Is Jesus God?

Absolutely wrong, it has everything to do with bearing Eric. So beofre we get to far off topic, is it your opinion that these are inspired writings, your not rquired to respond, but it would help. That is not what you said but I will go with it anyway. Of course the groups existed and I am aware of all of them. But the point is that they arose after the formulation of the Gospel and Pauls epistles, that is how they knew that they (gnostics and related groups )were heresies. for the first 30 or 40 years of the Church, it was free of this and other errorsThey knew and were aware of what the truth was already and could judge error against it. they arose afterwards, some around the end of Johns life, etcExcept for the judizing teachers the Chruch was relative free of these other herisies until the later part of Johs lifeIll get to the restof your post laterEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

I simply dont understand why it is so hard for people to grasp the concept that if two people agree that the scriptures oare Gods word, that it is not then circular reasoning from that standpoint.If the scriptures are not the Word of God, then none of the claims can be taken seriously from a spiritual standpointif the scriptures are not the word of God, then they cannot be taken serious as a unit of teaching on a given topic. One writers mind may have meant something totally different from another.If they are not the word of God then I dont wish to chase a bunch of endless clues that have no real end or purpose.take for example your and pegs difference on the passage in Ezekiel. Pegs and mine approach of dual menaings in a passage can only be understood from a spiritual standpoint. Y0u appear to have no spiritual approach.this is why your comments about jesus talking to himself and bowel movements are simply silly "The natural man RECIEVES not the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually undecernable". I Cor 1. Your approach is humanistic. Here is a simple example of that point.it appears that you are repulsed by the idea that God would live and function as a man. now watch this. After the creation of all things he said IT IS GOOD. Now why would it be such a repugnat concept that God would live in somthing he created and CALLED GOOD.he often took on the form of a human,as whenhe visited Abraham
he walked in the garden with Adam
The Spirit of God moved across the face of the watersits these simple spiritual truths you cant even get started with. you make light of the human character and his existence in comparison to God. So you make ignorant comments like, "do you think God would crap.How without a total comprehension and totality of scripture could one begin to understand the expression, "I and the father are one'And as K points out, where in scripture besides Christ did anyone use such language.Do you think inspiration and spiritual understanding still dont matter? Think about it logically, if this is not the work of a single mind, then any meaning could and will be extracted due to different authors opinions and mind sets in any given centuryEMA writes: Eric writesNo No, I was refering to your comment that "I did NOt have evidence John was guided by anything" You also refered to John as being illiterate, and at the same time with this kind of statement you imply that they were not guided by the Holy Spirit. what would it matter if he was illiterate, since Christ promised them the Holy Spirit to guide them (John 16:13) and not worry about what they would say in situations, because it would be,"given to them in that hour what to say"I bet none of them were orators eitherHere you seem to not even understand that it is God working and doing in these situations and you seem to think that a view of inspiration is not important when interpreting the Bible Did I really misrepresent or misunderstand you?
Is it your view that any of the writers were guided by the Holy Spirit? I have, what is your point?EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Your verbage and lack of understanding concerning Gods word is revealed in almost every phrase of your statements. Humans dont have the Spirit, the word of God has the Holy Spirit, humans will always disagree, the best we can do is ask God for wisdom (notice I did not say knowledge) to understand his word (James 1), he gives the wisdom to understand spiritual things Heritic, but you need to believe his IS and that he can actually do that to see dual meanings in scripture.The way to start the process is to believe that it is the mind of Christ revealed through his prophets and apostles, (ICor 1). In this way Heritic, you will see it as a unity of knowledge about Christ starting with Gen Chapter 3 through Revelationbesides this using google will not help you find the mind of God. Tell me Heritic, if God called his creation Good, is it possible that he could live as part of that creation. You have not provided any valid reason as to why that is not possible. you have only displayed your dissatisfaction, which is not a valid argument. I await These are perfectly valid if God is one God in Spirit form in three persons or personalities, AS THE SCRIPTURES INDICATE.Secondly. the scriptures clearly indicate that a personality of the only God, emptied himself, did not think a thing of being EQUAL with God, was something to be GRASPED (held on to) and took on the form of a servant. Yes it makes perfect sense.You cannot LET GO of something you do not have heritic. Jesus IS and always has been God if you knew more about the scriptures than I do, then you would understand simple principles, it is obvious you do not. you dont even understand that scriptures have priorities. you know FACTS Heritic, you do not understand the scripturesEven the casual reader heritic, could see that there is more between God and Christ than them simply having the same message.heritic is gods creation good and complete as he says it is in his inspired Word "let God be true and every man a liar" heritic, IF the scriptures are Gods Word, it is truth and the only truth. If it is not, noneof this matters anyway. One of us is wrong on this subject, either way, as to whether Christ is God. Disagreements do not make it untruthful or uninspired, it makes them disagreements.Because it is the truth and one of is wrong, that means the truth exists to determins a conclusionWhen God says through an Apostle that Christ is EQUAL to God, he can make it no clearer than that. When the scriptures say that ONLY GOD IS GOOD, he can make it no clearer than that, correct? When the scriptures says that Christ was perfect and sinless, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that is is saying Christ is God in human form. Then why in Gods name IS IT IMPORTANT TO YOU whether the scriptures says he was God or the Devil. If they were not inspired of and from God, I dont care what they thought Did God write this incident or did a bunch of men giving thier opinion writ this story.What great writers or writers would you suspect witnessed this event. Those alleged writers that would have heard about it second hand, would have not believed it. if they did witness it, I doubt they would have commited it to paper for fear of being deemed insane or unreliable.If a person recorded the resurrection of Lazarus outside of the scriptures would you believe him? Or would you find a way to dismiss itevery reference to Jesus, James the just, John the baptist or anyother biblical character OR INCIDENT outside the NT is DEEMED AND CATEGORIZED A FORGERY, FRAUD or an INTERPOLATIONIf its not there outside the scriptures you complain, if it is there you say its a forgery. Hmmm?You would reject it outright as unreliable or dismiss it as fraugelant and interpolations and additions. There is NO OBJECTIVITY by yourself and others concerning these storiesI remember another writer years ago, here on this website, telling me that IF EVERY STORY IN THE SCRIPTURES could be VERIFIED in historical events, it would not mean the scriptures were the Word of God. Hmmm?Now watch this heritic. You complain that it is not recorded or written down concerning this story. but I point out to you that it is, it is recorded in the NT, why dont you believe it.Which demonstrates my point that you do not want to believe it to start with Its about 2:30 in the morning here Ill hit this one in the morning. Your statement above is exacally what I meant about you not understanding scriptureGood morning. You asked why Jesus says he has a God/ heritic there is only God, in the Nt it is made even clearer that this God exists in what we (humans) call personalities, three to be exact, atleast that is what the NT inidcates.Again, for about the ninth time now, as I have indicated, we cannot understand God nature, whatever that is. the Bible describes that as Spirit, whatever that is. So things have to be put n human terms and understanding.the passgae in revelations is just about like that one in the book of Daniel, where it is stated that the Sonof Man was brought before the ancient of days. it is written by God to and for human purposes. Individuals are desribed, expressions are used like "brought forth". God does not literally come and go anywhere he is everywhere. Do you see the discriptive language.personalities and designation are a way of helping us understand the Spirit nature, especially Gods. God manifests himself in A HEAVEN, throne room, sitting on a throne, and angels worship him. While that is literal enough for the angels it is not Gods truest existence or reality only, a representation of it, to assist his creation of angels to work and worship.the passage in revelations is much the same. Humans still do not understand Gods truest nature. the people of that time only really knew Christ as a human being, then a human being going to heaven, to SIT AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, while this is literal enough for those there, it is still only a representation of Gods authority, nature and make up.God does not literally have a throne, he is just Spirit. God does not literally write on people, its descriptive and figurativechrist never ceased being God as a human. he never ceased being God when left to return to heaven.Now put it altogether heritic. Christ is representing himself in heaven as a human, speaking to humans, because he had lived and presented himself as a human and was actually human. as this representation of God in the flesh he presents himself to the churches for purposes of authority and titleship as that same person, while still fully God. the same way in which god represents himself in totality as having a throne room, etc. its something we can recognize and understand. how can we worship God if we cant understand or see him in some formHere it is again in descriptive language. At the end of this present age Christ will deliver up the church to the father. simply descriptive language to show position and ownership."All authority has been given unto me in heaven and in earth"not that he did not already have it to begin with."By him and through him all things were made that are made, thers is nothing that is made that is not made, that was not made without him"he is the image of the invisible God. God was put in human form to help us understand something we cannot. just as heaven and the throne are images of God, so was Christ a repesentation of the God himself. Paul also tells us that he WAS EQUAL TO GODImage does not mean lesser than the real thing, it is simply a reflection of what it is. God MANIFESTED HIMSELF in the form of a human, to display something we COULD NOT UNDERSTAND OTHERWISE. the image we witnessed in Christ was his mentality, his character and his sinlessness. the human form was a way to help us understand something we cannot, his Spiritual existence. but Pauo tells us he is GodAs a man or angel he could NOT be the exact relection of GodHe was and is God heritic, that which you read is descriptive language to and about Christ, when he emptied himself and took on the form of a servant"My God and your God", shows realationship. In revelations he is still speaking from a human perspective to assist humans in understnading.When you put it all together it makes perfect senseEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ill let you decide like you encouraged Peg, if you heritic want to reply to my last post 170. In the meantime let me ask a couple of questions here to try and clear a few things up from Peg and mines, from this passage.I think one of the VERY OBVIOUS problems here is that you are appraoching this from a Humanistic perspective. I believe you told me that these writings were just what a bunch of men thought from thier perspective and we had no evidence that anything guided them, correct? I can reproduce those statements if you wishThat being the case,it would be very likely that tthe writer was speaking exclusively about the king of tyre. if however, the author is God, is it possible that it is both a reference to that king and Satan himself. the same way Gen 3:15 is a possible reference to Christ. Not that it can be proved absolutely, or that you believe it exclusively, but is it possible if inspiration is involved?I think this is Pegs point that it is a clear reference about Satan, APPLIED to the King of Tyre. Is this not possible?IOW, there is no reason to believe that dual meanings cannot be attributed in passages, where inspiration is involved, correct. it seems that you have chosen a strict humanistic (ironically)approach, of all places to a body of teaching that streches over centuries, with an eternal God with eternal purposesA very good point is that the average casual reader comes upon this passage and immediatley identifies these statements with Satan, and is one wrong in doing so, where God and inspiration are involved? It seems much to obviousEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.

Just a quick note here concerning the issue of original Sin. Calvanism teaches obviously, through the doctrine of Heritary Total Depravity, infants are born with sin. they use various passages to try and demonstrate this point. One of these is Psa 50:51. "I was born in sin I was concieved in iniquity"Besides the doctrine of HTD not being true, the easiest way to demonstrate that david is NOT saying he was born WITH sin is to look at the second half of the passage, "I was concieved in inguity". Since his parents were legal and spiritually married ther cannot be any inquity in thier sexual act, therfore no conception in inquity.Since David had nothing to do with the act in the first place and since the scriptures make it clear that Sin is transgression of the Law, 1 John 3:4, it should be obvious for one to BE responsible to a Law, he first needs to be able to understand the Law. or be able to comprehend its tenetsDavid is simply saying he was born into a sinful and iniquitous world and that the circumstances concering his conception and birth were involved in deception, (by other parties, not himself)of which, NOW WATCH, he had nothing to do with at all I agree. 1 John 3:4 is a commentary on the passage that says, "by one man sin entered into the world" Romans 5. Not that all that are born inherit sin, but all that are born are born into a sinful world. We inherit the consequences of Adams sin which is slow physical death, but we are sinless until we can understand a Law to break itNow watch this, If all men do NOT recieve remssion of sins simply because Christ died for all, that is, there is more for them to do themselves, its not a one sided act. the it wouold follow also thatbecause sin entered the world by one man, does not mean that all inherit that sin, only that they have the potential when they gain knowledge of the Law to break it (1 John 3:4) You cannot transgress something you cannot understand or comprejend. therefore infants are safe, born with no sin, they are not saved, they have no need to be saved from anythingAdams and Christs actions while universal have exclusions in the nature of mans involvement and participation. Christ dies for all, but all will not recieve forgiveness unless they believe in him.By Adam sin entered the physical world but not all are sinfull until they break they law. This is how the scriptures work to interpret different passagesYes Adams sin was universal to the world in that it started a process in the world. Yes Christs death burial and resurrection is universal in the forgiveness of sins, but I dont recieve remission of sins UNTIL I TAKE ACTIONS ON MY PART. In the same way we do not inherit Adams sin simply because it started a universal process. 1 Joh 3:4 makes it an impossibility for a child to be born with sin
EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yes I know and sorry for the passage misquote. At some point it would be nice to discuss why David was a man after gods own heart. Your kidding. No just kidding You are correct, he is really saying he was concived IN sin, NOT WITH SIN. If we didnt have another verse saying what EXACALLY sin is, you may be correct. One verse interprets another, one clarifies definitions for other terms You simply cannot sin if you cannot understand the law to break the law. Paul is about to make that very clear. Follow what he saysAgain if you pay very close attention to Pauls words in Romans 5 he never states that people are born with sin. Lets follow the verses. Lets start here unless you deem otherwise death is passed to all men Peg as a result of sin. Sin is not passed to all men until they sin. Note the following verse 1 John 3:4 here he is saying one does not sin simply by being born or Adams sin does not cause one to be born in sin. thier own sins condemn them Death was the result of Adams sin death reigned Peg not sin Here it is in a nutshell
if we all inherit Adams sin by no action of our own, then it would follow we inherit eternal life by Christ's sacrifice through no action on our part. We know that is not true, so that is not what paul is saying about sin eitherPaul is simply making categorical statements about Adams and Christs actions. Neither is to be taken literally and specifically about no actions on our part. we do not inherit the RESULTS of EITHER of these persons actions simply by being born.If we inherit sin as a result of Adams sin, then it would follow we inherit the benifits of Christs actions simply by his actions with no action on our part. We know that is not true Again, samething. Again samethng In both instances Peg there are circumstances that dictate what sin is and how come into sin (John 3:4) and how we obtain the free gift of eternal life. You know the old expression Freedom is not free you just answered your own question. We inherit the consequences of Adams sin, not the sin. We inherit the consequences of Christs actions but not simply by being born or being human,
both instances require action on our part Your two statements above seem to be contradictoryLikewise I agree, could you please show me how the act of conception is sinful. If david was literally born with sin, then the act of conception was evil as well. Neither, his parents or him were commiting an act of iniquity. Neither is the act of conception itself, the sperm meeting the egg sinful. Sin is ONLY transgression of the Law. Conclusion David is not saying he had sin as an infantIf sin is only linked to to humans in the Bible what was satan?Davids statements are just like those of Pauls, statements of exclamation, not to be understood to mean we are born WITH sinEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

As I stated earlier and the truth of it has not changed, yours is a strict Humanistic approach to the scriptures.I can agree with everything you are saying in context and of course I do, but it is seperate fron the fact that if God is its author it can and does have dual meanings.You have repeaded several times now and very emphatically that it does not have a dual meaning. But I would point up the fact that there is a difference in stating something and demonstrating it. Now watch, if all the facts you are presenting are and were true, it would not mean that from an inspirational and eternal purpose there is NO DUAL meaning. This is stricly your opinion. how would you for example demonstrate beyond any doubt that Gen 3:15 does not have reference to Christ, when the rest of the scriptures NT, makes it clear that it is refering toChristRelying soley on the OT to confirm that it has NO dual meaning is a position and an opinion. Of course if the NT is inspired along with the OT, it becomes all to clear about its meanings and usagesAgain you keeping insisting that it has no dual meaning, but this is an opinion, not supported by the NT, which clearly demonstrates these passages are to be understood from an ETERNAL purpose of God. Galatians, Ephesians, 1 &2 Peter and many other books make in all to clear that this PLAN was in formation EVEN BEFORE THE WORLD WAS FORMED.Now I have a choice, I can believe Eric the Heritic or a fellow who claims inspiration from God, who has changed the course of the world and human affairs, or this fellow on a single website, that nobody knows and that HAS NOT demonstrated that dual usage is not taking place, other than his dissatifaction of it and his distain concerning it. sorry Eric, the NT disagrees with you.Guess which one I picked, Guess which person I picked, you or Paul?Here is a question for you. What language would the author in this OT passage use to demonstrate that it has dual meaning. Would he set everybody up and say, "Ok everybody here comes a comment and statement with a meaning for now and in the future"Or would he at the end of his comments say, "Hey everybody what I just said should be understood to apply to now and in the future.Since we are very unclear about the authors meaning, tell me what language, words or phrases should he use to demonstrate his purposes. You tell me.My guess is to let an inspired Apostle, explain in detail in several letters, in no uncertain terms the OT passages meanings.Guess which one I picked Or we can use the entire Bible, the other inspired writings to help us explain thier meanings, correct. Peter says that, "new born babes in Christ, desire the sincere milk of the word that they may grow thereby"Now, Peg and I did not start out as knowledgeable Bible students, in fact the first time I ever read the passage, it was clear to me who it was talking about. Wonder how that happened? Why is the OT correct and Revelations mistaken. Whoops there goes your humanistic approach again.Tell me plainly eric, are either of these books old or new inspired by God? Now, I dont mean whether one can demonstrate it absolutely, but from YOUR perspective and in your opinion?If they are inspired from God can the Old test passages have a dual menaing, if God had a plan from the beginning?Again, why is revelations MISTAKEN about anything concerning Satan? Why do you assume being cast out means total isolation from Gods authority. Job makes it clear God was having a Staff meeting of the angels and it says Satan was there. My guess is that even if you have been banished from POSITION, if God calls a staff meeting and he expects you to be there, you will show upCreation is Gods creation, he can use it for what ever purpose he chooses, even to demonstrate a point. Christ cursed a fig tree before its time to die, therby altering its normal course of existence. he is God he can do this. The snale would be no different.it has been suggested that a that time the snake ageed to the union with Satan and was cursed for that reason. I prefer the first explanation, its God creation and the points he wishes to make are to bow to his concerns, Heck he created right? Keep reading Eric, you stopped to soon. When read together the unmistakeable unity and purpose of the Old and New testament cannot be missed except by someone wishing to do so Or it could be that the Nt is an inspired explanation that gives the correct details of who and what he was, correct? It could be the cas e that gods plans are from the foundation of the world and some information concerning him and these purposes are explained even better and in more detail by further INSPIRED writers correct?here is an example. It is believed because the Story of Gilgemesh and its association with Babylonian writings is older than the Hebrew writings that its story must be the correct one.However, if the Story in the Bible is true, then it would mean that noah and his decendents passed this story down to the Babylonians, which WITHOUT INSPIRATION corrupted the actual facts, about what happened and who was involved.Moses through inspiration after the time of these people brought the facts into there proper perspective.In the same way, the NT, which appears to be in PERFECT HARMONY with the OT, makes things clearer Even this statement is ignorant and faulty. God did not tell Satan to tempt Job, Satan suggested it. God was perfectly happy with Job the way he was, God allowed this already faulty and sinful angel to put his foot in his mouth once again . You would think that after so many tries he would realize he doesnt have things figured out Look at verse eleven, heritic, it was Satans that suggested it not God. And yes this was a Staff MeetingEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Lets start with the SEEMINGLY more difficult of your arguments and suggestions. Which upon closer review fade because of Obvious reasonsI did try and be objective in your consideration of a sin offering in connection with Childbirth, trying to make it relate to the child itself. But upon examonation of the verses you provided and what the reasons, nature and occasions for the sin offering were, it became clear very quickly that something was missing in the above descriptions. THE CHILD AND THE CHILDS ALLEGED SIN.Nowhere is the purpose of a sin offering stated that it is for the child or his alleged sin at birth. it seems you have made up some philosophical theology and tried to force it in the purposes of the sin offering.The sin offering with regard to childbirth has more to do with blood than it does a child or a childs alleged sin. If the purpose for sin offerings is the child or his sin, WHY IS IT NEVER MENTIONED?The second glaring fact from the passage you provided was that the sin offering specifically states it is FOR HER. It repeats this several times. No mentionof the childLook at the following reasons for sin offerings and thier explanations from WikiQuote:
"Sin-offering
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sin offering (Hebrew: ) is a type of Biblical sacrifice, specifically a sacrifice made for the atonement of an unintentional sin (including unintended ritual uncleanliness).[1]Contents [hide] 1 Types and occasions of offering
2 Sacrificial ritual
3 Origin
4 Notes and citations[edit] Types and occasions of offering
In general, the sacrificial animal for sin offerings depended on the status of the sinner offering the sacrifice; for a high priest or an entire community, the sacrifice was to be of a young bullock; for a king or a prince the offering had to be a young male goat; for other individuals the offering had to be either a young female goat, or a female lamb; for poor individuals unable to afford these, a turtle dove sufficed.[2] Like the other types of sacrifice, the sacrificial animal had to be completely unblemished.Apart from such general offerings for unintended sin, sin offerings were always given:on Yom Kippur - one bull as the high priest's offering, and a young male goat on behalf of the community
on the appointment of a priest - a calf as the priest's offering, and a small young goat on behalf of the community
on the termination of a Nazirite's vow - a year old ewe as the Nazirite's offering
after recovery from Tzaraas (often translated leprosy, following the Septuagint's translation as lepra) - a ewe as the former leper's offering
shortly after childbirth - a dove as the woman's offering
after Niddah (temporary marital separation due to menstruation) or recovery from zivah (abnormal bodily discharges) - the offering in both cases being a dove or young pigeon.
[edit] Sacrificial ritual
The ritual of the sin offering began with the offerer(s) confessing their sins over the head of the victim. In the case of community offerings the elders performed this function, in the case of Yom Kippur, the high priest performs this task. The animal would then be killed by the offerer, or the priest if the offerer preferred, and the blood carefully collected by Levites in an earthen vessel. In the case of sacrifices at the Temple in Jerusalem[1], some of the blood would be sprinkled in front of the veil covering the entrance to the Holy of Holies, except on Yom Kippur, when the blood would be sprinkled in front of the mercy seat; this was done seven times. The remainder of the blood was poured out at the base of the altar, and the earthen vessel that had contained it would be smashed, while the fat, liver, kidneys, and caul, were burnt on the altar.The flesh was later consumed by the priest and his family, except when the priest himself was among the offerers (such as in community offerings, and in the case of Yom Kippur), when it would be burnt outside the sanctuary. According to textual scholars these rules originate from two different layers in the Priestly source, thought by scholars to be one of the source texts of the Torah; the Priestly code within the priestly source is believed to be a series of additions to the text, from Aaronid editors, over a large period of time.[3] The earlier source is thought to be the one referring to the flesh being consumed by the priests,[4] while the later source[5] reflects a development where the flesh from sin offerings was seen as insufficiently holy and thus needing to be disposed elsewhere.[6] In the Book of Hosea, a reference to the earlier form[7] suggests a possible reason for the change - the priests were accused of rejoicing in the people's wickedness as they were living off the sin offerings.[8]When the sacrificial animal was a bird, however, the ritual was quite different. The bird was slaughtered by a thumb being pushed into its neck, and the head being wrung off. A second bird would then be burnt on the altar as a whole sacrifice, completely immolated by fire.[1][edit] Origin
Although known as sin offerings, it is more likely that such offerings began as offerings made for unintentionally breaking a taboo (here meaning something which is seen as sacred but simultaneously prohibited). The offerings for recovery from discharges and childbirth being for the breaking of a taboo about contact with blood - pus potentially containing blood, menstruation obviously containing it, and in the case of childbirth blood comes with the placenta. Textual scholars believe that the biblical regulation specifying the offering for childbirth[9] originally fell among those concerning bodily discharges[10] (due to various textual features), and hence that childbirth was treated as a form of abnormal discharge, for which a period of recovery was required.[11]The Nazarite's offering being due to the breaking of the Nazarite's own taboo nature, due to consecration to the deity, when the Nazarite vow was terminated.[12] Tzaraas was seen as a disease inflicted by God, as punishment for transgression of mitzvot,[13] and hence people becoming inflicted with Tzaraas themselves being seen as taboo (thus being temporarily expelled from society as a result); the sin offering for recovery from Tzaaras, for which the same sacrificial animal as the Nazarite's sin offering is proscribed, being due to the breaking of this taboo state by the act of recovering.[14]The Yom Kippur sin offering is considered to have developed slightly later; the biblical text seems to explain this offering as being for the purpose of protecting the high priest from death (...so that he does not die) when he approached the mercy seat[15], an action which was taboo (as the mercy seat was seen as sacred, but approach to it was prohibited). The passage in which this is explained as being about atonement for real sin,[16] rather than just breach of this taboo, being considered by textual scholars to be a later gloss added to the text.[1] The sin offering required when a priest had sinned, for which there is a similar sacrificial animal as the Yom Kippur offering, is considered by scholars to be a much later development, and only added to the text of Leviticus in the latest stages of its compilation, after sin offerings had begun to be seen as being about atonement for actual sin rather than relatively immediate breaches of taboos.[17]The other sin offerings are considered by scholars to be represent gradual developments; from being offered after contact with unclean animals, which is more of a taboo, to being offered for ritual uncleanliness in general, and finally to being offered for arbitrary sins.[18] The gradations, according to which the type of sacrificial animal depends on the social status of the sinner, are considered by textual scholars to also be a later development, from a similar period of time as these offerings for actual sin." End quote[/qs]I dont see Heriditary Total depravity or the child or the alleged sin mentioned anywhere, do you? [qs]Ask yourself why the mosaic law required women to present a 'sin offering' with the birth of every child.Even Mary had to present a sin offering after the birth of Jesus...which she did. The question has to be asked, why were such normal, proper things as menstruation, sexual intercourse between married persons, and childbirth viewed in the Law as making one unclean?because it had mostly to do with blood which was considered sacred I would say we are subjected to the consequences of Adams sin, which is physical death. If a child is born and dies a week later it has not sin to be imputed nor anything to forgive.Ill finish the rest of your post in the morningEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Ouch, that hurts, thats blistering, meaning it could leave a mental scare, implying that I usually miss your meaning. As I told you I read it carefully, your direct implication seemed to be that because a Sin offering was offered, it must have been offered for the sin the child recieved as a result of being born with Adams sin.Was I incorrect in that assumption? So was I correct, in your view, then, by stating that it is only the person under consideration and the issue of blood and minstration (I can see Archie Bunker right now, going, "Shhhhhh") that the sin offering was offered for.So you agree that the sin offering had nothing to do with the childs status before God, in relation to sin, correct?How in your view does the child recieve forgiveness orf thier alleged sin? Possibly, but these passages do not tell us what sin is and how we aquire it. Sin and its consequences is always asscociated with an adult. The scriptures are silent as the tomb as to its mentioning infants and children as sinners or being responsible for thier actions.Without even trying most people do not even realize they are denouncing the doctrine that infants have sin, by the verbage they use when refering to sin and humans. You said it reminds "MEN AND WOMEN" OF THIS OR THAT. These are responsible people that have the capacity to break a Law, children do not. Whatever else you can apply it to, the text does not apply it infants or thier alleged sin.Secondly one is hard pressed to find a passage anywhere where sin is talked about, without it being a responsible human being the author is addressing Since you put this in the form of a question I will assume you want me to answer it.In all of the list and purposes for sin offerings, why does the author never mention the child, the alleged sin or ORIGINAL SIN. I dont see the justification that because SIN is mentioned in connection with a sin offering that it has to do with Children directly or the idea of Original sin.This why one never sees the practice of infant baptism in the NT. it is not commanded, no Apostle sanctioned it and no NT church practiced it. The only proper candidate for Baptism is the human that BELIEVES. Infants believe and understand nothing of a spiritual nature, nor can they comprehend it, even if it were presented to them The slight distinction you are making here makes all the difference in the world. While adults can be both aware and not aware of mistakes they are commiting, or be made aware at some future point, the infant cannot ever be made aware as an infant, therefore they are not guilty of anything, even Adams sin. I guess you know without even trying what verses I am going to apply here."I tell you that unless you repent and become like one of these, you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven""Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven"Falling short of Gods glory has to involve intent and wilfull purpose, infants have none of that, as i think you would agree Again Peg an infant cannot APPLY or MISS THE MARK IF they do not have the strength to pick up the bow in the first place. Nor do they understand that the bow is for the purpose of hitting the mark. It might as well be an electrical wire to the infant, that is why we tell them not to play with the outlet, they have NO CLUE it is dangerous, they dont understand dead No one has ever been ignorant of Gods laws (Romans 2:14), except those that could not comprehend his laws, infants, mentally retarted individuals, Onifre, etc. Just kidding OniThe intrinsic Law of the heart presides in all human beings that are of age."For when the gentiles which have not THE LAW, do by nature the things contained in the Law, these having not the Law are a law unto themselves, WHICH SHOW THE WORK OF THE LAW WRITTEN IN THIER HEARTS, thier conscience also barering, and thier thought the meanwhile, accusing or excusding oneanother"Obviously Paul was refering to a time before Christs universal rule.EAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Yes you are correct my last post (186) was to Hericitic concernig this topic. As soon as he responds to it we should be back on trackEAM

John 10writes:Peg writeAs I have explained to many times to mention now, the terms father and son do not apply before the incarnation. Of course he was a Son because he humbled himself, EMPTIED HIMSELF, (remember you cant let go of something you dont have a hold of in the first place), OF HIS EQUALITY with God, his position and took on the form of a servant AND BECAME OBEDIENT, EVEN UNTO dying as God.He was not trying to make them believe he was the Father, because in his servant state he was not the father. The terms are anthropomorphic. There is no way we can understand Gods nature totally, he puts it, describes it and demonstrates it in ways we can understand it.There are simply to many passages in the Gospels and Epistles that close the door on any serious doubt as to whether Jesus was God. The terminology is to simple to miss and it could not have been put in anyother words, than he IS equal to God, which makes him God. He cant be a demi-god or an angel if he is EQUAL TO GodHeritics and Pegs attempts to draw similiarites between passages that state we are one with Christ AS Christ is equal to God will not work. While we are in harmony with God and Christ, or in unity, there simply are no passages that make humans EQUAL TO GOD. They cannot avoid this scriptural conclusion.There are no passages that make humans or angels sinless, only Christ was sinless and perfect, which would make him God, since only God is good.They have lost this debate on this point alone, if no others. But to many other illustrations, scriptures have been offered to demonstrate this point that ATLEAST the SCRIPTURES make Jesus God, regardless of what anyone else believes.Lastly, it should be understood that SCRIPTURES HAVE PRIORITIES. I believe Jesus was the Son of a Mother (Son of man), but it also tells me he was the Son of God. it tells me he had authority to heal, to forgive sins, that he was Lord of the sabbath, etc, ect, etc. Which makes his status as Son of God superior to his status as Son of Man.In the same manner it goes even further to characterize him as God himself, putting him on an equality with God, therefore because the scriptures have priorities, one is MORE than warrented in concluing that the Son of God status is to be interpreted, in light of this scriptural REALITY, which would make his sonship, (while LITERAL AND ACTUAL IN THE FLESH) subserveant to his status as a Son in any sense.If the son of man is subserveant to the son of God status, thenm so is the son of God status to his equality to God statusScriptures have priorities over other scriptures to enhance our knowledge. Else Peg how would we NOW know what Gods plan was from the foundation of the world, going only by the Old Testament, it takes the New as well, correctEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

Your expression "But you can" in connection with sinning apart from understanding law, needs to be demonstrated, not simply stated. How does one sin and not have the ability to understand Gods lawsYour expression, "with a sin nature" can only be applied to those that have the ability to comprehend something for it to be wrong in the first place. No where in scripture is it stated that infants or toddlers have sin (lawlessness) when they are born or directly after Nearly every passage brought forward will be demonstrated, to be concerning those that can understand laws and rules, as is the case with Nicodemus. Jesus never instructed infants to be born againJohn 3:18, "He that believeth", etc. Infants believe nothing, nor can they comprehend the Laws of GodIt should be a red flag to any Calvinist that accepts the doctrine of Total Depravity, that there is not a single instruction in the scriptures on how to deal with the alleged sin inborn to childrenthere is not a single example of an Apostle or disciple giving instructions to infants and toddlers on how to be saved.There is no instruction on the specifics of how we deal with thier alleged sin.These facts should make it abundantly clear that the only proper candidate for Salvation FROM SIN, is those that have actually broken Gods laws, which they understood in the first place. The only proper candidate for salvation from sin is those THAT BELIEVENow it is true that a person can breaks Gods law and not be aware of the fact that they have. The difference is that even if a SPECIFIC law is brought to the attention of an infant, he or she does not have the capacity or ability to understand at all.Isnt it interesting that there is not a SINGLE instruction on how, when and where to deal with this alleged sin given to infants at birthIsnt it interesting that there is not a single passage that indicates that the alleged sins of infants are blotted out simply because Christ died and was resurrected. Not even an allusion to such an ideaThere is no mention of such things because there is no need for thier consideration in the first placehence Pauls expression, "By one man sin entered the world", should not be understood to mean, that children are born with Adams sin, but that sin entered this realm, when there was none beforeConversely, Christs actions reverses the process, IF, we believe and accept it. An infant does not become sinful by doing nothing
simply because sin entered the world, the same way christ's gift cannot be recieved simply by it being offered and doing nothing. If one is true then both are true
EAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Im not ignoring this at all I agree with the above statement in its entirity Here however is the part where Calvinism and the doctrine of total deparivitygo astray.If there were no other passages telling us what sin was (1 John 3:4) and how we obtain it, you would be correct. There are however, passages that enlighten us in this area.Here is another. "For him that KNOWETH to do good and doeth it not, it is SIN.An infant 2 or 3 can KNOW nothing of an spiritual or sin nature. Even if one explains to them what sin is, they dont have the capacity to understand that concept, MUCHLESS a newborn (like Oni for example, ha ha)Peg, when a 6 year old waves a gun in front of his younger or older brother or sisters face and accidently shots him, we dont even think about prosecuting them, because we know no action of ill will was intended. even if we explained to them what they had done from a spiritual right and wrong standpoint it doesnt register as IMMORAL to them, correct?The Old and NT do not address such issues because it understands there is no sin to be addressed. there are no guidlines to deal with something that doesnt need addressing. this why you see NO instructions on getting rid of infants sins in the scriptures Not correct. Even the simplest illustration will remove your point as being valid. Anyone can suffer the consequesnces of anothers sin (alcoholism) without being an alcoholicWhat sin did creation commit to be thrown into groaning, or was it a CONSEQUENCE of Adams sin? Perfection is not a trait, perfection means never breaking a law through the decision of freewill. there is no freewill where the is no choice. There is no choice where there is no COMPREHENSION, as in the case of an infant. Therefore an infant cannot break Gods law. There is therefore no instruction on how to cleanse them of something they do not possessGod gives freewill not Adam. adam could not pass on something that was not his to give in the first place Again this verse is to be understood in context and conjunction with the totality of scripture concerning this topicFollowing your line of reasoning and the way in which you isolate this verse, then it would follow that we have to do nothing of a free moral CHOICE, to be saved from our sin of Adam, because Christ died. that is, no person ever needs to believe on Christ, repent or confess or be baptized, because salvation AUTOMATICALLY enters because of Christs actsRomans 5:18If one needs to do nothing to inherit sin, then it would follow that, one needs to DO nothing to inherit eternal life.It should be appearent that the Apostle is setting the stage for the GENERAL conditions in both situations that brought about these results. He is not specifiying how one OBTAINS sin specifically or how one obtains the GIFT of salvation. For if one is true, that we inherit sin by no actions on our part, then it would follow we inherit salvation through no action on our part.If one is true both are true.the rest of the scriptures make it clear how this happens in both instancesEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

No Im saying infants which are not stricly considered people in legal terms are not sinners because they CANNOT COMPREHEND Gods laws to disobey them, therefore are not guilty in Gods eyes How can YOU, YOURSELF, make someone, anyone not aware of what is put in them from the start, the law of the heart, right and wrong, they already know what is right and wrong in the first place"For when the gentiles which have not the law, DO BY NATURE the things contained in the Law (of Moses), these having not the law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the Law (now watch) WRIITEN IN THIER HEARTS, thier conscience also baring witness and thier thoughts the meanwhile accusing or excusing oneanother. " Romans 2:14"Ignorance as you put it is not the inability to comprehend in the first place. Infants do not initially comprehend what is placed in them from the start There are no problems when the totality of scripture is brought to bare on the topic You cant misunderstand the Law of the heart. Once we reach the age of accountability (different for most) we break the law of the heart ,we cannot fail to understandEAM Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Shame on you Peg and I mean this with the greatest respect, you have become nothing short of a liar. You know for a fact that the Apostle Paul was not simply a follower of Christ, He was an inspired Apostle (John 16:13) that made it very clear who and what Jesus was Again Peg you are the only liar here . You know over 90% of christianity does not follow that false teachers lies about what is written in the NT. That is why he was a false teacher PegOnly someone not very skilled in debating, would site opposers of Christianity to demonstrate an alleged fact about Christianity.Should we also accept and adopt his other objections to Christianity?the belief that Jesus is not God, is so small relatively today (as it has always been) that it is nearly insignificant.Read what the Apostle Paul has to say about him Peg not some obscure forgotten opposser of Christianity. I believe Christianity is up and running fine and excuse me, what was that guys name again, I cant remember. Where is his Chruch? Use your head Peg. For this fellow to oppose the IDEA in the first place, means that the belief and teaching was ALREADY FIRMLY in place, It did not pop up over night. It is no surprise that at some point (down the road) some might start teaching that Jesus was not God, but they could only do this if the belief was firmly in placesecondly, if this fellow used the NT to attempt this feat, he was not paying to close attention to the Apostles words and intimations.thirdly Peg and you know this from your own experience here at this website. How many non-christians understand the Word enough, to make sense out of it. You and I watch these fellows here make comments that only a novice would make concerning, Gods Word, the eternal nature of God, inspiration, the totality of scripture, the unity of doctrine in scripture, etc etc.What makes you think this clown in the 3rd century and some knucklehead Emperor had any real interest in what the Word of God actually and truely taught.The only reason this emperor didnt think Jesus was God is because he thought he was GodIll take the Apostle Pauls (Holy Spirits) word for itCome on PegEAMEdited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.Edited by EMA, : No reason given.