Clearing my name!!

You still don't get it do you.
First, there is more than one reason why Jesus was born of a virgin.
This is just one of them.
The two genealogies had to reflect Jesus as being heir to the Throne of David.
Although Joseph's genealogy appears to look like it, on closer inspection it doesn't meet the requirements. His line has been cursed disqualifying him from inheriting the Throne.
Thus Jesus' genealogy must come from Mary and _________?
The answer is the Holy Spirit. It could not come from Joseph. It had to come from the Holy Spirit. Jesus had to be born of a virgin for Joseph was disqualified through Coniah. This is one of the evidences of the necessity of a virgin birth. Otherwise Jesus would be from a cursed line.

Do you understand yet?

 

Paul taught that the sin of Adam brought death to all mankind. Even to those to whom sin was not imputed for there was no law showing them their sin. They still died. Nature and or natural does not mean sin. It means one subject to corruption and so was Jesus but God the Father raised him up from the dead, [now] no more to return to corruption. That is to the nature/natural state that he was born of Mary in.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh. Not flesh therefore sinful. AND
That which is born of the spirit is spirit.

Jesus: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead;
Howbeit that not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. the last Adam a quickening spirit.

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

That in all he might have the preeminence.

 

The Jews had to see it on paper.
Why is the genealogy given in Matthew? What is its purpose? Why was Joseph's genealogy even recorded if it is not important? Think about it.

No one denied it was a sign. It was much more than a sign. Do you use one finger to type at your keyboard or all of them? Is that the only purpose your fingers have? Are they one-purpose fingers? Why then do you assign only one purpose to the virgin birth. As I told you Machen wrote 400 pages on the Virgin birth not just one sentence.

Perhaps it was Augustine that gave it that name. But the sin nature of man has always been recognized by believers. Those that have rejected it have stood outside the realm of orthodox Christianity. We have a depraved nature inherited from the fall of Adam. It is called the curse. I did a full exposition on Romans 8 explaining in detail how it could not be otherwise. Did you not pay any attention to that. It proves beyond any doubt that we have a sin nature, and not only we but all of creation is under a curse waiting for the coming of Christ when the curse will be lifted.

And many of them have a flawed view of the gospel.
What they preach and teach is not my concern.
What does the Bible teach. It teaches that man has a sin nature, and you reject that, even though we have set forth scripture after scripture.

It was also the Catholics that said because salvation was preached in the household of the Philippian jailor that infants were baptized and therefore the doctrine of baptismal regeneration was true. This is your logic. Do you always follow the abysmal logic of the RCC?

The inherited sin nature of man is not a RCC doctrine, any more than the trinity is (though they like to claim that one too). Do you reject the doctrine of the trinity also. Again if you follow their logic or your own, you must reject the trinity, for they claim it to be their "discovery." Your denial of the sin nature of man is as much as a denial of the trinity. Both are connected with the RCC in the same way.

I will take you through Romans 7 if you wish. You are taking the verse out of context.

 

Correct me if I am wrong. Jesus could not be the Messiah if Joseph were his Father, yet the ruling Jews supposed Joseph to have been his father conceived prior to marriage. That is because Joseph being of the line from Coniah. Mary also was of the line of David making Jesus the fruit of the loins of David. Jesus had to be a son of David to be the Messiah and in Luke God said he would give him the throne of his father David. However I believe the throne was established in Solomon unto all generations.

Acts 15:14-18 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written. After this, I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

Is God presently still taking out of the Gentiles a people for his name?
Is there a point in time when this ceases to be?
I wonder what after this refers to? The balance of the verse is kind of a quote from Amos 9:11 which begins in that day.
I will return. Who will return? Return from where to where?
Just what is the tabernacle of David?
Just what are the ruins thereof or as Amos has it close the breaches? What breaches?
Just what is being set up?
Just why is this relative to the residue of mankind?
Do you think God is following an age old plan?
Just what was and is that plan and did it have to do with two houses, The House of Judah and The House of Israel?

 

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel; (Matthew 1:12)

Jesus came from David through Mary, not through Joseph.
We know that because:
1. He was born of a virgin--a necessity for this reason.
2. Joseph's line was cursed.
The line was established by Solomon. That doesn't mean that Coniah didn't descend from them both.

Yes, this refers to this time when the gospel is going out to the Gentiles.

God is continuing to do so, and will cease at the time of the rapture, the time when this age of grace will be over. The Tribulation will begin and seven years later Christ will come for the Jewish nation.

He will return for his people--the Jews.

The temple will be rebuilt again and will be the center of worship in the Millennial Kingdom.

God is following his own plan. It is outlined for us in the Bible. In the MK, the house of Israel will be one. We, as believers will rule and reign with Christ according to our faithfulness to Him.

 

DHK, the context of Romans 7 shows a man is first alive.

Rom 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Rom 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

In verse 5 Paul says sin brought forth fruit UNTO death.

In verse 10 again he says UNTO death.

In verse 11 Paul says sin SLEW him.

Exactly how do you slay or kill something that is not alive?

Nevermind that Paul directly says he was ALIVE once in vs. 9.

I've noticed anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of pulling scripture out of context. Baloney. Perhaps you should accept scripture for what it directly says.

 

First, most of the time it is out of context, just as we will prove it is here. You are simply trying to make the verse say something it doesn't say--fitting your pre-determined ideas into a verse that teaches the opposite of what you believe.

Context:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. (Romans 7:7-8)
Verse 7 begins a new paragraph in the chapter. So this is where we find the context. Paul makes some unusual statements that are seemingly hard to understand unless we remember what he had said in other parts of the Bible.
Remember that he said:
He had persecuted the church of God, but ignorantly. In other words he thought that it was the will of God. He was honestly seeking to do God's will when persecuting Christians.

Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. (1 Timothy 1:13)
--It was for this reason he obtained mercy.

I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them. (Acts 26:9-10)

Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)
--He was zealous, righteous, and though he persecuted the church, in the law he was blameless. This is what Paul is referring to.

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:9)
--Being alive is a reference to the days of his ignorance, that time in his life where he considered himself "in the law blameless." He had not known the commandment until Christ revealed it to him. He deemed himself a righteous man and therefore entitled to life eternal life.

And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. (Romans 7:10)
--The very law that he thought was giving him eternal life was actually condemning him. And so Paul continues to explain.

 

Unbelieveable, you accuse me of taking Rom 7:9 out of context, and then you explain it by going to other books Paul had written. You are doing the very thing you accuse me of!

Paul said he had not KNOWN sin except for the law. He is speaking of learning in time. When he was a small child he could not know and truly understand the law. When he learned the law he was convicted by it and so died.

It is you going out of context to explain away this passage of scripture because it disagrees with your presuppositions.

 

It's basically being asserted in this thread, that Christ could not have been tempted unless He had a desire to sin, and the "power" to sin. (Sinning is actually the lack of power.)

Jesus is the uncorruptible God. Adam was corruptible. Not Jesus. Adam and Eve were confronted by a liar, and they fell. They could no more prevent their own fall than iron can prevent its own rust. If there were a leper instead of a liar, and they touched him, or a dead body, and they touched it, they would have become unclean.

Jesus is confronted by liars, and we know Him as the Truth. He touched lepers and they were made clean. He touched the dead and they were made alive. He is the uncorruptible God.

The assurance of our salvation is based on the immutable fact that it is impossible for God to lie. God cannot sin. Jesus could not and cannot sin.

If Christ could sin, how do you know He didn't? If He could sin, and did, who would be better at hiding it from man than He? You have no basis for believing anything He said.

 

Think some here hold mistaken view IF Jesus could not really sin, than no real tempting...

I think that jesus was indeed temted in the sense that he would experience ALL that we do as humans, and that would allow Him to be our perfect high priest, as unlike the other 2 of the Godhead, Jesus has 'real" dealings with this world...

God the father and HS know this in a ""theoritical" sense, Jesus knows it in a real sense!

 

You ignored the immediate context preferring instead to jump to the beginning of the chapter and skip to the end of the chapter. That is not context.
You also ignore other Scripture. To get the meaning of Scripture it has to be in harmony with other Scripture. For example the Bible does say, "There is no God." But the Bible doesn't teach that concept. It is taken out of its context. To find out what Paul meant you must seek other Scriptures about his life. He is giving personal testimony. Personal testimony about what? He tells us in other parts of Scripture what his testimony is.

But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. (Romans 7:8-9)

Compare:
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. (Philippians 3:6)

Does Paul contradict himself? Does the Bible contradict itself?
He was alive without the law once.
He was righteous in the law, blameless. The two phrases mean the same thing. You are trying to make it mean something that it doesn't mean. You are reading you pre-determined ideas into it, which are not Biblical.

What happened?
When Paul got saved, he realized fully that what he was doing, and had done was absolutely wrong, and immediately he began to preach the gospel (after he met Annanias and was baptized). The law which previously justified his actions, now condemned them. The law always condemns.

No, Scripture must harmonize with other scripture.
You have scripture contradicting scripture. It doesn't work that way. The Bible does not contradict itself. Paul does not contradict himself in his own testimony.

 

Solid post DHK.....it would be nice if this was welcomed as it is the truth of God.:thumbs:...To oppose this is to oppose oneself as it will keep someone from coming to truth.