How could the Messiah be sinless?

[Joseph77]

What I'm saying is that you literally can't read anything without interpretating it to some degree. And just because there's false interpretations, that doesn't change.

The Bible says otherwise.

The flesh/ man/ no, cannot read or listen or do anything without sinning.

The one dependent , relying on, trusting the Father... with God, all things are possible and salvation is accomplished.

Since GOD SAYS IT, IT IS SO ..... i.e. go and sin no more. Do not interpret .... (this is totally different form translate - translating is necessary or we would not have English Bibles, eh? )

 

[Joseph77]

If you were in the dining room when you were young, and your father told you to go get a glass of water,

would that need to be interpreted ? Or would you obviously and completely know what your father wanted ?

 

[Renniks]

Same goes for interpretation. You seem to think I'm saying we don't have access to the Holy Spirit for interpretation, which is only your mistaken interpretation of what I said.

The Bible says otherwise.

The flesh/ man/ no, cannot read or listen or do anything without sinning.

The one dependent , relying on, trusting the Father... with God, all things are possible and salvation is accomplished.

Since GOD SAYS IT, IT IS SO ..... i.e. go and sin no more. Do not interpret .... (this is totally different form translate - translating is necessary or we would not have English Bibles, eh? )

 

[Renniks]

Same goes for interpretation.You seem to think I'm saying we don't have access to the Holy Spirit for interpretation, which is only your mistaken interpretation of what I said.

The Bible says otherwise.

The flesh/ man/ no, cannot read or listen or do anything without sinning.

The one dependent , relying on, trusting the Father... with God, all things are possible and salvation is accomplished.

Since GOD SAYS IT, IT IS SO ..... i.e. go and sin no more. Do not interpret .... (this is totally different form translate - translating is necessary or we would not have English Bibles, eh? )

 

[DNB]

Lies, lies and damned lies.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

He is the head. He didn't have to do anything to become God.. There was never a time when he wasn't.
He is both the beginning, and the Resurrection. (The firstborn from among the dead) and this gives him rule over all.
Let me make it simple for you: Jesus always was God, but he had to rise from the dead to give us life and to ultimately defeat the enemy.

Verse 18 has the clause, he is the first-born from among the dead, so that... In other words, if he wasn't the first-born from the dead, he would have the supremacy. He is the first to ascend into heaven, no one has preceded him into heaven, and no one is there now until Judgement day. This is the meaning behind the first-born from the dead, and the grounds for his supremacy. The texts never, ever read that he always had the supremacy, they always give a clause as to why he obtained it, as in the verse that you quoted.

 

[Joseph77]

Same goes for interpretation. You seem to think I'm saying we don't have access to the Holy Spirit for interpretation, which is only your mistaken interpretation of what I said.

Not at all.
Even that post now of yours is an interpretation of what I said, and is inaccurate at best... far wrong at worst.

I don't have to interpret what you post - you posted clearly as everyone can read, normally , right ? i.e. not in a strange parable or a foreign language or with a meaning other than you worded it ....

 

[Renniks]

Not at all.
Even that post now of yours is an interpretation of what I said, and is inaccurate at best... far wrong at worst.

I don't have to interpret what you post - you posted clearly as everyone can read, normally , right ? i.e. not in a strange parable or a foreign language or with a meaning other than you worded it ....

Hilarious. I interpret your posts wrong, but you can't possibly interpret mine?

 

[Renniks]

If you were in the dining room when you were young, and your father told you to go get a glass of water,

would that need to be interpreted ? Or would you obviously and completely know what your father wanted ?

Only if I interpreted his words according to other instructions he'd already given. Perhaps he wants a full glass, perhaps only a swallow. Perhaps he wants ice in the water, or not. Perhaps he has a favorite cup, or maybe not... Same as with scripture, we interpret it based on other scripture. A verse by itself can easily be misunderstood. I can take one verse out of the Bible and conclude that I should be happy to kill babies, for example.

"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!." Psalm 137:9
If that was the only Bible verse I had, I would have a very odd and wrong view of God.

 

[Joseph77]

Hilarious. I interpret your posts wrong, but you can't possibly interpret mine?

Well, the meaning of your post was clear, (unless you concealed it in a way unknown to me and not using regular English words and grammar and phrases)
so I did not have to interpret it.
Since you are here now , I guess, or when you get back,
if you meant something different than you posted in plain clear English, say so.

 

[Joseph77]

Only if I interpreted his words according to other instructions he'd already given. Perhaps he wants a full glass, perhaps only a swallow. Perhaps he wants ice in the water, or not. Perhaps he has a favorite cup, or maybe not... Same as with scripture, we interpret it based on other scripture.

No, not at all. "We" are not to interpret Scripture at all with any private interpretation - not at all proceeding from the self or the flesh ...no.

If your father told you to get a glass of water, (or whatever it was posted earlier), you would just do that.

If you got it wrong or not wrong, just different than he meant, he would tell you.

 

[Renniks]

Verse 18 has the clause, he is the first-born from among the dead, so that... In other words, if he wasn't the first-born from the dead, he would have the supremacy. He is the first to ascend into heaven, no one has preceded him into heaven, and no one is there now until Judgement day. This is the meaning behind the first-born from the dead, and the grounds for his supremacy. The texts never, ever read that he always had the supremacy, they always give a clause as to why he obtained it, as in the verse that you quoted.

More lies.
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "

Before it even talks about what he does, who he is has already been established. He is before all things. and over all things.

 

[Renniks]

No, not at all. "We" are not to interpret Scripture at all with any private interpretation - not at all proceeding from the self or the flesh ...no.

If your father told you to get a glass of water, (or whatever it was posted earlier), you would just do that.

If you got it wrong or not wrong, just different than he meant, he would tell you.

Who said it was proceeding from the flesh? How is it a private interpretation if I have the Spirit?

Yes, he would tell us and does tell us, in the other parts of his Book!

 

[Joseph77]

Who said it was proceeding from the flesh? How is it a private interpretation if I have the Spirit?

Yes, he would tell us and does tell us, in the other parts of his Book!

If the Father in heaven REVEALS TO YOU, as JESUS SAYS, the TRUTH, that is not YOU interpreting anything.
Nor should you.
He tells you.
By His Spirit. That is not at all "interpretation". edit: excuse: that is not "PRIVATE interpretation" ... It is God's Interpretation - given - like the interpretation of dreams He Gives at Times throughout Scripture...

And if the Father in heaven does not grant it , then it is not received by a man - no matter what a man does.

 

[justbyfaith]

Only if I interpreted his words according to other instructions he'd already given. Perhaps he wants a full glass, perhaps only a swallow. Perhaps he wants ice in the water, or not. Perhaps he has a favorite cup, or maybe not... Same as with scripture, we interpret it based on other scripture. A verse by itself can easily be misunderstood. I can take one verse out of the Bible and conclude that I should be happy to kill babies, for example.

"Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!." Psalm 137:9
If that was the only Bible verse I had, I would have a very odd and wrong view of God.

The Babylonians were such a corrupt nation that it is considered justice in the Bible that a man should take its little ones and dash them against the stones...for that is what Babylon did to the babies of Israel.

What might otherwise be considered evil, if it is meted out as retributive justice, is now not found to be evil, but good; because it is done out of justice rather than done out of mere hatred or some evil motivation.

Otherwise God putting satan in the lake of fire might be considered to be an evil done by God. In all reality that action by God, while it may be accused of in God as being evil by satan, is good.

Because satan believes that evil will win out over good because evil can do damage to its opponents and apparently good cannot. However, in retributive justice, good can do damage to its opponents and still be called good.

Consider:

Pro 28:5, Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things.

 

[DNB]

More lies.
"The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. "

Before it even talks about what he does, who he is has already been established. He is before all things. and over all things.

Yes, but first, we are all in the image of God, but Christ perfected it through love and obedience towards the Father (meaningless if he is God). And secondly, the verse does not say that he is eternal, all the terminology and expressions are referring to created things. The author of the epistle is referring to God's divine plan, that Christ would be reason and purpose behind all creation. He did not create him first, but all things were created for him. This is how the verse is expressed. This is not the wording used to express that a man is God.
This is very profound Renniks, you are taking a great mystery of God, in how He played out history by saving His best and premier creature for last, and turning into a ridiculous god-man theory, that can never reconcile in wisdom and glory to God.
Again, God saved the best for last, this is what the NT authors are trying to convey with these expressions. Don't get mystical and inexplicable in your theology. The Jews and Muslims are laughing at the Christians (trinitarians), be cause they can't even explain or understand what they're trying to profess to others.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes, but first, we are all in the image of God, but Christ perfected it through love and obedience towards the Father (meaningless if he is God).

How so?
.
.
.
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6); and that Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21).

However, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth (1 Corinthians 12:3). And Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6).

How then can you suppose that Jesus isn't the Father?

Isaiah 9:6 even substantiates this pov; one has to change the wording of that scripture twice in order to pervert it to say something different.

 

[Renniks]

If the Father in heaven REVEALS TO YOU, as JESUS SAYS, the TRUTH, that is not YOU interpreting anything.
Nor should you.
He tells you.
By His Spirit. That is not at all "interpretation". edit: excuse: that is not "PRIVATE interpretation" ... It is God's Interpretation - given - like the interpretation of dreams He Gives at Times throughout Scripture...

And if the Father in heaven does not grant it , then it is not received by a man - no matter what a man does.

And if I don't have all of scripture, but only a verse or two, I might believe God has told me to do all kinds of things that he hasn't. I think you are just arguing over what you mean by "interpretation", which must be something different than what most mean. As for the last sentence, when did you become a Calvinist? God may grant me something, but I still decide if I will receive it or not.

 

[Renniks]

Yes, but first, we are all in the image of God, but Christ perfected it through love and obedience towards the Father (meaningless if he is God). And secondly, the verse does not say that he is eternal, all the terminology and expressions are referring to created things.

Um, not. That would mean Christ created himself. If he's over all created things and before all created things, he obviously was not among what was created.

 

[Joseph77]

And if I don't have all of scripture, but only a verse or two, I might believe God has told me to do all kinds of things that he hasn't.

So ? No matter how much Scripture you have, we are told it is not for private interpretation.

And even if you have no Scripture at all, (like the ones justified for DOING God's Will IN ROMANS 2),
but you DO what is right according to Torah,
you show thereby , just as in Romans 2 it is written,
that God Has Written Torah on your heart. HE HAS REVEALED TO YOU , as JESUS SAYS HE DOES , because this is His Good Pleasure to do so.

If anyone thinks (even if an Apostle ) that they can figure it out or accomplish it themselves, they have already failed.

 

[DNB]

How so?
.
.
.
There is one Lord in holy scripture (Ephesians 4:5, 1 Corinthians 8:6); and that Lord is the Father (Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21).

However, no one can say that Jesus is the Lord except by the Spirit of truth (1 Corinthians 12:3). And Jesus is the Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6).

How then can you suppose that Jesus isn't the Father?

Isaiah 9:6 even substantiates this pov; one has to change the wording of that scripture twice in order to pervert it to say something different.

How so? How can God love Himself, in order to attain to perfection, in order to save us from our sins? You ask me, how so?
Are you a modalist? Interesting? Jesus is not the Father, and many were called lord, pleeeese?

1 Peter 3:6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.
'The Lord said to my lord', shows that there are two different lords. There are many lords, within many contexts.