- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 4 days, 22 hours ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,03:45) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 08 2013,19:38) I don't find the experts words untrue but only complex and so a very doubtful understanding of Paul's words.
Kerwin,Here are the two choices of translation:
1. Abraham is our father according to the flesh.
2. What righteousness did our father Abraham ever achieve according to his fleshy efforts?
Now I ask you, is #2 really all that complex when you consider it is the exact point Paul was teaching in that entire passage?
Mike,Yes, it is complex.
1) it hypothesizes an Abraham who lived by the flesh.
2) it hypothesizes believers who live by the flesh.
3) it proposes that both these hypothetical Jew and Gentile are the children of this hypothetical Abraham because they like him live by the flesh.That is complex though not worth debating as the bottom line is that Paul also speaks of his brethren according to the flesh.
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,03:40) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 08 2013,19:31) I previously stated the Word translated to flesh but it did not transform as that would contradict the flesh being of the seed of David.
And what if I could show you scripturally that the Word being made flesh DIDN'T contradict the flesh being the seed of David?Would you then change your mind, Kerwin? Would you then at least listen with an open mind?
If the answer to that last question is “YES”, then I will lay it out for you, according to the scriptures.
Mike,You cannot show that evidence because the Word is not a descendant of David. I am not sure why you are convinced otherwise.
The best claim you can use to support preexistence is that God placed the soul and spirit of one bearing the title the Word into human flesh that God made from Mary. Even that has flaws.
Mike,
No, I cannot conceive of a sound and valid argument to support your teaching “that the Word being made flesh DIDN'T contradict the flesh being the seed of David”.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,04:18) Mike, No, I cannot conceive of a sound and valid argument to support your teaching “that the Word being made flesh DIDN'T contradict the flesh being the seed of David”.
kerwintheir are two parts to Christ ONE IN THE FLESH AND ONE AS A SPIRIT ,
the promise was given the the offspring of Abraham this means according to the flesh his seed,
but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh
by sending his first born and only begotten son called in heaven “THE WORD” And he did it by given to Mary a devoted believer the privilege to become part of God's mystery to save men ,from their own sins and bring them to his father,
this is why Christ has no Father according to the flesh but only an adopted one Joseph, Christ could not be receiving anything from his mother according to the flesh (Mary was an surrogate mother ),because his true mother was in heaven (God's heavenly org.) this his why Christ was without sin ,sinless ,but as a men nerveless and so Satan tried to corrupt him as such ,but not before he could stand that test ,
now Paul explains clearly that through his dead we received redemption from God because he as presented his sacrifice before God in the real temple and so only one sacrifice is enough,
Mary ,could not save her self ,she as to accept the sacrifice of Christ ,for her sins ,do not mix the flesh works with the truth of reality in heaven .
T,
Quote but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh You have the idea of a man saving humanity and the idea of God saving humanity by using a man. So does the impossibility of the first occurring mean the second cannot?
T,
Quote this is why Christ has no Father according to the flesh but only an adopted one Joseph, Christ could not be receiving anything from his mother according to the flesh (Mary was an surrogate mother ),because his true mother was in heaven The flesh is made from David's seed. Is an adopted child made from his/her ancestors seed?
T,
Romans 3:23-24
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Jesus is not part of the group called all as he the one in who the redemption lies and not one of those to be redeemed.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:10) T, Quote this is why Christ has no Father according to the flesh but only an adopted one Joseph, Christ could not be receiving anything from his mother according to the flesh (Mary was an surrogate mother ),because his true mother was in heaven The flesh is made from David's seed. Is an adopted child made from his/her ancestors seed?
kerwinwas Joseph the father of Christ ;YES OR NO
PROVE TO ME THAT MARY SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD COULD NOT BE UNDERSTAND AS THE SEED OF DAVID OR ABRAHAM AND AS AN ADOPTED SON BY JOSEPH WHY WOULD IT NOT BE VALABLE
HOW LONG IS MEN DO THE PRACTICE OF SURROGATE MOTHERS
?THEN EXPLAIN ;WHY THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH CAME ON MARY
AND WHY WAS SHE COVERED BY THE POWERS OF GOD
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:16) T, Romans 3:23-24
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Jesus is not part of the group called all as he the one in who the redemption lies and not one of those to be redeemed.
KERWINI know that it seems you do not understand how it is possible that Christ is NOT PART OF IT
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:07) T, Quote but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh You have the idea of a man saving humanity and the idea of God saving humanity by using a man. So does the impossibility of the first occurring mean the second cannot?
KERWINGod as said through all the prophets that he will bring forth an seed to Abraham then to David according to the flesh ,
the fact that he uses a surrogate mother does not make God a liar or does it
Christ made many miracle JUST TELL ME HOW HE DID THEM JUST ONE CAN YOU
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:01) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:10) T, Quote this is why Christ has no Father according to the flesh but only an adopted one Joseph, Christ could not be receiving anything from his mother according to the flesh (Mary was an surrogate mother ),because his true mother was in heaven The flesh is made from David's seed. Is an adopted child made from his/her ancestors seed?
kerwinwas Joseph the father of Christ ;YES OR NO
PROVE TO ME THAT MARY SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD COULD NOT BE UNDERSTAND AS THE SEED OF DAVID OR ABRAHAM AND AS AN ADOPTED SON BY JOSEPH WHY WOULD IT NOT BE VALABLE
HOW LONG IS MEN DO THE PRACTICE OF SURROGATE MOTHERS
?THEN EXPLAIN ;WHY THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH CAME ON MARY
AND WHY WAS SHE COVERED BY THE POWERS OF GOD
T,No, Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Jesus flesh was not made of Joseph, the seed of David.
Mary is the seed of David that Jesus' flesh was made of. A child of a surrogate mother, who is not her biological child, is not made of her.
Matthew 1:20
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The spirit came on Mary and she was covered by the power of God so that Jesus' body would be conceived (made) of the seed of David.
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:10) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:07) T, Quote but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh You have the idea of a man saving humanity and the idea of God saving humanity by using a man. So does the impossibility of the first occurring mean the second cannot?
KERWINGod as said through all the prophets that he will bring forth an seed to Abraham then to David according to the flesh ,
the fact that he uses a surrogate mother does not make God a liar or does it
Christ made many miracle JUST TELL ME HOW HE DID THEM JUST ONE CAN YOU
T,What you write sound off topic of the point I chose to isolate for this conversation and appears to be addressed in another. In addition I do not see where you answered my question.
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:06) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:16) T, Romans 3:23-24
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Jesus is not part of the group called all as he the one in who the redemption lies and not one of those to be redeemed.
KERWINI know that it seems you do not understand how it is possible that Christ is NOT PART OF IT
T,Your words fail to add anything to the conversation.
My point being that when this passage states “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Jesus is clearly not included. In addition, those who cannot be redeemed nor those that do not need redeeming are not included even though the “all” could be seen to include angels, men, beasts, and even God.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,11:46) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:06) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:16) T, Romans 3:23-24
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Jesus is not part of the group called all as he the one in who the redemption lies and not one of those to be redeemed.
KERWINI know that it seems you do not understand how it is possible that Christ is NOT PART OF IT
T,Your words fail to add anything to the conversation.
My point being that when this passage states “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” Jesus is clearly not included. In addition, those who cannot be redeemed nor those that do not need redeeming are not included even though the “all” could be seen to include angels, men, beasts, and even God.
KerwinChrist is not part of it ,because he is not a seed of men ,Heb 2:7 says that he was made for a while a little lower than the angels ,
So that he could offer himself as a redemption for men sins,he is the seed of men in appearance for the job,no one believed Christ wen he says he came down from heaven and then return to we're he came ,from the father,Christ says ,no one went up to heaven ecxept the one that came down from heaven,why you do not believe him
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,11:36) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:10) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:07) T, Quote but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh You have the idea of a man saving humanity and the idea of God saving humanity by using a man. So does the impossibility of the first occurring mean the second cannot?
KERWINGod as said through all the prophets that he will bring forth an seed to Abraham then to David according to the flesh ,
the fact that he uses a surrogate mother does not make God a liar or does it
Christ made many miracle JUST TELL ME HOW HE DID THEM JUST ONE CAN YOU
T,What you write sound off topic of the point I chose to isolate for this conversation and appears to be addressed in another. In addition I do not see where you answered my question.
KI just want to point out ,that we do not know how God made Christ to be born of Mary,but their are scriptures that guiding us if we listen to it,
Miracle are in the same way,we know and believe it at happen but we REALY do not know the details how God did it,right???
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,11:33) Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:01) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:10) T, Quote this is why Christ has no Father according to the flesh but only an adopted one Joseph, Christ could not be receiving anything from his mother according to the flesh (Mary was an surrogate mother ),because his true mother was in heaven The flesh is made from David's seed. Is an adopted child made from his/her ancestors seed?
kerwinwas Joseph the father of Christ ;YES OR NO
PROVE TO ME THAT MARY SURROGATE MOTHERHOOD COULD NOT BE UNDERSTAND AS THE SEED OF DAVID OR ABRAHAM AND AS AN ADOPTED SON BY JOSEPH WHY WOULD IT NOT BE VALABLE
HOW LONG IS MEN DO THE PRACTICE OF SURROGATE MOTHERS
?THEN EXPLAIN ;WHY THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH CAME ON MARY
AND WHY WAS SHE COVERED BY THE POWERS OF GOD
T,No, Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus. Jesus flesh was not made of Joseph, the seed of David.
Mary is the seed of David that Jesus' flesh was made of. A child of a surrogate mother, who is not her biological child, is not made of her.
Matthew 1:20
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
The spirit came on Mary and she was covered by the power of God so that Jesus' body would be conceived (made) of the seed of David.
KThe explanation given to Joseph was for the purpose of him not leaving Mary,
Tell me what were the thecnical words God uses to explain Christ birth and conception,or Mary being found with child???
Are those words not so commonly and easy to understood by those who received them
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 09 2013,16:07) That is complex though not worth debating as the bottom line is that Paul also speaks of his brethren according to the flesh.
It's not complex, but exactly what Paul taught in Romans 4.Kerwin, suffice to say that the NKJV has translated it correctly: What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
And since you aren't able to use Romans 4:1 as an “answer” to the following, it means they still need to be answered directly:
Agreed. Jesus, ACCORDING ONLY TO THE FLESH, was an offspring of David. So according to WHAT was Jesus the ROOT of David?
And why make the distinction in the first place? If there wasn't anything to Jesus except for the “ACCORDING TO THE FLESH Jesus”, then why mention it?
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 09 2013,16:15) Quote (mikeboll64 @ Aug. 10 2013,03:40)
And what if I could show you scripturally that the Word being made flesh DIDN'T contradict the flesh being the seed of David?
Mike,You cannot show that evidence because the Word is not a descendant of David. I am not sure why you are convinced otherwise.
You agree that Jesus is the one whose name is called “the Word” in Revelation 19:13, right? Was Jesus a descendant of David?If Jesus is “the Word” before, during, and after his fleshly existence, then Jesus is both the offspring of David AND the root of David…… just like Jesus himself clearly tells us.
So the FLESHLY manifestation of the Word WAS indeed from the seed of David.
Kerwin, I pray that you will understand the following teaching of Jesus himself:
41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?”
“The son of David,” they replied.
43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.
Kerwin, is Jesus AGREEING with the Pharisees in this instance? Or is he CORRECTING their false belief?
Which one?
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 09 2013,16:15) The best claim you can use to support preexistence is that God placed the soul and spirit of one bearing the title the Word into human flesh that God made from Mary. Even that has flaws.
Kerwin, the above describes YOUR understanding, not mine. And you are correct that it has flaws.It is YOU who adds the word “IN” into John 1:14, and forces that scripture to teach that something/someone who has the title “the Word” was placed IN flesh that God made from Mary.
My teaching (the one that actually ALIGNS WITH the scripture) is that one who was known as “the Word” was actually MADE FLESH.
I'm glad to see that you know enough to fault YOUR OWN understanding, because you are able to see the flaws in it.
Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 09 2013,16:18) Mike, No, I cannot conceive of a sound and valid argument to support your teaching “that the Word being made flesh DIDN'T contradict the flesh being the seed of David”.
I realize that you can't conceive of it, Kerwin. That's why I've offered to painstakingly show it to you from the words of scripture.Are you interested? Or are you happier just standing firm in your own blindness, without even considering the scriptural things I can show you?
Quote (terraricca @ Aug. 10 2013,07:10) Quote (kerwin @ Aug. 10 2013,06:07) T, Quote but this could not be done through a man born of the flesh ,because no man can save another says scriptures from his own sins or others sins ,because all men are born short from God's glory ,THIS ARE FACTS ,so how could God save humanity and yet use the flesh You have the idea of a man saving humanity and the idea of God saving humanity by using a man. So does the impossibility of the first occurring mean the second cannot?
KERWINGod as said through all the prophets that he will bring forth an seed to Abraham then to David according to the flesh ,
the fact that he uses a surrogate mother does not make God a liar or does it
Christ made many miracle JUST TELL ME HOW HE DID THEM JUST ONE CAN YOU
T,Romans 1:3 clearly states Jesus flesh was made from the seed of David. Other places we are told he was conceived in Mary just as John the Baptist was conceived in Elizabeth. You do be believe John the Baptist was made from Elizabeth but you seem unable to believe Jesus was made from Mary.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
