Is Jesus God?

Hi EMA, But you can and are born with a sin nature,That was the reason Jesus told Nicodemus "ye must be born again".That is why John said in John 3:18 "He that believeth on Him is not condemned but he that believeth not is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."God Bless, Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi Peg,How do you get this: Out of this: Emphasis mine.There is a big difference.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Please change the Topic Please subtitle.It doesn't tell people what the post is about.Thanks
AdminPD

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

Excuse me for jumping in here, but are you saying that people cannot be considered to sin if they don't know what they are doing is wrong?This is an interesting standpoint, because it should lead to some rather non-intuitive behaviors. If sin is the violation of God's laws, then the best way to make sure someone does not sin would be to ensure that they are ignorant of God and his laws. If they are made aware of the laws then they can either accept God or reject him, leading to a less than 100% rate of saving. If they are ignorant of the laws then, as you said, they cannot be blamed for not following them.This also means that a 100% saved rate could be achieved by killing infants before they are capable of understanding God's laws. The only reason a believer wouldn't do this is because murder is a sin, but a believer has already admitted to being a sinner without hope of redeeming him/herself. Committing a murder for selfless reasons and then truly repenting would surely be more moral than refraining and possibly allowing someone to be damned for eternity, right?It seems that these issues are what fuel the doctrine of 'Sinful Nature', basically cutting those workarounds off at the pass. Each side of the fence has problems though; if you think people cannot be blamed for sin they don't understand then you have the aforementioned problems, and if you think everyone is sinful by nature and must understand and accept salvation then you have infants and those ignorant of the message going to Hell for no fault of their own. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

you are ignoring the fact that the consequences for Adams sin was death. As a perfect sinless man he had no reason to die, he would have lived forever if he remained sinless.The fact is that even young children die...they too experience the consequence of Adams sin therefore they must also have sin. If they were sinless, they would not experience death...none of us would. It comes down to the law of heredity. Adam lost perfection so he could not pass it on to his children. What he passed on was an inheritance, not of life, but of death.this is what Pauls words mean 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.So do children have sin? Yes they do. They die therefore they have sin. 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

Peg writes,"Jesus admitted to being a 'SON' of God... not God himself."So you know more what Jesus meant than did the Jews of Jesus' day when they declared this in 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."No one who does not honor Jesus as Lord God, as do Jehovah Witnesses, can correctly can understand Scriptural salvation that God gives thru the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor can they lead others into God's salvation.Edited by John 10:10, : deleted duplicate word

Hi EMA, I am sorry for you misunderstanding my statement.You can be born with a sin nature.
AND
You are born with a sin nature. refered to nothing other than man being born with a sin nature.. Why?What does knowledge of sin and posessing a sin nature have to do with each other?Is there a problem with posessing a sin nature without knowing what sin is?As far as humans were concerned the only sin commited prior to the law being given was that of the first man who was commanded not to eat fruit of a certain tree. It is not necessary until they reach the point the man in the garden did when he ate the forbiden fruit. Having the knowledge of good and evil. We don't deal with anybody's sins. That is God's job. God created this universe and everything in it. That makes Him the Owner, Ruler, and Posessor of everything in the universe.
He makes the rules.God formed a man from the dust of the ground and placed him in a place of pleasure called the garden of Eden. The meaning of Eden is pleasure.The man was given one law. He was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.When man disobeyed God kicked him out of His garden of pleasure.Therefore that man or any other mankind has no right to, nor claim to be able to live in God's garden of pleasure.You nor anyone is entitled to live in God's garden of pleasure.God did make a way mankind could be given the opportunity to live in that garden of pleasure by offering Himself on the cross of Calvary to reunite mankind to full fellowship with God.God offers all mankind a free full pardon and restoration and His only requirement is found in John 3:16=18.Making the statement in verse 18 that mankind is lost, "because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. "Are you are declaring man must keep the law to receive eternal life?If that is the case I would like for you to present Bible evidence to support that claim.I will here present evidence that refutes that claim. Christs actions did not reverse the fact that by the sin of one man sin entered into the world and separated all mankind from perfect relationship with God.His actions did reverse the result of that sin. For by that sin mankind was separated from God.By the actions of Christ mankind can be restored to the position mankind was before that man ate the forbidden fruit.God Bless, Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi EMA, To whom was these words addressed?Hint

quote:

---

James 4:12 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

​

James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

---

You are very correct that God gives freewill but the only person that God ever gave freewill to was the first man.We simply make choices because that man used his freewill to disobey God.Mankind does not make a choice as to his original relationship with God. That decision was made when the first man used his freewill and made his choice to disobey God.All mankind is separated from God by the first man's sin. Mankind is condemned in time past because he has not believed.It does not say because he has not kept the law, joined a church, been baptized, done a lot of good works or anything of the nature.All mankind is lost simply because they have not trusted God to give them eternal life through the sacrifice made at Calvary.As I have asked you many times where is the Scripture that refutes these statements made in John 3:18?God Bless, Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Deleted off topicGod Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The topic question is whether Jesus is God or not.If you need to discuss sin, please start a new thread. Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the Report discussion problems here: No.2 thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour suspension.Thank you
AdminPD

Their reasoning was completey wrong just as your reasoning is completely wrong.Jesus only claim was that he was the Son of God. Not God himself.Even 3rd century opposers of christianity could see this thru the writings of the NT. You have been led along in this lie that 3rd century christians developed when they abandoned the writings of the apostles in favor of their own teachings.Even non believers can see it clearly, but sadly, those on the inside cannot. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

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.