Clearing my name!!

Amen Bro Winman. and Amen to your post ahead of this one. After that he went into the garden and prayed because his very soon to see death for every man and it was causing sorrow in his soul. He had the indwelling of the HS and was still sorrowful. He prayed and the Father sent an angel who gave him strength and the anguish was still so great that I believe Heb 12:4 applied to Jesus at this time He resisted unto blood, striving against sin. Luke And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

He overcame and was obedient unto death even the death on the cross. That is obedience of faith.


Most want to deny that God came in the flesh. The Christ had promises made to him that 100% God would not need to be made.

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: He did this as a living soul in the flesh. In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; This promise is made for the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If God begets himself in the flesh and that flesh dies, the one that beget will have to give life to the one who died.

 

He said it is impossible for God to LIE not die. Therefore the rest of your post is erroneous and on the wrong track.

No one denied Jesus came in the flesh. That is your second error and false representation of Aaron. I'm amazed another who "amened" you also didn't catch this.

Well, not really.

 

That is why the Virgin Birth is a foundemental doctrine, as Jesus would have inherited from his earthly parents IF He came through "normal" means than would have been born a sinner , and NOT qualified to be saviour/Messiah!

 

If folks could realize that sin is not something you are, but something you do, all these questions would be cleared up.

Jesus could be tempted just like us, but that does not make him sinful. It does not make us sinful. Actually committing sin is what makes you sinful.

Having potential does not make you sinful. You have the potential to rob a bank, but that does not make you a bank robber. You have to commit the act of robbing a bank to be a bank robber.

It is the same with sin. Having the ability to be tempted does not make you a sinner, actually committing sin makes you a sinner.

Did Adam and Eve have the ability and potential to eat the forbidden fruit? YES. Did that make them sinners? NO. What made them sinners? When they committed the ACT of sin.

 

Amen!

There is a lot of garbage being spouted out. It is time we stand on what says the word of God.

Jesus being named and interperted as God with us

Jesus being declared God manifest in the flesh!

Jesus being declared the Word

And the word made flesh

God sending his Son in the likness of sinful flesh

Jesus being compared to a sacrifical Lamb without spot or blemish

An if that doen't satisfy you that Christ did not have a sin nature read what Isaiah had to say about it.

Christ was God in the flesh and could not sin!

 

Yup.

You are correct.

 

Adam and Eve were created by God without sin natures, when they chose to sin, became spiritually dead to God, and we ALL are now born into same state, as they are the physical head over humans, while Jesus spiritual head over those redeemed humans!

 

But you overlook what it actually says. He was pure and unblemished because he DID no evil.

Having the nature of men, which the scriptures clearly declare, does not blemish Jesus, because Jesus never DID wrong. This is why he was pure. He was in all points tempted as we are, BUT HE NEVER SINNED.

Sin is not something you are. A murderer is no different from you. His body, soul, and spirit are just like yours. What makes him a murderer is actually committing the act of murder.

You are denying that Jesus came in the flesh.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Amen and amen, and I am under fire for my stance.

I am not the servant of man, but of Christ, and will stand against this error.

BTW, I have NEVER stated ANYONE has said God has sinned, I HAVE, however stood against ANYONE teaching the unorthodox, and anti-biblical teaching that Jesus could have sinned, AND that others have stated He had a sin nature.

These are false teachings and are NOT Baptistic, nor BIBLICAL doctrines.

 

NO!

We are denying that jesus had the "same" human flesh that vwe all do!

he was born without a sinful nature, which is something NONE of us can claim!

 

Utterly false. In Ezekiel 18:20 God himself said the son shall not bear the iniquity of his father.

Do you deny that? Do you believe we bear Adam's sin?

 

God forsaw ALL of us to be born in the future as being "in Adam" that Adam stood for physical humanity, so when he fell, we fell with him!

Jesus is second Adam, head over spiritual humanity, those been redeemed by His blood!

 

No where did I deny Jesus came in the flesh!!!! You need to reread my post.

 

When we discuss spiritual gifts, especially the gift of tongues, I can give you half a dozen reasons why tongues have ceased--good, valid reasons. There is not just ONE reason.

And so it is here. There is not just ONE verse, ONE reason, ONE purpose. You must look a the totality of Scripture and look at the whole picture.
I'll give you another quick example. Did you know that there are 10 ways in which Joseph was a picture or type of Christ. 10 Ways, not just one! You have to look at the whole of Joseph's life, not just one aspect. And so it is with the birth of Christ.

Why was Christ born of a virgin.
1. To fulfill prophecy.
2. To avoid inheriting a sin nature.
3. To avoid inheriting a genealogical curse.
4. The fulfillment of the protoevengellium: the seed of the woman would conquer Satan. (Gen.3:15)
5. Because in him was no corruption.

If I go to a Systematic Theology book I may find more. Those are the ones that come to mind within the last three minutes. I am sure you could find much more in Dr. Gresham Machen's book, "The Virgin Birth of Christ," which he wrote in 1930, a book over 400 pages in length. He is a graduate of both Princeton and Westminster Theological Seminaries.

On which of the above do you wish me to elaborate?
Let's look at #3. It is always interesting. For Christ to be the Messiah; to sit on the throne of David, he had to have two genealogies that led right back to David. The Jews had to see this in writing in order to accept Him as their Messiah. Thus we have the genealogy of Christ, the son of Joseph, in Matthew one, and Jesus, the son of Mary in Luke 2. Both seem to be legitimate in tracing his genealogy back to David, if not right back to Adam (in one of them). In Matthew he is presented as Messiah the King. In Luke he is presented as a man, the perfect man. So Matthew's genealogy (the father's) becomes very important. What the genealogy does not show is one terrible glitch. It is found in Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 22:24-30 depicts a vivid, horrifying picture of a king that was a descendant of David. His name is Jehoiakim, also known as Coniah:

As I live, saith the LORD, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence; (Jeremiah 22:24)
--Coniah was disobedient. God placed a curse on him so that he nor any of his descendants would ever sit on David's throne. The curse that is written in this passage is one of the most strongly worded and vivid curses written in the Bible.

O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.
30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. (Jeremiah 22:29-30)
--Although the genealogy of Matthew does not spell it out, Joseph was of the line of Coniah. Yes he was of the line of David, but also of the line of Coniah. He was not qualified to sit on the throne of David. Thus Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape this curse. Often this is an over-looked reason. You see, you just can't come out and give a flippant reason--it is a fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. The virgin birth is much, much more than that. Machen wrote over 400 pages on it. I am sure he said more than "a fulfillment of prophecy."

 

Then you believe we all bear the iniquity of Adam, we are born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin, directly contradicting what God said in Ezekiel 18:20

That is what I see over and over in this thread, folks directly contradicting the scriptures and spouting the doctrines of men.

 

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

What has this got to do with man's sin nature?

 

JF said we are born spiritually dead because of Adam's sin, God said "The soul that sinneth, it SHALL die." This shows we are not born spiritually dead, you have to be alive to die.

That is a direct contradiction of what God said.

 

Context Winman. Don't pull Scripture out of context! Look at verse 18 first:

As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity. (Ezekiel 18:18)
--"cruelly oppressed," "spoiled," "by violence,"...."he shall die in his iniquity."
--It is speaking of physical death. It is speaking of their justice system, not spiritual death. There is no spiritual death spoken of in verse 20. It relates to their civil law, capital punishment, physical death. You are taking scripture out of context.

 

I disagree, look at verses 24 and 27. In vs. 24 God says;

"and IN HIS SIN that he hath sinned, IN THEM shall he die."

God is speaking of the eternal here, he is speaking of dying IN SIN.

And in vs. 27 God says;

"he shall save HIS SOUL alive"

God is not speaking of physical death here, but of our eternal state at death.

 

You refuse context.
Verse 18 and 20 go together.
Not verse 20 and 27.
Even the KJV translators put a paragraph marker at the beginning of verse 21.