SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Was Jesus Sinful? Luther & Sproul

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

Quote:

Jesus-is-GOD wrote:
For some reason you've triggered a funny memory.
Years ago, I was on one forum where the moderators would take on another account as a member and have lots of "fun" with the other members. :-)



I'm here to put the "fun" back in fundamentalist dogma.

 2009/10/2 21:48









 Re:

Quote:

roaringlamb wrote:


It is a mystery in the same way that when two or three are gathered together Christ is there.

It is a mystery in the same way that the sheep and goats of the OT were made sin for the one who was offering them.

It is a mystery in the same way that we are seated with Christ in the Heavenlies while still being on the Earth.

It is a mystery in the same way that Chris is present in the bread and wine of communion.



The mystery of godliness is that we are saved by upholding correct dogma, yet the ambiguity of the Bible and the diversity of Christian experience makes a consensus on correct dogma impossible, as this thread demonstrates.

 2009/10/2 21:54
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
I meant when sin is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.



Is this even possible in grammar?

Doesn't an adverb describe a verb?

I'm not an English major so I could be wrong but your idea doesn't make sense grammatically.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/2 23:37Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
please answer my questions

I have, you just don't like the answers and you REFUSE to see that God's work in making Christ sin was God's doing and is a mystery.

I refuse nonsense, which you're claiming.
It is not a mystery. mysteries can be explained, that which you're claiming can not be.

Quote:
It is a mystery in the same way that when two or three are gathered together Christ is there.

This verse is concerning a brother who trespasses against you. If he will not hear you, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglects to hear the church, let him be unto you as a heathen man and a tax collector.

For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
God is basically saying that He will be agreeing to the judgment of the church.

No unexplainable mysteries in this.
Quote:
It is a mystery in the same way that the sheep and goats of the OT were made sin for the one who was offering them.

They were not made sin, but they were sin offerings.

Quote:
It is a mystery in the same way that we are seated with Christ in the Heavenlies while still being on the Earth.

It is not seated [b]with[/b] Christ in the Heavenlies.
But "seated us together in the heavenlies [b]in[/b] Christ Jesus.

If you want to use a translation which has it as "with Christ", then you got to prove that is the correct translation.
If you will not do that, then you got to prove that it is possible for us to already be seated with HIM while we are still here on Earth. Reality proves that we are not.

Quote:
It is a mystery in the same way that Christ is present in the bread and wine of communion.

Are you Catholic?

Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of ME."
This was a bold statement when they were supposed to do it in remembrance of the first Passover with Moses.

Jesus is not "present [b]in[/b] the bread and wine", He is present [b]in[/b] our company while we take the bread and wine.

Still, no unexplainable mysteries.

Quote:
Just because you want everything black and white doesn't mean that God has to stoop to your "logic" so you can decide if He is right.

It's not "my logic". Logic is universal, it is all mankind’s.
God is logical, you are not.

I am not the one deciding if He is right, but [b]you’re the one arguing [u]against reality[/u][/b].

 2009/10/3 0:36Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
I meant when sin is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.

Is this even possible in grammar?

Doesn't an adverb describe a verb?

I'm not an English major so I could be wrong but your idea doesn't make sense grammatically.

An an adverb [b]modifies[/b] the verb.
The midwives waited(verb) patiently(adverb) through a long labour.

Verb "sin" is "to murder".
The noun "sin" would be "the murder" which was done.

Your saying that Jesus became some ambiguous sin on the cross.

reality would have it that He was actualy a sin offering instead of some fantastic thing which you claim?

 2009/10/3 0:48Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
ccrider wrote:
Logic, is it doctrine that man can make it into heaven without Christ? Because this is what you have said. Christ said that no one makes it to the Father except through Him:

I never said that make it into heaven without Christ.

Quote:
You said that if someone observes the law perfectly they can get to heaven and to the Father. This is not what Christ said and it is not truth.

someone observes the law perfectly they can get to heaven and to the Father [b]with Christ as LORD[/b], however, they would not need Christ as savior.
This would be most glorifying to God; never sinning against HIM as to need a savior.

Quote:
So in some ways you have a Christless theology when you say those who have observed the law perfectly from birth to death do not need Christ to see the Father in heaven.

Nope!

Quote:
So your 'not doctrine' stuff is without any merit or credibility as a critique of other's.

Yes it is.

Quote:
Also you have said previously that Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Songs 'as a general rule' should not be used as a source for correct doctrine.

Okay, I regret this one after further study.

Quote:
"IF Jesus became sin, then He would resurrect; Sin can not resurrect." Logic

When you take an argument this far, the doctrine of others should be the least of your worries. When one has ventured this far in argument, they have no clue as to how it reflects on them.

I think I meant:
IF Jesus became sin, then He would [b]not[/b] resurrect; Sin can not resurrect.

They are the ones venturing so far in argument. They claim Jesus became literal ambiguous sin.
This is rediculous.
A person/animal can not be sin.

 2009/10/3 1:00Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
I refuse nonsense, which you're claiming.



Nonsense for saying that imputation is right?

Nonsense for saying that the word "sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a noun?

Nonsense for saying that apart from imputation there is no Gospel?

Quote:
They were not made sin, but they were sin offerings.



There was a transfer of guilt from the sinner to the offering. An imputation of the sinner's guilt to the guiltless animal, that is why the hand was laid on the head of the animal.

Imputation is also seen in the scape goat, as the sins of Israel were "imputed" to it and then it was allowed to go being a symbol of God's removing their sins.

It's not too hard to see.

Quote:
It is not seated with Christ in the Heavenlies. But "seated us together in the heavenlies in Christ Jesus.



I don't really see the difference, but for your entertainment and so you know I am using a "good" translation(sorry i don't have the one that says "sin offering" where is doesn't appear)-

sugkathizō
Thayer Definition:
1) to cause to sit down together, place together
2) to sit down together
Part of Speech: verb

and also
ἐν
en
Thayer Definition:
1) in, by, with etc.
Part of Speech: preposition

It also says that we are "raised with Him", while we are still here on Earth, but I'm sure you'll find some way to get around that too :-)

Quote:
Are you Catholic?



Yep in the true sense of the word Catholic I am, I believe in one Holy Catholic and apostolic Church.

Quote:
Jesus is not "present in the bread and wine", He is present in our company while we take the bread and wine.



As far as the communion goes, perhaps you should do some research before you jump to conclusions because Jesus also said, "this IS my body", "this IS my blood"

AND Paul makes this point about how the Corinthians were taking communion in an unworthy manner-
1 Corinthians 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.
1 Corinthians 11:28 Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
1 Corinthians 11:29 [b]For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.[/b]

And still, you have not answered taylor about why one use of the word "sin" is meant "sin offering", while the next one(same word) is not.

I know why though, it doesn't fit with your view.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/3 1:13Profile









 Re:

Jesus was not a sinner, Jesus was not guilty, Jesus was not sinful. Jesus was holy, sinless, and innocent.

Jesus was not a sinner because a sinner by definition is someone who has chosen to sin.

Jesus was not guilty because you can only be guilty of what you have done.

Jesus was not sinful because only someone who has sinned, or has a disobedient heart, can be called sinful.

When Jesus hung on the cross, He was a holy sinless innocent lamb of God. He was without any spot and without any blemish. That is the only reason He could die for our sin and that is the reason His sacrifice was acceptable to God.

 2009/10/3 1:16
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
Jesus was not a sinner, Jesus was not guilty, Jesus was not sinful



Yet in that moment in which He cried out to God asking why He had forsaken Him, He was cut off from the Father.

Why? there are many reasons I'm sure, but the clearest one is 2 Corinthians 5:21!

But since you guys can't grasp that, I don't know what else to say.

Funny that you guys(you and logic) have no problem rejecting nearly two thousand years of teaching on something that should seem so clear.

There is no Gospel apart from imputation.

If Christ ONLY died to make a way for us to get to God, then we still to be righteous to stand before Him. Which means we would need to keep the Moral Law PERFECTLY ALL THE TIME to do so.

If Christ took the place of the sinner(not because he Himself sinned), and then gave us His righteousness, not only is the penalty of sin done away with, but because we have a righteousness that CAN stand before God, we have freedom to come boldly to His throne.

That is the point Paul is making in Romans 5:1-2
"Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Consider the verses that come before this, as it wasn't divided when Paul wrote it-
"But the words [b]"it was counted to him"[/b] were not written for his sake alone, but for ours also. [b]It will be counted[/b] to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification. Romans 4:23-25

That phrase in the KJV is "imputed", and yes "logizomai" means "reckoned" or "put to ones account".


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/3 1:45Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
I refuse nonsense, which you're claiming.

Nonsense for saying that imputation is right?

Nonsense for saying that the word "sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is a noun?

Nonsense for saying that apart from imputation there is no Gospel?

No, Nonsense for saying that Jesus became an ambiguous sin on the cross.
Quote:
There was a transfer of guilt from the sinner to the offering. An imputation of the sinner's guilt to the guiltless animal, that is why the hand was laid on the head of the animal.

There was no "transfer of guilt" to Jesus.
If there was, then Jesus was guilty and deserved to die.
Furthermore, He wouldn't have rose from the grave having guilt.

Quote:
Imputation is also seen in the scape goat, as the sins of Israel were "imputed" to it and then it was allowed to go being a symbol of God's removing their sins.

Imputation is not a "transfer".
Imputation is a "deeming"
We are deemed righteous because Jesus was our sin offering.
Our faith is "deemed" as righteousness just as Abraham's.

Quote:
It's not too hard to see.

The scape goat took the penalty of sin, it did not have sin imputed to it.

Quote:
Quote:
Jesus is not "present in the bread and wine", He is present in our company while we take the bread and wine.

As far as the communion goes, perhaps you should do some research before you jump to conclusions because Jesus also said, "this IS my body", "this IS my blood"

It is not His literal body & blood.
It is symbolic.
Jesus is not "present [b]in[/b] the bread and wine"

Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.

Not Jesus' literal body, but the congregation as the body.

Quote:
And still, you have not answered taylor about why one use of the word "sin" is meant "sin offering", while the next one(same word) is not.

I did answer that question already.
Because it doesn't make sense.
2Co 5:21 For He has made Him who knew no sin offering, to be a sin offering for us...
This makes no sense.

For He has made Him who knew no literal sin , to be a literal sin for us...
This makes no sense either.

Quote:
I know why though, it doesn't fit with your view.

Huh?

 2009/10/3 2:31Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy