Christ as the firstborn

[Insight]

No, Insight. "Sin's flesh" is your own addition to that text. It says no such thing. Christ took on our sins by imputation in the same way that his righteousness is imputed to us for justification. Again, if Christ was born with Original Sin he could not have saved anyone.

It appears Nomad does not acknowledge Jesus offered for himself first, before he offered for his people. He is in fact breaking the type of the High Priest under the Law.

In other words Nomad cannot explain the uncleaness of sin's flesh which leads to death - Nomad would have us believe death is clean!

In affect Nomad is without a high priest who cannot cleanse him morally and physically.

The sprinkling of the typical blood on both by Moses prefigured the operation of divine love and wisdom in
Christ’s own sacrifice. It was a sacrifice operative on him first of all; for he is the beginning of the new creation, the first fruits of the new harvest, and the foundation of the new temple. He was the nucleus of a new and healthy life developed among men, for the healing of all who should become in association with it.

As such, it was needful that he should himself be the subject of the process, and the first reaper of the results. Hence the testimony that ’the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that Great Shepherd of the Sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20), and that by his own blood, entering into the holy place he obtained (middle, or self subjective state of the verb) eternal redemption (’for us’ is interpolated)" (Heb 9:12).

The Father saved him from death, for his obedience unto death (Heb. 5:7,8,9; Phil. 2:8,9; Rom. 5:19).

Insight

 

[Vengle]

Well, that's not the goal here. Truth is the goal, not slick arguments.

That is good. Glad to hear that.

I have to go away for a while to take care of outside business.

But like Arnold Swartzenhager is famous for saying. "I'll be back!"

 

[Nomad]

It appears Nomad does not acknowledge Jesus offered for himself first, before he offered for his people.

We've been through this already. Christ had no sin for which to sacrifice. A few pages back I posted numerous examples against what you are blasphemously claiming here. I'm not going to post them all again. I'll remind you with one.

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

We are now running into your theological presuppositions, i.e. all "flesh" is necessarily sin tainted. This is a Gnostic concept, Insight, not a Biblical one. Before the fall, the "first" Adam was perfectly sinless. So was the "last" Adam. Otherwise, his sacrifice would have been useless.

 

[Insight]

So your high priest never offered for himself.

Interesting.

 

[Vengle]

Well, that did not take as long as i thought.

The answers are in the text surrounding this verse which i cite only because it does contain something related to the subject of this thread.

Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"

We've been through this already. Christ had no sin for which to sacrifice. A few pages back I posted numerous examples against what you are blasphemously claiming here. I'm not going to post them all again. I'll remind you with one.

1Jn 3:5 You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.

We are now running into your theological presuppositions, i.e. all "flesh" is necessarily sin tainted. This is a Gnostic concept, Insight, not a Biblical one. Before the fall, the "first" Adam was perfectly sinless. So was the "last" Adam. Otherwise, his sacrifice would have been useless.

Yes and the problem with that Gnostic concept is it focuses on the physical as being responsible for sin. The physical is not perfect and can there for be said to bear sin only in the sense that it misses the mark originally established for it of God. But the defect of sin (as in our being prone to sin) is a spiritual defect of which Jesus had none.

Paul is telling us in Hebrews chapter 5 that unlike the usual high-priest chosen of men, Jesus did not have to make offering for himself.

He refers to that again at Hebrews chapter 9.

The only way Hebrews 5:8 would mandate Jesus also making offering for himself is if it meant that Jesus had sinned and that is why learning obedience was necessary. But that would be untrue for Jesus never committed sin.

Jesus had to learn what obedience was to a man. He could not know that simply by the obedience he always gave toward God. In being a man he had the opportunity to endure firsthand the trials and the temptations that beset us. as Heb. 5:8 says, "from the things that he suffered."

 

[Vengle]

I would think that God in His wisdom already understands things from our point of view.

So i guess we could use it as an argument that way. I am not sure how good the argument is though, even though that is true.

Yes, that does work, doesn't it.

Nah, it is too dismissible by the "fully God - fully man" contrivance about Jesus being a split personality where neither side must have known about the other. :lol:

 

[Vengle]

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Does that not say that Jesus is God?

 

[Nomad]

Well, that did not take as long as i thought.

The answers are in the text surrounding this verse which i cite only because it does contain something related to the subject of this thread.

Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"



Yes and the problem with that Gnostic concept is it focuses on the physical as being responsible for sin. The physical is not perfect and can there for be said to bear sin only in the sense that it misses the mark originally established for it of God. But the defect of sin (as in our being prone to sin) is a spiritual defect of which Jesus had none.

Paul is telling us in Hebrews chapter 5 that unlike the usual high-priest chosen of men, Jesus did not have to make offering for himself.

We agree on something. Imagine that.

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

Does that not say that Jesus is God?

Vengle, are you saying that you are switching sides, so to speak?

 

[Vengle]

We agree on something. Imagine that.



Vengle, are you saying that you are switching sides, so to speak?

Miracles never cease, do they! :lol:

No, I am on no man's side. I care only to learn what God has for me to learn, even if that would mean the whole world considers me their most hated.

I have an interesting outlook on David's words when He said Psalms 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

That word translated as "iniquity" can mean "the punishment" for sin which was placed upon Adam depriving Adam's body of much of its regenerative perfection.

And "in sin did my mother conceive me" relates to how there was not proper training for him to receive for the perfecting of his spirit. His mother lacked the ability to provide it as her parents had lacked it. And all people in his life lacked it. We are thus born to great handicap. God sees that we have not much choice but to begin faulting from the womb. There is no really stable example there for us to cling to. Thus enters the Christ as the last Adam, our mentor.

 

[Vengle]

Matthew 1:23 "Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." (Isaiah 7:14)

Does that not say that Jesus is God?

If we thoroughly examine the account in Isaiah what we find is that the son/s born to Isaiah and that meant Immanuel to Isaiah's people of that time was to serve to help the people know that God had not forgotten them so that they would be encouraged in spirit rather than lost to despair.

That is a quick summation. That is what the appearance of the Messiah also would mean for a subjugated and spiritually mal-nourished nation of peoples, "God [is yet] with us" He has not forgotten us.

Isaiah 8:10 "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us. ... 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, which dwelleth in mount Zion."

Where the first objection will come is that they will say Isaiah's sons were not of a virgin and so this could not be.

But it can be and it is.

 

[Vengle]

Did you know that there is another virgin which we frequently fail to give due credit for things she produces to our benefit?

A virgin through whom God delivers blessing to us? She was as active in Isaiah's day as she was in the first century and today. Even forever.

No, I am not set to argue that the Hebrew word at Isaiah 7:14 need not be translated "virgin".

I hate pointless arguments. I abhor them.

At the time that the prophecy at Isaiah 7:14 was given Pekah and Rezin, the kings of Israel and Syria, were determined to overthrow Ahaz, king of Judah. They desired to put the son of Tabeel upon his throne. (Isaiah 7:1-6)

Remembering his kingdom covenant with David, the forefather of Ahaz, God sent his prophet with this comforting message:
Isaiah 7:13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

 

[Insight]

Heb 5:2

Are we willing to define his weakness? What qualified him for his priesthood

 

[Nomad]

Heb 5:2

Are we willing to define his weakness? What qualified him for his priesthood

We've already established that your proof-text refers to Levitical priests, not Christ. Do I need really need to direct you to that post?

 

[Vengle]

Its not easy, is it.

The trick is not to be on any man's side.

That means not even on your own side.

 

[veteran]

Well, that did not take as long as i thought.

The answers are in the text surrounding this verse which i cite only because it does contain something related to the subject of this thread.

Hebrews 5:7 "Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;"



Yes and the problem with that Gnostic concept is it focuses on the physical as being responsible for sin. The physical is not perfect and can there for be said to bear sin only in the sense that it misses the mark originally established for it of God. But the defect of sin (as in our being prone to sin) is a spiritual defect of which Jesus had none.

Paul is telling us in Hebrews chapter 5 that unlike the usual high-priest chosen of men, Jesus did not have to make offering for himself.

He refers to that again at Hebrews chapter 9.

The only way Hebrews 5:8 would mandate Jesus also making offering for himself is if it meant that Jesus had sinned and that is why learning obedience was necessary. But that would be untrue for Jesus never committed sin.

Jesus had to learn what obedience was to a man. He could not know that simply by the obedience he always gave toward God. In being a man he had the opportunity to endure firsthand the trials and the temptations that beset us. as Heb. 5:8 says, "from the things that he suffered."

But the real twist is that the Gnostic concept is actually about ideas that flesh CAN reach perfection! That's why the Gnostic philosophy is false, because it treats Salvation as being OF THE FLESH, and not of one's spirit. So I don't know why you all refer to sin and the flesh as a Gnostic concept, when Paul linked the two plainly in Scripture like Romans 7.

Paul's rebuke about one at Corinth that was not dwelt with in laying with his own mother...

1 Cor 5:4-5
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(KJV)


Only God The Saviour could be born in the flesh and have no sin. But of course quite a few here deny that Jesus of Nazareth is God having come in the flesh, so that's why they go around and around in circles trying to somehow separate the concept of sin from Adam's fall away from the idea of flesh.

 

[Insight]

We've already established that your proof-text refers to Levitical priests, not Christ. Do I need really need to direct you to that post?

Veteran’s claim of me being a Gnostic is incorrect and way off beam.

We also have Nomad disregarding Heb 5:2 saying it has nothing to do with Jesus Christ. Rather than answering to his weakness he runs a mile behind the priesthood.

You have no doubt noticed how far removed we all are (including Nomad) from the Trinitarian traditions. The deeper one dives into the nature of Jesus Christ the greater one appreciates the victory wrought in him.

For instance:

He (Jesus) can deal gently with the ignorant and wayward, since he (Jesus) himself is beset with weakness. Heb 5:2

Weakness : want of strength, weakness, infirmity
a) of the body
1) its native weakness and frailty
2) feebleness of health or sickness of the soul
1) want of strength and capacity requisite
a) to understand a thing to do things great and glorious
c) to restrain corrupt desires
d) to bear trials and troubles

While the Trinity presents Jesus Christ as superman the truth presents him weak in sins flesh fighting against every trial and temptation.
Of course if Jesus was in an unfallen nature like that of Adams who knew no sweat of the brow how could the Holy Writ present a feeble man wanting for strength and being poured out?

I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! (Luke 12:50)

If Jesus is God what distress? What agony till it be accomplished?

How did Jesus suffer in the flesh if he didn’t have our nature?

The answer you are all thinking is couldn’t suffer distress, agony, weakness, want of strength if he was the Trinitarian God.

Here is another in context Nomad!

For in that he (Jesus) bundled (Jesus) hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted. (Hebrews 2:18)

Define how Jesus suffered being tempted? What exactly was the nature of his suffering? Explain Nomad

Wouldn’t it be nice for once for Nomad to put away his theories and actually expound the Word?

So here is the challenge for anyone who is willing and brave enough to confront the Word with integrity of heart.

How did the Spirit of Yahweh have victory in sin’s flesh where Jesus suffered agony, weakness, suffered in trials and temptations and a feeble nature?

This distress dear reader’s is pre adamic nature, or post?

I should put Gal 4:4 here for futher context...I think Paul wants you to understand something about Jesus nature?

Of course if you answer pre Adamic nature then you will have a mighty problem with...

(Jesus) Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; (Hebrews 5:7)

Nomad must explain how Jesus had Adam's original nature, but clearly with the sentence of death working in his members.

Insight

 

[Nomad]

. . . How did Jesus suffer in the flesh if he didn’t have our nature?


. . . Define how Jesus suffered being tempted?

The same way the sinless Adam suffered temptation before the fall. There was no sin nature before the fall. The difference between Adam and Christ was that Adam succumbed to temptation where Jesus did not. Again, you assume that "flesh" is inherently tainted, fallen or unfallen. This idea of yours is Gnostic to the core. It certainly isn't Biblical. I don't say this to insult you. I say this because you need to know that you're headed down the wrong path.

 

[Insight]

The same way the sinless Adam suffered temptation before the fall.

The sinless Adam did not have the sentence of death passed upon him prior to sin!

(Jesus) Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; (Heb 5:7)

Jesus was born of a woman and inherited what from Adam? Rom 5:12

There was no sin nature before the fall.

So if they did not have a nature capable of sin, how did they sin?

The difference between Adam and Christ was that Adam succumbed to temptation where Jesus did not.

Ah, so you admit Jesus had a nature that could experience temptation.

Again, you assume that "flesh" is inherently tainted, fallen or unfallen.

Now you are getting closer to asking the right questions - lets see if you can provide a Biblical answer?

This idea of yours is Gnostic to the core. It certainly isn't Biblical. I don't say this to insult you. I say this because you need to know that you're headed down the wrong path.

I will let others weigh your response in the balance of Scriptural support. I believe I provided you four passages to prove Jesus had the same nature as you and I, with many more to come.

Nomad

The Apostle Paul goes to great lengths to inform you Jesus was like his brothers in every respect in nature.

From his mother (Gal 4:4) he derived all the faculties, propensities, and instincts which belong to the nature of the first Adam.

For verily Jesus took NOT on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. (Hebrews 2:16)

Would you be kind enough to define what the natural seed of Abraham represents?

So one must need ask Nomad, if you believe your Holy Trinity expresses a Christ who is both divine and flesh natured why would Paul say otherwise?

Why do you think Yahweh would want to be manifested in sin’s flesh and not some other unknown flesh?

What could possibly be His motives for sending his son in fallen nature?

Well I would then ask you Nomad, if your Jesus did not share your nature...what exactly did Jesus overcome?

Can you explain.

Insight

 

[Insight]

Good evening Vengle.

 

[Vengle]

But the real twist is that the Gnostic concept is actually about ideas that flesh CAN reach perfection! That's why the Gnostic philosophy is false, because it treats Salvation as being OF THE FLESH, and not of one's spirit. So I don't know why you all refer to sin and the flesh as a Gnostic concept, when Paul linked the two plainly in Scripture like Romans 7.

Paul's rebuke about one at Corinth that was not dwelt with in laying with his own mother...

1 Cor 5:4-5
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(KJV)


Only God The Saviour could be born in the flesh and have no sin. But of course quite a few here deny that Jesus of Nazareth is God having come in the flesh, so that's why they go around and around in circles trying to somehow separate the concept of sin from Adam's fall away from the idea of flesh.

You have some good thoughts there. And where I might agree with Insight is that I believe it is possible that Jesus had flesh that like ours that is part of Adam's flesh which is irrecoverably under the penalty of death upon Adam, that flesh having been received through the connection to the flesh in Mary.

However, if that be true, Jesus proved that wearing imperfect flesh is not something that of itself dooms us to have to commit sin in our spirit.

Is that true that Jesus flesh was imperfect? I have to be quite honest with you and tell you I do not know. I am stupid on that point and all I can do for the moment is guess.

Do you see though what I am saying? (1) That if it is true, that Jesus did receive the imperfect flesh through Mary (and it seems as he would have to) (2) that his not allowing that flesh to dominate so as to cause his spirit to obey the will of that flesh (3) proves that just wearing imperfect flesh is not an excuse for us to continue on sinning?

That is why I keep saying we cannot afford to look at it as though we are doomed to have to sin. We have it in us especially with the help of God's spirit to break that slavery of our spirit to our flesh and return our spirits servitude back to God's spirit where it was originally intended to swear its allegiance.

But wow, my own post here fills me with questions. Like am I wrong in the first paragraph when I said, "flesh which is irrecoverably under the penalty of death upon Adam"?

Could it be possible that a man who does not commit sin can then offer that flesh as an offering for the redemption of all Adam's flesh, thus in effect cleansing even that imperfect flesh that he wore?

Maybe Jesus approving his own flesh was the returning of Adam's flesh to life, just as all our flesh is the one body Adam?

And that from that point forward we individually bring death to our own flesh as Adam did by our own willful continuance in disobedience?