How could the Messiah be sinless?

[mjrhealth]

There is a difference between reading information about the queen and reading a letter sent to you directly from the queen. The latter thing is personal.

No you still dont get it do you. Its the difference between one who know the Queen and has relationship with her, like husband and wife, and one who only ever reads about her, and so it is with Christ, He is supposed to be your husband, I have friend who has one love letter from her first husband, and she was telling me how they couldnt stand being separated, but he is dead now, and that is all she has, so are you telling me that Jesus is dead, and the bible is all you have, or are you telling Jesus as my X told me., i love you you are a good husband but I just dont want to be with you.

 

[Renniks]

Predominately, the point is that Scripture is not required to prove the nonsensical, implausible and utterly ridiculous. The onus is not on the rational to prove that zebras can't fly, that elephants can't swim, that the earth is not flat, nor that the Supreme Judge and Legislator must make amends for the guilty parties, nor that God can become a man and then be mocked, abused and killed by His won creation.
The obligation is on the irrationalists, mystics and credulous to prove such contradictions and absurdities.

What I find absurd is the notion that a mere human can save me from my sins. I find that nowhere in scripture.

 

[Joseph77]

What I find absurd is the notion that a mere human can save me from my sins. I find that nowhere in scripture.

Correct.
There is an ongoing battle here, and it cannot be "won" on the internet - the losers can keep posting ad infinitum, as long as God permits it.

 

[Tong2020]

Gen_1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Do you read any angels there?

Tong
R0881

 

[Joseph77]

It seems like some of the fallen angels are pretty 'creepy'......... and the multitudes of people who are subject to the demons are pretty 'creepy' too.... "every creeping thing" ?

 

[Tong2020]

You're wrong on the meaning of the image of God, and on the meaning behind the foolishness of the Cross. The only thing that you came remotely close to being accurate, but also incriminated yourself, is affirming that it is foolish to call a man God.

And that is how you make a refutation and defend your doctrine? Well, ....

And why, when confronted with scriptural truth about the person of Jesus Christ, you fall deaf and mute? Well,....

And what is with your last statement?

Tong
R0882

 

[Tong2020]

You're a horrible exegete Tong, you don't seem to understand Tota Scriptura or Hermeneutics 101 - context.

Appealing once again to Ad hominems - horrible exegete? Such does not make your teaching to stand to be the truth. For even if a false teacher reasons with a horrible exegete does not make his teaching true.

The reason man will pay for another man's life with his blood, is because man is currently created in God's image. The clause at the end has no significance, if a corrupt or fallen man, kills another corrupt or fallen man. Meaning, according to you, neither are in the image of God.
But, on the contrary, for that was the point of God expressing His justification behind the ordinance.

The reason that the life of man, even that of the life of the beast, is required for taking a man's life is not because man is currently created in God's image, as you contend. The passage does not say anything to that effect. What Genesis 9:6 says the reason is because God made man in his own image. That's plain enough and clearly different from saying that man is currently created in God's image.

You can't seem to keep your foot out of your mouth Tong. It's not ad hominen Tong, it's trying to make you see how belief in such absurdities as the trinity, always reduces its adherents and proponents to unreasonable and irrational crédules.

You seem to even want to redefine ad hominem which seemed to have been your stamp.

If you are trying to make me see anything, you can't accomplish it by ad hominems DNB. You can try by giving a proper refutation of my arguments, wherein which you fail to do. So, go ahead and refute.

Tong
R0883

 

[Tong2020]

You're a bad exegete Tong, your dialectics are horrible and exasperating. We've been going in circles now since we've engaged.

And here again, the stamp, the appeal once again to Ad hominems - bad exegete? I will just repeat saying, such does not make your teaching to stand to be the truth, for even if a false teacher reasons with a bad exegete does not make his teaching true.

The trinity is absolute nonsense in regard to every facet of Christian theology.

That is your opinion. But by just keep saying that does not make it true. Now, I am not expecting that you can make your case with scriptures, for such opinion is based on human wisdom or thinking and not on scriptures.

You've heard my reasons why. You have done absolutely nothing to defend or substantiate your position, but to say, 'no, it's not'.

It is not true that I have done absolutely nothing to defend or substantiate my position. My post #367 to which you replied bears witness to the fact that I have shown you scriptural truth that shows that Christ is the almighty God, which you have not even lifted a finger to try to refute, even while I repeatedly posted them for you to address. And I will post them once again here and but this time print them in bold and big and colored fonts so you won't miss them the nth time:

It had been shown to you in scriptures, the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the messenger who will prepare the way of the Lord, that is, God (Yahweh); and it had been shown to you in scriptures, the fulfillment of such prophecy in the prophet John the baptist, being the messenger, and in the Christ, Jesus, being the Lord, whose way John the baptist prepared for. But you just keep rejecting that. Not that it is not written in scriptures, but because human wisdom tells you that it is foolishness. Refute that if you must, if at all it is possible for anyone to refute the truth taught in scriptures.

It had been shown to you also in scriptures that God is the King of kings and the Lord of Lords. Is there another God like Him? Is there another King of kings other than God? Is there another Lord of lords other than God? Such titles are ultimate, meaning there could only be one King of kings and only be one Lord of Lords. And it had been shown to you in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of Lords. And you again reject the truth that such teaches, not that it is not written in scriptures, but because human wisdom tells you that it is foolishness. Refute that if you must, if at all it is possible for anyone to refute the truth taught in scriptures.

Should I go on? Perhaps, you can first address those properly, not with Ad Hominems I hope nor with any excuses nor by saying the same things that your human wisdom tells you as absurdities. I told you truth taught in scriptures, not things taught by human wisdom.

And perhaps also, you can now also honestly answer the simple questions which you just ignored:

1. Who do you say created all things that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers?
2. Who do you say is before all things?
3. In whom do you say all things consist?

So there, go ahead, address the questions and refute the arguments, if you can.

And then, quote Scripture that speaks of man's perception of God's wisdom as foolishness, and that, from the perspective of a fool. In other words, you've digresses from the point and taken passages entirely out of context, apparently because you must be unaware of the point? You are unable to divulge the wisdom behind your god-man theory.
Yes Tong, I am being disparaging intentionally, but, in order to expose an invariable fact - the doctrine of the trinity always makes fools of it's adherents, always!

Because your opinion is based on human wisdom or thinking, that I quoted scriptures that talks about those considered by the world as the wise, who use human wisdom in determining the truth. And now you refer to such people as fools? You surprised me by that. Does not your opinion comes from human wisdom or thinking?

You apparently seek for wisdom behind the truth that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, as did the Greeks in Paul's day seek wisdom behind the message of the cross. But if what you seek is God's wisdom and not human wisdom in the truth that Jesus Christ God in the flesh, you should not expect to see it by looking at human wisdom, for what you'll see there is foolishness. If you want to see the wisdom of God about that, you will have to look it up in God's words, in scriptures.

Tong
R0884

 

[Joseph77]

... ... ...

Ad hominems ?

Is that what citizens of Philippines call indigenous Australians ?

exegete

And that what kangaroos leave behind ?




likes:43

 

[Tong2020]

Predominately, the point is that Scripture is not required to prove the nonsensical, implausible and utterly ridiculous. The onus is not on the rational to prove that zebras can't fly, that elephants can't swim, that the earth is not flat, nor that the Supreme Judge and Legislator must make amends for the guilty parties, nor that God can become a man and then be mocked, abused and killed by His won creation.
The obligation is on the irrationalists, mystics and credulous to prove such contradictions and absurdities.

By the way you reason out there shows that you really have a lot of human wisdom in you. Undoubtedly, you are among the wise of today's world, I would have to admit. But the authorship of the Bible is not of such men but of God, so that the wisdom it contains is not human wisdom but the wisdom of God.

Tong
R0885

 

[DNB]

What I find absurd is the notion that a mere human can save me from my sins. I find that nowhere in scripture.

It's analogous to how God was willing to spare all of Sodom for the sake of ten righteous men. Or, even how the mere blood of bulls and goats would redeem those under the Law. Man's sin did not disrupt the cosmos or the metaphysical realms in any manner whatsoever, that hypothetically, it required a god-man to redeem us. Man's defiance poses no threat to God, God could wipe them out and start all over, as He did in the time of Noah, or as He threatened to do to the Israelites in the desert. Paul explains all this in Romans 5.
So, actually Renniks, one does read it very clearly in Scripture. You're very indoctrinated Renniks, you're speaking trinitarian clichés that have never made any sense, but you all are extremely quick to use them as a defense without ever thinking them through.
There is absolutely not a single viable point that you can bring up, to justify the necessity of a god-man to to save our souls. It is just impetuous and superfluous trinitarian desperation and nonsense.
I am being very serious here, Renniks, I am challenging you. I am not, as you keep claiming, trying to insult to gain the upper hand.
Explain the necessity of a god-man for salvation, and why the blood of a perfect human won't cut it (remember before you reply, that god's don't bleed)?

 

[DNB]

And that is how you make a refutation and defend your doctrine? Well, ....

And why, when confronted with scriptural truth about the person of Jesus Christ, you fall deaf and mute? Well,....

And what is with your last statement?

Tong
R0882

You're insane Tong. This is our upteenth post, and you ask me what my refutation is???? How many circles have we gone in now?

 

[justbyfaith]

It might be good for @DNB and others who agree with him to compare Mark 1:3 in its context with Isaiah 40:3.

In each of these scriptures, who is John the Baptist preparing the way for?

There is only one answer. Let's see if you can catch it.

 

[DNB]

Appealing once again to Ad hominems - horrible exegete? Such does not make your teaching to stand to be the truth. For even if a false teacher reasons with a horrible exegete does not make his teaching true.
The reason that the life of man, even that of the life of the beast, is required for taking a man's life is not because man is currently created in God's image, as you contend. The passage does not say anything to that effect. What Genesis 9:6 says the reason is because God made man in his own image. That's plain enough and clearly different from saying that man is currently created in God's image.
You seem to even want to redefine ad hominem which seemed to have been your stamp.

If you are trying to make me see anything, you can't accomplish it by ad hominems DNB. You can try by giving a proper refutation of my arguments, wherein which you fail to do. So, go ahead and refute.

Tong
R0883

You're a nutbar Tong. The penalty for murder, is not because men were meant to be righteous, and therefore, any sin deserves capital punishment. It's because of the egregious nature of killing a human that is created in God's image, makes the act so heinous. In other words, killing anything other than a human, does not bear the same penalty. That is, a man made in God's image may kill anything, but, a being that is in God's image.
It is not the stipulation to be righteous, and any defiance to it, that deserves death, it is the act of homicide that invokes the death sentence.

 

[justbyfaith]

No you still dont get it do you. Its the difference between one who know the Queen and has relationship with her, like husband and wife, and one who only ever reads about her, and so it is with Christ, He is supposed to be your husband, I have friend who has one love letter from her first husband, and she was telling me how they couldnt stand being separated, but he is dead now, and that is all she has, so are you telling me that Jesus is dead, and the bible is all you have, or are you telling Jesus as my X told me., i love you you are a good husband but I just dont want to be with you.

If the queen has sent you a personal letter, you obviously have a relationship with her.

It is not a matter of Jesus being dead; but of Him being away on a journey. He went to receive a kingdom and told us to occupy until He comes back again. He left us a set of instructions that we are to follow and to implement as the laws of His kingdom while He is away. In this set of instructions are also words of encouragement and love that amount to as if a love letter were sent from the queen (to go back to the other analogy). This love letter is not information about the queen, impersonal. It is the queens words to us that she is speaking directly to us from a distance.

We also have the advantage of having the Spirit of Jesus to help us to understand His love letter to us; but that may be another story.

Jesus is away on a journey, we do not know Him any longer after the flesh (2 Corinthians 5:16).

But He has given us His word and it is something that speaks to us of His love and forgiveness. His Spirit also speaks to us directly when we are reading it.

But listening to spirits apart from the word of the Lord is dangerous. You are in danger of paying attention to deceiving spirits and doctrines of devils (1 Timothy 4:1).

 

[DNB]

And here again, the stamp, the appeal once again to Ad hominems - bad exegete? I will just repeat saying, such does not make your teaching to stand to be the truth, for even if a false teacher reasons with a bad exegete does not make his teaching true.

That is your opinion. But by just keep saying that does not make it true. Now, I am not expecting that you can make your case with scriptures, for such opinion is based on human wisdom or thinking and not on scriptures.

It is not true that I have done absolutely nothing to defend or substantiate my position. My post #367 to which you replied bears witness to the fact that I have shown you scriptural truth that shows that Christ is the almighty God, which you have not even lifted a finger to try to refute, even while I repeatedly posted them for you to address. And I will post them once again here and but this time print them in bold and big and colored fonts so you won't miss them the nth time:

It had been shown to you in scriptures, the prophecy of Isaiah concerning the messenger who will prepare the way of the Lord, that is, God (Yahweh); and it had been shown to you in scriptures, the fulfillment of such prophecy in the prophet John the baptist, being the messenger, and in the Christ, Jesus, being the Lord, whose way John the baptist prepared for. But you just keep rejecting that. Not that it is not written in scriptures, but because human wisdom tells you that it is foolishness. Refute that if you must, if at all it is possible for anyone to refute the truth taught in scriptures.

It had been shown to you also in scriptures that God is the King of kings and the Lord of Lords. Is there another God like Him? Is there another King of kings other than God? Is there another Lord of lords other than God? Such titles are ultimate, meaning there could only be one King of kings and only be one Lord of Lords. And it had been shown to you in scriptures that Jesus Christ is the King of kings and Lord of Lords. And you again reject the truth that such teaches, not that it is not written in scriptures, but because human wisdom tells you that it is foolishness. Refute that if you must, if at all it is possible for anyone to refute the truth taught in scriptures.

Should I go on? Perhaps, you can first address those properly, not with Ad Hominems I hope nor with any excuses nor by saying the same things that your human wisdom tells you as absurdities. I told you truth taught in scriptures, not things taught by human wisdom.

And perhaps also, you can now also honestly answer the simple questions which you just ignored:

1. Who do you say created all things that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers?
2. Who do you say is before all things?
3. In whom do you say all things consist?

So there, go ahead, address the questions and refute the arguments, if you can.

Because your opinion is based on human wisdom or thinking, that I quoted scriptures that talks about those considered by the world as the wise, who use human wisdom in determining the truth. And now you refer to such people as fools? You surprised me by that. Does not your opinion comes from human wisdom or thinking?

You apparently seek for wisdom behind the truth that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh, as did the Greeks in Paul's day seek wisdom behind the message of the cross. But if what you seek is God's wisdom and not human wisdom in the truth that Jesus Christ God in the flesh, you should not expect to see it by looking at human wisdom, for what you'll see there is foolishness. If you want to see the wisdom of God about that, you will have to look it up in God's words, in scriptures.

Tong
R0884

I believe that all your proof-text is either ambiguous, or way out of context.
Do me a favour, just show me from anywhere in Scripture where it says either trinity, triune, three-in-one, two-in-one (natures of Christ), God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, god-man, incarnate?
Or, explain what either a trinity is without contradicting the fundaments of deity, or explain what a god-man is without creating an oxymoron. Or, explain why a god-man was required to redeem man with a logical and Scriptural substantiation.

 

[justbyfaith]

Do me a favour, just show me from anywhere in Scripture where it says either trinity, triune, three-in-one, two-in-one (natures of Christ), God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, god-man, incarnate?

True Trinity.

 

[DNB]

It might be good for @DNB and others who agree with him to compare Mark 1:3 in its context with Isaiah 40:3.

In each of these scriptures, who is John the Baptist preparing the way for?

There is only one answer. Let's see if you can catch it.

The Messiah, according to Mark. Just as Paul expanded the meaning of the Mosaic Law to not bridle the oxen as it's treading the ground. Moses meant oxen, Paul meant evangels. Isaiah, thus, meant something contemporaneous at his time, as the entire pericope is clearly seen to be very circumstantial. Mark made the imprecise parallel, as Paul did, as many other NT authors did - they employed prophetical license to many OT passages.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Messiah, according to Mark. Just as Paul expanded the meaning of the Mosaic Law to not bridle the oxen as it's treading the ground. Moses meant oxen, Paul meant evangels. Isaiah, thus, meant something contemporaneous at his time, as the entire pericope is clearly seen to be very circumstantial. Mark made the imprecise parallel, as Paul did, as many other NT authors did - they employed prophetical license to many OT passages.

No; Mark 1:3 was the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3.

As such, you have to see that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is Jehovah God.

I believe that it is only your preconceived notion that He cannot be, that prevents you from seeing this plain fact of holy scripture.

 

[DNB]

No; Mark 1:3 was the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3.

As such, you have to see that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) is Jehovah God.

I believe that it is only your preconceived notion that He cannot be, that prevents you from seeing this plain fact of holy scripture.

Jesus was the Messiah, a creature born around 4BC, chosen as the first-born of creation, and the first-born from dead (ascended into heaven).
All things were created for, and he himself, created nothing, for he is only a fallible creature himself. That's why they were able to kill him, and why he would dare petition the Father to be released from his mandated fate. He obeyed even unto death, and therefore, God exalted him to His right-hand, of which he had no eternal, or even temporal right, to go there on his own. For otherwise, such deliverance and exaltation by the Father would not be necessary, obviously, for it would've been inherently his already.