Doctrine Discussion about matters of the faith.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-30-2009, 11:50 PM
kevinvw kevinvw is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 73
Default

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.
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #52  
Old 05-31-2009, 01:24 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinvw View Post
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
  #53  
Old 05-31-2009, 01:25 PM
greenbear's Avatar
greenbear greenbear is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 492
Default

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
  #54  
Old 05-31-2009, 02:00 PM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbear View Post
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

Last edited by tonybones2112; 05-31-2009 at 02:02 PM. Reason: typo
  #55  
Old 05-31-2009, 08:08 PM
CKG CKG is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112 View Post
Craig, the heresy that Jesus Christ had a sin nature is found in the Ebionites for one, the followers of Arius, and the Gnostics in general right on up to Ellen White of the SDAs and I think Tony don't accept the fornicating angels of Genesis 6 because it's not sound doctrine.

Grace and peace

Tony
I'm not sure why you addressed this to me because I never said Jesus had a sin nature. I already knew he didn't have one because no such thing as a sin nature exists in the Bible. The term sin nature comes from reformation theology, not Bible theology. If we sin because we have a sin nature then what caused Adam and Eve to sin? Did they have a sin nature before the fall? They sinned because of the same reason we do. They chose their own lusts and desires over God's will.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)
Our problem is the flesh!
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)
The virgin birth of Christ is an important, essential and non-negotiable doctrine of the faith, but the idea that Jesus had to be virgin born to avoid the sin nature is silly and a moot point. It was the only way he could be born into this world since he is God and has existed from eternity past. You and I don't have a pre-existence. Our life begins at conception as the result of the union between a man and woman (preferably husband and wife). He couldn't be conceived the same way you and I are or else he would've just been another man. He had to enter the world and take on a body like ours in order to die on a cross and pay for our sins and the only way he could be born was through the virgin birth. He took on a body just like ours EXCEPT he never ever once sinned. I know there are many deep things in the Bible that require a lot of study to understand but a lot of times it is man who complicates things with his man-made theology.
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: (Romans 8:3)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
As far as Genesis 6; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 is pretty clear about who these sons of God were.
  #56  
Old 06-01-2009, 12:04 AM
tonybones2112's Avatar
tonybones2112 tonybones2112 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CKG View Post
I'm not sure why you addressed this to me because I never said Jesus had a sin nature. I already knew he didn't have one because no such thing as a sin nature exists in the Bible. The term sin nature comes from reformation theology, not Bible theology. If we sin because we have a sin nature then what caused Adam and Eve to sin? Did they have a sin nature before the fall? They sinned because of the same reason we do. They chose their own lusts and desires over God's will.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)
Our problem is the flesh!
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)
The virgin birth of Christ is an important, essential and non-negotiable doctrine of the faith, but the idea that Jesus had to be virgin born to avoid the sin nature is silly and a moot point. It was the only way he could be born into this world since he is God and has existed from eternity past. You and I don't have a pre-existence. Our life begins at conception as the result of the union between a man and woman (preferably husband and wife). He couldn't be conceived the same way you and I are or else he would've just been another man. He had to enter the world and take on a body like ours in order to die on a cross and pay for our sins and the only way he could be born was through the virgin birth. He took on a body just like ours EXCEPT he never ever once sinned. I know there are many deep things in the Bible that require a lot of study to understand but a lot of times it is man who complicates things with his man-made theology.
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: (Romans 8:3)

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; (Hebrews 2:14)
As far as Genesis 6; Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 is pretty clear about who these sons of God were.
Craig, as I said to Jen, I've unsubscribed from the thread, and addressed her question on Genesis 3 out of courtesy and friendship. I made my position known on the sin nature of Christ whatever theological entity may have originated the phrase and do not wish to argue the point. I've said all I know to say on the issue of the fornicating angel legend and you all will enjoy the thread a lot more without me because I am a Pauline dispensationalist and there may well be half-demon/half Satanic X-Files creatures running around with respect to Satan's war on Israel in OT times and in the Tribulation. Paul tells us that principalities and powers were shown the door by Christ's work on Calvary and that what demonic activity God has allowed is in opposition to Paul's message of Grace, his primacy as the Apostle for today; in other words, words, not Vampires & Werewolves For Lucifer. We, not me alone, we have been given the Great Commission of Acts 9:15 as chosen vessels to bear Christ's name to Gentiles, kings, and Jews as ambassadors for Christ and ministers of the reconciliation, not ministers of exorcisms, occultic studies, and angelogical anatomy.

Christ's sinless nature and the avenue of the Adamic sin nature from the seed of the male are two precepts I absolutely will not move from or compromise on. The passage of this corrupt nature from father to child is obvious. Christ was fully human and was tempted, indeed He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness expressly for that purpose according to the Scriptures and not to demonstrate to me or any of us His attributes, I believe Him without demonstration, but to fulfill the love of Son to His Father and to also demonstrate to Satan, New Sheriff In Town, your time is short.

To me, any hint that Christ had the nature and capacity to commit sin is a heretical doctrine from the bipolar mind of Ellen White of the SDA, as heretical as Bullinger's soul sleep and Universal salvation of lost sinners in hell(along with demons). As heretical as the current "original manuscript" fraud sweeping IFB and Grace churches and the "kenosis theory", that Christ "emptied Himself" of His attributes of Deity that's hovering on the edges of the Grace Movement. "Heresy" is an offensive word and at the same time one Christians are scared to death of due to the Catholic Church having associated it with killing people. "Angels in Genesis 6". Is that a heresy? No, it's like soldiers arguing over the correct color of a rifle strap in combat. Christ having the nature and capacity to sin? Yes, heresy. Not a new thing. I had Charles Finney's autobiography once, the very first sentence he wrote, "America is a paradise of heterodoxy(heresy)". That was well over 100 years ago.

Now, you all discuss the topic(s) raised in this thread to your heart's content and have fun, it's just a dead-end precept with no resolution to me personally Craig.

Grace and peace brother

Tony
  #57  
Old 06-01-2009, 12:15 AM
greenbear's Avatar
greenbear greenbear is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112 View Post
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
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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

Last edited by greenbear; 06-01-2009 at 12:21 AM.
  #58  
Old 06-01-2009, 12:28 PM
CKG CKG is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia
Posts: 197
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonybones2112 View Post
Craig, as I said to Jen, I've unsubscribed from the thread, and addressed her question on Genesis 3 out of courtesy and friendship. I made my position known on the sin nature of Christ whatever theological entity may have originated the phrase and do not wish to argue the point. I've said all I know to say on the issue of the fornicating angel legend and you all will enjoy the thread a lot more without me because I am a Pauline dispensationalist and there may well be half-demon/half Satanic X-Files creatures running around with respect to Satan's war on Israel in OT times and in the Tribulation. Paul tells us that principalities and powers were shown the door by Christ's work on Calvary and that what demonic activity God has allowed is in opposition to Paul's message of Grace, his primacy as the Apostle for today; in other words, words, not Vampires & Werewolves For Lucifer. We, not me alone, we have been given the Great Commission of Acts 9:15 as chosen vessels to bear Christ's name to Gentiles, kings, and Jews as ambassadors for Christ and ministers of the reconciliation, not ministers of exorcisms, occultic studies, and angelogical anatomy.

Christ's sinless nature and the avenue of the Adamic sin nature from the seed of the male are two precepts I absolutely will not move from or compromise on. The passage of this corrupt nature from father to child is obvious. Christ was fully human and was tempted, indeed He was led of the Spirit into the wilderness expressly for that purpose according to the Scriptures and not to demonstrate to me or any of us His attributes, I believe Him without demonstration, but to fulfill the love of Son to His Father and to also demonstrate to Satan, New Sheriff In Town, your time is short.

To me, any hint that Christ had the nature and capacity to commit sin is a heretical doctrine from the bipolar mind of Ellen White of the SDA, as heretical as Bullinger's soul sleep and Universal salvation of lost sinners in hell(along with demons). As heretical as the current "original manuscript" fraud sweeping IFB and Grace churches and the "kenosis theory", that Christ "emptied Himself" of His attributes of Deity that's hovering on the edges of the Grace Movement. "Heresy" is an offensive word and at the same time one Christians are scared to death of due to the Catholic Church having associated it with killing people. "Angels in Genesis 6". Is that a heresy? No, it's like soldiers arguing over the correct color of a rifle strap in combat. Christ having the nature and capacity to sin? Yes, heresy. Not a new thing. I had Charles Finney's autobiography once, the very first sentence he wrote, "America is a paradise of heterodoxy(heresy)". That was well over 100 years ago.

Now, you all discuss the topic(s) raised in this thread to your heart's content and have fun, it's just a dead-end precept with no resolution to me personally Craig.

Grace and peace brother

Tony
Jesus did not have a sin nature. The Bible (KJV) mentions no such thing. It is in the NIV, but I'm not going to insult you by implying that you give any kind of credence to the NIV because I know you don't even though you've tried to insult me by connecting what I've said with various heresies that's come down the pike.

Once again, our problem is the flesh.
But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6)

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. (1 John 2:16)

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. (Galatians 5:16-17)
Jesus did not have a sin nature, but he did take on a body of flesh and blood like ours. He was God before he took on flesh, he was God during his time on earth, he was God after his ascension. He always has been, now is and forever will be God. Why did he take on a body of flesh and blood?
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 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. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:14-18)

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. (Hebrews 4:15)
*********************

The Bible makes reference to 4 persons or groups as the son of God or sons of God.

1. Jesus - Mark 1:1, John 20:31
2. Adam - Luke 3:38
3. Believers - John 1:12, Romans 8:14, Philippians 2:15, 1 John 3:1, 1 John 3:2
4. Angels - Job 1:6, Job 2:1, Job 38:7

I think it's safe to say you can eliminate the first three as having reference to Genesis 6. That leaves number 4. I personally do not believe the events of Genesis 6:2 will happen again.
And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. (Jude 6)

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)
  #59  
Old 06-01-2009, 01:08 PM
greenbear's Avatar
greenbear greenbear is offline
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 492
Default

CKG,
Quote:
I personally do not believe the events of Genesis 6:2 will happen again.
These verses indicate to me that the events of Genesis 6:2 will happen again unless there are giants who survived being wiped out by Israel. The days of Noe are distinguished by the corruption of human flesh by fallen angels. Why would Jesus liken the last days before His second coming to the days of Noe if the events of Gen 6:2 and I assume you also mean on through 6:12 don't happen again? Do you think Jesus is only referring to the quick destruction, every imagination of man's heart being evil continually, the earth being filled with violence but not the other defining aspect of Gen 6 and Sodom and Gomorrah, namely going after strange flesh? It's true that Satan doesn't need to try to corrupt the messianic line in the last days so that much is different.

Matt 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. 17:27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. 17:28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; 17:29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
  #60  
Old 06-01-2009, 03:28 PM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864
Default

Those who support the "sons of God" not being human (Seth's decendents) cannot duck out on the required follow-up that this type of union must be possible throughout the rest of history, including today. I know that there are those who teach this, but most who claim that these were "fallen angels" or some other spirit being shy away from this necessary corollary.

It seems that most who are of this position also have some difficulty reading the plain chronology of the verse.
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com