How could the Messiah be sinless?

[Renniks]

Not at all. I explained where the wisdom lies in God's perceived foolishness. I don't believe that you did the same in your understanding of the Atonement, in claiming that it was effectuated by a god-man.

It would take a book to even begin to explain the atonement.

But, your analogy is even worse than that, because you think that Jesus, as God, died for our sins. Therefore, there was never a threat to die, as God, the eternal and immortal, at any moment can raise Himself back up. Your foolishness theory is inapplicable.
For crying out loud JBH, you have an utterly absurd understanding of Scripture!

See what I mean? This explains nothing. All you did was say you were right and then insult the other poster.

 

[justbyfaith]

For crying out loud JBF <fify>, you have an utterly absurd understanding of Scripture!

Yes indeed; it is the foolishness of preaching.

 

[Tong2020]

Propensity in both natures, actually. I was just trying to prove that yes, innocence was there, but clearly defiance and lust also. For again, they sinned without duress or desperation, it came without too much coaxing. Your impression of Adam an Eve, and the image of God, is incorrect.

Why do you not seem to understand what I just said in my post? I had just pointed out to you that Adam and Eve were created innocent, without knowledge of good and evil, as like an innocent child. They have no knowledge of sin. Thus, the propensity to sin is out of the picture. Well, perhaps you have a different understanding of what "without knowledge of good and evil, as like an innocent child." means. That would be your problem to solve, not mine. And your opinion that "Your impression of Adam an Eve, and the image of God, is incorrect." does not in any way refute my argument regarding the image of God and the innocence of Adam and Eve.

With regards the image of God, you just keep ignoring my argument and had not even attempted to make a refutation. My argument is that, Jesus was a man too, and should Jesus had sinned, he will not be said to be the image of God who is Holy. For a sinner cannot be said to be the image of the Holy God. If you can't refute that, then this matter comes to its conclusion.
-------------------

Tong2020 said:
Please cite scriptures where you got the teaching that the angels were created in the image of God so I could check the truth of that.

Every sentient and moral creature, is created in the image of God. No other creature has the moral or spiritual awareness, unless they are created in God's image. 'Let us make man in our image'.

God cannot become man because He is transcendent. There is no such thing as a god-man, as there is no such thing as a square circle. Every attribute that defines deity, is antithetical to what defines humanity. It's an impossibility, a contradiction, and an oxymoron. And a completely absurd and disgraceful, and redundant notion, to have 3 all-powerful persons in a single godhead. For one, the only thing that differentiates them is their names, nothing else.

Where are the scriptures where you got the teaching that the angels were created in the image of God? You have not cited any.

You said "Every sentient and moral creature, is created in the image of God." Do you not realize that Adam and Eve were created without knowledge of good and evil? They were created innocent. Do you know what that means? I guess not. Well, I guess there's nothing more that I could do to help you on that.

With regards your last paragraph, I don't know what you said there has got to do with the issue at hand. So, I will not here deviate. If you want, you can start a separate thread on that and we can have a discussion about that. What you ought to refute, if you can, in my post, is my argument that it is God who have the goal of conforming us to the image of His Son Jesus Christ against your contention that it is man's goal to be conformed to the image of Christ. Apparently, you also have no refutation to give.

Tong
R0843

 

[Tong2020]

yes, but I am clarifying what His pleasure is, to maker others happy. He's already entirely content, which cannot be improved upon. Now, because He Himself is so complete and perfect, it is His Holy desire to share His joy with others. He takes pleasure, in giving pleasure to others, not in procuring or sustaining His own joy, that is irrevocable and unable to diminish. That's my point.

What His pleasure is really besides the point. The point being is that everything in creation, God had created according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and glory. That clearly refutes your teaching that God did not create the universe for Himself to enjoy.

And you just here repeat your contention that "He's already entirely content, which cannot be improved upon." I already given you my argument that refutes that, which is what you ought to refute if you don't agree with it. My argument was and I quote "While God is perfectly complete as He is, it does not follow that He desires nothing nor does not take pleasure in anything other than Himself. Everything in creation, God had created according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and glory. "

You said here "He takes pleasure, in giving pleasure to others, not in procuring or sustaining His own joy, that is irrevocable and unable to diminish." That is according to you. And I am not at all entirely against that, for I agree that God takes pleasure in giving pleasure to others. The fact that God blesses and gives grace proves that. But to satisfy you, let me give you one where God takes pleasure in with regards His creation work. God is pleased when He is worshiped ~ praised, honored, trusted, obeyed, etc.

Tong
R0844

 

[DNB]

It would take a book to even begin to explain the atonement.

See what I mean? This explains nothing. All you did was say you were right and then insult the other poster.

Why would it take a book, Paul and the author of Hebrews did so within a relatively short amount of effort?
Similar to Abraham's request to God, that if He found at least 10 righteous men in Sodom, would He spare the entire city, God said yes. God, due to the righteous efforts of 1 man, agreed to exonerate all men on his behalf, provided that they accept his Lordship and Messiahship. Christ as a man, met this requirement by fulfilling the demands of the Law, allowing God to abrogate the Law which removed the condemnation that came with it, and thus, absolve man of guilt.
But, fulfilling the Law also means loving God with all one's heart, and one's neighbour as themselves, not just the other 613 decrees.
Thus, the Saviour or mediator can never be God Himself, in order for this judiciary requirement to have any efficacy, or even make any sense.
You are confusing two principles, or expressions rather. The foolishness of God, is not actual foolishness to the wise. It was a paradox that Paul was stating. Nothing that God does is foolish, it only may appear so to the unenlightened and depraved.
This is why, as a Biblical student, we determine that there is no room for veritable nonsense in God's Word. So when a doctrine reaches the level of incomprehension and absurdity, in all its facets of theology (Soteriology, Ontology, Bibliology, ...), we categorically denounce it as heresy.

 

[DNB]

Yes indeed; it is the foolishness of preaching.

Your are the king of misquoting and misinterpreting Scripture, and taking it out of context!

 

[DNB]

Why do you not seem to understand what I just said in my post? I had just pointed out to you that Adam and Eve were created innocent, without knowledge of good and evil, as like an innocent child. They have no knowledge of sin. Thus, the propensity to sin is out of the picture. Well, perhaps you have a different understanding of what "without knowledge of good and evil, as like an innocent child." means. That would be your problem to solve, not mine. And your opinion that "Your impression of Adam an Eve, and the image of God, is incorrect." does not in any way refute my argument regarding the image of God and the innocence of Adam and Eve.

With regards the image of God, you just keep ignoring my argument and had not even attempted to make a refutation. My argument is that, Jesus was a man too, and should Jesus had sinned, he will not be said to be the image of God who is Holy. For a sinner cannot be said to be the image of the Holy God. If you can't refute that, then this matter comes to its conclusion.
-------------------

Tong2020 said:
Please cite scriptures where you got the teaching that the angels were created in the image of God so I could check the truth of that.
Where are the scriptures where you got the teaching that the angels were created in the image of God? You have not cited any.

You said "Every sentient and moral creature, is created in the image of God." Do you not realize that Adam and Eve were created without knowledge of good and evil? They were created innocent. Do you know what that means? I guess not. Well, I guess there's nothing more that I could do to help you on that.

With regards your last paragraph, I don't know what you said there has got to do with the issue at hand. So, I will not here deviate. If you want, you can start a separate thread on that and we can have a discussion about that. What you ought to refute, if you can, in my post, is my argument that it is God who have the goal of conforming us to the image of His Son Jesus Christ against your contention that it is man's goal to be conformed to the image of Christ. Apparently, you also have no refutation to give.

Tong
R0843

Ok, interesting, I think I see where the confusion lies now. I am equating the 'image of God' as an ontological or constitutional attribute, whereas you are making it out to be a definition of morality.
You are wrong! No other creature on earth has the spiritual discernment that only humans and angels, and for arguments sake, any other creature that has a conscience or an awareness of right and wrong. This is the significance of the Genesis author's account, of how we were created, and in what capacity.

You put the cart before the wheel by stating man was made innocent, whereas I am saying that innocence or guilt has absolutely no meaning to a creature who does not have that spiritual faculty, that is, the image of God. A lion, mosquito, tree or whale, do not have this cognizance or awareness of right or wrong. No monkey has ever protested injustice in the animal kingdom, nor built a shrine to a god, nor has a camel ever worn a burka on its head. This is the distinction between man and all other creatures, namely, the image of God.
For again, and for the last time, image of God does not denote a standing with God the Judge, as to guilt or innocence, as Adam chose to sin while being created in God's image. It means a capacity to both recognize and act either morally or immorally, not the results of one particular act over another.

 

[DNB]

What His pleasure is really besides the point. The point being is that everything in creation, God had created according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and glory. That clearly refutes your teaching that God did not create the universe for Himself to enjoy.

And you just here repeat your contention that "He's already entirely content, which cannot be improved upon." I already given you my argument that refutes that, which is what you ought to refute if you don't agree with it. My argument was and I quote "While God is perfectly complete as He is, it does not follow that He desires nothing nor does not take pleasure in anything other than Himself. Everything in creation, God had created according to His will, purpose, pleasure, and glory. "

You said here "He takes pleasure, in giving pleasure to others, not in procuring or sustaining His own joy, that is irrevocable and unable to diminish." That is according to you. And I am not at all entirely against that, for I agree that God takes pleasure in giving pleasure to others. The fact that God blesses and gives grace proves that. But to satisfy you, let me give you one where God takes pleasure in with regards His creation work. God is pleased when He is worshiped ~ praised, honored, trusted, obeyed, etc.

Tong
R0844

God, the alleged trinity, did not create all things just for one particular alleged person of the trinity. You trinitarians allow this critical point to allude you to such a disgraceful degree. We can talk about God's pleasure all day, whether it be for Himself, or it is derived from Him pleasing others, which the latter is correct, but the point that we were discussing this for was to understand the extent of Christ's pre-emenince. Pre-eminent yes, pre-existent no, God did not create all things for, and to be rule by, one person of the fallacious trinity. Do you comprehend the imbalance in power and authority under such a hierarchy, ot the complete undermining of trinitarian thought with such an alleged divine ordinance?

 

[Renniks]

Why would it take a book, Paul and the author of Hebrews did so within a relatively short amount of effort?
Similar to Abraham's request to God, that if He found at least 10 righteous men in Sodom, would He spare the entire city, God said yes. God, due to the righteous efforts of 1 man, agreed to exonerate all men on his behalf, provided that they accept his Lordship and Messiahship. Christ as a man, met this requirement by fulfilling the demands of the Law, allowing God to abrogate the Law which removed the condemnation that came with it, and thus, absolve man of guilt.
But, fulfilling the Law also means loving God with all one's heart, and one's neighbour as themselves, not just the other 613 decrees.
Thus, the Saviour or mediator can never be God Himself, in order for this judiciary requirement to have any efficacy, or even make any sense.
You are confusing two principles, or expressions rather. The foolishness of God, is not actual foolishness to the wise. It was a paradox that Paul was stating. Nothing that God does is foolish, it only may appear so to the unenlightened and depraved.
This is why, as a Biblical student, we determine that there is no room for veritable nonsense in God's Word. So when a doctrine reaches the level of incomprehension and absurdity, in all its facets of theology (Soteriology, Ontology, Bibliology, ...), we categorically denounce it as heresy.

I never claimed it was foolishness. There's nothing absurd about Christ dying for us, although it appears that way to those who are perishing.
The atonement is about much more than the law being fullfilled and our legal standing before God.
The atonement turned everything around. It assured Satan's ultimate defeat, and Jesus' ultimate victory for starters.

 

[DNB]

I never claimed it was foolishness. There's nothing absurd about Christ dying for us, although it appears that way to those who are perishing.
The atonement is about much more than the law being fullfilled and our legal standing before God.
The atonement turned everything around. It assured Satan's ultimate defeat, and Jesus' ultimate victory for starters.

I thought that you were defending the requirement of a god-man to fulfill the atonement? I was saying that that is an absurd notion, and you were saying that absurdity is acceptable with God, for one reason or another?I don't think that it's acceptable or necessary. Therefore, I gave an explanation of the Atonement coming from that standpoint, showing the rationality of it. I did not cover all the ramifications.

 

[Renniks]

I thought that you were defending the requirement of a god-man to fulfill the atonement? I was saying that that is an absurd notion, and you were saying that absurdity is acceptable with God, for one reason or another?I don't think that it's acceptable or necessary. Therefore, I gave an explanation of the Atonement coming from that standpoint, showing the rationality of it. I did not cover all the ramifications.

You are thinking of the other guy. I never said anything about absurdity being acceptable to God. Mystery, however, is certainly involved, because we are creatures whose knowledge is limited by being trapped in finite bodies.
So, no one can fully understand the Godhead, just as not one can fully understand the incarnation.
As Job said, we speak of things we don't understand.

 

[justbyfaith]

Your are the king of misquoting and misinterpreting Scripture, and taking it out of context!

This coming from someone who denies the <essential for salvation> doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

 

[DNB]

You are thinking of the other guy. I never said anything about absurdity being acceptable to God. Mystery, however, is certainly involved, because we are creatures whose knowledge is limited by being trapped in finite bodies.
So, no one can fully understand the Godhead, just as not one can fully understand the incarnation.
As Job said, we speak of things we don't understand.

That's the point, you are saying that the incarnation is an acceptable tenet, whereas I am saying that due to its implausibility and absurdity, it must not be deemed as orthodox. You are equating mystery, or rather, the hidden things of God, with the incomprehensible and irrational. In other words, I do not believe that one can put forth an absurd proposition, and then justify it by appealing to man's fallibility. The Word of God does not have to be irrational, like I believe that I demonstrated with the Atonement.

 

[DNB]

This coming from someone who denies the <essential for salvation> doctrine of the Deity of Christ.

Yes, that's right, the rational one amongst us. Who, in fact, actually states that one cannot be saved if they believe in the doctrine of the trinity, or any other theology that deifies Christ, or humanizes God.

 

[Joseph77]

Just as written throughout all Scripture, yes. Rejected by those opposed to Jesus, yes.
Incomprehensible to the carnal , yes. >>

That's the point, you are saying that the incarnation is an acceptable tenet

================================================
"due to"? The exact same thing Scripture says.... the world believes it is implausible and absurd. That is the deception/ the veil/ over the sons of disobedience always to this day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"orthodox"? no worry. Don't call it orthodox.

whereas I am saying that due to its implausibility and absurdity, it must not be deemed as orthodox.

 

[justbyfaith]

Scripture (Exodus 3:14, John 8:58, John 8:59, John 10:31-33) shows that Jesus claimed to be God.

And He also went so far as to say that if you do not believe that He is the great I AM, you will die in your sins (John 8:24).

 

[DNB]

Just as written throughout all Scripture, yes. Rejected by those opposed to Jesus, yes.
Incomprehensible to the carnal , yes. >>
================================================
"due to"? The exact same thing Scripture says.... the world believes it is implausible and absurd. That is the deception/ the veil/ over the sons of disobedience always to this day.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"orthodox"? no worry. Don't call it orthodox.

It is impossible and absurd, to both believers and unbelievers. You are speaking idle words, try and explain why it is not irrational and ridiculous.

 

[Joseph77]

It is impossible and absurd, to both believers and unbelievers. You are speaking idle words, try and explain why it is not irrational and ridiculous.

I think I agree with you.
Because , or rather I agree with God's Word, not with you....

God's Word says His Message, the Good News, the Truth, would be irrational and ridiculous to the pagans/ apostates/ worldly/ carnal/ and natural man.

Since most men fit that description, today, that fits perfectly today.

God's Word is still unchanged, still and always true.

 

[mjrhealth]

God's Word is still unchanged, still and always true.

Gods word never changed, neither has God but how many versions of the bible do we have??, what dont you get...

 

[mjrhealth]

Yes indeed; it is the foolishness of preaching.

only when it is the foolish doing the preaching.