[kevinvw]

So what you are saying is that Jesus had no will of His own, that He was just a robot disguised as a man. He was tempted but it was all just a game because He couldn't give in to it anyway. Jesus was made perfect by obeying the will of the Lord. I don't think that He was bound in shackles to obey, I believe He could have done His own thing, but didn't. I don't see how perfection through automation is very significant or even worthy. From what I can tell, you think Jesus only suffered once in His entire 33 years on this Earth. I think He suffered much more than that, and I think Peter would agree. The verse says He died once for our sins. I couldn't agree more. To say that was the only thing He learned obedience from is just stupid. It's one thing for a holy, sinless God sitting in eternity telling sinners what to do and what not to do and it's another for a man down on this earth under God's laws to try and keep those laws which are holy and pure.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Gee, would you look at that Tony, He suffered being tempted. He didn't just suffer once.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

It doesn't say that He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without the ability or will to sin. There are two wills that any man can follow. The Lord's and man's own will. One will lead to sin and death, the other will lead to life. (In Jesus' case, the path of the author and finisher of our salvation.)

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Mat 26:43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

Jesus had the ability to consider both sides of an issue. He could have debated the wrong course of an action, but He never did. Temptation is not sin, but giving in to it is. Jesus just never debated to give in, but he could have.

Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

We may not have resisted unto blood, but Jesus did. He wasn't an automoton that couldn't think for Himself. He had to resist and strive. "Being tempted at all points, yet without sin."

I'm not trying to show off. I'm sorry if you were flattered. God isn't a brainless automoton that can't go against his programming. He just doesn't because he is holy.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by kevinvw

So what you are saying is that Jesus had no will of His own, that He was just a robot disguised as a man. He was tempted but it was all just a game because He couldn't give in to it anyway. Jesus was made perfect by obeying the will of the Lord. I don't think that He was bound in shackles to obey, I believe He could have done His own thing, but didn't. I don't see how perfection through automation is very significant or even worthy. From what I can tell, you think Jesus only suffered once in His entire 33 years on this Earth. I think He suffered much more than that, and I think Peter would agree. The verse says He died once for our sins. I couldn't agree more. To say that was the only thing He learned obedience from is just stupid. It's one thing for a holy, sinless God sitting in eternity telling sinners what to do and what not to do and it's another for a man down on this earth under God's laws to try and keep those laws which are holy and pure.

Heb 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
Heb 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Gee, would you look at that Tony, He suffered being tempted. He didn't just suffer once.

Heb 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

It doesn't say that He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without the ability or will to sin. There are two wills that any man can follow. The Lord's and man's own will. One will lead to sin and death, the other will lead to life. (In Jesus' case, the path of the author and finisher of our salvation.)

Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Mat 26:43 And he came and found them asleep again: for their eyes were heavy.

Jesus had the ability to consider both sides of an issue. He could have debated the wrong course of an action, but He never did. Temptation is not sin, but giving in to it is. Jesus just never debated to give in, but he could have.

Heb 12:3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Heb 12:4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

We may not have resisted unto blood, but Jesus did. He wasn't an automoton that couldn't think for Himself. He had to resist and strive. "Being tempted at all points, yet without sin."

I'm not trying to show off. I'm sorry if you were flattered. God isn't a brainless automoton that can't go against his programming. He just doesn't because he is holy.

Kevin, if you want to play Scriptural Swordfight over a Seventh Day Adventist doctrine, you have to do it with someone else, I've unsubscribed from this thread and the UFO thread, I've said all I have to say on those two topics and this SDA doctrine of Christ having a sin nature.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[greenbear]

Tony,
Sorry to pull you back into this thread but there's another question I'd like to ask you and I'd like to comment on something you wrote, if you wouldn't mind.

I've never felt that I fully understood this verse about the seed of the woman:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I understood that the seed of the woman refers to Christ but I know I'm still missing something. I don't know how God's seed (Christ) could be called the woman's seed. Did God form Eve with His 'latent' seed inside her that He would 'activate' when the time came? Or is it called her seed as a literary device? to contrast with the norm being the man's seed? That seems like a shallow view to me. What do you think? What does anybody else think?


You said, "It tells us the Adamic sin nature of humanity is passed through the seed of the male, not the female. If these giants were the offspring of angels, then angels must have male seed and blood. Where is the sin nature if angels are not descended from Adam?
The giants then must have been born sinless, and we know only one Man was sinless."

I've wondered in the past why apparently the nephilim couldn't be saved since they were half human. Surely this wasn't your intent but you may have helped me with that question. I see merit in your view that sin nature comes down through the father. If we apply it to the giants,and for argument's sake assume they are the children of fallen angels, they didn't have a human sin nature because that comes through the father, not the mother. What kind of nature do fallen angles have? A fallen nature is an inherited thing so angels don't have it; but would their offspring, if they had any, inherit a fallen or sin nature? In my view, Genesis 6, as well passages dealing with Israel wiping out the giants, portray them as an entirely different kind of evil from what came before or after. God found it necessary to wipe them from the face of the earth by flood the first time and though Israel the second time.

Your sister in Christ,

Jennifer

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Tony,
Sorry to pull you back into this thread but there's another question I'd like to ask you and I'd like to comment on something you wrote, if you wouldn't mind.

I've never felt that I fully understood this verse about the seed of the woman:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

I understood that the seed of the woman refers to Christ but I know I'm still missing something. I don't know how God's seed (Christ) could be called the woman's seed. Did God form Eve with His 'latent' seed inside her that He would 'activate' when the time came? Or is it called her seed as a literary device? to contrast with the norm being the man's seed? That seems like a shallow view to me. What do you think? What does anybody else think?


You said, "It tells us the Adamic sin nature of humanity is passed through the seed of the male, not the female. If these giants were the offspring of angels, then angels must have male seed and blood. Where is the sin nature if angels are not descended from Adam?
The giants then must have been born sinless, and we know only one Man was sinless."

I've wondered in the past why apparently the nephilim couldn't be saved since they were half human. Surely this wasn't your intent but you may have helped me with that question. I see merit in your view that sin nature comes down through the father. If we apply it to the giants,and for argument's sake assume they are the children of fallen angels, they didn't have a human sin nature because that comes through the father, not the mother. What kind of nature do fallen angles have? A fallen nature is an inherited thing so angels don't have it; but would their offspring, if they had any, inherit a fallen or sin nature? In my view, Genesis 6, as well passages dealing with Israel wiping out the giants, portray them as an entirely different kind of evil from what came before or after. God found it necessary to wipe them from the face of the earth by flood the first time and though Israel the second time.

Your sister in Christ,

Jennifer

Sister, I am not trying to be argumentative, that is the venue of the FFF forum. I remembered something when I was researching the Two Witnesses thread and Enoch and what an important similitude, like-figure Enoch is. My point is, on the sons of God of Genesis 6, as soon as I can see a similitude to them, or them pointing to something else as a similitude, then my position might change. I don't expect it to due to this sin-nature precept, but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 3:15 is taken and streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched a light year to prove Cain was the product of sexual union between Eve and Satan. This provides a convenient foundation for racist bigotry against, well, what ever race a given proponent of this false doctrine may have, most notably blacks. This is part of the "christian occultism" thing we have discussed, and occultic practices manifest in the Church age you and I have a slight disagreement on. I'm not saying you beleive this particularly, I'm just saying others include it in their doctrines and intepretations, along with ghosts, demons, and possessions.

Specifically, Genesis 3:15 does not teach a race of half-Satan/half human entities, but Jesus Christ clears it up here. I included the whole passage top preserve context:

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Yea, hath God said? Christ was born of one seed, the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15, the liars who deny Christ, His work, His Deity, His position as Messiah to Israel and Savior of the whole world, all liars are of the "seed" of Satan.

I'll continue to address this question with you as much as you want or need. I'm sorry I cut Kevin short in the other thread but I am not repeating myself on the heresy of Christ having a sin-nature. I replied and gave Scripture for my position, it was not good enough, and I'm not going around and around about it.

Grace and peace sister

Tony

[greenbear]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

Sister, I am not trying to be argumentative, that is the venue of the FFF forum. I remembered something when I was researching the Two Witnesses thread and Enoch and what an important similitude, like-figure Enoch is. My point is, on the sons of God of Genesis 6, as soon as I can see a similitude to them, or them pointing to something else as a similitude, then my position might change. I don't expect it to due to this sin-nature precept, but with God all things are possible.

Genesis 3:15 is taken and streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched a light year to prove Cain was the product of sexual union between Eve and Satan. This provides a convenient foundation for racist bigotry against, well, what ever race a given proponent of this false doctrine may have, most notably blacks. This is part of the "christian occultism" thing we have discussed, and occultic practices manifest in the Church age you and I have a slight disagreement on. I'm not saying you beleive this particularly, I'm just saying others include it in their doctrines and intepretations, along with ghosts, demons, and possessions.

Specifically, Genesis 3:15 does not teach a race of half-Satan/half human entities, but Jesus Christ clears it up here. I included the whole passage top preserve context:

John 8:38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.

Yea, hath God said? Christ was born of one seed, the seed of the woman of Genesis 3:15, the liars who deny Christ, His work, His Deity, His position as Messiah to Israel and Savior of the whole world, all liars are of the "seed" of Satan.

I'll continue to address this question with you as much as you want or need. I'm sorry I cut Kevin short in the other thread but I am not repeating myself on the heresy of Christ having a sin-nature. I replied and gave Scripture for my position, it was not good enough, and I'm not going around and around about it.

Grace and peace sister

Tony

Genesis 3:15 is taken and streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched a light year to prove Cain was the product of sexual union between Eve and Satan. This provides a convenient foundation for racist bigotry against, well, what ever race a given proponent of this false doctrine may have, most notably blacks. This is part of the "christian occultism" thing we have discussed, and occultic practices manifest in the Church age you and I have a slight disagreement on. I'm not saying you beleive this particularly, I'm just saying others include it in their doctrines and intepretations, along with ghosts, demons, and possessions.

Specifically, Genesis 3:15 does not teach a race of half-Satan/half human entities, but Jesus Christ clears it up here.

Tony,
let me establish that I believe Gen 3:15 refers ultimately to the serpent's seed as the anti-christ and the woman's seed as Christ. Do you really think I am an occultist after my 100 or so posts on this board? Is that your position? Was there anything in my question that led you to suspect this or are you painting with too broad a brush? Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying.

Sister, I am not trying to be argumentative, that is the venue of the FFF forum. I remembered something when I was researching the Two Witnesses thread and Enoch and what an important similitude, like-figure Enoch is. My point is, on the sons of God of Genesis 6, as soon as I can see a similitude to them, or them pointing to something else as a similitude, then my position might change. I don't expect it to due to this sin-nature precept, but with God all things are possible.

I understand the need to see how the Son's of God in Gen 6 being fallen angels mating with human women could have any place in God's plan; and that you would need an answer to the sin nature question before that.

For arguments sake can we assume for a few moments that the nephilim are the offspring of fallen angels. I've wondered in the past why the nephilim couldn't be saved since they were half-human. Surely this wasn't your intent but you may have helped me with that question. I see merit in your view that our sin nature comes down through the father. If we apply this same principle to the giants, we can see they wouldn't be born with a human sin nature but with a sin nature passed on from a fallen angel. I think a sin nature is an inherited thing so fallen angels wouldn't have it but would their offspring inherit a sin nature? The nephilim would have inherited not a human sin nature but a fallen angelic sin nature. In my view, Gen 6, as well passages dealing with Israel wiping out the giants, portray them as an entirely different kind of evil from what came before or after. Christ died for human sinners with adam's sin nature. He didn't die for offspring of fallen angels with a sin nature inherited from their fathers the fallen angels. There is no propitiation for sins for them just like there is none for their fathers the fallen angels. God found it necessary to wipe them from the face of the earth first by flood and second through Israel.

As far as a similitude for the son's of God fathering the giants like I believe Enoch is a type of the church, the only one I can come up with is the beast of rev 13 which I'm sure is no revelation to you. Rather than requiring that fallen angels mating with human women producing the giants as offspring be a type of something, I would rather try to put it in a broader context.

Gen 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
Satan got his first hint that God's plan to redeem man somehow involved lineage so he plotted to destroy the messianic line throughout history. I believe what is related to us in Gen 6 is Satan's first attempt to do so. He managed to corrupt all flesh on earth through his fallen angels mating with women. Only Noah was perfect in his geneology.

6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.
6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

Another thought I had was that there were ever only males in the angelic order. What makes a male a male? It is an interesting question. I can only speculate that all of the angels were amazed when God formed woman out of Adam's rib. No one had ever seen a woman before. Isn't it possible that fallen angels would begin to lust after woman that God had made for man?

Your sister in Christ,

Jennifer