Job's Harmatiology

Biblicist, I just counted, and in the book of Matthew alone Jesus called himself "Son of man" 32 times. The word for man is "anthropos" which means man or mankind, a human being. This same word is applied to ordinary men like Matthew in Mat 9:9 where it says;

"And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew,"

Jesus came in the flesh. Yes he is God, but he is also 100% man, just like you and I. He had the nature of the seed of Abraham (not Adam- Heb 2:16) and was made like unto his brethren in all things.

If we are born with a sin nature, then so was Jesus. But the scriptures do not say man was born with a sin nature, the scriptures call man "flesh". The scriptures also say Jesus came in the flesh, and to deny this is the spirit of antichrist. (1 Jn 4:1-3)

That may upset your apple-cart, but that is what the scriptures say.

 

So just for clarification you are asserting they are lost. Is that correct?

 

Biblicist, no where do the scriptures say or even hint that Jesus had to be born of a virgin to escape a sin nature. Are virgins sinless? Or does sin rub off on a virgin woman during relations? Augustine was a Manichean and a Gnostic, he believed sin was passed through concupiscence or sexual lust. This is nothing but pure superstition.

The Bible tells us exactly why Jesus was born of a virgin.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

Being born of a virgin was a supernatural sign. It proved Jesus was the Son of God, it had nothing to do with a sin nature being physically transferred. That is a purely man-made invention.

But notice Jesus also had to choose good, and in vs. 16 he had to mature until he could distinguish between good and evil and choose good.

If this is not applying to Jesus you are still refuted, because it shows a child can mature and choose good, we are not enslaved by a nature that must choose evil.

How do you answer these verses?

 

First Biblicist, you need to chill. You remind me of another Calvinist here who shouts in capital letters. This fellow puts 100 question marks after a question. If this is the effect of Calvinism on a person, you need to run for your life from this doctrine before you have a stroke.

So, calm down, take a deep breath, now breath out slowly... Seriously.

Your own view refutes you. If a sin nature is required to sin, then how did Adam sin?

Let's take it one step at a time, please explain to me how Adam sinned if our nature determines what we will do.

 

That is not how the Calvinists speak of the so-called fallen nature and you know it:

"We do not see how the universal corruption of mankind can be accounted for, without admitting that they are involved in the guilt of his first transgression. It must be some sin which God punishes with the deprivation of original righteousness; and that can be no other than the first sin of Adam" (Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

According to the Calvinists the fallen human nature is one which is deprived of original righteousness. This deprivation of original righteousness is not spoken of as a parasite.

After you finish perverting the Scriptures you pervert the teaching of Calvinism just to stay in practice!

 

So just for clarification you are asserting they are lost. Is that correct?

 

Earlier on another thread you were defending the passage which I quoted from the pen of David Shaw, a Calvinist:

Instead of refuting what he said about mankind being "deprived of original righteousness" you affirm it.

Now, since what he says about that completely undermines your ideas you try your best to distance yourself from what he said!

 

Mandym has asked three distinct questions to Biblicist which he refuses to answer. In light of the comments of Biblicist, the questions by Mandym need to answered. They start with post #7, #11, #16, and end with #27.

Man up Biblicist. Answer the posts of Mandym directly, so that a wayfaring man, though a fool, might ascertain your honest intentions via your comments.

 

While I wish I had time to answer the whole post, I would affirmn that as I stated in the previous post...Jesus is unlike us.

I am surprised that his would be thought strange.

Which one of us...have been without sin?

God bless.

 

Then you believe that Christ had an earthly father?

You would have to to believe that Christ is "just like us," right?

 

The verse at Hebrews 2:17 speaks about how He was made, not about what He did after that:

"For this reason he had to be made like his brothers in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for* the sins of the people" (Heb.2:17).

Those who cling to idea of Original Sin must deny that he was made like His brothers in every way despite the evidence to the contrary.

You are doing your best to prove what is said is in error.

The Greek word translated "to be made like" is not referring to "how" He was made but instead it is referring to being in the "likeness" of His brothers in every way. The Greek word is homoioō and here it means " 'to be made like'...to 'become like' to one...Heb. ii. 17" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicion).

 

HP: Winman, I will address my post to you. We know that nothing Scripture says or anything anyone else may say will shake such an imbedded notion as OS in the minds of so many. OS drives the false notions of the physical lineage of Christ.

There are several indications that indeed Christ did have connections physically to a human father. He was simply not conceived by human means. As I have mentioned before, both genealogies state Christ was indeed in the physical lineage of his earthly father Joseph. Again, NOT by natural means via Joseph, but rather supernaturally by the Holy Spirit.

Not only do the genealogies place Joseph's seed as the father of the flesh of Christ, but there is yet another passage that points to Joseph's seed as his father in the flesh, but again we know NOT by natural means. Mary was indeed a virgin.

Jesus, in order to fulfill prophesy, had to be of the lineage of David. Joseph was the one that Scripture affirms clearly and without question to be of the lineage of David. No where that I have found states that Mary was of the house and lineage of David. Besides, the bloodline is always recorded via the father in the household, not the mother.
Luk 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he (Joseph) was of the house and lineage of David

 

Maybe Biblicist had to take a loooong trip or is simply tooo busy to answer the posts by Mandyn.....

 

It is desperation when a person intentionally misrepresents others. Jesus is the Son of God, he did not have a human father like you or I. Nevertheless, the scriptures clearly say he came in the flesh and had the nature of the seed of Abraham.

Heb 2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Consult commentaries and you will find scholars agree that Jesus had the nature of post-fall men.


Matthew Henry

John Gill

Barnes Notes

Adam Clarke

It may be a shocker to you, but Jesus did not come in the nature of pre-fall Adam, he came in the flesh and had the nature of the post-fall seed of Abraham. Abraham was a good man, but he was a sinner.

There are many other commentaries that confirm this, or you can simply believe what the scriptures plainly say.

 

Not my intention...it is a hypothetical question. As in scripture at times, a question that demands a negative response to validate a previous point.

Lighten up, and read the posts more thoroughly.

Just because there are those that seek to offend, do not think that is my intention.

But while we are on the subject, wasn't it you that accused a man of benefitting from the "spirit of bong," not the Holy Spirit? Did you, if that was you, represent him to the members you were speaking to...in grace?

They say no such thing.

Hebrews 2:16

King James Version (KJV)

16For verily he took not on [him the nature of] angels; but he took on [him] the seed of Abraham.

At least in this verse...anyway. I have italicized and bracketed that which has been inserrted into the text.

If you back up a bit, you will read...



Hebrews 2:14-15

King James Version (KJV)

14Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

There is nothing in the text to suggest that either Christ was not, as the writer states...separate from sinners, nor is there anything to deny a nature ascribed to man which he is born with.

After all that has been presented on the subject, it seems one would get tired of trying to prove a point.

Okay...maybe not...lol.

Again, Christ was unique to humanity that He had no earthly father.

Only Adam can be said to be similar. Both are said to have a Father though, that being God.

Nothing in the text above to deny that man is separated from God by sin...from birth.

That is your advice? Consult men?

Just not interested. Why look to these fellows when I can appeal to my Father?

lol

This statment is a shocker, no doubt, but not for the reason you might think: this places Christ on an equal plane concerning sin as all of humanity.

It also implies that man is born in relationship to God.

I view both as wrong.

You make my case for me.

LEt that be a spoonful of dust for the legalists...lol.

I will choose the latter.

God bless.

 

stir stir stir

 

I would not expect you to understand Darrell.

Bump: Post #51