Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Jesus God?
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 181 of 492 (550364)
03-15-2010 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Dawn Bertot
03-14-2010 1:39 PM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
Hi EMA,
EMA writes:
David 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
Thats not really the context of Psalm 51. According to the superscription, David composed this psalm after he had committed a serious sin. He expressed sorrow for what he did and begged for God’s forgiveness.
Verses2 and 3 say: Thoroughly wash me from my error, and cleanse me even from my sin. For my transgressions I myself know, and my sin is in front of me constantly.
then in verse5 he perhaps is reminding God that he was born a sinner as he says : Look! With error I was brought forth with birth pains, and in sin my mother conceived me.
Iniquity means sin... your bible says 'I was conceived in iniquity'
He's really saying he was conceived in sin. This is in harmony with Pauls words found at Romans 5:12 "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.
and at Job 14:4 "Who can produce someone clean out of someone unclean?
There is not one."
These verses show that all of Adams children are born with sin...or concieved in iniquity, as your bible puts it.
EMA writes:
"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 it
the consequences for sin is death, quite right. So why do young babies die? Why do innocent children die? We call them innocent because we dont believe they have the ability to be devious, yet they are suffering the same punishment as all sinners...death. Why?
There is nothing sinful about the world/earth we are born into...its not like the air is poisonous... sin is only linked with humans in the bible. Can you show me anywhere that says the earth has some sinful influence that it gives us?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-14-2010 1:39 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-15-2010 10:10 AM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 182 of 492 (550378)
03-15-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Peg
03-15-2010 6:31 AM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
Thats not really the context of Psalm 51. According to the superscription, David composed this psalm after he had committed a serious sin. He expressed sorrow for what he did and begged for God’s forgiveness.
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.
Iniquity means sin... your bible says 'I was conceived in iniquity'
Your kidding. No just kidding
He's really saying he was conceived in sin. This is in harmony with Pauls words found at Romans 5:12 "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned.
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
1 John 3
1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
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 says
Again 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
9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
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
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
1 John 3:4
14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
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
15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
Death was the result of Adams sin
17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
death reigned Peg not sin
18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
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 either
Paul 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
19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Again, samething.
20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Again samethng
21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord
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
the consequences for sin is death, quite right. So why do young babies die? Why do innocent children die? We call them innocent because we dont believe they have the ability to be devious, yet they are suffering the same punishment as all sinners...death. Why?
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
There is nothing sinful about the world/earth we are born into...its not like the air is poisonous... sin is only linked with humans in the bible. Can you show me anywhere that says the earth has some sinful influence that it gives us?
Iniquity means sin... your bible says 'I was conceived in iniquity'
He's really saying he was conceived in sin.
Your two statements above seem to be contradictory
Likewise 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 infant
If 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 sin
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 6:31 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 8:28 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2010 1:37 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 183 of 492 (550388)
03-15-2010 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by hERICtic
02-25-2010 4:43 PM


Jesus is God
Thomas certainly came to the couclusion that Jesus was God as he confessed this to Jesus, "My Lord and my God !" (John 20:26)
Jesus did not rebuke Thomas or correct him, but said this in return, "Because you have seen Me, have you believed ? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed." (John 20:29)
Yes, blessed are those who honor Jesus as LORD!
The Jews of Jesus' day certainly knew what Jesus meant when He declared this in Luke 22,
70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then ?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."
71 Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony ? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."
John 5:18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God."
If Jesus is not God, then we are all dead in our trespasses and sins. Try as you will to make Jesus to be a created being, and it fails when the whole counsel of God's Word is considered.
I'm thankful that my sins are covered by the ONE who
"But from now on THE SON OF MAN WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND of the power OF GOD." (Luke 22:69)
Isa 9:6 For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders ; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
Maybe it takes a journey to Damascus for some to find/honor the LORD Jesus? (Acts 9:5)
Blessings
Edited by John 10:10, : changed subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by hERICtic, posted 02-25-2010 4:43 PM hERICtic has not replied

  
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4516 days)
Posts: 371
Joined: 08-18-2009


Message 184 of 492 (550391)
03-15-2010 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Dawn Bertot
03-14-2010 1:10 PM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
EMA writes:
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 wish
No, I am approaching it based upon evidence. Show me one verse which speaks of dual meanings. You cant. It does not exist. Also, based upon the evidence, it does not apply to Satan. Your confusion, is based upon your lack of knowledge on this subject/chapter. You make assumptions, not based upon evidence.
Peg assumed that there was only one instance of the Garden of Eden, thousands of years ago. Therefore she erroneously based her belief that it could not refer to the king.
I showed her Eden was mentioned elsewhere as a rich trading route.
She refused to accept this.
I showed her the Assyrian king was mentioned as being in the Garden, metaphorically.
She refesed to accept this.
I showed her Eden, means luxury. The king was quite rich, lived a luxurious life. It could mean he was in the garden of luxury.
All plausible, all based upon evidence.
The story starts in chapter 26 and goes to chapter 28. Peg accets up until verse 13, its about the King. Yet suddenly it just changes to Satan?
No mention of Satan. No mention of an angel.
Peg also believed a cherub was an angel. Nowhere in the Bible does it ever state this.
Kings were thought to have "wings". This fits perfectly with the analogy of the King of Tyre having wings.
Its poetry.
I think this is Pegs point that it is a clear reference about Satan, APPLIED to the King of Tyre. Is this not possible?
EMA writes:
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 purposes
Thats the problem. Its not clear. In fact, its only a few words which lead one to come to this conclusion. Without knowing all the facts, I can understand how one could come to this belief. BUT...once the facts are in, the evidence, its evidence it points to the King. In fact, it states its about a man. The ONLY way one can come to the conclusion that its about Satan is by throwing in dual meanings. In that case, anything can mean anything!
EMA writes:
A 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 obvious
You're correct. If a CASUAL reader would come to this conclusion. The problem is that neither of you are causual readers.
If you want to go even further, Satan is NEVER mentioned in the garden. This is a mistaken belief based upon Revelation, which states Satan is the dragon, the serpent. Obviously, Satan is neither.
In fact, the serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly forever. Does this make more sense if it refers to an actual snake or Satan? If its Satan, what was he doing walking the earth in Job? What was he doing hanging out in heaven in Psalms and Zechariah?
Nowhere in the entire OT is Satan mentioned as the entity against god.
These are facts. The Satan in the NT is a combination of the entity in the OT and Persian beliefs (which had an anti-god).
Ask a Jew who Satan is in the OT, they'll tell you its gods helper, who tempts mankind, as per the isntructions of god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-14-2010 1:10 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-16-2010 10:09 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 185 of 492 (550494)
03-15-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Dawn Bertot
03-15-2010 10:10 AM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
EMA writes:
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
well Paul does say that 'death spread to all men because they had all SINNED'
So that should be pretty clear that we commit sin... we dont just live in a world with sin.
In Romans 3:9 Paul says "What then? Are we in a better position? Not at all! For above we have made the charge that Jews as well as Greeks are all under sin"
Now this word 'sin' is from the greek ha.mar.ti'an and in hebrew its ha.chet'
It means to miss the mark [as in spear throwing]. Humans are missing the mark of Gods perfect standards in morals and conduct and qualities. This is what sin is. Its missing the mark of perfection. So its not only what we do, but what we fail to do that makes us sinners.
EMA writes:
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 says
but sin isnt only about obeying laws that we know and understand ... there are also Gods qualities of love and goodness and kindness and peace. Besides that there are moral laws and justice to consider. If we do not have and apply Gods view of such things, then we are 'missing the mark' thus we are sinning. Even if we dont know what Gods standards in these areas are, we are still missing the mark.
think about this... .Why did God punish and destroy nations that did not know him? The cannanites, the babylonians, the egyptions.... If sin was only a matter of knowing and understanding Gods laws, then why would he punish nations who were ignorant of his laws?
Paul actually showed that even as a man chosen by God and given Gods spirit and understanding of Gods laws, he had sin dwelling in him
Romans 7J:18-20 "For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for ability to wish is present with me, but ability to work out what is fine is not [present]. 19For the good that I wish I do not do, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. 20If, now, what I do not wish is what I do, the one working it out is no longer I, but the sin dwelling in me.
EMA writes:
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 either
Pauls words show that the beleived we were 'subjected' to sin thru one person. He already spoke about Adams sin being passed onto all of us and for this reason, Christ came into the world to act on our behalf because we were 'subjected' to this condition.
[b]Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now[/qs]
EMA writes:
Likewise 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 infant
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?
Leviticus 12:5-8 writes:
Then at the fulfilling of the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter she will bring a young ram in its first year for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering to the entrance of the tent of meeting to the priest. 7 And he must present it before Jehovah and make atonement for her, and she must be clean from the source of her blood. This is the law about her who bears either a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford enough for a sheep, she must then take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and one for a sin offering, and the priest must make atonement for her, and she must be clean.’
You have to think back to Gods original purpose for Adam and Eve. In their sinless state they would have reflected Gods standards and given birth to perfect children who also reflected Gods standards. But because they sinned, they could not reproduce any childre in perfection. Rather, they would forevermore pass on the hereditary blemish of sin and the penalty of death would be transmitted from the parents to children.
so the Law’s requirements pertaining to the functions of the reproductive organs reminded men and women of their sinful state. Jesus’ mother Mary thus confessed to her hereditary sinfulness, acknowledging that she was not sinless and immaculate, by offering a sin-atoning sacrifice after giving birth to Jesus. She was not a willfull sinner either because the Angel addressed her as a 'highly favored one of God'.... yet even this highly favored woman was a sinner.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-15-2010 10:10 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-17-2010 1:33 AM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 186 of 492 (550558)
03-16-2010 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by hERICtic
03-15-2010 11:12 AM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
No, I am approaching it based upon evidence. Show me one verse which speaks of dual meanings. You cant. It does not exist. Also, based upon the evidence, it does not apply to Satan. Your confusion, is based upon your lack of knowledge on this subject/chapter. You make assumptions, not based upon evidence.
Peg assumed that there was only one instance of the Garden of Eden, thousands of years ago. Therefore she erroneously based her belief that it could not refer to the king.
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 toChrist
Relying 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 usages
Again 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
Thats the problem. Its not clear. In fact, its only a few words which lead one to come to this conclusion. Without knowing all the facts, I can understand how one could come to this belief. BUT...once the facts are in, the evidence, its evidence it points to the King. In fact, it states its about a man. The ONLY way one can come to the conclusion that its about Satan is by throwing in dual meanings. In that case, anything can mean anything!
Or we can use the entire Bible, the other inspired writings to help us explain thier meanings, correct.
You're correct. If a CASUAL reader would come to this conclusion. The problem is that neither of you are causual readers.
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?
If you want to go even further, Satan is NEVER mentioned in the garden. This is a mistaken belief based upon Revelation, which states Satan is the dragon, the serpent. Obviously, Satan is neither.
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?
In fact, the serpent was cursed to crawl on its belly forever. Does this make more sense if it refers to an actual snake or Satan? If its Satan, what was he doing walking the earth in Job? What was he doing hanging out in heaven in Psalms and Zechariah?
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 up
Creation 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?
Nowhere in the entire OT is Satan mentioned as the entity against god.
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
These are facts. The Satan in the NT is a combination of the entity in the OT and Persian beliefs (which had an anti-god).
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
Ask a Jew who Satan is in the OT, they'll tell you its gods helper, who tempts mankind, as per the isntructions of god.
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
Job 1:6Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.
Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.
Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath [is] in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Look at verse eleven, heritic, it was Satans that suggested it not God. And yes this was a Staff Meeting
EAM
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by hERICtic, posted 03-15-2010 11:12 AM hERICtic has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 187 of 492 (550654)
03-17-2010 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Peg
03-15-2010 8:28 PM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
You have to think back to Gods original purpose for Adam and Eve. In their sinless state they would have reflected Gods standards and given birth to perfect children who also reflected Gods standards. But because they sinned, they could not reproduce any childre in perfection. Rather, they would forevermore pass on the hereditary blemish of sin and the penalty of death would be transmitted from the parents to children.
so the Law’s requirements pertaining to the functions of the reproductive organs reminded men and women of their sinful state. Jesus’ mother Mary thus confessed to her hereditary sinfulness, acknowledging that she was not sinless and immaculate, by offering a sin-atoning sacrifice after giving birth to Jesus. She was not a willfull sinner either because the Angel addressed her as a 'highly favored one of God'.... yet even this highly favored woman was a sinner.
Lets start with the SEEMINGLY more difficult of your arguments and suggestions. Which upon closer review fade because of Obvious reasons
I 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 child
Look at the following reasons for sin offerings and thier explanations from Wiki
Quote:
"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
Pauls words show that the beleived we were 'subjected' to sin thru one person. He already spoke about Adams sin being passed onto all of us and for this reason, Christ came into the world to act on our behalf because we were 'subjected' to this condition.
Romans 8:20-22 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will but through him that subjected it, on the basis of hope that the creation itself also will be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now
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 morning
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Peg, posted 03-15-2010 8:28 PM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 03-17-2010 5:39 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 188 of 492 (550664)
03-17-2010 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Dawn Bertot
03-17-2010 1:33 AM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
EMA writes:
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.
you've misread me again.
I didnt say the sin offering was for the childs sin.
I wrote "so the Law’s requirements pertaining to the functions of the reproductive organs reminded men and women of their sinful state."
nothing about children is there?
EMA writes:
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.
Well im more inclinded to heed Pauls words about sin and accept the fact that, thru Adam, we all have sin...we are all born into sin and we practice it even when we are not aware of practicing it.
Its the falling short of Gods standards and I dont know of any child who perfectly reflects Gods standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-17-2010 1:33 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-17-2010 10:01 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 189 of 492 (550681)
03-17-2010 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Peg
03-17-2010 5:39 AM


Re: God and Christ only perfect
you've misread me again.
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?
I didnt say the sin offering was for the childs sin.
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?
I wrote "so the Law’s requirements pertaining to the functions of the reproductive organs reminded men and women of their sinful state."
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
nothing about children is there?
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
Well im more inclinded to heed Pauls words about sin and accept the fact that, thru Adam, we all have sin...we are all born into sin and we practice it even when we are not aware of practicing it.
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.
Its the falling short of Gods standards and I dont know of any child who perfectly reflects Gods standards.
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
but sin isnt only about obeying laws that we know and understand ... there are also Gods qualities of love and goodness and kindness and peace. Besides that there are moral laws and justice to consider. If we do not have and apply Gods view of such things, then we are 'missing the mark' thus we are sinning. Even if we dont know what Gods standards in these areas are, we are still missing the mark.
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
think about this... .Why did God punish and destroy nations that did not know him? The cannanites, the babylonians, the egyptions.... If sin was only a matter of knowing and understanding Gods laws, then why would he punish nations who were ignorant of his laws?
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 Oni
The 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.
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Peg, posted 03-17-2010 5:39 AM Peg has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 190 of 492 (550721)
03-17-2010 3:44 PM


Topic Please
The thread is about whether Jesus is God.
I'm not seeing that the last few pages of the thread are dealing with the topic.
If I am incorrect, please make a point to tie the current line of discussion to the topic.
Thanks
AdminPD

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Peg, posted 03-17-2010 5:28 PM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 192 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-18-2010 10:10 AM AdminPD has not replied
 Message 193 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2010 1:22 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 191 of 492 (550736)
03-17-2010 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AdminPD
03-17-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Topic Please
You are correct.
It is completely off topic now.
I wont reply to EMA until the topic resumes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AdminPD, posted 03-17-2010 3:44 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 192 of 492 (550789)
03-18-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by AdminPD
03-17-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Topic Please
The thread is about whether Jesus is God.
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 track
EAM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AdminPD, posted 03-17-2010 3:44 PM AdminPD has not replied

  
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2995 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 193 of 492 (550917)
03-19-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by AdminPD
03-17-2010 3:44 PM


Re: Topic Please
You are correct.
No one wants to stay on topic or respond to my 183 post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AdminPD, posted 03-17-2010 3:44 PM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Peg, posted 03-20-2010 4:43 AM John 10:10 has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 194 of 492 (550988)
03-20-2010 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by John 10:10
03-19-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Topic Please
thats because the comment by Thomas has already been discussed earlier.
But i'll comment on this scripture that you posted in msg 183
John10:10 writes:
The Jews of Jesus' day certainly knew what Jesus meant when He declared this in Luke 22,
70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then ?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."
71 Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony ? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."
Jesus admited to being a 'SON' of God... not God himself.
Just as this scripture shows. He was a 'son' in comparison to a 'father'
If he was the 'father' then there is no way that he would call himself a 'son' as that would be a lie and Jesus would not lie about something so important.
And if he was trying to make them understand that he was the 'father', why use a term which shows inferiority? A son is a prodigy... he is an offspring... a created one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by John 10:10, posted 03-19-2010 1:22 PM John 10:10 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Dawn Bertot, posted 03-20-2010 10:46 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 197 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2010 1:48 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 204 by John 10:10, posted 03-22-2010 12:03 PM Peg has replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 195 of 492 (551019)
03-20-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Peg
03-20-2010 4:43 AM


Re: Topic Please
John 10writes:
John10:10 writes:
The Jews of Jesus' day certainly knew what Jesus meant when He declared this in Luke 22,
70 And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then ?" And He said to them, "Yes, I am."
71 Then they said, "What further need do we have of testimony ? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."
Peg write
Jesus admited to being a 'SON' of God... not God himself.
Just as this scripture shows. He was a 'son' in comparison to a 'father'
If he was the 'father' then there is no way that he would call himself a 'son' as that would be a lie and Jesus would not lie about something so important.
And if he was trying to make them understand that he was the 'father', why use a term which shows inferiority? A son is a prodigy... he is an offspring... a created one.
As 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 God
Heritics 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 status
Scriptures 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, correct
EAM
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.
Edited by EMA, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Peg, posted 03-20-2010 4:43 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024