Christ as the firstborn

Insight said:

Sin is synonym for human nature.

Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted (flesh), when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (in the flesh).
Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
Jas 1:16 Do not err, my beloved Vengle.

Temptation - Lust - Enticed - sin - death

What nature does this process work in?



And yet Jesus benefited from his own death/blood.

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, (Hebrews 13:20)

Hammerstone. With whose blood did God raise Jesus Christ from the dead?

An animals? sheep, a goat or a bullock?

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous statement. Jesus suffered and died for others...not Himself. If He wanted to benefit He would have had someone else suffer for Him. But Jesus has no need of others. He is the Lord. But WE need Him. Without Him we are all dead in our sins.

So to turn the tables on Jesus in this way is very disrespectful and worthy of shame.

Episkopos said:

This is a ridiculous statement. Jesus suffered and died for others...not Himself. If He wanted to benefit He would have had someone else suffer for Him. But Jesus has no need of others. He is the Lord. But WE need Him. Without Him we are all dead in our sins.

So to turn the tables on Jesus in this way is very disrespectful and worthy of shame.

Click to expand...

Hi Episkopos,

It would seem a shame that so many rely on the (false) teachings of their religion, than the TRUTH as revealed to the TRUE children. But such is the case for some individuals.




BibleScribe

BibleScribe said:

Hi Episkopos,

It would seem a shame that so many rely on the (false) teachings of their religion, than the TRUTH as revealed to the TRUE children. But such is the case for some individuals.

BibleScribe

Click to expand...

That's just more false assumptions against Christ's Sacrifice upon the cross.

Romans 7:9 “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment of the law came, sin revived, and I died.”

What does Paul mean?

Romans 7:7 “What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.”

What I highlighted in red in both of those verses ties together. And what I highlighted in green in both of those verses ties together.

In other words:
“I was alive without the law once (and therefore did not see that I was a miserable man) because I did not know sin so as to know fully what I was doing.”

“But when the commandment of the law came, my consciousness of sin revived, thus I became responsible and I died.”

He became that (Romans 7:24) “O wretched man that I am!” now seeing the mechanics of sin that he had let work in him through his ignorance and fleshly focused mind.

Romans 8:6 “For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.”

You may perhaps remember Paul telling why God had mercy upon him though he persecuted Christians and lead many to their death? He said God had mercy on him because he was blind. He was ignorant of what he was doing and therefore God did not count it against him but instead had mercy.

Paul is speaking here of that same principle.

Once he was made aware of the full gravity of concupiscence and the many ways it works its evil in a man he was accountable to God for doing it but that did not automatically teach him how not to. And he needed someone that could teach him how not to.

Thanking God for the patience of grace given us in Christ so that we have time and opportunity to learn, Paul declared:

Romans 7:25 "I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

Yes, recognizing that it would take time, Paul humbly admitted that it would take a while to overcome those fleshly tendencies and conquer sin after the model of Christ. That is what he meant when he said, "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin."

This is because anything a man practices becomes habit to him, whether good or bad.

Romans 7:8-9 “But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.”

Another helpful thing we can look at for comparison with the above is how sin was personified at Genesis 4: 7. Paul is personifying sin here in a similar way.

But again, how was sin able by the commandment to “wrought” in Paul all manner of concupiscence? Sin did so merely by the commandment exposing it to Paul so that he could no longer deny it.

The Greek word Paul used for “wrought” is “katergazomai”.
“Katergazomai” means “to work fully”. You can see that in your Strong’s Greek Dictionary at word # G2716.

That then supports the idea that Paul is saying that when he was ignorant and blind (as he had been when he persecuted the Christians), God showed mercy toward him for it and thus sin was unable “to work fully” and accomplish death to Paul.

But now that the Law gave Paul understanding of that sin it could work fully and kill him by means of the Law.

Just a quick note in the meantime:

We should be beginning to see that it was not necessary for Jesus to bear our literal sin but only for Jesus to step in to replace the perfect Adam whom we lost as our teacher right at the get-go of how to properly walk after God.

We should be beginning to understand that Jesus bore our sins upon him in that he took responsibility for them all of the way to letting us in our sin tainted mindset kill him. Yet he continues to take responsibility for us even now, doing so through us who have matured in his spiritual body. That is why we must bear the sins of others as he bore our sins.

Let me repeat that, That is why we must bear the sins of others as he bore our sins.

You know that bearing the sins of others does not mean we have their sin in us.

Those who keep on maligning Jesus by saying he had a sin nature are getting dangerously close to judgment.

How do we bear the sins of others?

We put up with their sins (in effect accepting to suffer a bit with them) as we help them to conquer their sins by assisting them to learn from Jesus' example and get tuned into the walk in the spirit so that they can listen to and obey God.

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, (Galatians 5:19)

Notice the plurality of the works and their source?

Episkopos said:

This is a ridiculous statement.

Click to expand...

To the unenlightened yes.

Jesus suffered and died for others

Click to expand...

This is true but of course one should endeavour to define his sufferings Luke 12:50 "agony" till it be accomplished. Of course no harm came to Jesus at all as per Psa 91:12 until it was time to withdraw their protection.

So one must define how it was Jesus experienced agony every day though no physical harm came upon him.

...not Himself.

Click to expand...

I am waiting for you to explain Rom 8:3 and Heb 13:20...I hope it is coming.

If He wanted to benefit He would have had someone else suffer for Him.

Click to expand...

You do not undertstand the suffering servant prophecies.

I suggest you read the servant chapters of Isa.

This will lead you to truth.

But Jesus has no need of others.

Click to expand...

He needed to be saved by his Father

Heb 5:7

He is the Lord.

Click to expand...

True

But WE need Him.

Click to expand...

WE need him like he needed his Father.

Without him we are all dead in our sins.

Click to expand...

This is true.

So to turn the tables on Jesus in this way is very disrespectful and worthy of shame.

Click to expand...

No Episkopos,

Jesus disregarded totally the shame attached to this brutal mode of execution knowing the glory which would follow (Heb 12:2). It is clear you do not understand why Jesus desired to put his flesh to death in such an graphic manner.

I dont blame you Episkopos.

The mind is either open or closed, and we know it is God who opens and revealeth a matter.

He has not reveal Rom 8:3 and Heb 13:20 and no doubt many other passages relating to sin's flesh and its condemnation in the body of the Lord.

Insight

Now tying back into post #545 for review and continuing:

So now, in our minds eye we have been lead to see an abstract as though a person (a personification for the purpose of illustration). Sin, which is in reality only an assessment of one’s obedience to an establish standard (the mark set by God) is being spoken of as though having person and personality of its own but only that we might learn something from it as an illustration.

“concupiscence” is G1939 “epithumia” and means simply, “a longing” as in lust. And if you recall my post explaining James 1: 14-15 I talked about how this concupiscence or lust is the sin that does not incur death as 1 John 5:17 mentions, and is the result of our beginning to step away from the mark of the greatest commandment of God to love God with our whole heart, and to love God with our whole mind, and to love God with our whole soul or being.

Thus we see that this illustratively personified sin, which is in reality only an assessment of our missing the mark of God's standard, is shown to produce this perversion in our thinking and emotions called “concupiscence” or “lust” or “longing”. The sin that has not yet fully worked out the entirety of the defection it can also bring to us if we fail to dismiss it. If we had been complete in our obedience to the greatest commandment in the first place it, concupiscence or lust, would not have been given a place to begin to grow.

What is that we learn?

We learn that when we do not love God so completely so as to allow no room or place in us for selfish reasoning (which act is itself missing the mark established of the greatest commandment and therefore the beginning of sin) we enter into a self-perpetuating cycle increasing offense for us unto the death it heads toward.

We learned that this concupiscence or lust needed the law to be able to work fully because our God of grace and mercy is patient and forgiving of us in our blindness of ignorance.

We also see that these exact same mechanics took place in perfect Eve and therefore cannot be said to be because we have a nature that forces us to have to sin. That one many of us will need to ponder but it is an inescapable conclusion.

This note is for the deeper thinker:

Because of the way 1 John 5: 17 is worded in some Bible versions as "a sin which does not lead to death", one might think that this cannot then be this beginning of sin called "concupiscence".

John is not speaking of the progression of sin there. Paul was speaking of how it is we advance from bad to worse unto the point where it culminates in our death.

Because our God is great and mercifully full of grace, He has from the moment of the fall of Adam had great compassion toward the predicament that the loss of a perfect mentor meant for Adam's children. His grace is Him. He did not just begin being a God of great grace with a New Covenant.

Concupiscence is something that if we immediately take note of it in ourselves we can yet turn away from it and keep it from advancing from bad to worse. Thus we can escape serious consequences to ourselves and others. Therefore (thanks to God's merciful grace) it itself does not lead directly to death. Only when we add to it with our outward actions by reason of our failure to dismiss it do we find death.

Thus it is that we yet have opportunity to avoid serious sin; sin that the moment it is committed means death to us.

John also said, 1 John 5:16 "If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it."

What is it that distinguishes the sin John said, "I do not say that he shall pray for it"?

This is when it is clear that the person's sin is not in any kind of blindness of ignorance and that they have just said in their heart that they do not care, knowing full well what they are choosing to do as did Adam.

That sin which John says not to pray for is the sin of those who sin in the manner of Adam: Romans 5:14a Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, ... "

1 Timothy 2:14 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Vengle said:

1 Timothy 2:14 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

Now let’s look at the second half of the above verse.

One might be a bit confused by what Paul says there, wondering, ‘Why does Paul make it seem as though Adam did not transgress but only Eve did?’

Click to expand...

Eve was first in the transgression, the first to be deceived, the first to fall into transgression. In Gen 3:13 Eve admits that the serpent deceived her; but in Gen 3:12 Adam states simply that: "The woman which thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat."

Adam, unlike Eve did not go through the 1 John 2:16 process like Eve did, but simply listenened to his wife See Prov 5:3,4,5.

Insight

Adam knew he was sinning and was not deceived! He sinned on purpose, she sinned on accident? It sounds to me like she believed satan and Adam did not.

Shirley said:

Adam knew he was sinning and was not deceived! He sinned on purpose, she sinned on accident? It sounds to me like she believed satan and Adam did not.

Click to expand...

That is right.

The difference is that transgression is sin and sin actually means to "miss the mark" one is aiming for. Think about that.

Adam did not aim for that mark at all. He deliberately chose to pitch his step a known different direction.

What we are seeing then in Paul's words is the thought that what Eve did can be viewed as error. Eve committed error.

Adam did not make a simple error. He made a deliberately rebellious decision.

But in a broad sense both did transgress.

My question was, however, "Why does Paul make it seem as though Adam did not transgress but only Eve did?" (at 1 Timothy 2:14)

Shirley said:

Adam knew he was sinning and was not deceived! He sinned on purpose, she sinned on accident? It sounds to me like she believed satan and Adam did not.

Click to expand...

Shirley

After her grasping and then eating of the forbidden fruit, Eve was now morally defiled (first).

She had boldly grasped at equality with the Elohim; revealing an attitude of mind contrary to that required of God. How different from that manifested by the Lord Jesus (see Phil. 2:5,6,7,8,9,10). Jesus recognised that equality with God was "not a thing to be grasped at," and so submitted to the Father's will in all things. But Eve had acted in a presumptuous manner. She should have rejected the temptation of the serpent, or, at least, she should have conferred with her husband. He was made "in the image and likeness of the Elohim" (Gen. 1:26), whereas she was "the glory of the man" (1 Cor. 11:7). Being formed out of his side, designed as his counterpart (Gen. 2:20), his helper, she should not have acted independently of him (see 1 Cor. 11:8,9,10,11).

But she did, and because she did, Paul reasons that women should take heed and not "usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Tim. 2:12). He points out that Adam was first formed, and then Eve; and that Adam was not deceived by the serpent, but was seduced through her (1 Tim. 2:13-14). To demonstrate that principle, Paul established the church discipline of the subjection of sisters (1 Cor. 11:8,9,10,11) that all members might be instructed.

Insight

Insight is basically on target in his post #555 but for a little thing he fails to see.

Shirley, at the end of your comment you said, "It sounds to me like she believed Satan and Adam did not."

And that is correct.

The question is, 'What really was it that Eve was made to believe by the serpent?'

We have most all us been guilty at least at one time or another in our pondering of this of concluding that both Adam and Eve grasped at equality with God.

The truth is that only Adam snatched at that equality with God because it takes a deliberate and knowing choice to do such a thing.

Eve believed the serpent when the serpent said, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now think about that. Eve only had to believe that she herself was wrong about what God had said and perhaps even that she had not understood Adam concerning it. Nothing in that statement by Satan requires Eve to have to have had a mindset of deliberately choosing to defy God. She was made to doubt (first). Adam never doubted.

Genesis 3:22a "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, ..."

Vengle said:

Insight is basically on target in his post #555 but for a little thing he fails to see.

Shirley, at the end of your comment you said, "It sounds to me like she believed Satan and Adam did not."

And that is correct.

The question is, 'What really was it that Eve was made to believe by the serpent?'

We have most all us been guilty at least at one time or another in our pondering of this of concluding that both Adam and Eve grasped at equality with God.

The truth is that only Adam snatched at that equality with God because it takes a deliberate and knowing choice to do such a thing.

Eve believed the serpent when the serpent said, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Now think about that. Eve only had to believe that she herself was wrong about what God had said and perhaps even that she had not understood Adam concerning it. Nothing in that statement by Satan requires Eve to have to have had a mindset of deliberately choosing to defy God. She was made to doubt (first). Adam never doubted.

Click to expand...

This is error - plain - blatant - error.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

Vengle stop kicking against the pricks and yield to the truth of the Scriptures.

Insight

"And (Eve) gave also unto her husband with her"

Vengle is unfortunately misrepresenting the actual events of Gen 3.

It is true even today that sin is extremely social! its effects spread to others as leaven does in dough (1 Cor. 5:6,7). Let us follow the Apostle's advice, and purge out the leaven by refusing to associate with or condone the practice of sin. This action may be seen to be only a little deviation, but it resulted in the devastation of the lives of Adam and Eve, and the sentence of death (Rom 8:3) on all their posterity.

The Apostle Paul's advice is to "make no provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof (Rom. 13:14)

Many posts later and we are yet to define the flesh, its inherited proneness to sin and death. I am yet to see one here explain why Paul refers to our nature as sin’s flesh or sinful flesh? Why is Flesh owned of dominated by sin?

Therefore…

Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there.

It is obvious sin was condemned in his nature on the cross however none here is able to explain how sin was represented in the Lords body.

Insight

True to the proverb which says, Proverbs 24:16a “For a just man falleth seven times, and riseth up again …”, when a person has been wrong as often as I have they get tired of beating themselves up with the fear of being wrong.

It is only at that point where they actually become able to get all competition rooted out of their self so that to them it is not any longer even a matter of their being right or wrong.

Then the only thing that matters is God, and listening to God.

Until that time one is but a seed in the womb not yet having taken shape.

But in that day a lovely child is born called by the name, “humility”.

Humility then bears the precious child called of the name, “meekness”.

There is where fruitfulness is born and begins to flourish.

So why did Jesus need to crucify his flesh? (Rom 8:3)

Eve provides the answer and fulfilment of sin’s flesh in 1 John 2:16

"That the tree was good for food"

The lust of the flesh aroused.

"And that it was pleasant to the eyes"

The "lust of the eyes." See the AV margin: "a desire to the eyes".

"And a tree to be desired to make one wise"

The pride of life.

"She took of the fruit thereof "

This was the first act of foolishness leading to sin. She probably tentatively touched the fruit (ct. Gen 3:3) whilst caressing it with her eyes. Then, finding that no evil effects followed, she was led to eat it.

The Law of sin and death was established.

Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there.

If sin was not condemend, then Rom 8:1 would not apply and you all would be in your sins.