body of Christ. I think it's WAY too easy to either get into the wrong spirit, come across as a bad witness (let not your good be evil spoken of/give no occasion to stumble), or at least be perceived that way. We are indeed to contend for sound doctrine, to "declare and teach these things", etc., but (there may be and I just don't know it) I know of no place in scripture where actual debate is encouraged.
In my opinion, when I dig my heels in and debate, I'm very likely going to end up eventually making a fool of myself. Because many of the things I'm so adamant and dogmatic about today (even to the point of forgetting that my main task is to love you as myself) I will be corrected on later by the Father and shown a more accurate, excellent way. And bottom line, even though we often act as if it's not the case, as Sparrow said, we ALL see through a glass darkly.
Maybe because I've been so guilty (to use a Paulinian phrase, the "chiefest of sinners") my personal reaction to someone coming across as a "know-it-all"/a teacher/there's just no possiblity I could be wrong here, etc., is actually quite negative. I walk away with a bad taste in my mouth, and actually may end up giving less credence (or paying less attention) to what they (I) do say. When I do it myself, I've usually painted myself into a corner, end up needing to apologize, and "eat crow". Not very appetizing.
There's a whole feast spread before us is we share and partake in the love and gentleness of our Example.
What kind of debate is disapproved of Jabcat? Deliberation or confrontation? Each is a debate. Maybe those things need to be more specifically defined. I would think we are deliberating or "considering" each others opposing opinions in the effort to be more unified or edified in the Faith. I could understand if the type of debate not allowed here is the confrontation type.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:37:32 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:32:56 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:26:42 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Not necessarily. In your opinion, why are there multiple entries in a dictionary?
But let's get down to specifics here Seth. Because it is the specifics that can't reveal falsehood. I am going to use your words to debate you. I often use this tactic. Now let's get more specific. You say that the words might "not necessarily" mean the same in that verse. So please define each one. Refer to the first instance as "spirit definition1" and "spirit definition2" respectively for the occurences in that verse so we can better understand. Because this verse is VERY important because as I READ it - there are TWO spirits being mentioned there and I understand them in a manner that is potentially very different than what you may preach to others and if we are about mutual edification into the Faith so that we all are of the same mind (that which is in Jesus Christ) then we can't all have opposing views and should work this out to eliminate the darkness that we may possess.
So please define those as you see them in concise but to the point descriptions if you will.
Paul
Paul, what you are asking me to do is actually contrary to 2 Peter 1:20.
I cannot hold one verse up as a solo interpretation. I have acknowledge ALL the Bible's definition of "spirit." The word spirit comes from the world "breath" or "life." The Bible says "God IS spirit."
It is impossible, therefore, to interpret a verse self-contained, apply an opinion from within that verse, then expand that definition as applying to ALL occurrences of "spirit."
Do you understand why I would want to stick with 2 Peter 1:20?
I'm not asking you for ALL occurences. I'm asking you for the one specific verse.
Rom 8:16 The
Spirit itself beareth witness with our
spirit, that we are the children of God:
I'm only asking you to explain to define the word "spirit" there in both of those cases and HOW you came to understand the definitions you supply. I don't think that is unreasonable or irrational even from the perspective of God's Word.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:33:23 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:24:04 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:13:18 AM
The Spirit itSELF bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are children of God.
The Holy Spirit is invisible. So it bears witness with our renewed frame of mind that we have become begotten of it as his Children.
The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?
So if we take what your saying and substitute for the first word spirit as the definition of the word spirit you gave for the second instance we would have:
The seat of emotions, frame of mind, bears witness with our seat of emotions, frame of mind, that we are the Children of God.
Isn't that correct?
Paul
Paul, tell me your thoughts on this statement: "These boxes are not very light. Can you turn on the light?"
Sorry Seth, almost missed this. I would say that both of the words "light" there mean two different meanings but I already know where the meanings come from and can understand the sentence. I asked you to explain to define the words in the verse I provided. I can provide a definition for each word "light" in the statement above:
light in occurence #1 would refer to something of little weight.
light in occurence #2 would refer to something that displaces darkness.
Paul
Ok, as long as you don't wish to confine my answers to that single verse, but allow that I am able to use the full Word. I'll research it look at many things and I'll provide an opinion ASAP (which may be tonight). Sound good?
Hi Paul. THIS ISN'T JUST FOR YOU! IT'S FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING ME...probably especially ME ["we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones that make a brighter day, so let's start giving"...nod to the MJ thread] :bigGrin:.
I could go into definitions of debate, including logical premises, conclusions, then the technical definitions of argument (part of debate), etc. Let me speak from the "heart" though, rather than just the mind.
Even though it's a bit of a joke, because I'm often not very good at it myself, let me share it as this;
I can tell you what I believe, what I believe God is currently showing me or allowing me to see; understanding and presenting it as I am seeing through a glass darkly, and that I only currently know in part. That is all God is allowing any of us. I can share that with you, do it in love, then accept that you either see it that way as God may shine a light on it for you, or that He isn't as yet revealing it to you; and anyway, He may show me something different about it as well, SO MAYBE IT'S A GOOD THING YOU DIDN'T SWALLOW WHAT I WAS DISHING AT THE TIME, BECAUSE IT WAS YET VEILED!
Or, I can state a case, re-state it, argue it, be adamant that I am right, use your words against you, find multiple ways to try to convince you that you are wrong and I am right...then, perhaps in a worse case scenario, begin to belittle you, mock you, make slurring comments about you, who you've been listening to, become angry, say things I shouldn't say, wound you, harm others who are observing, and generally make a rear end out of myself and cast negative aspersions on the ways of the Lord. All in the name of trying to present what I believe is sound doctrine, righteous teaching (when it's often about my "being right", saving face, but in the end, being judgmental, self-righteous, and a bad witness). Been there, done that, sign the dotted line if you want to be in the club. :happygrin:
There's only general guidelines, mainly "don't argue" and "have a Christ-like attitude and spirit".
So, bottom line, the encouragement is to share, discuss, and stay away from arguing/debate, however one may define it. State how we see it at the moment, wish each other well, and let God do the job He has promised He will do...("you have no need that any man teach you...after the Spirit comes He will lead you into all truth").
God's blessing, James.
[Splitting this off into its own thread] You are Satan (not YOU specifically Paul :laughing7:] can then carry on as its own topic. :thumbsup:
Paul, out of respect for Jabcats wishes I will follow what he is saying. We could do this PM style if you want.
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 12:52:09 AM
Ok, as long as you don't wish to confine my answers to that single verse, but allow that I am able to use the full Word. I'll research it look at many things and I'll provide an opinion ASAP (which may be tonight). Sound good?
Take your time Seth.
Paul
Please discuss Seth and Paul. THAT's encouraged...please, that's why we're here. But hopefully for fellowship rather than fellowhip :laughing7:.
Quote from: jabcat on July 18, 2009, 01:04:13 AM
Hi Paul. THIS ISN'T JUST FOR YOU! IT'S FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING ME...probably especially ME ["we are the world, we are the children, we are the ones that make a brighter day, so let's start giving"...nod to the MJ thread] :bigGrin:.
I could go into definitions of debate, including logical premises, conclusions, then the technical definitions of argument (part of debate), etc. Let me speak from the "heart" though, rather than just the mind.
Even though it's a bit of a joke, because I'm often not very good at it myself, let me share it as this;
I can tell you what I believe, what I believe God is currently showing me or allowing me to see; understanding and presenting it as I am seeing through a glass darkly, and that I only currently know in part. That is all God is allowing any of us. I can share that with you, do it in love, then accept that you either see it that way as God may shine a light on it for you, or that He isn't as yet revealing it to you; and anyway, He may show me something different about it as well, SO MAYBE IT'S A GOOD THING YOU DIDN'T SWALLOW WHAT I WAS DISHING AT THE TIME, BECAUSE IT WAS YET VEILED!
Or, I can state a case, re-state it, argue it, be adamant that I am right, use your words against you, find multiple ways to try to convince you that you are wrong and I am right...then, perhaps in a worse case scenario, begin to belittle you, mock you, make slurring comments about you, who you've been listening to, become angry, say things I shouldn't say, wound you, harm others who are observing, and generally make a rear end out of myself and cast negative aspersions on the ways of the Lord. All in the name of trying to present what I believe is sound doctrine, righteous teaching (when it's often about my "being right", saving face, but in the end, being judgmental, self-righteous, and a bad witness). Been there, done that, sign the dotted line if you want to be in the club. :happygrin:
There's only general guidelines, mainly "don't argue" and "have a Christ-like attitude and spirit".
So, bottom line, the encouragement is to share, discuss, and stay away from arguing/debate, however one may define it. State how we see it at the moment, wish each other well, and let God do the job He has promised He will do...("you have no need that any man teach you...after the Spirit comes He will lead you into all truth").
God's blessing, James.
[Splitting this off into its own thread] You are Satan (not YOU specifically Paul :laughing7:] can then carry on as its own topic. :thumbsup:
Thanks Jabcat.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 01:05:59 AM
Paul, out of respect for Jabcats wishes I will follow what he is saying. We could do this PM style if you want.
Seth, I think Jabcat was essentially saying the same thing I was saying that there is multiple meanings to debating and that discussion relative to helping each other is highly encouraged.
Paul
Ok, It's just that I know how it is, being a former mod. :laughing7:
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:51:08 AM
Sorry Seth, almost missed this. I would say that both of the words "light" there mean two different meanings but I already know where the meanings come from and can understand the sentence. I asked you to explain to define the words in the verse I provided. I can provide a definition for each word "light" in the statement above:
light in occurence #1 would refer to something of little weight.
light in occurence #2 would refer to something that displaces darkness.
Paul
Ok, so you had said this earlier: "The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?" So then we agree that this would not necessarily be true, especially of "light." Now what you did was make an INTUITIVE decision based on the context of what my use of "light" was right?
You said "But I know where the meanings come from."
But what if I told you that the boxes not being "light" meant that they were "dark gray" and the speaker asked for "white." You would have been wrong about what he was saying about the boxes right? However, you would have been functioning from a very reasonable interpretation.
So what we must do is all come to decisions based on context and in regard to our intuition of meaning right?
I pray you refer to Spiritual Intuition and not the mind of man.
ABSOLUTELY. I, yet not I as Apostle Paul would say.
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 01:46:50 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 12:51:08 AM
Sorry Seth, almost missed this. I would say that both of the words "light" there mean two different meanings but I already know where the meanings come from and can understand the sentence. I asked you to explain to define the words in the verse I provided. I can provide a definition for each word "light" in the statement above:
light in occurence #1 would refer to something of little weight.
light in occurence #2 would refer to something that displaces darkness.
Paul
Ok, so you had said this earlier: "The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing. Don't you agree?" So then we agree that this would not necessarily be true, especially of "light." Now what you did was make an INTUITIVE decision based on the context of what my use of "light" was right?
You said "But I know where the meanings come from."
But what if I told you that the boxes not being "light" meant that they were "dark gray" and the speaker asked for "white." You would have been wrong about what he was saying about the boxes right? However, you would have been functioning from a very reasonable interpretation.
So what we must do is all come to decisions based on context and in regard to our intuition of meaning right?
No, my decision was based on the fact that the word "spirit" was based on the Greek and that in the Greek a word doesn't have multiple meanings.
Paul
I think this thread has its own spirit.
And much of it does not seem heavenly inspired.
Ok, so your stated reason "that they occur twice in the same verse" is then not the reasoning to establish it having same meaning, right? You said, the word "The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing." You had led me to believe that the reason they have the same meaning is BECAUSE they occur twice in the same verse. Your understanding of same meaning of "spirit" is not based on it's frequency in the same verse.
What do you base your understanding that a word in the Greek language does not have multiple meanings? Do mean to say that a word's meaning in the Greek is never modified by the context?
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 02:35:47 AM
Ok, so your stated reason "that they occur twice in the same verse" is then not the reasoning to establish it having same meaning, right? You said, the word "The word "spirit" is used in both parts of that verse. So the word "spirit" there has to mean the same thing." You had led me to believe that the reason they have the same meaning is BECAUSE they occur twice in the same verse. Your understanding of same meaning of "spirit" is not based on it's frequency in the same verse.
What do you base your understanding that a word in the Greek language does not have multiple meanings? Do mean to say that a word's meaning in the Greek is never modified by the context?
Yes, a word in the Greek has the same meaning no matter where it is used. Word are not modified by context - words are used to create context. One of the strengths of the concordant method is in taking advantage of this fact and adhering to it. Consider this:
"Greek is not like English, having many words spelled the same, but with totally different meanings. Such homonyms as occur are clearly distinguished in usage and are treated as separate words. Thus, in English, a horse may run fast, may be tied fast, and may fast from lack of food. No such confusion occurs in the Greek."
That is from this link:
http://www.scripture4all.org/ISA2_help/Articles/Concordant_Method2/Concordant_Method2.htm
Paul
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Do we agree that there is a difference between "meaning" and "definition."
A definition is a statment of a words exact statement of how a word should be understood
A meaning is an intention to convey.
For example, the word "bad" had definitions in the dictionary. But on the street, the word took on a different meaning (intended use) which actually set it opposite to the standard definitions (STATEMENTS of meaning).
So are you saying that "INTENDED use" is always the same as DEFINITION in the Greek? Can you use the example of Hades?
I've thought about that, Paul, how the CLT used one word and one word only. That's an interesting discussion. Personally, I don't know if it's true or not, but I know that's how Knoch did it. If it's not an accurate way of doing it, then IMO, that would cause some problems for me with the concordant version and its methods. But maybe it is accurate. I'm going to look at this more.
Obviously, to some folks' chagrine, I am one for context...it's an interesting statement that in the Greek it's the particular words that are used that create the context....hmmm. Something to ponder.
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 02:56:44 AM
Thanks for the link, I'll check it out. Do we agree that there is a difference between "meaning" and "definition."
A definition is a statment of a words exact statement of how a word should be understood
A meaning is an intention to convey.
For example, the word "bad" had definitions in the dictionary. But on the street, the word took on a different meaning (intended use) which actually set it opposite to the standard definitions (STATEMENTS of meaning).
So are you saying that "INTENDED use" is always the same as DEFINITION in the Greek? Can you use the example of Hades?
No, I see a definition and meaning as the same thing.
Paul
AH. Ok, so I am glad we talked about that. Who decides the definition? Also, can you please discuss the seemingly two different definitions or meanings of "hades?"
The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:16)
"Spirit is spirit, even without the essence of the body."
And despite the appearance of things, it is the lifeblood of the heart; Spirit. :HeartThrob:
peacemaker
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 03:10:51 AM
AH. Ok, so I am glad we talked about that. Who decides the definition? Also, can you please discuss the seemingly two different definitions or meanings of "hades?"
I don't know of two different meanings for hades. As for who decides the definitions, I suppose the definitions for the Greek words are up to ancient Greek Scholars. But the important thing is that where-ever a Greek word appears it will have the same meaning - unlike English.
Paul
English is a perverse language.
I'm glad I never had to learn it.
An amalgam, perhaps, but perverse?
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 04:10:55 AMI don't know of two different meanings for hades.
Well, as far as I know, when a Greek person heard the word "hades" he might have have thought that the speaker would have meant "unseen" which, I believe, is derived from the parts "a" and "eides" NOT-PERCIEVED. Or, the speaker might be referring to the underworld after-life of Classical Greek literature. So how would the listener understand the usage of "hades?"
QuoteAs for who decides the definitions, I suppose the definitions for the Greek words are up to ancient Greek Scholars.
Why would it not up to the Greek speaker, at any given time, depending on context to determine intent? Do you not believe that Greek speakers personalized words? Do you have any linguistic scholarship that says that Greek speakers never did that?
QuoteBut the important thing is that where-ever a Greek word appears it will have the same meaning - unlike English.
Who says? That is what I am getting at. I read through the Concordant piece you sent, and they didn't address WHY the meaning is same. They only said why they chose to TRANSLATE consistently. Consistent translation does not address the possible differences in context of the intended meaning of a word.
For example, in English, I could use the same word multiple times like "bad" and depending on my context you could derive my meaning based on what you think my intent is.
What I am asking is what leads you to believe this custom was absent in Ancient Greece? If you could provide a link about that, it would help.
Paul, if you think that meaning and definition are the same. Look at the definion of "meaning."
meaning
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
The key factor there is "intention" not word parts. Meaning is derived from intention. So how do we establish what the speaker intends versus what the scholar declares?
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 04:40:21 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 04:10:55 AMI don't know of two different meanings for hades.
Well, as far as I know, when a Greek person heard the word "hades" he might have have thought that the speaker would have meant "unseen" which, I believe, is derived from the parts "a" and "eides" NOT-PERCIEVED. Or, the speaker might be referring to the underworld after-life of Classical Greek literature. So how would the listener understand the usage of "hades?"
QuoteAs for who decides the definitions, I suppose the definitions for the Greek words are up to ancient Greek Scholars.
Why would it not up to the Greek speaker, at any given time, depending on context to determine intent? Do you not believe that Greek speakers personalized words? Do you have any linguistic scholarship that says that Greek speakers never did that?
QuoteBut the important thing is that where-ever a Greek word appears it will have the same meaning - unlike English.
Who says? That is what I am getting at. I read through the Concordant piece you sent, and they didn't address WHY the meaning is same. They only said why they chose to TRANSLATE consistently. Consistent translation does not address the possible differences in context of the intended meaning of a word.
For example, in English, I could use the same word multiple times like "bad" and depending on my context you could derive my meaning based on what you think my intent is.
What I am asking is what leads you to believe this custom was absent in Ancient Greece? If you could provide a link about that, it would help.
Seth, I only see one definition regarding hades. Maybe you need to show two verses where you believe it means differently. Regarding the different meanings, I don't think the article needs to go any further to explain why there is NOT multiple meanings for the same word. I think those that read that will clearly understand that is just a component of the language. I don't think anyone could attest to it unless it were written and explained by the founders of the language. In other words that arguement is more like a red herring. But your more than welcome to provide scholary content that shows that the Greeks used multiple meanings for their words.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 04:46:13 AM
Paul, if you think that meaning and definition are the same. Look at the definion of "meaning."
meaning
what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import: the three meanings of a word.
The key factor there is "intention" not word parts. Meaning is derived from intention. So how do we establish what the speaker intends versus what the scholar declares?
Seth, you asked me if I believe definition and meaning are the same:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/definition
"statement of meaning"
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:27:27 AM
Seth, you asked me if I believe definition and meaning are the same:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/definition
"statement of meaning"
Paul
Right. A STATEMENT. And meaning is the intention. So a definition is a statement of a word's intention. The problem is when intentions concerning a word change in the culture, counter to the statement, like how the stated meaning of "bad" was different from the street usage of it as intending to mean "good."
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:24:29 AM
In other words that arguement is more like a red herring. But your more than welcome to provide scholary content that shows that the Greeks used multiple meanings for their words.
Paul
I am asking you though, if you have any scholarly content to show that they did not. The reason is that meaning rest on intention. To say that the intention is the same in every word is a bold assertion.
I believe the Bible uses "hades" as "unseen" but not because of it's parts, only because of content (namely its referrences to sheol). So I
rely on the context and the overall teaching to know
that the Classic Greek meaning of Hades as an underworld afterlife was not the intended meaning.
This, however, does not mean that "hades" cannot have multiple meanings in the Greek language if the speaker is talking about Hades.
Quote from: Beloved Servant on July 18, 2009, 04:31:55 AM
An amalgam, perhaps, but perverse?
Except in the hands of a few--
1) He ate and
drank the
precious Words –
His Spirit grew
robust –
(2) He knew no more
that he was poor;
Nor that his
frame was
Dust –
(3) He danced
along the dingy
Days
And this Bequest
of Wings
(4) Was but a Book –
What Liberty
A loosened Spirit
brings –
~ Emily Dickinson
Pneuma or pneumati
Pneumati-cally speaking, they are the same.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness – and truth.
peacemaker
Paul, I guess to simplify what I am asking is: how do we establish that in the Greek language words cannot have multiple meanings? What I got from the provided article was that the Concordant Publishing Concern took the word parts, interpreted meaning from the parts, picked a word and translated it consistently.
What I did not see was anything that proved, as a rule, that Greek words cannot have multiple meanings. Who made that rule?
Satan seems to have been around today, I rebuke you (Satan) in the name of Jesus! Leave this thread! No offence to those of you who think your Satan... :wink3:
Seriously, be nice!
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 05:36:54 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:27:27 AM
Seth, you asked me if I believe definition and meaning are the same:
http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/definition
"statement of meaning"
Paul
Right. A STATEMENT. And meaning is the intention. So a definition is a statement of a word's intention. The problem is when intentions concerning a word change in the culture, counter to the statement, like how the stated meaning of "bad" was different from the street usage of it as intending to mean "good."
I believe a definition is meaning. Hope that is better. Again, I understand the ancient Greek language to use a word it has the same meaning now matter where it is used. You seem to be saying differently.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 05:39:45 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:24:29 AM
In other words that arguement is more like a red herring. But your more than welcome to provide scholary content that shows that the Greeks used multiple meanings for their words.
Paul
I am asking you though, if you have any scholarly content to show that they did not. The reason is that meaning rest on intention. To say that the intention is the same in every word is a bold assertion.
I believe the Bible uses "hades" as "unseen" but not because of it's parts, only because of content (namely its referrences to sheol). So I rely on the context and the overall teaching to know that the Classic Greek meaning of Hades as an underworld afterlife was not the intended meaning.
This, however, does not mean that "hades" cannot have multiple meanings in the Greek language if the speaker is talking about Hades.
You have the complete Concordant Literal Version which was written by a scholar as I understand it. The premise behind the Concordant Literal Version is that Concordant Method that I gave you the link to earlier.
Again, regarding Hades, if you have two verses where you believe there is two different meanings for the same Greek word then go ahead and present it and we can discuss it. I mean were discussing God's Word and teaching others about it so we BETTER get it right.
Paul
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 06:59:14 AM
Paul, I guess to simplify what I am asking is: how do we establish that in the Greek language words cannot have multiple meanings? What I got from the provided article was that the Concordant Publishing Concern took the word parts, interpreted meaning from the parts, picked a word and translated it consistently.
What I did not see was anything that proved, as a rule, that Greek words cannot have multiple meanings. Who made that rule?
Seth, as I understood it - it was common knowledge between ancient Greek Scholars that words don't have multiple meanings. I have read it a few times before but the only source I could come up with was the link I provided earlier. But you can just present the sources you have that says otherwise if you like. The amount of time were spending on this seems to indicate to me that these questions I have asked you have gotten you thinking which is what I hoped. The more discussion around this should be beneficial.
Paul
Quoteit was common knowledge between ancient Greek Scholars that words don't have multiple meanings.
Then how do we explain the evolution of Hades?
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 08:08:58 AM
Again, regarding Hades, if you have two verses where you believe there is two different meanings for the same Greek word then go ahead and present it and we can discuss it. I mean were discussing God's Word and teaching others about it so we BETTER get it right.
Here is the rub though, Paul: I believe there are multiple meanings (at least two) of "hades" in the Greek language. That much is obvious. Like you, however, I believe only one is being employed in the Bible. But in order to reach that conclusion, I rely on the context. What I am saying is that in the Greek language I see that indeed there can be more than one meaning of a word and Paul chose one that fit the Hebrew concept of "sheol."
From my estimation, translating words consistenty simply allows for necessary interpretation of meaning. For example the word "lamb" if translated consistently, still yields different meanings based on context. In the case of "the lamb of God" we understand "lamb" to refer to Jesus. However, even if translated consistently, lamb may also mean a four legged beast.
We still need to distinguish between strict and implied meanings.
QuoteI believe a definition is meaning. Hope that is better. Again, I understand the ancient Greek language to use a word it has the same meaning now matter where it is used. You seem to be saying differently.
Well, what I am saying is that in most cultures, the meaning of words is not as concrete as you seem to believe. Words often evolve, based on usage, and sometimes people actually subvert the stated meaning of a word.
Do you believe contextual analysis is important to understand nuances in meaning from words used in a given text?
QuoteThe amount of time were spending on this seems to indicate to me that these questions I have asked you have gotten you thinking which is what I hoped.
It's a fascinating topic for sure. You said that it was common knowledge among Greek Scholars that words do not have multiple meanings. I would wonder about that. I have never heard that.
I have always heard that words in any language have both strict and implied meanings and that language is not concrete across time, region, and culture.
Can I ask, do you believe that "spirit" is a good translation of "pneuma?"
Quote from: Seth on July 18, 2009, 09:18:12 AM
Quoteit was common knowledge between ancient Greek Scholars that words don't have multiple meanings.
Then how do we explain the evolution of Hades?
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 08:08:58 AM
Again, regarding Hades, if you have two verses where you believe there is two different meanings for the same Greek word then go ahead and present it and we can discuss it. I mean were discussing God's Word and teaching others about it so we BETTER get it right.
Here is the rub though, Paul: I believe there are multiple meanings (at least two) of "hades" in the Greek language. That much is obvious. Like you, however, I believe only one is being employed in the Bible. But in order to reach that conclusion, I rely on the context. What I am saying is that in the Greek language I see that indeed there can be more than one meaning of a word and Paul chose one that fit the Hebrew concept of "sheol."
From my estimation, translating words consistenty simply allows for necessary interpretation of meaning. For example the word "lamb" if translated consistently, still yields different meanings based on context. In the case of "the lamb of God" we understand "lamb" to refer to Jesus. However, even if translated consistently, lamb may also mean a four legged beast.
We still need to distinguish between strict and implied meanings.
QuoteI believe a definition is meaning. Hope that is better. Again, I understand the ancient Greek language to use a word it has the same meaning now matter where it is used. You seem to be saying differently.
Well, what I am saying is that in most cultures, the meaning of words is not as concrete as you seem to believe. Words often evolve, based on usage, and sometimes people actually subvert the stated meaning of a word.
Do you believe contextual analysis is important to understand nuances in meaning from words used in a given text?
QuoteThe amount of time were spending on this seems to indicate to me that these questions I have asked you have gotten you thinking which is what I hoped.
It's a fascinating topic for sure. You said that it was common knowledge among Greek Scholars that words do not have multiple meanings. I would wonder about that. I have never heard that.
I have always heard that words in any language have both strict and implied meanings and that language is not concrete across time, region, and culture.
Can I ask, do you believe that "spirit" is a good translation of "pneuma?"
Ok, Seth, then you believe ancient Greek words have multiple meanings. Then we can discuss this topic from that standpoint. I only brought up the concordant method because you asked me why I said that "spirit" in the verse was the same in both instances. So now we have covered why I believe "spirit" is the same in each part of the verse, let's get back to the original question I had. In that you would supply definitions for each word Spirit in that SPECIFIC verse. Also, I have no problem with "spirit" as a translation of pneuma.
Paul
we do greater 'works' than HIM in this way...
they are greater 'works' of faith because He was without sin
in His flesh, and we are not.We give out of our lack..He gives
out of the spirit without measure...we have a measure..and
must give that measure out of our lack.ALL WE HAVE...though it
be a piddling in appearance. But those poor in spirit He made
RICH IN FAITH....AND IT IS ALL ACCOMPLISHED IN FAITH
He explained these things in the parable about that poor
widow....she give all she had, her only means of living...
we have a token to give at this time...and in the eyes of God
it is not despised...IT IS A GREATER WORK IN HIS EYES.
As far as YOU are Satan,hogwash! these doctrines of demons
need to be cast out into the swine flesh it is, so the whole herd
can rush down the steep bank and die in the water.
Luke 15;15 so he went and hired himself out to a citizen of
that country[the world?] who sent him to the feilds to feed the
pigs. HE LONGED TO FILL HIS STOMACH with the pods that the
pigs were eating,but no one gave him anything.
Prodigals are still sons..though they crave pods meant for
swine.
Come to your senses!!Return to your Father!You don't have to
eat this garbage!
Matthew 7;6 Do not give dogs what is sacred,do not throw
your pearls to pigs
Isaaih 65;4 who sit among the graves,and spend their night
keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs,and whose pots
hold broth of unclean meat.
v 13 My servants will eat,but you will go hungry
My servants will drink,but you will go thirsty
My servants will rejoice,but you will be put to shame
v 15 You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse,
the Sovereign Lord will put you to death
Numbers 5;27 IF she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to
her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that
brings a curse,it will go into her and cause bitter suffering;
her abdomen will swell[god is your belly/you shall crawl on your
belly]and her thigh waste away,and she will become accursed
among her people[Mt25;41 depart from me,you who are cursed]
If,however the woman has not defiled herself and is free from
impurity,she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have
children. 1 Timothy 2;15 But women will be saved through
child-bearing- if they continue in faith,love and holiness with
propriety
The water that brings the curse is the LAW OF
JEALOUSY...cursed is
anything that hangs on a tree[serpent in tokogae] through the
commandment[LAW] But sin seizing the opportunity afforded
by the commandment,produced in me every kind of covetous
desire.
For LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH,IT'S JEALOUSY AS
UNYEILDING AS THE GRAVE
IT BURNS LIKE BLAZING FIRE
LIKE A MIGHTY FLAME
MANY WATERS CAN NOT QUENCH LOVE
RIVERS CAN NOT WASH IT AWAY[Rev 12;15]
Quote from: sheila on July 18, 2009, 08:25:19 PM
we do greater 'works' than HIM in this way...
they are greater 'works' of faith because He was without sin
in His flesh, and we are not.We give out of our lack..He gives
out of the spirit without measure...we have a measure..and
must give that measure out of our lack.ALL WE HAVE...though it
be a piddling in appearance. But those poor in spirit He made
RICH IN FAITH....AND IT IS ALL ACCOMPLISHED IN FAITH
He explained these things in the parable about that poor
widow....she give all she had, her only means of living...
we have a token to give at this time...and in the eyes of God
it is not despised...IT IS A GREATER WORK IN HIS EYES.
As far as YOU are Satan,hogwash! these doctrines of demons
need to be cast out into the swine flesh it is, so the whole herd
can rush down the steep bank and die in the water.
Luke 15;15 so he went and hired himself out to a citizen of
that country[the world?] who sent him to the feilds to feed the
pigs. HE LONGED TO FILL HIS STOMACH with the pods that the
pigs were eating,but no one gave him anything.
Prodigals are still sons..though they crave pods meant for
swine.
Come to your senses!!Return to your Father!You don't have to
eat this garbage!
Matthew 7;6 Do not give dogs what is sacred,do not throw
your pearls to pigs
Isaaih 65;4 who sit among the graves,and spend their night
keeping secret vigil; who eat the flesh of pigs,and whose pots
hold broth of unclean meat.
v 13 My servants will eat,but you will go hungry
My servants will drink,but you will go thirsty
My servants will rejoice,but you will be put to shame
v 15 You will leave your name to my chosen ones as a curse,
the Sovereign Lord will put you to death
Numbers 5;27 IF she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to
her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that
brings a curse,it will go into her and cause bitter suffering;
her abdomen will swell[god is your belly/you shall crawl on your
belly]and her thigh waste away,and she will become accursed
among her people[Mt25;41 depart from me,you who are cursed]
If,however the woman has not defiled herself and is free from
impurity,she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have
children. 1 Timothy 2;15 But women will be saved through
child-bearing- if they continue in faith,love and holiness with
propriety
The water that brings the curse is the LAW OF
JEALOUSY...cursed is
anything that hangs on a tree[serpent in tokogae] through the
commandment[LAW] But sin seizing the opportunity afforded
by the commandment,produced in me every kind of covetous
desire.
For LOVE IS AS STRONG AS DEATH,IT'S JEALOUSY AS
UNYEILDING AS THE GRAVE
IT BURNS LIKE BLAZING FIRE
LIKE A MIGHTY FLAME
MANY WATERS CAN NOT QUENCH LOVE
RIVERS CAN NOT WASH IT AWAY[Rev 12;15]
Sheila, there is ONLY one person that is saved and that is Jesus Christ. Anyone else saved is only a member of His body. That is the ONLY Spirit that gets saved. It is the only Spirit that has Life. All the rest of our spirits are being destroyed and why? If Satan was the culprit and another person then WHY would our spirits need to be destroyed? - answer is because WE are Satan.
Paul
I am not satan and my spirit is not going to be destroyed. I will be strengthened by him, not destroyed, He is my salvation--
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
My soul will be knitted together with his --
Colossians 2:2
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
And, my nakedness covered with the royal robe of his Spirit--
Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Quote from: Molly on July 18, 2009, 09:47:59 PM
I am not satan and my spirit is not going to be destroyed. I will be strengthened by him, not destroyed, He is my salvation--
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
My soul will be knitted together with his --
Colossians 2:2
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
And, my nakedness covered with the royal robe of his Spirit--
Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Then this verse will not apply to you:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
See it says that a washing takes place. It says that a REGENERATION takes place. It shows that a RENEWING takes place. For that to happen something must be disappearing. That which is disappearing is OUR Satan.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:19:20 PM
Ok, Seth, then you believe ancient Greek words have multiple meanings. Then we can discuss this topic from that standpoint. I only brought up the concordant method because you asked me why I said that "spirit" in the verse was the same in both instances. So now we have covered why I believe "spirit" is the same in each part of the verse, let's get back to the original question I had. In that you would supply definitions for each word Spirit in that SPECIFIC verse. Also, I have no problem with "spirit" as a translation of pneuma.
Paul
Paul,
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to consistent translating. I actually admire the desire of the CPC to try to translate without bias. In my studies though, I have found that translating is pretty interpretive. Not only that, I just had never heard any language with single meanings for words. That is why I was so curious about how you came to that understanding.
In any case, I will say what I see in the verse. The verse itself is contained within statements that declare the "spirit of God" and the "spirit of Christ" to be within us, and able to put to deliver us from the flesh (to remove us from it). The Bible declares that Christ is a life giving spirit, Jesus said "I am the life" and that God is spirit.
The word pneuma, that is the STRICT meaning of that word, is breath, or blowing wind etc. It is invisible and to the Greeks, it contained what we need to survive. The implied meaning of pneuma, therefore is "life" and the Holy Spirit invisible power of life.
You mentioned that you believe that spirit is behavior. This in itself is an implied meaning which would probably be derived from "breath" or "blowing wind" in SOME way. What is interesting to me about the verse is that it says "The Spirit itself."
The word "itself" is derived from the greek "auto" from which we derive "autonimous" which is to say "independantly self aware." The word "auto" is used to translate, in Mattew 3:4: Now John
himself had a coat of camel hair.
In John 16:13 we see the Holy Spirit referred to as "he." So if I were to use the CPC method of consistency, I can see the phrase this way "The Spirit himself, bears witness to our spirit..." The point being that the first spirit in the verse in question is autonomous, it is self aware.
However, the second spirit is not given the same "self" aspect. In the second "spirit" it bears witness with OUR spirit, the word "our" referring to our own autonomy as having a CHARACTERISTIC of "spirit." This would be the implied meaning of "life" again, but not with the self-awareness, rather the characterstic would be our essence. The essence of our lives would be as I had posted before: a principle that provades
thought,
feeling, and
action (ie a kind spirit, or a mean spirit).
The very point of Christ being the visible image of the invisible God, is in that God REVEALS his righteousness to the world, through his children. God is invisible. We are visible.
So, in order to reveal his Glory in us, God corroberates, or "bears witness" with our spirit (thought, feeling, and action) as EVIDENCE that we are children. This is dependant on the life-change that occurs within us when the reception of the Holy Spirit puts to death our old selves, that we may "put on Christ."
That is why I interepret the verse as I do, but I am open to your interpretation. :HeartThrob:
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 10:46:20 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 18, 2009, 09:47:59 PM
I am not satan and my spirit is not going to be destroyed. I will be strengthened by him, not destroyed, He is my salvation--
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
My soul will be knitted together with his --
Colossians 2:2
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
And, my nakedness covered with the royal robe of his Spirit--
Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Then this verse will not apply to you:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
See it says that a washing takes place. It says that a REGENERATION takes place. It shows that a RENEWING takes place. For that to happen something must be disappearing. That which is disappearing is OUR Satan.
Paul
Something isn't disappearing; something is being restored.
"regeneration"G3824
παλιγγενεσία
paliggenesiapal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual)
rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation;
specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.
Quote from: Seth on July 19, 2009, 06:07:02 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 05:19:20 PM
Ok, Seth, then you believe ancient Greek words have multiple meanings. Then we can discuss this topic from that standpoint. I only brought up the concordant method because you asked me why I said that "spirit" in the verse was the same in both instances. So now we have covered why I believe "spirit" is the same in each part of the verse, let's get back to the original question I had. In that you would supply definitions for each word Spirit in that SPECIFIC verse. Also, I have no problem with "spirit" as a translation of pneuma.
Paul
Paul,
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to consistent translating. I actually admire the desire of the CPC to try to translate without bias. In my studies though, I have found that translating is pretty interpretive. Not only that, I just had never heard any language with single meanings for words. That is why I was so curious about how you came to that understanding.
In any case, I will say what I see in the verse. The verse itself is contained within statements that declare the "spirit of God" and the "spirit of Christ" to be within us, and able to put to deliver us from the flesh (to remove us from it). The Bible declares that Christ is a life giving spirit, Jesus said "I am the life" and that God is spirit.
The word pneuma, that is the STRICT meaning of that word, is breath, or blowing wind etc. It is invisible and to the Greeks, it contained what we need to survive. The implied meaning of pneuma, therefore is "life" and the Holy Spirit invisible power of life.
You mentioned that you believe that spirit is behavior. This in itself is an implied meaning which would probably be derived from "breath" or "blowing wind" in SOME way. What is interesting to me about the verse is that it says "The Spirit itself."
The word "itself" is derived from the greek "auto" from which we derive "autonimous" which is to say "independantly self aware." The word "auto" is used to translate, in Mattew 3:4: Now John himself had a coat of camel hair.
In John 16:13 we see the Holy Spirit referred to as "he." So if I were to use the CPC method of consistency, I can see the phrase this way "The Spirit himself, bears witness to our spirit..." The point being that the first spirit in the verse in question is autonomous, it is self aware.
However, the second spirit is not given the same "self" aspect. In the second "spirit" it bears witness with OUR spirit, the word "our" referring to our own autonomy as having a CHARACTERISTIC of "spirit." This would be the implied meaning of "life" again, but not with the self-awareness, rather the characterstic would be our essence. The essence of our lives would be as I had posted before: a principle that provades thought, feeling, and action (ie a kind spirit, or a mean spirit).
The very point of Christ being the visible image of the invisible God, is in that God REVEALS his righteousness to the world, through his children. God is invisible. We are visible.
So, in order to reveal his Glory in us, God corroberates, or "bears witness" with our spirit (thought, feeling, and action) as EVIDENCE that we are children. This is dependant on the life-change that occurs within us when the reception of the Holy Spirit puts to death our old selves, that we may "put on Christ."
That is why I interepret the verse as I do, but I am open to your interpretation. :HeartThrob:
Seth, the Spirit (pneuma) is a wind. A Word that comes out of your mouth is a WIND. But it isn't just a wind it a wind that carries a message. Consider now God, the Father in Heaven, The Word that comes out of His Mouth is a WIND that carries a message, but His message is Him. In other words when we say something it carries our opinion or our being, it is our perspective, our thoughts being expressed in Words which is a WIND that carries a message. So God put His Word (message carrying His "being") into flesh (Jesus Christ). See that message is the Words is Spirit.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
You see Jesus is telling us that to receive the Spirit we simply need to believe His Words. "BELIEVING" is the spiritual equivalent of EATING by the flesh. The flesh nourishes itself though eating food. Jesus is bread of life. We consume Him by BELIEVING His Words. When we BELIEVE His Words we put on Christ (thus the Father since it is really the Father's being). So it is no wonder we cry ABBA (Father) when we receive the Spirit.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby
we cry, Abba, Father.
God even compared His spirit to the spirit that is in a man:
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the
spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Notice we don't have a seperate being inside of us. We are made in the image of God and thus we just like Him have a spirit inside us. That Spirit that we have shall be destroyed by taking on His Spirit, our spirit become displaced (THIS IS CONVERSION). See Conversion is the UNION of the Father's COMMUNICATION within us. (Communion). It is where His being become our being. And thus our spirit then becomes His Spirit and that is what is means by our spirit bearing witness with His Spirit that we are His Children. Both will be the same spirit.
Paul
Quote from: Molly on July 19, 2009, 06:15:37 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 18, 2009, 10:46:20 PM
Quote from: Molly on July 18, 2009, 09:47:59 PM
I am not satan and my spirit is not going to be destroyed. I will be strengthened by him, not destroyed, He is my salvation--
Psalm 18:2
The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high tower.
My soul will be knitted together with his --
Colossians 2:2
That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;
And, my nakedness covered with the royal robe of his Spirit--
Revelation 3:18
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Then this verse will not apply to you:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
See it says that a washing takes place. It says that a REGENERATION takes place. It shows that a RENEWING takes place. For that to happen something must be disappearing. That which is disappearing is OUR Satan.
Paul
Something isn't disappearing; something is being restored.
"regeneration"
G3824
παλιγγενεσία
paliggenesia
pal-ing-ghen-es-ee'-ah
From G3825 and G1078; (spiritual) rebirth (the state or the act), that is, (figuratively) spiritual renovation; specifically Messianic restoration: - regeneration.
No Molly it is rebirth. It isn't not a rebirth of the same but a rebirth of NEW.
How do you explain the "old man" being crucified with Christ?
Rom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Do you really believe that OLD MAN is going to be reborn as the OLD MAN again? Can you not see that it is going to be destroyed to not exist anymore?
Paul
QuoteRom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
He's talking here about the physical body--which he calls 'the body of sin'--sōma hamartia--
and he is saying it is dead, crucified with Christ--so we don't serve sin any more.
5 By being baptized, we have been joined with him in his death. We will certainly also be joined with him in his resurrection.
8 We died with Christ. So we believe that we will also live with him.
11 In the same way, consider yourselves to be dead as far as sin is concerned. Now that you believe in Christ Jesus, consider yourselves to be alive as far as God is concerned. --Rom 6
This is saying that our bodies died with Christ, so we are no longer slaves to sin and will be restored/resurrected/reborn with Christ. What died is not me, it's my body [of sin]. Now I'm free from sin and death. It's what Cardinal was saying before, we are being given new bodies. In other words, I no longer serve the flesh, I serve God.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Quote from: Cardinal on July 17, 2009, 08:35:09 PM
Quote from: trettep on July 17, 2009, 07:15:07 PM
Jesus took on sinful flesh:
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
If Jesus flesh was not of the ability to sin then He wasn't given sinful flesh. Additionally, it says that Jesus condemned sin in the flesh. This would obviously include His own flesh. So this means that somehow Jesus had to condemn sin in His own flesh. Therefore, desires that could result in sin must arise in His heart that He was able to subdue via the Spirit before it could become sin.
Paul
:cloud9: AMEN Paul. What makes it so hard to see is not understanding that the Son/Seed He sent was SPIRIT, as each Seed bears fruit after it's OWN KIND, and the Father is a Spirit who bears Spirit Seed.
This Seed came in the likeness of sinful flesh (flesh man Jesus), or another way to say it, is that it too was lowered into this bondage of corruption, which is what sinful flesh IS.
It is this SPIRIT SEED that was given Him in the womb, the wheat that is raised up TOGETHER with the tares in the field of Matt. 13 that is the natural man, that OVERCOMES the tares/sinful flesh. This is the anointing from within.
This is why He overcame sin IN THE FLESH, beginning with His own. This Seed is He who both DESCENDED (into flesh beginning with the man Jesus) and ASCENDED (back to origination point) back to the glory that He had before.
We too, were as spirits lowered into flesh/bondage of corruption, but He subjected the same in hope, ie. Christ/Spirit Seed in you, hope of glory/ascending back to origination point.
When He received the anointing from without (dove), then His ministry began. In like fashion, when we receive the baptism in the HG which does the WORKS, our ministry to the body should begin.
If you add the anointing from within with the anointing from without, you have inner layer of gold inside the Ark of the Covenant, followed by the outer layer of gold, both of which cover the "sheetim" (had to change spelling because of board restrictions) wood, which is as our/his humanity.
This is the pattern and cannot be broken, He WAS/IS the PATTERN SON. Following this pattern brings us to Romans 8 talking about the SONS of God who are going to be manifested, yet He is called the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD.
Only begotten means THERE'S ONLY ONE, but He became a many membered body which is SPIRIT, ie. a HARVEST from the ONE SEED.
And He did say when you've seen ME you've seen the Father, but the '"me" there was the Spirit/Seed that came from the Father, and therefore was the express image of the Father.
This is the revelation upon which He builds His church, ie. Peter flesh and blood (not even His) have revealed this to you, but your Father which is in heaven. What was revealed?
Thou art the Christ/Spirit Seed/Anointed one. In other words, WHO is it you hear talking to you, Peter? This is why we are told that hereafter we'll not know Him after the flesh but after the Spirit.
The flesh of Him is "gone" in that it was consumed from the glory which was within, ie. MORTALITY covered up of IMMORTALITY, which is the PATTERN.
He was given pre-eminence as the FIRSTBORN of many brethren. He was not firstborn of the FLESH! He was firstborn of the SPIRIT!
Name denotes nature and there is no other NATURE under heaven like this name/nature, BY WHICH WE ARE SAVED, from this bondage of corruption we have been lowered into.
In My Father's house are many mansions. In the older Strong's 'mansions' there runs into a meaning of "nests". The booths of the feast of Tabernacles are as NESTS. They are 'nests' for the overcoming 'eagles'. He goes to prepare a place for us, that where He is, we might be also.
Where is He and how did He get there? The pattern is above. Blessings....
Cardinal... would you be able to explain what you mean in simpler terms?
I have no clue what you are saying.
Or at least... a general subject of what this is about?
Help a sister out.. :laughing7:
thanks.. :happy3:
sparrow
Quote from: CardinalThis is why He overcame sin IN THE FLESH, beginning with His own. This Seed is He who both DESCENDED (into flesh beginning with the man Jesus) and ASCENDED (back to origination point) back to the glory that He had before.
We too, were as spirits lowered into flesh/bondage of corruption, but He subjected the same in hope, ie. Christ/Spirit Seed in you, hope of glory/ascending back to origination point.
Psalm 68:18
Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
Ephesians 4:8
Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Ephesians 4:8
8 That is why Scripture says,
"When he went up to his place on high,
he led a line of prisoners.
He gave gifts to people." —(Psalm 68:18)
Quote from: Molly on July 20, 2009, 05:24:44 AM
QuoteRom 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
He's talking here about the physical body--which he calls 'the body of sin'--sōma hamartia--
and he is saying it is dead, crucified with Christ--so we don't serve sin any more.
5 By being baptized, we have been joined with him in his death. We will certainly also be joined with him in his resurrection.
8 We died with Christ. So we believe that we will also live with him.
11 In the same way, consider yourselves to be dead as far as sin is concerned. Now that you believe in Christ Jesus, consider yourselves to be alive as far as God is concerned.
--Rom 6
This is saying that our bodies died with Christ, so we are no longer slaves to sin and will be restored/resurrected/reborn with Christ. What died is not me, it's my body [of sin]. Now I'm free from sin and death. It's what Cardinal was saying before, we are being given new bodies. In other words, I no longer serve the flesh, I serve God.
Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Molly, the "old man" is crucified also. This is not a reference to the body but the spirit of the man inside that vessel. Do you see that? It will cease to exist.
Paul
Quote from: PaulMolly, the "old man" is crucified also. This is not a reference to the body but the spirit of the man inside that vessel. Do you see that? It will cease to exist.
Paul
well, I can only speak to my experience of it. But I am trying to understand what Paul is saying, also.
"old" [man]
G3820
παλαιός
palaiospal-ah-yos'
From G3819;
antique, that is, not recent, worn out: - old.
This is an interesting word. We might call someone an antique in jest, referring to his age, but this meaning conveys a literal antiquity--something that has been around for a very long time.
Everything that is primitive about us as a species derives from our bodies. We even have a part of the brain called the old brain because we have it in common with more primitive species. (We also have a part of our brain that is unique to all species of animals in the world).
Nevertheless, if there is a 'spirit of man,' I would argue that it derives from the soma--the flesh--rather than vice versa. It is certainly overridden by the soma. We want to save ourselves because the flesh wants to save itself--the flesh with its intricate systems designed for flight or fight will do whatever is necessary to live. The spirit of man, if there is such a thing, cannot override this physical system easily.
You could argue that this is a good thing. We are given fear for a good reason, for instance. Fear is a signal to us that there is danger. But, Christ tells us not to be afraid. Why? Because we cannot do what we have to do as disciples of Christ if we let the physical fear signals coming from the body control us. There are people who cannot even read something because it causes them fear even though it might be factual and very important, much less cast themselves physically into danger.
If we are a slave to our flesh, we cannot do what we have to do. The people we call heroes are those who have done what they had to do regardless of the imperitives of the-- flesh.
17For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these things are opposed one to the other, that ye should not do those things which ye desire; --Gal 5
That doesn't even mention a spirit of man. That says the war is between flesh and the Spirit of God.
If our spirit, arising from fleshy desires, or held captive to them, is regenerated and renewed by the Holy Ghost, then we have a new/restored/resurrected spirit, one that is not subject to the body, but subject to God. Now we have a spirit that can testify with the Spirit that we are indeed children of God. But this is a matter of walking in the Spirit of Christ rather than the spirit of flesh.
16But I say, Walk in [the] Spirit, and ye shall no way fulfil flesh's lust. --Gal 5
Quote from: willieH on July 14, 2009, 02:30:10 AM
Sorry bro... but ALL MEN, includes the MAN, JESUS... He was BORN of a SINFUL mother...
Rom 3:23 For
all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God;
???
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are,
yet without sin.
Quote from: Zeek on July 20, 2009, 06:21:37 PM
Quote from: willieH on July 14, 2009, 02:30:10 AM
Sorry bro... but ALL MEN, includes the MAN, JESUS... He was BORN of a SINFUL mother...
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
???
Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
He's the glory of God.
QuoteThat Spirit that we have shall be destroyed by taking on His Spirit, our spirit become displaced (THIS IS CONVERSION).
Actually I don't think our disagreement has much to do with the difference in how we see the Spirit. We probably would never agree that the Spirit of God within us is not a conscious being within us. We may disagree on what form the spirit comes to us in, but the disagreement I believe is still in how much Christ was made like God by his Spirit. The difference between Christ and man, even after man receives the Spirit is pretty clear.
Christ's church members are with sin even with the Spirit
Christ was without sin with the same Spirit
What I have been showing in the course of this conversation is how Christ was THE visible image of the invisible God, and how WE are being CONFORMED to that image. Jesus Christ WAS that image, and we are being CONFORMED to "to the image of the Son" even as He had the Spirit and so do we. Christ was complete, and we are being conformed to his image.
Whatever you say the spirit is, clearly the power thereof is able to put to death our body of death, and deliver us from lust. THAT is the conforming to the image of the completed Son that is occurring with us daily. That is why Christ was without (in the absence of) sin, and we are not, even though we all, including Christ, have the Spirit.
Quote from: Seth on July 20, 2009, 07:57:12 PM
QuoteThat Spirit that we have shall be destroyed by taking on His Spirit, our spirit become displaced (THIS IS CONVERSION).
Actually I don't think our disagreement has much to do with the difference in how we see the Spirit. We probably would never agree that the Spirit of God within us is not a conscious being within us. We may disagree on what form the spirit comes to us in, but the disagreement I believe is still in how much Christ was made like God by his Spirit. The difference between Christ and man, even after man receives the Spirit is pretty clear.
Christ's church members are with sin even with the Spirit
Christ was without sin with the same Spirit
What I have been showing in the course of this conversation is how Christ was THE visible image of the invisible God, and how WE are being CONFORMED to that image. Jesus Christ WAS that image, and we are being CONFORMED to "to the image of the Son" even as He had the Spirit and so do we. Christ was complete, and we are being conformed to his image.
Whatever you say the spirit is, clearly the power thereof is able to put to death our body of death, and deliver us from lust. THAT is the conforming to the image of the completed Son that is occurring with us daily. That is why Christ was without (in the absence of) sin, and we are not, even though we all, including Christ, have the Spirit.
Here we clearly have disagreement. Sin is not with the Church Members. In fact, by their fruits we would know them. This is telling us that they will not being practicing sin. If they could still practice sin then by what means would we know them? It doesn't mean they can't sin for in their flesh still resides the urge to sin. Sin is always present with us but by Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit we don't allow sin to manifest. Jesus Christ is the copyright owner (as designated by the Father) for any Spirit that can oppose the flesh.
Paul
QuoteHere we clearly have disagreement. Sin is not with the Church Members. In fact, by their fruits we would know them. This is telling us that they will not being practicing sin.
Practicing sin is not my point. Having sin is my point.
QuoteSin is always present with us but by Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit we don't allow sin to manifest.
Exactly my point. Sin does not manifest itself within them who are completed in the Spirit because being dead to the body, means the sin in the body is ineffective in producing evil desires.
Quote from: Seth on July 20, 2009, 08:37:08 PM
QuoteHere we clearly have disagreement. Sin is not with the Church Members. In fact, by their fruits we would know them. This is telling us that they will not being practicing sin.
Practicing sin is not my point. Having sin is my point.
QuoteSin is always present with us but by Jesus Christ via the Holy Spirit we don't allow sin to manifest.
Exactly my point. Sin does not manifest itself within them who are completed in the Spirit because being dead to the body, means the sin in the body is ineffective in producing evil desires.
Sin is forgiven upon receipt of the Spirit so you don't HAVE sin. You only have the capacity of sin. Sin is not always present with us. How can it be? Is it more powerful then the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit such that the sin cannot be removed? - of course not.
Paul
QuoteSin is forgiven upon receipt of the Spirit so you don't HAVE sin.
Sin being forgiven doesn't mean it isn't there, which is why the mind must be renewed every day. If we say we have no sin, we lie to ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8
What is the converse? Those who say they do have sin are
not self-deceivers and the truth is in them. I say I am forgiven, yet I say that I do have sin.
QuoteIs it more powerful then the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit such that the sin cannot be removed? - of course not.
Sin will not ALWAYS be with us, which is why we are being CONFORMED to the image of the Son. Someday we will be without sin and will not be self-decievers by saying we don't have it. The washing and regeneration of the spirit cleanses our minds, even as flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit).
However, the difference between the Son and his brothers, is in the Son BEING the visible image of the invisible God and us being CONFORMED to the image of the Son.
to sin is to miss the mark...the goal is perfect love....
thus the mark of Cain ,the mark of the beast..a blot against
the purity of love.
Jesus was without blemish..He is the husband to which we
are all betrothed[ to be joined to one flesh with/spirit without
measure[complete]
that 'token' of the Holy spirit is a token of betrothal[an
engagement ring if you wish/tokogae]
we are all to be washed and
cleaned and dressed and provided for by our husband..He will
present us spotless and without blemish.
Husbands and wives and the proper role for them are outlined
by Paul.The beleiving husband may save his wife...the woman
is to be dwelt with, with knowledge that she is a weaker vessel.
that speaks of the weakness of our flesh and the 'measure'
of the Holy spirit that we are given[token]
HOLY SPIRIT is the the spirit of LOVE...we must increase in
love and decrease in lack of trust /love.
He has enough LOVE to see us through and makes up for
any 'lack' we may have as we grow in love
the woman is saved through child-bearing[weakness of the
flesh] saved through the birth of the manchild..or 'fruit' of the
HOLY SPIRIT. That fruit is the fruit of
LOVE..righteousness,peace,mildness self-control,long-suffering..
...this is the tree of LIFE's fruit.The spirit is LIFE
.that never fails to bear each month.
12 fruits for the healing of the nations[love heals]
the LAW is HOLY and is written against the lawless[those that
miss the purity of LOVE] If your love was perfected you would
not transgress ...for He says..so I gave them laws they could
not live by.[law of love] this for the utter sinfulness of sin to be
exposed[lack of love]
there is the wisdom of Solomon..that showed forth the face of
love to discern who was the mother of the child....
Jesus said ...'a greater than Solomon is here' HE WAS
showing forth WHO WAS OUR REAL FATHER ...and said..
from henceforth call no man your Father....
He has told us..you must be perfect....as your heavenly
Father is perfect. He is perfect in LOVE.
40 There are also heavenly bodies as well as earthly bodies. Heavenly bodies have one kind of glory. Earthly bodies have another. 41 The sun has one kind of glory. The moon has another kind. The stars have still another. And one star's glory is different from that of another star.
42 It will be like that with bodies that are raised from the dead. The body that is planted does not last forever. The body that is raised from the dead lasts forever. 43 It is planted without honor. But it is raised in glory. It is planted in weakness. But it is raised in power. 44 It is planted as an earthly body. But it is raised as a spiritual body.
Just as there is an earthly body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 It is written, "The first man Adam became a living person."—(Genesis 2:7) The last Adam became a spirit that gives life. 46 What is spiritual did not come first. What is earthly came first. What is spiritual came after that. 47 The first man came from the dust of the earth. The second man came from heaven.
1 Cor 15
Quote from: Seth on July 20, 2009, 11:17:00 PM
QuoteSin is forgiven upon receipt of the Spirit so you don't HAVE sin.
Sin being forgiven doesn't mean it isn't there, which is why the mind must be renewed every day. If we say we have no sin, we lie to ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8
What is the converse? Those who say they do have sin are not self-deceivers and the truth is in them. I say I am forgiven, yet I say that I do have sin.
QuoteIs it more powerful then the washing and regeneration of the Holy Spirit such that the sin cannot be removed? - of course not.
Sin will not ALWAYS be with us, which is why we are being CONFORMED to the image of the Son. Someday we will be without sin and will not be self-decievers by saying we don't have it. The washing and regeneration of the spirit cleanses our minds, even as flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit).
However, the difference between the Son and his brothers, is in the Son BEING the visible image of the invisible God and us being CONFORMED to the image of the Son.
God says that when we are forgiven of sins we have no more sins. See God REALLY does forgive.
1 John 1:8 is just saying that you deceive yourself if you don't believe you have have capacity to sin and that you don't have sin before the cleansing by His blood.
Look at the previous verse:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from
all sin.
Notice once we walk in the light AS he is in the light we are cleansed from ALL sin. That means you would have NO sin.
Paul
Quote1 John 1:8 is just saying that you deceive yourself if you don't believe you have have capacity to sin.
Look at the previous verse:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Paul, when I look at the two verses, I see a very interesting word "IF."
IF, that is IF, we walk in the light as he is in the light THEN we have fellowship AND his blood cleanses us from all sin. The WALKING in the light is what leads to the cleansing away of sin.
The walk leads to the cleansing. We are still walking Paul. We are still walking and still being cleansed of all sin. That is why John says that "If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." The walk continues and continues until the end, when, since flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, it is discarded forever. As long as we have flesh, and are being conformed to the Son, and looking forward to the redemption of the purchased possession, we have sin that is being cleansed.
If the truth is in us, we say we have sin. If we continue to walk, Christ WILL be faithful to cleanse us from ALL sin. The capacity to sin is created by sin in our members, which we still have, and are being cleansed from daily (the renewing of the mind).
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 01:56:06 AM
Quote1 John 1:8 is just saying that you deceive yourself if you don't believe you have have capacity to sin.
Look at the previous verse:
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Paul, when I look at the two verses, I see a very interesting word "IF."
IF, that is IF, we walk in the light as he is in the light THEN we have fellowship AND his blood cleanses us from all sin. The WALKING in the light is what leads to the cleansing away of sin.
The walk leads to the cleansing. We are still walking Paul. We are still walking and still being cleansed of all sin. That is why John says that "If we say we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us."
If the truth is in us, we say we have sin.
Sure the walk cleanses us from our sins. I thought I was making that same point. But then you go onto say that if we have Truth in us then we are to say we have sin. Is that what you really believe the verse means?
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 21, 2009, 02:06:06 AM
Sure the walk cleanses us from our sins. I thought I was making that same point. But then you go onto say that if we have Truth in us then we are to say we have sin. Is that what you really believe the verse means?
Paul
What I believe the verse means is that we have sin in our members (sinful flesh). We HAVE that sin, but our minds are cleansed and renewed daily. That flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom so it will be discarded completely. That is why it says that IF we walk, Christ will cleanse us from ALL sin.
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 02:08:55 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 21, 2009, 02:06:06 AM
Sure the walk cleanses us from our sins. I thought I was making that same point. But then you go onto say that if we have Truth in us then we are to say we have sin. Is that what you really believe the verse means?
Paul
What I believe the verse means is that we have sin in our members (sinful flesh). We HAVE that sin, but our minds are cleansed and renewed daily. That flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom so it will be discarded completely. That is why it says that IF we walk, Christ will cleanse us from ALL sin.
But you made it sound like you believe that someone walking with Christ is still a sinner. Is that true?
Paul
No, somebody walking with Christ has the capacity to sin, like you said. It just so happens that the capacity to sin is created by sin in the members (sinful flesh). We are still being cleansed in our minds to be apart from sin like he was.
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 02:27:14 AM
No, somebody walking with Christ has the capacity to sin, like you said. It just so happens that the capacity to sin is created by sin in the members (sinful flesh). We are still being cleansed in our minds to be apart from sin like he was.
I don't believe the capacity to sin is created by sin. That would mean the the source of all sin is sin. But the scriptures show the source to be transgression of the law. Since the Laws intent is to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" then reason would show that sin is the law of self or the law of serving self OVER others or choosing to serve self instead of others.
Paul
Quote from: trettep on July 21, 2009, 02:38:50 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 02:27:14 AM
No, somebody walking with Christ has the capacity to sin, like you said. It just so happens that the capacity to sin is created by sin in the members (sinful flesh). We are still being cleansed in our minds to be apart from sin like he was.
I don't believe the capacity to sin is created by sin. That would mean the the source of all sin is sin. But the scriptures show the source to be transgression of the law. Since the Laws intent is to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" then reason would show that sin is the law of self or the law of serving self OVER others or choosing to serve self instead of others.
Paul
Reason doesn't need to show us. Scripture shows that the capacity to transgress the law is created by the "law/order of sin in our members" in that sin takes advantage of the commandment to produce in us all manner of lust. That law/order wars against the law/order of our mind drawing US into captivity so that when we want to do good and cannot, it is not I who do it but the sin in me. Sin exists internally until lust seized upon brings it forth.
The source of sin is the body of death. And Paul says "who will save
ME from the body of
THIS death."
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 02:51:00 AM
Quote from: trettep on July 21, 2009, 02:38:50 AM
Quote from: Seth on July 21, 2009, 02:27:14 AM
No, somebody walking with Christ has the capacity to sin, like you said. It just so happens that the capacity to sin is created by sin in the members (sinful flesh). We are still being cleansed in our minds to be apart from sin like he was.
I don't believe the capacity to sin is created by sin. That would mean the the source of all sin is sin. But the scriptures show the source to be transgression of the law. Since the Laws intent is to "do unto others as you would have done unto you" then reason would show that sin is the law of self or the law of serving self OVER others or choosing to serve self instead of others.
Paul
Reason doesn't need to show us. Scripture shows that the capacity to transgress the law is created by the "law/order of sin in our members" in that sin takes advantage of the commandment to produce in us all manner of lust. That law/order wars against the law/order of our mind drawing US into captivity so that when we want to do good and cannot, it is not I who do it but the sin in me. Sin exists internally until lust seized upon brings it forth.
The source of sin is the body of death. And Paul says "who will save ME from the body of THIS death."
Well Seth. I suppose I don't have any other hook that the Lord has given me to discuss the MANness of Jesus any further. Maybe He shall at another time.
Paul
"Those spiritually dead by the unrestrained exercise of sin; breath nothing but their own destruction."
peacemaker
WillieH, looking back on what I said, I just want to say, I'm sorry. Regardless of our difference of opinion, I shouldn't have responded the way I did. It was not of the Lord and I will remember it. I take back what I said, but not only do I take it back, but I'll drag it around the corner and have it shot.
I should have been more responsible in my words and I got wrapped up in my emotions. How ironic right? I shouldn't have said the things I did in those past replies.
Again, I'm sorry about that.
:Mcry:
Quote from: Seth on July 24, 2009, 01:03:22 AM
WillieH, looking back on what I said, I just want to say, I'm sorry. Regardless of our difference of opinion, I shouldn't have responded the way I did. It was not of the Lord and I will remember it. I take back what I said, but not only do I take it back, but I'll drag it around the corner and have it shot.
I should have been more responsible in my words and I got wrapped up in my emotions. How ironic right? I shouldn't have said the things I did in those past replies.
Again, I'm sorry about that.
:Mcry:
You are MY great bro, Seth... and though we may disagree here and there,
that will not change...
I admire your work, and have enough sense to know that my beliefs can contain fallibility, or need alteration by our Lord...
I am sorry to for any offenses I certainly projected to you in our conversation... I'll meet you around that corner, bringing a bunch of my own! :sigh:
You are still :first: in my book brother! I do learn a lot from you...
You were right as far as me mentioning Craig... I certainly could've made my points without dragging him into it, especially when he wasn't there to "swat me" back! :mblush:
I mean no one any harm... but as you well know... "willieH" is a strong personality... got it from years of hecking while on stage... my hide is a little thicker than most.. and unfortunately I speak out of line on occasion and have to apologize... oh well... just more "sanding on the edges" God is yet doing with me... :blush:
Loveya bro... willieH :HeartThrob:
Thank you for your grace. :HeartThrob: