Why did our Redeemer need to be both God and Man?

[face2face]

I gave my three-part explanation of Rom. 8:1-4. In reply, you claimed it wasn't. So, I said, "If you read all three parts, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4." You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

Your reply held nothing about the nature of Christ or what God did in him.

Present an answer which deals with the subject at hand and dont try and deviate from it.

I'll be here waiting

F2F

Note: Romans 8:1-3 and 2 Corinthians 5:20-21; Hebrews 2:14-17; Romans 6:9: 1 Peter 2:24 (you have a lot of catching up to do!)

 

[face2face]

God's foreknowledge, even before creation, informed the Father's and Son's decision to create despite the knowledge that sin would require an answer for creation to survive. That answer had to be agreed to between them both, before they started rolling the ball so to speak. The Father could not die, His immortality could not be laid aside. The Son however, if He laid aside all His divine attributes and He became human, could die to save the human race. Hence the gospel, prefigured throughout the OT beginning with the skins provided Adam and Eve, Abraham's son Isaac as a sacrifice, to the entire sanctuary calendar of feasts and rituals of Israel.

There was no laying aside of divine attributes Brakelite. The Son of Man grew in wisdom and stature and was put to death and became the Son of God with Power.

F2F

 

[face2face]

Again, I gave my three-part explanation of Rom. 8:1-4. In reply, you claimed it wasn't. So, I said, "If you read all three parts, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4."

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

Hold on - its not your three part its someone's you have failed to credit.
However as I've said it fails to explain the Lord's nature and how the Law failed to do what Christ in sins flesh achieved.
If you are looking for an easy out just say so and we can move on!
F2F

 

[face2face]

If you read the three part explanation of 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

You are doing the copy and paste thing again - makes you look desperate!

 

[face2face]

That's because you repeated something that made me need to repeat the following:

"If you read the three part explanation of 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited."

It's like you are sitting on someone else work which really does nothing for the text in view but thats it...you are basically saying
"I've got nothing more!"

Do you have any other commentaries that actually deal with the substance of Romans 8:1-3 or is this all you have?

F2F

 

[face2face]

The three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4 is sufficient. If you read it, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited."

So from this you are saying, all you have, is not yours, and that's all you have?

 

[face2face]

As I said, the three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4 is sufficient. If you read it, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

Well, you could post the author or present your own beliefs but it's clear from over here you have nothing but a copy and paste answer. It started with copying and pasting someone else's work and it looks like you will finish it that way.
So be it

 

[face2face]

@asoul

Maria Valtorta (Itália, 1897-1961). Obra: "Lições sobre a Carta de São Paulo aos Romanos" (1948-1950) (Página 76 e 78 – Lição n° 26 – 12-14/06/1948)

What's the connection?

Why an Italian Catholic writer?

 

[face2face]

@asoul

Maria Valtorta (Itália, 1897-1961). Obra: "Lições sobre a Carta de São Paulo aos Romanos" (1948-1950) (Página 76 e 78 – Lição n° 26 – 12-14/06/1948)

What's the connection?

Why an Italian Catholic writer?

@asoul

 

[face2face]

Yea I was saying that if you read that three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

Why a Cafholic asoul?

 

[face2face]

Yea I was saying that if you read that three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

If you are a Catholic it would explain your behaviour. Also explain why Romans 8:1-3 is far from your doctrinal position.

 

[face2face]

Our redeemer required redeeming himself, which makes the wonder of his life, death and resurrection so powerful.

@Johann

10:19 Therefore, brothers and sisters, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 10:20 by the fresh and living way that he inaugurated for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh Heb 10:19–20.

Why through his flesh?

What was achieved in his flesh that it signified a "torn" curtain?

F2F

 

[face2face]

If you read that three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited."

I've got no issue with you being a Catholic or using Catholic resources - not sure why you are so defensive about it.
I'm not interested in you dealing with the other verses asoul. They all speak for themselves rather clearly on their own.
F2F

 

[face2face]

I know, I was just saying that if you read that three-part explanation I gave for Rom. 8:1-4, then explain what it's about, if you want to substantiate your assertion that it doesn't have to do with Rom. 8:1-4. I asked you to do that before and guess what?...

You refused.

If you decide to do that, as well as address everything else in post #79, then I'll have reason to address other verses you cited.

It was read as I've said and it didn't deal with Romans 8:1-3. Give it another go if you so desire.

 

[Brakelite]

There was no laying aside of divine attributes Brakelite. The Son of Man grew in wisdom and stature and was put to death and became the Son of God with Power.

F2F

Philippians 2:5-8

 

[LuxMundy]

No, talented writing I said, NOT SCRIPTURE!

I didn't say that you said Scripture, but rather that you quoted this part of a post a mine:

"It is Humanity once again who is shaken with perturbations and remorses, by doubts and assertions, and who must be confirmed in Faith, who is present when between the shaking of the second earthquake, the Man Who was killed rises as the Sepulchre empties itself of the Living One vainly killed and who has the reply of the God One and Trine, a placating or distressing reply on the Man from Nazareth"

and said:

"Is that your writing???? Whether your views are right or wrong; and if those are your words, you are a talented writer. If so, you are wasting your talents on this board, you should be writing books, teaching, preaching."

Again, at the time you gave that high praise, you didn't yet know that those weren't my words, but rather are said to be the words of the Holy Spirit, dictated to Maria Valtorta on June 12th-June 14th in 1948. Whether you believe it or not, the reason you felt what you did, which prompted you to give such high praise after reading those words, is because they are in fact the Holy Spirit's Words.

You said yourself that your efforts of sharing Maria's Poem resulted in a 0.01% interest.

I actually said that 99% of people, including you, who I've introduced Maria Valtorta and The Poem of the Man-God to didn't thoroughly research her and the writings, if at all, once they learned about her. Then, because they poorly researched, they would relay false information and/or information that no longer applies about her and the writings. That's not something to be proud of. A person should want to be someone who cares about accuracy and thoroughly researches, always, even when it's about something or someone they don't have any interest in, especially if they're going to talk about it or them.

When you started quoting Maria's "Jesus said this and Jesus said that", I wasn't impressed, it presented contradictions to God's word.

If you decide to list those supposed "contradictions" then we'll go over it, and see if that's really true, or if the information that you consider "contradictory to Scripture" is just because it isn't what you'd rather believe.

I only accept the Bible as God's word.

I accept, read, and share anything that God has truly spoken over the centuries, and will continue to, because unlike you and others, I don't limit our unlimited God to any one book (and the The Bible is made up of multiple books), because I know that He's alive and not a mute. Even Jesus's apostle, John, said that not everything was written, and that it would take more than one book to contain knowledge of Him (Jn. 21:25). Additionally, nowhere in Scripture does it say that God ceased to speak to His own creation.

 

[face2face]

For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death Ro 8:2

The question is how did God set you free from the Law of Sin & Death?

What is the Law of Sin & Death?

AND most importantly was this Law of Sin and Death in the body of the Lord Jesus Christ?

So three questions to consider the answer of course will lead you to the realization that the redeemer by necessity was required to be "fully" man.

There are so many reasons why this is so, but the most important of all these is found in Romans 8:1-3 and Hebrews 2:14-17

F2F

 

[Johann]

AND most importantly was this Law of Sin and Death in the body of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Here is where you are going wrong.

J.

 

[face2face]

Here is where you are going wrong.

J.

I asked you a clear question and this is all you can come back with? Are you at a loss J. Also the other post is still unanswered (why through his flesh?)

If you are unable to be honest with yourself how can you be so with others?

F2F