Both fully God and fully man

[moorea944]

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?

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:"

IT's all about God's righteousness. God is right that the flesh has to die. Jesus did that on the cross. He had our nature that was capable of sinning. Though he was sinless, he still was totally obedient to his father's will. And we do the same through baptism. Romans 6.

 

[Clear]

QUESTIONS WHICH @LightofTruth and Moorea944 theories have not yet answered :


1) CONCERNING LightofTruths’ THEORY THAT JESUS HAD “SINFUL FLESH”

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS : In posts #205, and in #207 and in #214 Clear asked LightofTruth :

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?



2) CONCERNING LightofTruth and Moorea944s’ THEORY THAT NEWBORN INFANTS HAVE “SINFUL” FLESH.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS WHICH @LightofTruth AND Moorea944s theory has not yet answered

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?



LightofTruth claims : “I've been answering your questions. “ (post #217) – No, you have not answered one single question I have asked. LOOK at the questions I've posted above. IF your theory cannot answer the most basic and simplist of moral questions, then why should it take precedent over the earlier Christian doctrines and their interpretations?


LightofTruth claims : “Flesh and sinful nature are the same thing. Even the NIV translates the word sarx (flesh) as sinful nature.” (post #217)

Flesh is NOT the same as “sinful nature”. Jesus HAD flesh like ours, but he did not have a “Sinful nature”. The noun Σαρξ is NOT the same as the adjective “sinful nature”, regardless of who translates it. If you write Doug Moo of the NIV translation team, he may actually write you back and explain WHY they chose to put the words "sinful nature" in place of "flesh" in this specific instance.


Now LightofTruth, Can you offer any rational, logical answer to the questions you have been asked multiple times regarding your unusual theory? How about your Moorea944 - can you tell us about what sin a newborn infant has committed; is capable of committing; or ANY sin a newborn should be punished for?

I honestly wish you both a wonderful spiritual journey. However, IF you are going to generate religious theories (and I think it is perfectly fine to do so), then your theories will have to have some data and logic and reasoning to support them inside a debate forum.

Clear
δρφυτζτωω

 

[LightofTruth]

QUESTIONS WHICH @LightofTruth and Moorea944 theories have not yet answered :


1) CONCERNING LightofTruths’ THEORY THAT JESUS HAD “SINFUL FLESH”

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS : In posts #205, and in #207 and in #214 Clear asked LightofTruth :

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?

You claim that my interpretation of Romans 8 is incorrect. It's not. I will show you exactly what Paul is saying with understanding of the Greek words used:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The condemnation which Paul speaks of is the sentence of death (condemnation) that every single person born into this world is under because they all sinned IN ADAM.(see Romans 5). The only way to escape that condemnation is to be IN CHRIST and to walk after the Spirit not the flesh (sarx).

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

The law of the spirit of life IN CHRIST is the only way of salvation. It sets Paul free from the law of sin and death which comes by being IN ADAM. Adam sinned and brought death and so death passed to all men because all have sinned in Adam. (see Romans 5:16-18)


Rom 8:3 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:

When God gave His command to Adam not to eat of the tree, God's command was made weak by Adam's fleshy desire to eat of the tree anyway. So, God sent His son in that same sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned the sin in the flesh by Christ's sacrifice. It would be impossible for sinful flesh to be condemned if Christ did not share the same flesh. (see Heb 2:14)

Now, that is the correct interpretation. And anyone who studies Paul's writings in both Hebrews (debated whether Paul wrote Hebrews) and Romans can see it is so. The only ones unable to see this truth are those who have been deceived by false doctrines of Christ.

 

[LightofTruth]

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.

I was not putting words in your mouth, I was simply stating what I've heard from others about what they suppose happened AFTER Adam sinned. They claim that Adam's flesh or nature changed AFTER he sinned.
I was saying that such an idea is MORONIC (and never taught by Scripture) because Adam sinned. If Adam's nature/flesh was not sinful until after he sinned then it's absurd to say he sinned.

And James tells us exactly how sin and death entered the world by Adam when he says that every man is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own LUST and LUST brings forth sin, and sin death.

Now, the lust in the flesh is sin in the flesh It's just as Paul says: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness(LUST) unless the law had said, “You shall not covet.”

 

[Clear]

1) THE CLAIM TO "UNDERSTAND GREEK WORDS"
LightofTruth claimed : You claim that my interpretation of Romans 8 is incorrect. It's not. I will show you exactly what Paul is saying with understanding of the Greek words used: (post #223)

Actually LightofTruth, if you actually could read and understand koine Greek, we would not be having this conversation about the genitive noun αμαρτιας (Ro 8:3) which you insist is an adjective sin-ful or full of sin and then apply it to Jesus. Jesus was completely sin-less (without any sin).

Your last post simply repeated prior statements without adding any additional supporting data or logic as to how it is that a “sin-less” Jesus is, in your opinion, “sin-ful”. Do you HAVE any data or rational logic to support your theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus? There is nothing about Jesus that was sinful. His flesh committed no sin. His heart and mind committed no sin. He was "sin-less" in early Christian beliefs.

2) COULD YOU CONSIDER ADDING ADDITIONAL DATA AND ADDITIONAL REASONING AND ADDITIONAL LOGIC TO GENERATE AN IMPROVED THEORY?
You might consider Moorea944s point regarding capability or capacity to sin, or you might want to consider what specific sin you are talking about. For example, IF you are speaking of Adams “sin” then perhaps you can consider the difference between the type of flesh Adam possessed before his “fall” and the nature of all flesh of mankind after the fall of Adam. Were his children "full of sin" or did they simply inherit mortality? (I.e. they had not sinned but were affected BY sin... or consider something similar...) Perhaps you can consider the concept of the Hebraism relating to “flesh of [Adams'] sin” in the genitive form and a Greek equivalent. Are there metaphorical considerations you are not considering in relation to the nature of flesh and sin, etc, etc.

My point in making suggestions is NOT to suggest what you should or should not believe, but rather to offer you data and logical considerations you might consider to create a more rational and logical and more historically accurate theory. I think the earliest Christian doctrines regarding a sin-less Jesus are more logical, and more rational than your personal theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus. Perhaps you can consider looking at their literature to see if their interpretation of scripture will give you helpful insights?

3) YOU STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE BEEN ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES REGARDING THE QUESTIONS YOUR THEORY CREATES
We have spent several posts and this is the fourth post IN A ROW, where I’m asking how your present theory answers the questions you were asked in posts 205, 207, 214. 222, and now, again in post 225....

1) 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?

2) 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"...)

3) 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?

4) 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?

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


4) CONCERNING LightofTruth and Moorea944s’ THEORY THAT NEWBORN INFANTS HAVE “SINFUL” FLESH.

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."

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?

LightofTruth, I am certainly not your enemy and I honor anyone who honors God and Jesus Christ. However, you cannot expect to enter a DEBATE thread without having some sort of credible data that is supported by logical and rational thought. In early Judeo-Christian worldviews, jesus was sinless in all ways. What advantage does your "sin-ful" Jesus theory have?

In any case LightofTruth, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful and good and insightful.

Clear
δρφυακειω

 

[LightofTruth]

1) THE CLAIM TO "UNDERSTAND GREEK WORDS"
LightofTruth claimed : You claim that my interpretation of Romans 8 is incorrect. It's not. I will show you exactly what Paul is saying with understanding of the Greek words used: (post #223)

Actually LightofTruth, if you actually could read and understand koine Greek, we would not be having this conversation about the genitive noun αμαρτιας (Ro 8:3) which you insist is an adjective sin-ful or full of sin and then apply it to Jesus. Jesus was completely sin-less (without any sin).

Your last post simply repeated prior statements without adding any additional supporting data or logic as to how it is that a “sin-less” Jesus is, in your opinion, “sin-ful”. Do you HAVE any data or rational logic to support your theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus? There is nothing about Jesus that was sinful. His flesh committed no sin. His heart and mind committed no sin. He was "sin-less" in early Christian beliefs.

Clear
δρφυακειω

First of all, I never said it was an adjective.

And secondly, the context explains how we are to understand the meaning. Ask any reputable Greek scholar and he will tell you that the context is what's most important when translating for proper understanding.

Now, I looked at the context and gave you an explanation of exactly what Paul is saying (post #223).

God sent His son in the likeness(same) of flesh of sin so that he could condemn the sin in the flesh by the sacrifice of Jesus.

That's exactly what it means.

I also asked you a question. How could sin in the flesh be condemned by Jesus' sacrifice if there was no sin in his flesh?

 

[LightofTruth]

1) THE CLAIM TO "UNDERSTAND GREEK WORDS"
LightofTruth claimed : You claim that my interpretation of Romans 8 is incorrect. It's not. I will show you exactly what Paul is saying with understanding of the Greek words used: (post #223)

Actually LightofTruth, if you actually could read and understand koine Greek, we would not be having this conversation about the genitive noun αμαρτιας (Ro 8:3) which you insist is an adjective sin-ful or full of sin and then apply it to Jesus. Jesus was completely sin-less (without any sin).

Your last post simply repeated prior statements without adding any additional supporting data or logic as to how it is that a “sin-less” Jesus is, in your opinion, “sin-ful”. Do you HAVE any data or rational logic to support your theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus? There is nothing about Jesus that was sinful. His flesh committed no sin. His heart and mind committed no sin. He was "sin-less" in early Christian beliefs.

2) COULD YOU CONSIDER ADDING ADDITIONAL DATA AND ADDITIONAL REASONING AND ADDITIONAL LOGIC TO GENERATE AN IMPROVED THEORY?
You might consider Moorea944s point regarding capability or capacity to sin, or you might want to consider what specific sin you are talking about. For example, IF you are speaking of Adams “sin” then perhaps you can consider the difference between the type of flesh Adam possessed before his “fall” and the nature of all flesh of mankind after the fall of Adam. Were his children "full of sin" or did they simply inherit mortality? (I.e. they had not sinned but were affected BY sin... or consider something similar...) Perhaps you can consider the concept of the Hebraism relating to “flesh of [Adams'] sin” in the genitive form and a Greek equivalent. Are there metaphorical considerations you are not considering in relation to the nature of flesh and sin, etc, etc.

My point in making suggestions is NOT to suggest what you should or should not believe, but rather to offer you data and logical considerations you might consider to create a more rational and logical and more historically accurate theory. I think the earliest Christian doctrines regarding a sin-less Jesus are more logical, and more rational than your personal theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus. Perhaps you can consider looking at their literature to see if their interpretation of scripture will give you helpful insights?

3) YOU STILL HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE BEEN ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES REGARDING THE QUESTIONS YOUR THEORY CREATES
We have spent several posts and this is the fourth post IN A ROW, where I’m asking how your present theory answers the questions you were asked in posts 205, 207, 214. 222, and now, again in post 225....

1) 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?

2) 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"...)

3) 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?

4) 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?

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


4) CONCERNING LightofTruth and Moorea944s’ THEORY THAT NEWBORN INFANTS HAVE “SINFUL” FLESH.

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."

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?

LightofTruth, I am certainly not your enemy and I honor anyone who honors God and Jesus Christ. However, you cannot expect to enter a DEBATE thread without having some sort of credible data that is supported by logical and rational thought. In early Judeo-Christian worldviews, jesus was sinless in all ways. What advantage does your "sin-ful" Jesus theory have?

In any case LightofTruth, I hope your spiritual journey is wonderful and good and insightful.

Clear
δρφυακειω

Most translations say "likeness of sinful flesh" which sounds like an adjective. But since a noun is used in the Greek it's more correct to say "likeness of flesh of sin" or "likeness of sin's flesh."
Now, we can't ignore the rest of the verse which says "sin in the flesh" was condemned by Jesus' offering of himself.
So, being in the likeness of flesh of sin and "sin in the flesh" means that sin resides in the flesh. And Jesus partook of the same flesh as all man. Therefore, there was sin in his flesh, just as it is in the rest of us.

Now, anyone who would deny that sin resides in the flesh, just doesn't read the Bible. Just look at verse 4. Paul says that the righteousness of the law can be fulfilled by those who do not live according to the flesh.

The meaning is very clear. One must not live according to the demands of flesh of sin but according to what the Spirit teaches.

 

[The Anointed]

Below is a quote from Desiring God website which explains how Jesus could be both fully God and fully man. The writer says:

"Jesus is just as fully human as the rest of us, for just as he has all of the essential elements of the Godhead, he has all the essential elements of human nature: a human body, a human soul, a human mind, a human will, and human emotions. His human mind was not replaced by his divine mind. Rather, he has both a human and divine mind."

According to the writer, Jesus has two minds and two wills.

So, what do you think?

Personally, I think it's hogwash.

I think that there is no such animal as something that is both fully god and fully man.

Jesus was fully man, born of human parents, and on the day of his baptism, he was filled with the spirit/ words, of the Lord God our savior. (For my words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus,)

 

[LightofTruth]

I think that there is no such animal as something that is both fully god and fully man.

Jesus was fully man, born of human parents, and on the day of his baptism, he was filled with the spirit/ words, of the Lord God our savior. (For my words are spirit said the Lord through his servant Jesus,)

There are verses in Scripture which speak of Jesus as existing before he was born. That's because God has given him a limitless measure of His Spirit so that what can be said of God can be said of Jesus also.
For example, God has created all things by His Spirit and Jesus is said to be that Spirit because it has been given to him without limits. So, if Jesus is that Spirit then what God has created can also be said to be created by Jesus.

 

[Clear]

Hi LightofTruth :


1) PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT TEXTS CAUSES ERROR

In post #182, LightofTruth originally claimed : “The Apostle John said that they are antichrist who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Meaning that his flesh was the same sinful flesh as the rest of us. The mass majority in Christianity are antichrist Post #182 (Note John 1:14 did NOT say “sinful flesh” but merely says “…the Word became Flesh”. This is an example of adding an erroneous meaning to a scripture.)

In post #197 Clear asked what there was about Jesus’ flesh or nature was “sinful” since this theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus is different than early Christian belief in a “sin-less” Jesus.

In post #198 LightofTruth does not answer the question, but instead quotes an incorrect translation of Romans 8:3 that says God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”. LightofTruth incorrectly conflates “likeness (or “like” grk ομοιωματα) (a misinterpretation/mistake he again repeats in post #226) with “same as” and quotes the adjective “sin-ful” instead of the actual Greek noun which “of sin”.


Clear asked several questions, repeated in multiple post that LightofTruths' theory brings up which, so far, LightofTruth has not been able to answer. However, we are making some progress since Light of truth now says : "likeness of sinful flesh" "sounds like an adjective". (it modifies the word "flesh" and thus it “sounds like” an adjective because it actually IS an adjective). I read Greek. However, now, after many posts LightofTruth is able to admit “…. since a noun is used in the Greek it's more correct to say "likeness of flesh of sin"…” (post #227) This is progress.

However, LightofTruth (a non-greek reader) then returns to the prior erroneous personal interpretation, saying this “means that sin resides in the flesh.” The greek does not mean this, it does not say this, It did NOT mean this to the early Judeo-Christians. To early Christians, Jesus remained “sin-less” in every way, whether in the flesh or in his heart or in his motives to serve his Father. When 1 John 3:5 says regarding Jesus, ". . . And in him is no sin". there was NO subsequent phrase saying “…except his flesh. It was full of sin”. The Christians believed Jesus, was able to “sympathize with our weaknesses” and that he was “tried” or “tested” (πεπειρασμενον is the Greek word in this sentence) but was “without sin” (grk “α-μαρτιας”) as was taught in Hebrews 4:15 (which LightofTruth mistranslates and misinterprets in post #196) Again, there is NO subsequent phrase saying “except Jesus’ flesh, it was full of sin” (sin-ful). This early Christian doctrine taught in 1 John 3:5 and Hebrews 4:15 is superior and more logical and more rational than LightofTruths' personal theory and personal interpretation of the ancient text. UNLESS LightofTruth has good and credible (and correct) data and credible logic and rational thought, the early version of Christian doctrine must take precedent over your theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus.

Here's how I think the questions I asked of LightofTruth should be answered or approached

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ANSWERED OF THIS THEORY THAT JESUS IS "SIN-FUL" OR "FULL OF SIN".
1) Clear asked LightofTruth : “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"...)
So far, LightofTruth has only offered multiple mistranslations and misinterpretations (of grk ομοιωματι and αμαρτιας) and Heb 4:15 (in post #196)

2) Clear asked LightofTruth “ 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
So far, LightofTruth has not been able to name a single sin which Jesus or his skin or his toes or any other part of Jesus’ flesh has committed. This inability to name even a single sin undermines the claim that anything in Jesus’ nature was full of sin or “sin-ful”. Jesus did not commit sin. Neither did his flesh.

3) Clear asked LightofTruth : “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?”
As with the prior question regarding Jesus being “sin-ful”, LightofTruths theory has been unable to name a single sin that a newborn infant can commit or has committed in order to qualify for his claim

THE QUESTION REGARDING A NEWBORN INFANT BEING “FULL OF SIN” (SIN-FUL)

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."

4) Clear asked : “ What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?”
The answer is, “none”. LightofTruth and Moorea944s’ theory that an infant is sin-ful or has “sin-ful” flesh has NO advantage over the early Christian belief that a newborn infant has not committed any sin, but comes to this world sin-less.


5) Clear asked “ If you're using the standard dictionary meaning for “sinful” then what “sin” is a new born infant guilty of in your religious theory?
LightofTruth theory has not been able, so far, to name a single sin a newborn is guilting of committing.


6) Clear asked both LightofTruth and Moorea944, : After the infant takes that first breath, what sin is it capable of committing in your theory?”
So far, Neither poster who theorize infants are born “sin-ful” or have “sin-full” flesh, have been able to describe a single sin that a new born infant is capable of after this immediate entry into mortality. Not a single sin. This theory falls apart immediately when one simply looks beyond the statement of belief. It is a very, very, bad theory.

7) Regarding LightofTruth and Moorea944’s theory of “sin-ful” infants, Clear asked : What sort of punishment do you think a newborn infant should receive for this “sinfulness” you claim it has in your theory?”
So far, there is no description of any punishment that this theory would deal out to a “sin-full” newborn. No, “burn in hell” for being born “sin-ful”, no slap of the wrists, no dunce cap or anything so far has been suggested for a newborn infant who is, according to this theory, born with flesh “full of sin”.

The theory that an infant is born “full of sin” or that Jesus was “sin-full” dies with just the simplest look beyond the surface.


LightofTruth. Since you would not, or could not answer these simple questions asked of your theory, I have answered them for you. Are there any changes or clarifications you want to make to any of these answers for readers?

Again, I do not want to tell you what to belief or force you to admit the errors and faults in your theory. But, this is a debate forum and IF you are going to offer an unusual theory, you MUST expect that individuals are going to ask basic and simple questions to which you will be expected to provide some sort of data and rational thought and logical use of the data.


I hope your journey is a good one. I hope you are able to modify your theory in such a way as to make it more reasonable. However, you are going to have to give up some errors in order to make room for corrections and improvements.

Clear
δρσενεειω

 

[LightofTruth]

Hi LightofTruth :


1) PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT TEXTS CAUSES ERROR

In post #182, LightofTruth originally claimed : “The Apostle John said that they are antichrist who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Meaning that his flesh was the same sinful flesh as the rest of us. The mass majority in Christianity are antichrist Post #182 (Note John 1:14 did NOT say “sinful flesh” but merely says “…the Word became Flesh”. This is an example of adding an erroneous meaning to a scripture.)

Again you ignore the context of Romans 8:1-3. Paul says that "sin in the flesh" was condemned by Jesus' offering of himself.
Do you deny that there is sin in the flesh of man?

How is the law made weak by the flesh?

Let's look at another example of how Paul views the flesh of man. He says:


Rom 7:14For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Now, anyone who would deny that sin dwells in the flesh of man is simply very ignorant of Scripture.

Paul also says that there is "one kind of flesh of man" 1 Cor 15:39

Hebrews 2:14 say that Jesus partook of the SAME blood and flesh as the other children of God.

James says that everyone is tempted when he is drawn away of his own LUST and enticed. And that that LUST brings forth sin, and sin death.

Therefore, in order for Jesus to be tempted in all points as we are (Heb 4:15) he must share of the same flesh that has LUST.

In post #197

Clear asked what there was about Jesus’ flesh or nature was “sinful” since this theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus is different than early Christian belief in a “sin-less” Jesus.

In post #198 LightofTruth does not answer the question, but instead quotes an incorrect translation of Romans 8:3 that says God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”. LightofTruth incorrectly conflates “likeness (or “like” grk ομοιωματα) (a misinterpretation/mistake he again repeats in post #226) with “same as” and quotes the adjective “sin-ful” instead of the actual Greek noun which “of sin”.

There are many translations of Scripture which say "sinful flesh". Would you like me to list all of them?

Looking at the Greek, it is more accurate to say "flesh of sin".

So, God sent His son in the likeness(same..see Heb 2:14)) of the flesh of sin.

Why you ask? keeping reading what Paul says: "and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:"

It would be impossible for sin in the flesh to be condemned if there was no sin in the flesh of Jesus!

What's the point of answering your questions if you deny that Jesus' flesh was the same as all the rest of us?

 

[moorea944]

Hi LightofTruth :


1) PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT TEXTS CAUSES ERROR

In post #182, LightofTruth originally claimed : “The Apostle John said that they are antichrist who deny that Jesus had come in the flesh. Meaning that his flesh was the same sinful flesh as the rest of us. The mass majority in Christianity are antichrist Post #182 (Note John 1:14 did NOT say “sinful flesh” but merely says “…the Word became Flesh”. This is an example of adding an erroneous meaning to a scripture.)

In post #197 Clear asked what there was about Jesus’ flesh or nature was “sinful” since this theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus is different than early Christian belief in a “sin-less” Jesus.

In post #198 LightofTruth does not answer the question, but instead quotes an incorrect translation of Romans 8:3 that says God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh”. LightofTruth incorrectly conflates “likeness (or “like” grk ομοιωματα) (a misinterpretation/mistake he again repeats in post #226) with “same as” and quotes the adjective “sin-ful” instead of the actual Greek noun which “of sin”.


Clear asked several questions, repeated in multiple post that LightofTruths' theory brings up which, so far, LightofTruth has not been able to answer. However, we are making some progress since Light of truth now says : "likeness of sinful flesh" "sounds like an adjective". (it modifies the word "flesh" and thus it “sounds like” an adjective because it actually IS an adjective). I read Greek. However, now, after many posts LightofTruth is able to admit “…. since a noun is used in the Greek it's more correct to say "likeness of flesh of sin"…” (post #227) This is progress.

However, LightofTruth (a non-greek reader) then returns to the prior erroneous personal interpretation, saying this “means that sin resides in the flesh.” The greek does not mean this, it does not say this, It did NOT mean this to the early Judeo-Christians. To early Christians, Jesus remained “sin-less” in every way, whether in the flesh or in his heart or in his motives to serve his Father. When 1 John 3:5 says regarding Jesus, ". . . And in him is no sin". there was NO subsequent phrase saying “…except his flesh. It was full of sin”. The Christians believed Jesus, was able to “sympathize with our weaknesses” and that he was “tried” or “tested” (πεπειρασμενον is the Greek word in this sentence) but was “without sin” (grk “α-μαρτιας”) as was taught in Hebrews 4:15 (which LightofTruth mistranslates and misinterprets in post #196) Again, there is NO subsequent phrase saying “except Jesus’ flesh, it was full of sin” (sin-ful). This early Christian doctrine taught in 1 John 3:5 and Hebrews 4:15 is superior and more logical and more rational than LightofTruths' personal theory and personal interpretation of the ancient text. UNLESS LightofTruth has good and credible (and correct) data and credible logic and rational thought, the early version of Christian doctrine must take precedent over your theory of a “sin-ful” Jesus.

Here's how I think the questions I asked of LightofTruth should be answered or approached

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ANSWERED OF THIS THEORY THAT JESUS IS "SIN-FUL" OR "FULL OF SIN".
1) Clear asked LightofTruth : “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"...)
So far, LightofTruth has only offered multiple mistranslations and misinterpretations (of grk ομοιωματι and αμαρτιας) and Heb 4:15 (in post #196)

2) Clear asked LightofTruth “ 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
So far, LightofTruth has not been able to name a single sin which Jesus or his skin or his toes or any other part of Jesus’ flesh has committed. This inability to name even a single sin undermines the claim that anything in Jesus’ nature was full of sin or “sin-ful”. Jesus did not commit sin. Neither did his flesh.

3) Clear asked LightofTruth : “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?”
As with the prior question regarding Jesus being “sin-ful”, LightofTruths theory has been unable to name a single sin that a newborn infant can commit or has committed in order to qualify for his claim

THE QUESTION REGARDING A NEWBORN INFANT BEING “FULL OF SIN” (SIN-FUL)

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."

4) Clear asked : “ What advantage does your theory and interpretation have over the early Judeo-Christian belief that infants are guiltless and innocent of sin?”
The answer is, “none”. LightofTruth and Moorea944s’ theory that an infant is sin-ful or has “sin-ful” flesh has NO advantage over the early Christian belief that a newborn infant has not committed any sin, but comes to this world sin-less.


5) Clear asked “ If you're using the standard dictionary meaning for “sinful” then what “sin” is a new born infant guilty of in your religious theory?
LightofTruth theory has not been able, so far, to name a single sin a newborn is guilting of committing.


6) Clear asked both LightofTruth and Moorea944, : After the infant takes that first breath, what sin is it capable of committing in your theory?”
So far, Neither poster who theorize infants are born “sin-ful” or have “sin-full” flesh, have been able to describe a single sin that a new born infant is capable of after this immediate entry into mortality. Not a single sin. This theory falls apart immediately when one simply looks beyond the statement of belief. It is a very, very, bad theory.

7) Regarding LightofTruth and Moorea944’s theory of “sin-ful” infants, Clear asked : What sort of punishment do you think a newborn infant should receive for this “sinfulness” you claim it has in your theory?”
So far, there is no description of any punishment that this theory would deal out to a “sin-full” newborn. No, “burn in hell” for being born “sin-ful”, no slap of the wrists, no dunce cap or anything so far has been suggested for a newborn infant who is, according to this theory, born with flesh “full of sin”.

The theory that an infant is born “full of sin” or that Jesus was “sin-full” dies with just the simplest look beyond the surface.


LightofTruth. Since you would not, or could not answer these simple questions asked of your theory, I have answered them for you. Are there any changes or clarifications you want to make to any of these answers for readers?

Again, I do not want to tell you what to belief or force you to admit the errors and faults in your theory. But, this is a debate forum and IF you are going to offer an unusual theory, you MUST expect that individuals are going to ask basic and simple questions to which you will be expected to provide some sort of data and rational thought and logical use of the data.


I hope your journey is a good one. I hope you are able to modify your theory in such a way as to make it more reasonable. However, you are going to have to give up some errors in order to make room for corrections and improvements.

Clear
δρσενεειω

Since my name was mentioned I'll comment on this. I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...


Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune. But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too.

 

[Clear]

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."

1) REGARDING NEWBORNS HAVING "SIN-FUL" FLESH.
a) Moorea944 clarifies “I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. “ (post # 232)
Thank you for the clarification. This is progress. When you agreed with LightofTruths theory that a newborns flesh was “sin-ful”, it seemed as though you thought there was some sort of “sin” associated with a newborns' flesh, whereas in early Judeo-Christian worldviews, a newborn infant was also innocent of having any moral sin.

b) Moorea944 further clarifies “What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...” (post # 232)

When the early Christians saw individuals starting to blame Adam for THEIR choices, they taught that “Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” apo Baruch (Baruch 2) 54:19 The point in early Christian literature was that each person has free choice and they cannot blame Adam for their specific and individual moral choices that they make as individuals. While we do affect each other to some extent, each morally competent individual is responsible for their own sin. While mankind inherits mortality as part of the nature of their fleshly inheritance from their parents, they cannot blame Adam, nor any other parent, for any sin they commit if they are morally competent to chose for themselves.

Moorea944, when you talk about the “nature of Adam” and a connection with any personal choice you or I make, I cannot tell what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?

Other than the fact that all subsequent children of Adam also are mortal and will die, I don’t see what Adams transgression has to do with an infant having the “sin-ful” flesh you say it has. While I agree that the flesh of a newborn is mortal (i.e. it will someday die), I don’t agree that it contains any moral sin inside the flesh. IF the infant has never committed a sin and is, as a newborn, incapable of committing a sin, it makes no sense to say an infant is “sinful” or has “sin-ful” flesh when it’s flesh is pure of any sin. I DO like your point that an infant is sin-less and will have the choice to sin once it becomes capable of moral choice to commit sin.


c) Moorea944 further claims : "Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune." (post # 232)

Are you now saying a newborn INFANT has somehow “acquired Adam’s transgression(s) or sins”? I am not sure what you are saying when you say an infant is sinless, yet has “acquired” the sin of another person (Adam in this case). Do you somehow think that a child can "inherit" or "acquire" a moral SIN from a father, or grandfather, or from a great, great grandfather Adam?" Can you further clarify?



d) Moorea944 re-clarifies :But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too. (post # 232)

Good. The earlier Christian doctrines make clear that if mankind do not "become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:3) Thus it was said Jesus "...renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again. The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11;

4th century New Testament text Hermas confirms infants were pure in early Christian doctrine : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him... ” Hermas 106:3;

The theory that newborn infants sin or that Jesus sinned is less logical and less rational than the early Judeo-Christian belief that newborns enter the world sin-less and Jesus was sinless.

Good luck coming to your own decisions as to what you will believe Moorea944, I like your ability to consider grey areas such as "capability" to sin.

Clear
δρσιδρειω

 

[moorea944]

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."

1) REGARDING NEWBORNS HAVING "SIN-FUL" FLESH.
a) Moorea944 clarifies “I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. “ (post # 232)
Thank you for the clarification. This is progress. When you agreed with LightofTruths theory that a newborns flesh was “sin-ful”, it seemed as though you thought there was some sort of “sin” associated with a newborns' flesh, whereas in early Judeo-Christian worldviews, a newborn infant was also innocent of having any moral sin.

b) Moorea944 further clarifies “What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...” (post # 232)

When the early Christians saw individuals starting to blame Adam for THEIR choices, they taught that “Adam is, therefore not the cause, except only for himself, but each of us has become our own Adam.” apo Baruch (Baruch 2) 54:19 The point in early Christian literature was that each person has free choice and they cannot blame Adam for their specific and individual moral choices that they make as individuals. While we do affect each other to some extent, each morally competent individual is responsible for their own sin. While mankind inherits mortality as part of the nature of their fleshly inheritance from their parents, they cannot blame Adam, nor any other parent, for any sin they commit if they are morally competent to chose for themselves.

Moorea944, when you talk about the “nature of Adam” and a connection with any personal choice you or I make, I cannot tell what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?

Other than the fact that all subsequent children of Adam also are mortal and will die, I don’t see what Adams transgression has to do with an infant having the “sin-ful” flesh you say it has. While I agree that the flesh of a newborn is mortal (i.e. it will someday die), I don’t agree that it contains any moral sin inside the flesh. IF the infant has never committed a sin and is, as a newborn, incapable of committing a sin, it makes no sense to say an infant is “sinful” or has “sin-ful” flesh when it’s flesh is pure of any sin. I DO like your point that an infant is sin-less and will have the choice to sin once it becomes capable of moral choice to commit sin.


c) Moorea944 further claims : "Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune." (post # 232)

Are you now saying a newborn INFANT has somehow “acquired Adam’s transgression(s) or sins”? I am not sure what you are saying when you say an infant is sinless, yet has “acquired” the sin of another person (Adam in this case). Do you somehow think that a child can "inherit" or "acquire" a moral SIN from a father, or grandfather, or from a great, great grandfather Adam?" Can you further clarify?



d) Moorea944 re-clarifies :But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too. (post # 232)

Good. The earlier Christian doctrines make clear that if mankind do not to "become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 18:3) Thus it was said Jesus "...renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, he made us men of another type, so that we should have the soul of children, as if he were creating us all over again. The Epistle of Barnabas 6:11;

4th century New Testament text Hermas confirms infants were pure in early Christian doctrine : “All of you, therefore, who continue,” he said, “ and will be as infants, with no wickedness, will be more glorious than all those who have been mentioned previously, for all infants are glorious in God’s sight and stand foremost with him... ” Hermas 106:3;

The theory that newborn infants sin or that Jesus sinned is less logical and less rational than the early Judeo-Christian belief that newborns enter the world sin-less and Jesus was sinless.

Good luck coming to your own decisions as to what you will believe Moorea944, I like your ability to consider grey areas such as "capability" to sin.

Clear
δρσιδρειω

Your completely not understanding what I"m saying and your taking my posts out of context to fit your own theories. I really dont know why your writing this up like some Mueller Report. I'm I going to be impeached after this? Just curious.......

But anyhow.... I do like reading your theories though, it's very entertaining!!

 

[LightofTruth]

Since my name was mentioned I'll comment on this. I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...


Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune. But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too.

Since my name was mentioned I'll comment on this. I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...


Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune. But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too.

You need to study more deeply into this matter. just a suggestion.

Paul says that sin dwells in his flesh. And his flesh was no different than any other flesh of man, including Jesus.

So, the question becomes, how does sin dwell in the flesh of every human being born into this world?

I'll tell you how it dwells in the flesh of every man. it dwells in the flesh of every man by the lust of the flesh of every of man.

According to James, lust gives birth to sin. That means that sin originates in the lust of the flesh.

Therefore, lust in the flesh is sin in the flesh.

And if you can't see that, i'll explain it further. Just ask.

 

[LightofTruth]

Since my name was mentioned I'll comment on this. I never said or believe in, that babies are full of sin. Never said that. What I said was, a baby eventually has the "nature and that's from Adam" to someday sin. A baby doesnt sin or knows anything about sin.... But it does have a nature to eventually sin someday...


Aquiring Adam's transgressions is not our punishment, it's our misfortune. But again, I never said that babies sin. And I never said that Jesus sins too.

What does the Scripture mean when it says that: "in him was no sin" or "he was without sin"?

It can not, as shown above, mean that his flesh was different than the rest of us. So, what does it mean?

It means that there was no sin that he personally committed himself! And NOT that there was no sin in his flesh!

If there was not sin in his flesh then his flesh would be different than the rest. But Heb 2:14 says NO!

 

[moorea944]

You need to study more deeply into this matter. just a suggestion.

Paul says that sin dwells in his flesh. And his flesh was no different than any other flesh of man, including Jesus.

So, the question becomes, how does sin dwell in the flesh of every human being born into this world?

I'll tell you how it dwells in the flesh of every man. it dwells in the flesh of every man by the lust of the flesh of every of man.

According to James, lust gives birth to sin. That means that sin originates in the lust of the flesh.

Therefore, lust in the flesh is sin in the flesh.

And if you can't see that, i'll explain it further. Just ask.

I know exactly what it means. Thanks

 

[moorea944]

What does the Scripture mean when it says that: "in him was no sin" or "he was without sin"?

It can not, as shown above, mean that his flesh was different than the rest of us. So, what does it mean?

It means that there was no sin that he personally committed himself! And NOT that there was no sin in his flesh!

If there was not sin in his flesh then his flesh would be different than the rest. But Heb 2:14 says NO!

I never said that his flesh was different from us. Scripture tells us that he was just like us. When I say "sin in the flesh" or 'sin nature", I'm not saying that he actually had sin in his body. That's not what i'm saying. "Sin in the flesh" is a saying of a body or nature that was capable of sinning. The reasons that Jesus didnt sin was that God was working through him and that he chose not to sin.

 

[LightofTruth]

I never said that his flesh was different from us. Scripture tells us that he was just like us. When I say "sin in the flesh" or 'sin nature", I'm not saying that he actually had sin in his body. That's not what i'm saying. "Sin in the flesh" is a saying of a body or nature that was capable of sinning. The reasons that Jesus didnt sin was that God was working through him and that he chose not to sin.

"sin in the flesh" does not mean a person is capable of sinning but rather sin dwells in the flesh itself just as Paul says.

 

[LightofTruth]

I know exactly what it means. Thanks

What does the 10th commandment say, and what does it mean?