Both fully God and fully man

[moorea944]

If Paul had sin in his flesh, then so did Jesus. If there was no sin in the flesh of Jesus then how was it condemned when Jesus offered himself?

No, ok, i'll explain it in a different way again.

When I say "sin in the flesh", i'm talking about his nature that was "prone" to sin. A flesh nature that "can" sin. Jesus was born like us, like his brethren. Read Deut 18 v 18+ and 2 Sam 7. What was told to Moses and David about a coming Messiah. Jesus wasnt born perfect, he was born like us, he was "made" perfect through the things that he suffered.

In Hebrews, it tells us that Jesus was NOT like the angels, immortal... (Most religions dont believe that, they actually think he's God...) He was from the seed of Abraham, a mortal person. After his resurrection, he was made immortal. He also shows us that we can have that to when he returns. Salvation is when he returns, not before hand.

 

[LightofTruth]

No, ok, i'll explain it in a different way again.

When I say "sin in the flesh", i'm talking about his nature that was "prone" to sin. A flesh nature that "can" sin. Jesus was born like us, like his brethren. Read Deut 18 v 18+ and 2 Sam 7. What was told to Moses and David about a coming Messiah. Jesus wasnt born perfect, he was born like us, he was "made" perfect through the things that he suffered.

In Hebrews, it tells us that Jesus was NOT like the angels, immortal... (Most religions dont believe that, they actually think he's God...) He was from the seed of Abraham, a mortal person. After his resurrection, he was made immortal. He also shows us that we can have that to when he returns. Salvation is when he returns, not before hand.

The nature of mortal man is not simply "prone to sin" but is FULL of sin(sinful). That's why the nature itself needs to be changed

 

[Clear]

Clear asked @LightofTruth : "You theorize in post #182 that Jesus had “sinful flesh" (i.e. a flesh that was full of sin = sinful). IF Jesus’ flesh was “full of sin” then what sin was his flesh full of? What sin did his flesh commit? In post #196 @moorea944 also theorizes that Jesus “had the same sinful nature as us” and that Jesus “shared every one of our sinful tendencies” but he also doesn’t tell us what specific sins Jesus' nature tended to commit. What specific sin was Jesus' nature full of in his “sinful nature”. What is it about the Gospel message that makes you think Jesus HAD a nature that was sin-ful or full of sin. I am trying to understand why either you or Moorea944 theorize that Jesus’ had a nature that was “sinful”. Can you explain your theory? What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?

@LightofTruth replied : "It's not me who says Jesus had sinful flesh, the scripture says so. Rom:8 3 “....God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”


Hi @LightofTruth :

Your theory that Jesus possessed flesh that was full of sin (“sinful”) is different than the early Christian teaching that Jesus had no sin in his nature.

Even the scripture you offered does not tell us Jesus has any sin in his nature. Romans 8:3 does NOT say jesus had a "sinful" nature of any sort. Instead, it tells us Jesus was sent “in the likeness” (ομοιωματι) of sinful flesh." A “likeness” of something is not the same as the object it is compared to. For example a painting of the Mona Lisa may be a “likeness” of the actual Person in the painting, but the likeness is NOT the same as the person. It simply has similarities to the object.

I think the early Christian belief that Jesus was sinless and had no sin in his nature is more rational and logical than your new interpretation that Jesus' physical character was full of sin (sinful).

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?


Hi @moorea944

IF @LightofTruth and your theory and interpretation of "Sinful" flesh is correct (i.e. that flesh is full of sin), then what sort of sin is a newborn infant full of? What sin does an innocent infant commit? IF the infant dies within minutes of being born, then was the infant innocent of any sin, or was it "full of sin" since it has flesh?

1) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?


Clear
δρτωακακω

 

[LightofTruth]

Clear asked @LightofTruth : "You theorize in post #182 that Jesus had “sinful flesh" (i.e. a flesh that was full of sin = sinful). IF Jesus’ flesh was “full of sin” then what sin was his flesh full of? What sin did his flesh commit? In post #196 @moorea944 also theorizes that Jesus “had the same sinful nature as us” and that Jesus “shared every one of our sinful tendencies” but he also doesn’t tell us what specific sins Jesus' nature tended to commit. What specific sin was Jesus' nature full of in his “sinful nature”. What is it about the Gospel message that makes you think Jesus HAD a nature that was sin-ful or full of sin. I am trying to understand why either you or Moorea944 theorize that Jesus’ had a nature that was “sinful”. Can you explain your theory? What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?

@LightofTruth replied : "It's not me who says Jesus had sinful flesh, the scripture says so. Rom:8 3 “....God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”


Hi LightofTruth :

Your theory that Jesus possessed flesh that was full of sin (“sinful”) seems very bizarre in light of the early Christian teaching that Jesus had no sin in his nature.

Even the scripture you offered does not tell us Jesus has any sin in his nature. Romans 8:3 does NOT say jesus had a "sinful" nature of any sort. Instead, it tells us Jesus was sent “in the likeness” (ομοιωματι) of sinful flesh." A “likeness” of something is not the same as the object it is compared to. For example a painting of the Mona Lisa may be a “likeness” of the actual Person in the painting, but the likeness is NOT the same as the person.

I think the early Christian belief that Jesus was sinless and had no sin in his nature is more rational and logical than your new interpretation that Jesus' physical character was full of sin (sinful).

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?


Clear
δρτωακακω

Early Christian teaching means nothing because John wrote that there were those who denied Jesus had come in the flesh during the first century. Those antichrist suggested that Jesus' flesh was not like the flesh of the rest of us. If our flesh is sinful, then so was his.

To say that Jesus' flesh was only a copy of our flesh, and not the same, is to say that he was not like us. If temptations come from our own desires of the flesh, and Jesus' flesh was only a copy of our flesh, then how is it he was tempted as we are?

 

[Clear]

Regarding LightofTruth and Moorea944s theory that flesh is “full of sin” (sinful) and that Jesus flesh was “full of sin” (i.e. sinful) :

Clear asked in post #203 :
1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

Light of truth replied : "To say that Jesus' flesh was only a copy of our flesh, and not the same, is to say that he was not like us. (post #204)

This is a silly, illogical and irrational interpretation to say a copy or a likeness of us is "not like" us. A “likeness” IS, by definition, “LIKE” the original. For example, the base greek word used in Rom 8:3, ομοιωμα MEANS "a thing made like".

Also, your irrational and illogical response doesn’t answer ANY basic question you have been asked regarding scripture; regarding what sin was in Jesus’ nature to commit; nor does your statement tell us what sin a newborn having flesh, is guilty of.

@LightofTruth, How does your interpretation and your theory answer the basic questions your theory and interpretation creates? This theory that Jesus was sinful is less rational than the early Christian belief that Jesus was sinless.

Clear
δρδρειειω

 

[LightofTruth]

Regarding LightofTruth and Moorea944s theory that flesh is “full of sin” (sinful) and that Jesus flesh was “full of sin” (i.e. sinful) :

Clear asked in post #203 :
1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?


Light of truth replied : "To say that Jesus' flesh was only a copy of our flesh, and not the same, is to say that he was not like us. (post #204)

This is a silly interpretation. A “likeness” IS, by definition, “LIKE” the original.

Also, this irrational and illogical response doesn’t answer ANY question you have been asked regarding scripture, regarding what sin was in Jesus’ nature to commit nor does your answer tell us what sin a newborn having flesh, is guilty of.

@LightofTruth, How does your interpretation and your theory answer the basic questions your theory and interpretation creates? This theory that Jesus was sinful is less rational than the early Christian belief that Jesus was sinless.

Clear

If his flesh were like the original, then "Likeness of sinful flesh" means he had sinful flesh. It means that his flesh was NOT UNLIKE that of all the children of God. (Heb 2:14).

Paul says that we all sinned in Adam and therefore we all die the death that came by him. Now, because Jesus was of that same nature, he too was under deaths dominion, and also sinned in Adam. That's why he was baptized.

 

[Clear]

Early Christians did not believe that Jesus sinned or was “full of sin” but instead believed Jesus was a “sinless” sacrifice.
In response to this, LightofTruth claimed : “Early Christian teaching means nothing….” (post 204)


@LightofTruth,

The fact that early Christianity had different doctrines than yours does not mean their beliefs “mean nothing”. This is another irrational conclusion and there is much to be learned from the earliest and most authentic forms of Christianity. Earliest Christians’ beliefs and interpretations are more rational and logical than your theories LightofTruth. Their texts and their interpretations were more accurate than yours. For example, we have discovered and discussed your erroneous interpretation of "likeness" (ομοιωιας) as meaning “the same” which you attempted to use to support your new theory.

Similarly, we might as well look at your mis-use of the word “sinful” or “full of sin” that you are using to support your personal theory that Jesus was sinful. For example, you quote : Romans 8:3 “….God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh….”. You then conclude Jesus “had sinful flesh” and that Jesus “also sinned in Adam” (in post 206).

The actual sentence in Greek New Testament reads : “ο θεος τον εαυτου υιον πεμψας εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας…”

Your interpretation offers the adjective “sinful”, while the actual Greek says no such thing. Instead the Greek uses a noun for “sin” in the third person genitive. This is not an adjective for “sinful”. Neither NA-28, nor GN4 show any Greek N.T. variants. This is TWO misinterpretations you have made in just ONE phrase of text in support of your theory. We’ve already pointed out that ομοιωματι (likeness, similar to, etc.) is NOT equivalent to “the same” as you previously claimed.

Thus, your theory and interpretations are neither correct interpretations and they are not even based on a text that exists in any Greek New Testament. So far, the biblical text refutes your personal theory. Even your Hebrews 2 reference does not support your theory that Jesus was “full of sin” while Hebrews 4:15 specifically tells us that Jesus was "without sin" (χωρισ αμαρτιασ).


IF you theorize that Early Christian beliefs “mean nothing” and yet, your own theory is not supported by accurate interpretation nor by accurate texts, then why should your personal theory, based on inaccurate interpretation of an inaccurate translation take precedent over the more original Christian teaching whose beliefs are more authentic and whose interpretations of ancient greek are more correct?


I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the basic questions I asked :

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

Can you answer the questions for readers?

Clear
δρδρφυσιω

 

[moorea944]

The nature of mortal man is not simply "prone to sin" but is FULL of sin(sinful). That's why the nature itself needs to be changed

Yes, man's nature has to change. Same with Jesus. And that's what Jesus did on the cross. He made God right, in a way that the flesh with it's tendencies to sin, has to be put to death. And that's what baptism is all about too. Read Romans 6. When Christ was raised, he then was made immortal. He showed us that way to immortality.

 

[moorea944]

Clear asked @LightofTruth : "You theorize in post #182 that Jesus had “sinful flesh" (i.e. a flesh that was full of sin = sinful). IF Jesus’ flesh was “full of sin” then what sin was his flesh full of? What sin did his flesh commit? In post #196 @moorea944 also theorizes that Jesus “had the same sinful nature as us” and that Jesus “shared every one of our sinful tendencies” but he also doesn’t tell us what specific sins Jesus' nature tended to commit. What specific sin was Jesus' nature full of in his “sinful nature”. What is it about the Gospel message that makes you think Jesus HAD a nature that was sin-ful or full of sin. I am trying to understand why either you or Moorea944 theorize that Jesus’ had a nature that was “sinful”. Can you explain your theory? What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?

@LightofTruth replied : "It's not me who says Jesus had sinful flesh, the scripture says so. Rom:8 3 “....God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”


Hi @LightofTruth :

Your theory that Jesus possessed flesh that was full of sin (“sinful”) is different than the early Christian teaching that Jesus had no sin in his nature.

Even the scripture you offered does not tell us Jesus has any sin in his nature. Romans 8:3 does NOT say jesus had a "sinful" nature of any sort. Instead, it tells us Jesus was sent “in the likeness” (ομοιωματι) of sinful flesh." A “likeness” of something is not the same as the object it is compared to. For example a painting of the Mona Lisa may be a “likeness” of the actual Person in the painting, but the likeness is NOT the same as the person. It simply has similarities to the object.

I think the early Christian belief that Jesus was sinless and had no sin in his nature is more rational and logical than your new interpretation that Jesus' physical character was full of sin (sinful).

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?


Hi @moorea944

IF @LightofTruth and your theory and interpretation of "Sinful" flesh is correct (i.e. that flesh is full of sin), then what sort of sin is a newborn infant full of? What sin does an innocent infant commit? IF the infant dies within minutes of being born, then was the infant innocent of any sin, or was it "full of sin" since it has flesh?

1) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?


Clear
δρτωακακω

Ok, a few things. IT's not my "theory" and your not getting what I'm saying......

I'm not saying that "flesh is full of sin". I'm saying because of our nature that we inherited from Adam is capable of sinning. That's what I"m saying. A new born baby doesnt sin and has no sin it them. Not yet.... That's the difference between mortal and immortal.
Jesus had the same nature than us. (Heb 2). He was "capable" of sinning, but did not. He chose not too. Yet he was tempted in all ways like us.

 

[Clear]

Moorea944 said in post 196 "Jesus didnt commit sin, but he had the same sinful nature as us."

Hi Moorea944 :

If you are now clarifying that Jesus did NOT have a "sinful" nature (sinful=full of sin), then we are in agreement on this specific point that Jesus was sinless.

Clear
δρδρακτζω

 

[moorea944]

Moorea944 said in post 196 "Jesus didnt commit sin, but he had the same sinful nature as us."

Hi Moorea944 :

If you are now clarifying that Jesus did NOT have a "sinful" nature (sinful=full of sin), then we are in agreement on this specific point that Jesus was sinless.

Clear
δρδρακτζω

A "sinful nature" doesnt necessarily mean full of sin. Not really sure why your saying that. A sinful "nature" means that we are capable of sinning. I'm also saying that Jesus wasnt "full of sin", but his nature was like ours.

We look at the OT times. Lev priesthood when they sacrificed a perfect lamb or animal. That was foreshadowing the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus manifested his Father's charactor perfectly. Perfectly obediant to his father's will.

 

[LightofTruth]

Ok, a few things. IT's not my "theory" and your not getting what I'm saying......

I'm not saying that "flesh is full of sin". I'm saying because of our nature that we inherited from Adam is capable of sinning. That's what I"m saying. A new born baby doesnt sin and has no sin it them. Not yet.... That's the difference between mortal and immortal.
Jesus had the same nature than us. (Heb 2). He was "capable" of sinning, but did not. He chose not too. Yet he was tempted in all ways like us.

A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.

 

[moorea944]

A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.

Yes, I agree.

 

[Clear]

Moorea944 said : "Jesus didnt commit sin, but he had the same sinful nature as us." (post #196)
Clear responded : "If you are now clarifying that Jesus did NOT have a "sinful" nature (sinful=full of sin), then we are in agreement on this specific point that Jesus was sinless. (post #210)
Moorea944 responded : A "sinful nature" doesnt necessarily mean full of sin. Not really sure why your saying that. A sinful "nature" means that we are capable of sinning (post #211)


Hi Moorea944

1) entymology and dictionary meaning of the word "SINFUL"

The entymology of the adjective “sinful” is : “full of sin”, “unholy”, “contrary to the laws of God”, “contrary to propriety or decency”.

The dictionary meaning of the adjective “sinful” is : “wicked and immoral”, “committing or characterized by the committing of sins”.


Jesus cannot be accurately described as sinful using any of these dictionary meanings.

I assumed "sinful" means "full of sin" because that is the primary meaning of the word "sinful". If you are going top assign a tertiary meaning to a word you use, then you should not be surprised if others do not fully follow your word usage.


2) Using the word “sinful” to describe a "sinless" Jesus (who had “capability to sin”)

Your use of the word “sinful” to mean “SINLESS" (BUT CAPABLE of committing sin”) to describe Jesus is problematic. Using the word “sin-ful” to describe a “sin-less” Jesus is not a good choice of words and is confusing (at best). However, we agree that Jesus and all other morally competent beings are capable of committing sin.

The problem with your choice of word s is that there is nothing about Jesus that is “full of sin” or “unholy” or “contrary to the laws of God’. Nothing. He was not “wicked and immoral”. His skin, his bones, his muscle his flesh did not commit sin. Nothing about him or his life was characterized by the committing of any sin.

You cannot blame readers for misunderstanding you if you use the word “sinful” to describe a “sinless” person (whether that person is capable of sinning or not). IF you think Jesus is sinless but merely CAPABLE of sinning, I think you should have described Jesus as being “sinless but CAPABLE of sinning” instead of describing him as “sinful”.


3) Regarding this new claim that newly born infants are "sinful" (using the authentic dictionary definition of "sinful")

LightofTruth claims : A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.” (post #212)
Moorea944 responds to this theory : "Yes, I agree."

Hi @LightofTruth ,
If you're using the standard dictionary meaning for “sinful” then what “sin” is a new born infant guilty of in your religious theory?
After the infant takes that first breath, what sin is it capable of committing in your theory?
What sort of punishment do you think a newborn infant should receive for this “sinfulness” you claim it has in your theory?


Also, LightofTruth since you have re-engaged this thread, you still have not told readers how your theory answers the following questions that have been asked multiple times (lastly in post #207)


IF you theorize that Early Christian beliefs “mean nothing” and yet, your own theory is not supported by accurate interpretation nor by accurate texts, then why should your personal theory, based on inaccurate interpretation of an inaccurate translation take precedent over the more original Christian teaching whose beliefs are more authentic and whose interpretations of ancient greek are more correct?


I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the OTHER basic questions I asked :

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort? (using the primary dictionary meaning of "sinful"...)
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

In any case, I hope your spiritual journeys are good Moorea944 and LightofTruth.

Clear
δρφιτωτζω

 

[moorea944]

Moorea944 said : "Jesus didnt commit sin, but he had the same sinful nature as us." (post #196)
Clear responded : "If you are now clarifying that Jesus did NOT have a "sinful" nature (sinful=full of sin), then we are in agreement on this specific point that Jesus was sinless. (post #210)
Moorea944 responded : A "sinful nature" doesnt necessarily mean full of sin. Not really sure why your saying that. A sinful "nature" means that we are capable of sinning (post #211)


Hi Moorea944

1) entymology and dictionary meaning of the word "SINFUL"

The entymology of the adjective “sinful” is : “full of sin”, “unholy”, “contrary to the laws of God”, “contrary to propriety or decency”.

The dictionary meaning of the adjective “sinful” is : “wicked and immoral”, “committing or characterized by the committing of sins”.


Jesus cannot be accurately described as sinful using any of these dictionary meanings.

I assumed "sinful" means "full of sin" because that is the primary meaning of the word "sinful". If you are going top assign a tertiary meaning to a word you use, then you should not be surprised if others do not fully follow your word usage.


2) Using the word “sinful” to describe a "sinless" Jesus (who had “capability to sin”)

Your use of the word “sinful” to mean “SINLESS" (BUT CAPABLE of committing sin”) to describe Jesus is problematic. Using the word “sin-ful” to describe a “sin-less” Jesus is not a good choice of words and is confusing (at best). However, we agree that Jesus and all other morally competent beings are capable of committing sin.

The problem with your choice of word s is that there is nothing about Jesus that is “full of sin” or “unholy” or “contrary to the laws of God’. Nothing. He was not “wicked and immoral”. His skin, his bones, his muscle his flesh did not commit sin. Nothing about him or his life was characterized by the committing of any sin.

You cannot blame readers for misunderstanding you if you use the word “sinful” to describe a “sinless” person (whether that person is capable of sinning or not). IF you think Jesus is sinless but merely CAPABLE of sinning, I think you should have described Jesus as being “sinless but CAPABLE of sinning” instead of describing him as “sinful”.


3) Regarding this new claim that newly born infants are "sinful" (using the authentic dictionary definition of "sinful")

LightofTruth claims : A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.” (post #212)
Moorea944 responds to this theory : "Yes, I agree."

Hi @LightofTruth ,
If you're using the standard dictionary meaning for “sinful” then what “sin” is a new born infant guilty of in your religious theory?
After the infant takes that first breath, what sin is it capable of committing in your theory?
What sort of punishment do you think a newborn infant should receive for this “sinfulness” you claim it has in your theory?


Also, LightofTruth since you have re-engaged this thread, you still have not told readers how your theory answers the following questions that have been asked multiple times (lastly in post #207)


IF you theorize that Early Christian beliefs “mean nothing” and yet, your own theory is not supported by accurate interpretation nor by accurate texts, then why should your personal theory, based on inaccurate interpretation of an inaccurate translation take precedent over the more original Christian teaching whose beliefs are more authentic and whose interpretations of ancient greek are more correct?


I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the OTHER basic questions I asked :

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort? (using the primary dictionary meaning of "sinful"...)
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

In any case, I hope your spiritual journeys are good Moorea944 and LightofTruth.

Clear
δρφιτωτζω

First of all, you have to stop using the dictionary to try to understand what everyone is saying.

But in any case, your still not understanding what I am saying.
When I say a sinful nature or sin in the flesh, I"m not saying Jesus had sin in his body. Or that he ever committed sin. It means a nature that is capable of sinning. For example, in the OT, with Jacob and Essau, they said, "there's death in the pot". Well, death was not in the pot, only poison. A sinful nature does not mean that you actually have sin in you... it means that your capable of sinning...

I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the OTHER basic questions I asked : [\QUOTE]
My Theory? Plus, I have answered all of your questions. Your just not understanding what I"m saying, because your bringing in dictionarys and whatever.

There was nothing about Jesus that was “full of sin” or “unholy” or “contrary to the laws of God’. Nothing. There was nothing about Jesus that was “wicked and immoral”. His skin, his bones, his muscle his flesh did not commit sin. Nothing about him or his life was characterized by the committing of any sin. [\QUOTE]
I totally agree. I never said elsewise. Dont understand why you keep on bringing this up.

I think you should have described Jesus as being “sinless but CAPABLE of sinning” instead of describing him as “sinful”. [\QUOTE]
I never described Jesus as sinful. I told you that Jesus never sinned and that he was sinless.

3) Regarding this new claim that newly born infants are "sinful" (using the authentic dictionary definition of "sinful") [\QUOTE]
New claim??? Again, I never said that babies sin. And stop using the dictionary....

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort? (using the primary dictionary meaning of "sinful"...) [\QUOTE]
STop using the dictionary!! lol Wow.

Heb 2v14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same;
Romans 8v3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:" That's exactly what i've been saying...

These are just two verses of many that tells us that Jesus was like us.

2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature? [\QUOTE]
Again, your not listening..... No sin was "IN" Jesus. I never said that. I said that Jesus was like us. Same nature. A nature that was "capable" of sinning.

3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory? [\QUOTE]
Ughhhh...... Your either not reading or listening or both. I never said babies are full of sin. Are you reading the right posts?

4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin? [\QUOTE]
My theory?.... I'm sorry.... shouldnt I be saying that to you?.....

 

[Clear]

Hi Moorea944;

1) Communication using Standard “dictionary” meaning versus using arbitrary and personal meanings results in poor and inaccurate communication

Moorea944 : “First of all, you have to stop using the dictionary to try to understand what everyone is saying.”

Moorea944, One need not use a dictionary to communicate, but, abandoning accepted and standard and known meanings for words and replacing these meaning with obscure, personal meanings does not result in accurate and efficient communication.

If I say “George is a sinful person.” I expect readers to understand that George is a sinner, wicked, corrupt, etc. I would NOT expect readers to understand that George is a “sinless” person who is simply “capable of sin.”

Is there any credible reader on this forum who would have understood "sin-ful" does not mean wicked, but instead means simply "capable of sin"?

Your claim that saying" Jesus is sinful” actually means “Jesus is sinless but capable of sin” is simply poor communication on this point. Making up meaning meanings "as we go" is not helpful.



2) The religious theory of “sinful infants”.

LightofTruth claims : A new born baby has the same sinful flesh as every other person.” (post #212)
Moorea944 responds to this theory : "Yes, I agree."

Moorea944, your claim that new born infants are "sin-ful" or have "sin-ful flesh" is different than the early Christianity concept where infants were pure

In post #214, I asked :
What “sin” is a new born infant guilty of in this religious theory?
After the infant takes that first breath, what sin is the newborn infant capable of committing in your theory?
What sort of punishment do you think a newborn infant should receive for this “sinfulness” you claim it has in your theory?

How does your theory that infants have ‘sinful flesh” answer these questions?

Clear
δρφιφιδρω

 

[LightofTruth]

Early Christians did not believe that Jesus sinned or was “full of sin” but instead believed Jesus was a “sinless” sacrifice.
In response to this, LightofTruth claimed : “Early Christian teaching means nothing….” (post 204)


@LightofTruth,

The fact that early Christianity had different doctrines than yours does not mean their beliefs “mean nothing”. This is another irrational conclusion and there is much to be learned from the earliest and most authentic forms of Christianity. Earliest Christians’ beliefs and interpretations are more rational and logical than your theories LightofTruth. Their texts and their interpretations were more accurate than yours. For example, we have discovered and discussed your erroneous interpretation of "likeness" (ομοιωιας) as meaning “the same” which you attempted to use to support your new theory.

Similarly, we might as well look at your mis-use of the word “sinful” or “full of sin” that you are using to support your personal theory that Jesus was sinful. For example, you quote : Romans 8:3 “….God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh….”. You then conclude Jesus “had sinful flesh” and that Jesus “also sinned in Adam” (in post 206).

The actual sentence in Greek New Testament reads : “ο θεος τον εαυτου υιον πεμψας εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας…”

Your interpretation offers the adjective “sinful”, while the actual Greek says no such thing. Instead the Greek uses a noun for “sin” in the third person genitive. This is not an adjective for “sinful”. Neither NA-28, nor GN4 show any Greek N.T. variants. This is TWO misinterpretations you have made in just ONE phrase of text in support of your theory. We’ve already pointed out that ομοιωματι (likeness, similar to, etc.) is NOT equivalent to “the same” as you previously claimed.

Thus, your theory and interpretations are neither correct interpretations and they are not even based on a text that exists in any Greek New Testament. So far, the biblical text refutes your personal theory. Even your Hebrews 2 reference does not support your theory that Jesus was “full of sin” while Hebrews 4:15 specifically tells us that Jesus was "without sin" (χωρισ αμαρτιασ).


IF you theorize that Early Christian beliefs “mean nothing” and yet, your own theory is not supported by accurate interpretation nor by accurate texts, then why should your personal theory, based on inaccurate interpretation of an inaccurate translation take precedent over the more original Christian teaching whose beliefs are more authentic and whose interpretations of ancient greek are more correct?


I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the basic questions I asked :

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

Can you answer the questions for readers?

Clear
δρδρφυσιω

I've been answering your questions. Either you ignore the answers or don't comprehend them.
The opinion that Jesus was of a different kind of flesh then the rest of us is false. Heb 2:14

Flesh and sinful nature are the same thing. Even the NIV translates the word sarx (flesh) as sinful nature.

So, what kind of flesh did Jesus have if it wasn't the same flesh that we all share?

 

[LightofTruth]

Early Christians did not believe that Jesus sinned or was “full of sin” but instead believed Jesus was a “sinless” sacrifice.
In response to this, LightofTruth claimed : “Early Christian teaching means nothing….” (post 204)


@LightofTruth,

The fact that early Christianity had different doctrines than yours does not mean their beliefs “mean nothing”. This is another irrational conclusion and there is much to be learned from the earliest and most authentic forms of Christianity. Earliest Christians’ beliefs and interpretations are more rational and logical than your theories LightofTruth. Their texts and their interpretations were more accurate than yours. For example, we have discovered and discussed your erroneous interpretation of "likeness" (ομοιωιας) as meaning “the same” which you attempted to use to support your new theory.

Similarly, we might as well look at your mis-use of the word “sinful” or “full of sin” that you are using to support your personal theory that Jesus was sinful. For example, you quote : Romans 8:3 “….God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh….”. You then conclude Jesus “had sinful flesh” and that Jesus “also sinned in Adam” (in post 206).

The actual sentence in Greek New Testament reads : “ο θεος τον εαυτου υιον πεμψας εν ομοιωματι σαρκος αμαρτιας…”

Your interpretation offers the adjective “sinful”, while the actual Greek says no such thing. Instead the Greek uses a noun for “sin” in the third person genitive. This is not an adjective for “sinful”. Neither NA-28, nor GN4 show any Greek N.T. variants. This is TWO misinterpretations you have made in just ONE phrase of text in support of your theory. We’ve already pointed out that ομοιωματι (likeness, similar to, etc.) is NOT equivalent to “the same” as you previously claimed.

Thus, your theory and interpretations are neither correct interpretations and they are not even based on a text that exists in any Greek New Testament. So far, the biblical text refutes your personal theory. Even your Hebrews 2 reference does not support your theory that Jesus was “full of sin” while Hebrews 4:15 specifically tells us that Jesus was "without sin" (χωρισ αμαρτιασ).


IF you theorize that Early Christian beliefs “mean nothing” and yet, your own theory is not supported by accurate interpretation nor by accurate texts, then why should your personal theory, based on inaccurate interpretation of an inaccurate translation take precedent over the more original Christian teaching whose beliefs are more authentic and whose interpretations of ancient greek are more correct?


I might remind both you and readers that your theory STILL has not, so far, been able to answer any of the basic questions I asked :

1) Do you actually have any scripture that tells us Jesus had any sinful characteristics or a sinful nature of any sort?
2) What "sin" was in Jesus nature to commit? Was it in Jesus' nature to murder?; to lie? to steal? to commit adultery? What sin was in Jesus' nature?
3) What sin is a newborn infant guilty of (since they have the flesh you say is full of sin)? If a newborn is guilty of a sin, what punishment does a new infant deserve in your theory?
4) What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?

Can you answer the questions for readers?

Clear
δρδρφυσιω

My interpretation is correct. If it isn't then please explain how sinful flesh was condemned by Christ when he offered himself as a sacrifice?
If there was no sin in his flesh, then how was it condemned?

 

[LightofTruth]

A "sinful nature" doesnt necessarily mean full of sin. Not really sure why your saying that. A sinful "nature" means that we are capable of sinning. I'm also saying that Jesus wasnt "full of sin", but his nature was like ours.

We look at the OT times. Lev priesthood when they sacrificed a perfect lamb or animal. That was foreshadowing the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus manifested his Father's charactor perfectly. Perfectly obediant to his father's will.

I've had numerous discussions on this topic and most claim that Adam's flesh or nature changed after he sinned.

Now, how moronic is it to say that Adam's flesh or nature became sinful AFTER he SINNED?

 

[moorea944]

I've had numerous discussions on this topic and most claim that Adam's flesh or nature changed after he sinned.

Now, how moronic is it to say that Adam's flesh or nature became sinful AFTER he SINNED?

Again, I never said that. I never said that he became sinful after he sinned. Dont know why your putting words into my posts that i never said. ........ Because Adam sinned, everything now has changed.