Ferris Bueller
Well-Known Member
All real believers understand this. It's a waste of time to try to explain this to unbelievers.
A False Teaching about the Cross and Jesus being Crucified
- Thread starter Kenneth Jude Ramagost
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
You have said some beautiful things here - but you mixed in some error.
Christ died Once for our sins - we do not crucify Christ afresh every time we sin - this is completely false (heresy).
Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
The Romans are guilty of murder just as the Jews who handed Christ over to be crucified.
John 19:11 - Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
The Roman government condemned an innocent man and Pontius Pilate knew Christ committed no crime worthy of death.
They also are guilty of His death but the Jews have the GREATER sin in this.
You said: "It was always a possibility that Christ could have sinned". Scripture does not lead us to believe this.
The Scripture says Two Immutable things about Christ and Temptation.
#1. As the son of man, in the flesh, He was tempted in all ways as we are - Hebrews 2:18
#2. As the only Begotten Son of God he could NOT of sinned - James 1:13, 1 John 2:16, John 10:30
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone. James 1:13
"I and the Father are One." John 10:30
I am not a Catholic, but when they make the sign of the cross, they say, in the name of the father, son, and Holy Spirit as they do it, so they are acknowledging the trinity that so many cults deny exists.
Jesus was either tempted, or that is a lie that says He was.
Jesus was absolutely tempted to sin on His mother’s side, but overcame temptation and remained sinless on His father’s side
James 1:13 is true, in that the Father is not tempted to sin, but then the Father didn’t become flesh with a human mother to give Him half the chromosomes in His body, which caused Jesus’ flesh to be tempted in all things in the same way we are.
No, Romans didn’t make people carry the very heavy vertical beam of the cross.
You can deny both scripture and historical facts that we know about Roman execution methods, but we won’t
Ever hear of cognitive dissonance?
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
If you observe the way that they make this sign, it is an upside-down cross as well.
No, I don't believe the majority realize this at all. They are doing what they were taught to do and what they see so many clergy do.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
Jesus, as the son of man in the flesh, was tempted with the temptations of this world from satan.
It was impossible for Him to sin = The Father and the Son are One - Read the Gospel of John
Do you believe that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Elohim of Genesis?
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Have you ever heard of anyone dying of a broken leg? The Romans only broke their legs to keep them from running away. The pain inflicted didn't perturb them, just the security. They would put them back on the cross after the Sabbath. At least that's what I read once. I wasn't there.
GISMYS_7
Well-Known Member
When the legs of a man on a cross are broken he cannot any longer breath as he cannot push up to fill his lungs!!
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
How then could Christ be tempted in all points just as we are? I am fully aware that many believe Jesus took on the nature of unfallen man. I disagree with this. Scripture says he took upon Him the seed of Abraham. This does not mean he inherited guilt or sin. What He inherited were the same propensities of the flesh that we have... And He overcame rebel one in His flesh, thus proving that we also can overcome.
The difference between Christ and us is not in His being exempt from natural fallen inclinations to sin. The difference is that He did not cherish these inclinations and incorporate them into His character as we do. The temptations of the natural heart were as strong for Christ as they are for us.
No matter what words are used by pre-Fall advocates, if Christ had no natural inclinations to sin, He could not be tempted like us , and one of the major links of Christ with the fallen human race has been destroyed.
David in NJ
Well-Known Member
I really like what you are saying especially the truth part = Hebrews 2:18 = Christ tempted as we are = in the flesh
You said "The temptations of the natural heart were as strong for Christ as they are for us." This cannot be true.
“The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? Jeremiah 17:9
They have all turned aside, They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
He could not be tempted in His Heart and Spirit because:
#1 there was no sin in His heart or spirit and
#2 "I and My Father are One" -"If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"
#3 "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him.”
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
Do you know what was declared here in this scripture passage?
The father never was born as a man with Mary’s fallen flesh chromosomes in his body, causing a real temptation to occur.
If Jesus couldn’t have sinned, then He wasn’t tempted to sin.
You can’t tempt someone who hates cherries to eat a cherry pie when on a diet, because that’s not something they would ever do, but if they love apples and you offer them apple pie, then it’s a temptation.
Peter asked to be crucified upside down. Catholics think the pope sits in peters chair due to apostolic succession, thus to honor Peter, the Pope’s chair has an upside down cross on it.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Another issue at stake in considering Christ's humanity is the nature of His inheritance, through Mary, of human nature. The only way that Jesus could take human nature without inheriting the "sinfulness of our sinful human heritage" is by His being exempted from some aspects of human heredity. The Holy Spirit would have to block some human genes from reaching Jesus in the normal way. In other words, Mary's genetic deficiencies were altered by the Holy Spirit so that she would pass on a totally unique heredity to Christ, completely unlike the heredity we receive from our parents.
In Romans 1:3 Paul says that Jesus "was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." But we are being told that Christ was made partially but not completely of the seed of David. Surely, like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity.
One of Christ's ancestors was Seth. Seth, like Cain, inherited the fallen nature of his parents. Whatever Seth received through heredity, Jesus received through heredity. This is the only possible conclusion that can be reached from these passages, and it is due only to a preconceived assumption about the nature of sin that these statements are not accepted at face value.
Harry Johnson, in his book The Humanity of the Saviour , says it most simply and pointedly. "There is no evidence to suggest that the chain of heredity was broken between Mary and Jesus." (London, The Epworth Press, 1962, p. 44)
Protestants have historically rejected the doctrine of the immaculate conception on the basis that it is not found in Scripture. But today many Protestants teach that in the womb of Mary a special miracle was performed so that no sinful tendencies or drives would be passed from Mary to Jesus. We as a church profess to repudiate the doctrine of the immaculate conception, but at the most critical point we fall back on its explanation for Jesus' birth. While we reject Mary's sinlessness, and we reject the teaching that Mary passed nothing on to Jesus through heredity, we eagerly accept a partial blockage of the hereditary line when it comes to desires and tendencies. This is simply a modified and more subtle version of the immaculate conception. Are we really sure that we are out of the Church of Rome? Our current teaching is a direct descendant in the theological line of the immaculate conception.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
As Curtis was correctly implying, the Father and Jesus are separate individual persons. Saying God cannot be tempted does not automatically supply to the Son Who lay aside all His divine attributes to become one of us.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
A further issue is the real problem at the heart of all discussions of the human nature of Christ. Does having a sinful nature make one a sinner and in need of a Saviour? If this issue could be resolved, we would have no more disagreements over the humanity of Christ.
Richard Taylor put it very well in his book, A Right Conception of Sin . "One who does not have correct views of sin is not apt to have correct views of any other fundamental question. This will especially be manifest in regard to his theory of the atonement and God's method of redeeming man." (Beacon Hill Press, 1945, pp. 9-11)
One of the reasons that this subject has seemed so confusing is because of a lack of simple definitions. There is a crucial difference between the effects of sin and sin itself. Although the effects of sin are far-reaching and ultimately lethal, no one ascribes personal guilt or condemnation to the effects of sin. On the other hand, the concept of sin is associated with guilt, condemnation, separation from God, judgment, and the second death. Our focus, as we discuss righteousness by faith or the nature of Christ, must be on sin itself rather than the effects of sin. Our basic question here is simple. Is fallen nature part of sin itself, or is it one of the effects of sin? Our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ will be determined by the answer we give to this simple question.
To say that all babies need a Saviour has become one of the most misleading clichés in current thinking on righteousness by faith. Yes, a baby needs a Saviour, a suffering planet needs a Saviour, blind men and lame men need a Saviour, but not in the sense of personal forgiveness for personal sin and guilt. Once again, we are confusing the effects of sin and sin itself.
James 4:17 tells us that "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The clearest texts describing sin say nothing of fallen nature being an inevitable, ongoing state of sin. To say that sin is nature is to say that we are sinning even when we are choosing not to sin. Could it be that this understanding of sin as something inevitable and ongoing has greatly dulled our sensitivity to real sin (transgression of God's law) so that now we have come to accept specific transgressions as simply expressions of the greater sin of having a fallen nature? In other words, we have come to accept sinning as a normal part of life and even Christian life. We have even started calling fallen nature SIN and acts of sin "sins."
Richard Taylor put it very well in his book, A Right Conception of Sin . "One who does not have correct views of sin is not apt to have correct views of any other fundamental question. This will especially be manifest in regard to his theory of the atonement and God's method of redeeming man." (Beacon Hill Press, 1945, pp. 9-11)
One of the reasons that this subject has seemed so confusing is because of a lack of simple definitions. There is a crucial difference between the effects of sin and sin itself. Although the effects of sin are far-reaching and ultimately lethal, no one ascribes personal guilt or condemnation to the effects of sin. On the other hand, the concept of sin is associated with guilt, condemnation, separation from God, judgment, and the second death. Our focus, as we discuss righteousness by faith or the nature of Christ, must be on sin itself rather than the effects of sin. Our basic question here is simple. Is fallen nature part of sin itself, or is it one of the effects of sin? Our conclusions regarding the nature of Christ will be determined by the answer we give to this simple question.
To say that all babies need a Saviour has become one of the most misleading clichés in current thinking on righteousness by faith. Yes, a baby needs a Saviour, a suffering planet needs a Saviour, blind men and lame men need a Saviour, but not in the sense of personal forgiveness for personal sin and guilt. Once again, we are confusing the effects of sin and sin itself.
James 4:17 tells us that "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." The clearest texts describing sin say nothing of fallen nature being an inevitable, ongoing state of sin. To say that sin is nature is to say that we are sinning even when we are choosing not to sin. Could it be that this understanding of sin as something inevitable and ongoing has greatly dulled our sensitivity to real sin (transgression of God's law) so that now we have come to accept specific transgressions as simply expressions of the greater sin of having a fallen nature? In other words, we have come to accept sinning as a normal part of life and even Christian life. We have even started calling fallen nature SIN and acts of sin "sins."
