Transmitting The Fallen Nature

continued :

(3) The human nature assumed by the divine Son was unfallen and sinless.​

Christ’s human body and soul had all the capacities of original humanity thus enabling the Son to be human and to live and experience a fully human life, against Docetism (Christ only appeared to be human) and Apollinarianism (Christ only assumed an incomplete human nature). Also, it’s best to think of Christ’s body and soul as unfallen and not tainted by the transmission or transgressions of sin. This affirmation is against the view that Christ assumed a fallen human nature while remaining sinless, which is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, a fallen incarnation lacks biblical support. Expressions such as “born in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), “being found in human form” (Phil. 2:8), and “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) refer to our common human nature, not our corrupt, fallen human nature. The object of the incarnation is always humanity, not sin. Christ came to represent a new humanity. We already have a representative of fallen humanity: the first Adam, in whose transgression we all sinned and came under the penalty of death (Rom. 5:12). Jesus is not “in Adam” as we are, and thus he is not fallen.

Second, a fallen incarnation seems to imply that corruption is essential to humanity since Christ cannot be like us unless he takes on a fallen human nature. No doubt, all humans now are fallen and live in an abnormal world, but it’s crucial to remember that this is an aberration of God’s original creation and glorification intent for us. Fallenness is not essential to us, and thankfully Christ was fully human yet sinless and unfallen, hence the reason why he is the head of the new creation (2Cor. 5:17), and the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:35-58).
Third, in the case of Christ, a fallen incarnation requires that we separate fallen from sinful and Christ’s person from the human nature he assumes. But this is difficult to warrant biblically and theologically. In Scripture, a fallen nature is the result of sin against God that places us in a state and condition of sinfulness under God’s judgment (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23; Eph. 2:1-3). But Christ is not “in Adam” like us, and the perfect Son does not assume anything fallen.

For these reasons, it’s better to affirm that Christ’s human nature was unfallen and sinless by the sovereign, sanctifying agency of the Spirit. Our inborn inclination to anti-God rebellion was not part of Jesus’ human makeup. Jesus was fully human and experienced the effects of living in a fallen world, but he did not share the guilt or disposition of Adam’s sin passed on to us. Jesus never committed a sin, nor could he (Matt. 3:15; John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1Pet. 1:19). He was tempted like us, but he perfectly obeyed his Father, even unto death, as our covenant mediator, thus accomplishing our salvation as the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 5:5-10).
But if Jesus could not sin (i.e., impeccable), were his temptations genuine? Although Jesus did not sin, how is he like us if he was not able to sin? To answer this important question, we need to remember the following points.

First, Jesus was genuinely tempted yet “without sin” (Heb. 4:15). As the obedient Son, from the beginning of his ministry to the cross, he faced temptations and sufferings for us (Luke 4:1-13; 22:39-46). Yet this does not entail that his temptations were identical to ours in every respect. Why? Because although Jesus is fully human, he is also the divine Son and his temptations reflect this fact. For example, Jesus was tempted to turn rocks into bread (not something we are tempted with) thus using his divine power instead of obeying his Father’s will to render human obedience for us (Heb. 2:5-18; 5:8-10; cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Also, unlike us, Jesus was not tempted by anything internal to himself. He was not enticed by sinful desires contrary to God’s creational and moral norms since there was no sin in him, not even a predisposition to sin, given the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Instead, Jesus was tempted by normal sinless human weaknesses and external forces. He was tempted by hunger, fear of pain, and his own holy affections. Foremost among these desires was his perfect fellowship with his Father, which he wrestled with in Gethsemane. In fact, we can say that Jesus’ temptations were not only genuine; they were more real than we could ever imagine or experience since he never yielded to temptation as we do. He unswervingly and joyfully obeyed his Father’s will at great cost for our salvation.

Second, Jesus is impeccable because he is the divine Son who assumed a human nature, and as such, his human nature never existed apart from its union in the Son (i.e., hypostatic union). Jesus is not merely another Adam; he is the head of the new creation, the eternal Son incarnate. And as the Son, it’s impossible for him to sin and to yield to temptation because God cannot sin. In fact, it’s this truth that grounds our assurance that God’s plan cannot fail and why the last Adam is greater than the first.

Third, although Jesus is impeccable due to his divine person, it’s also true that he, as our covenant representative, had to render human obedience for us. The Son’s action in and through his human nature did not change the integrity of the nature; he lived, acted, and faced every temptation as a true man to redeem us. And as Scripture wonderful reminds us, it’s for this reason that Jesus not only secured our eternal salvation but also became our sympathetic Savior (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). Also, we must emphasize the Spirit’s work on Christ’s human nature. Jesus is impeccable because he is the eternal Son who subsists and acts in both natures, but Jesus did not sin because of his reliance on the Spirit at work in him. From conception, the Spirit sanctified, gifted, and empowered Jesus in his humanity so that he obeyed for us as a man.

All of this entails that Jesus’ temptations were genuine although he could not sin. As the sinless one who could not sin, he still had to choose to forgo his rights and privileges for us, even to death on a cross (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2-3). But by doing so, he perfectly fulfilled the Father’s will by the Spirit, secured our redemption, and in his humanity became the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:45-49).

(4) As a result of the incarnation, the divine Son now subsists and acts in two natures without changing the integrity of either nature, confusing them, or making them a hybrid of divine and human. Yet, the Son was not limited to acting through his human nature alone since he continued to act through his divine nature as he has from eternity.​

In and through his human nature, the Son lives and acts within the normal physical, mental, volitional, and psychological capacities of an unfallen, sinless human nature. As the Son, he experienced the wonder and weaknesses of a human life. He grew physically and mentally (Luke 2:52), experienced tears and joy, and suffered death and a glorious resurrection for his people and their salvation (John 11:33, 35; 19:30; 1Cor. 15:3-4).
However, the same Son who experienced these things as a man also continues to live and act as he has done from eternity as God the Son in relation with the Father and Spirit. This truth is taught in Scripture’s affirmation that the incarnate Son continues to uphold the universe (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3), alongside Christ’s other divine actions during his life and ministry. In Christ, his two natures remain distinct and retain their own attributes and integrity (against Monophysitism that blended Christ’s two natures), yet he is able to act through both natures. The Son, then, is not completely “limited” by his human nature; he is also able to act “outside” (extra) of it in his divine nature as he has always done. The Son, who has always inseparably acted from the Father and by the Spirit, continues to do so. But now, due to the incarnation, he acts through both natures without changing or diminishing either nature.

(5) By the incarnation, our Lord Jesus Christ became the first man of the new creation, our glorious mediator and new covenant head.​

By his incarnation and work, Jesus, God the Son incarnate, has reversed the work of the first man and became our Lord and Savior (Rom. 1:3-4; Heb. 2:10). He has become perfectly qualified to meet our every need, especially our need for the forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 7:22-28; 9:15-10:18). Given who God is, it’s only the incarnate Son who can redeem us by doing a divine-human work as our Redeemer. As the divine Son, he alone satisfies his own judgment on sinful humanity and demand for perfect obedience (Rom. 5:12-21). As the incarnate Son, he alone identifies with us as our representative and substitute (Heb. 5:1). Our salvation hope for the payment of our sin and our full restoration as God’s image-bearers is only accomplished by Christ alone (Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:5-18). As a result, our Lord Jesus Christ rightly demands and deserves our faith, love, and obedience.
 
Some would have you believe that Jesus Divinity was subject to His humanity when in fact is was just the opposite. Jesus humanity was subservient/subject to His Deity.
Even in his "servant" state on Earth, he remains a God Person. His Personhood is 100% purely God. He assumed human nature in order to be our Exemplar but he remained 100% purely a God Person. To say otherwise is to fall headfirst into Nestorianism.
 
Even in his "servant" state on Earth, he remains a God Person. His Personhood is 100% purely God. He assumed human nature in order to be our Exemplar but he remained 100% purely a God Person. To say otherwise is to fall headfirst into Nestorianism.
Amen Christology 101.
 
continued :

(3) The human nature assumed by the divine Son was unfallen and sinless.​

Christ’s human body and soul had all the capacities of original humanity thus enabling the Son to be human and to live and experience a fully human life, against Docetism (Christ only appeared to be human) and Apollinarianism (Christ only assumed an incomplete human nature). Also, it’s best to think of Christ’s body and soul as unfallen and not tainted by the transmission or transgressions of sin. This affirmation is against the view that Christ assumed a fallen human nature while remaining sinless, which is problematic for a number of reasons.

First, a fallen incarnation lacks biblical support. Expressions such as “born in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), “being found in human form” (Phil. 2:8), and “in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) refer to our common human nature, not our corrupt, fallen human nature. The object of the incarnation is always humanity, not sin. Christ came to represent a new humanity. We already have a representative of fallen humanity: the first Adam, in whose transgression we all sinned and came under the penalty of death (Rom. 5:12). Jesus is not “in Adam” as we are, and thus he is not fallen.

Second, a fallen incarnation seems to imply that corruption is essential to humanity since Christ cannot be like us unless he takes on a fallen human nature. No doubt, all humans now are fallen and live in an abnormal world, but it’s crucial to remember that this is an aberration of God’s original creation and glorification intent for us. Fallenness is not essential to us, and thankfully Christ was fully human yet sinless and unfallen, hence the reason why he is the head of the new creation (2Cor. 5:17), and the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:35-58).
Third, in the case of Christ, a fallen incarnation requires that we separate fallen from sinful and Christ’s person from the human nature he assumes. But this is difficult to warrant biblically and theologically. In Scripture, a fallen nature is the result of sin against God that places us in a state and condition of sinfulness under God’s judgment (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23; Eph. 2:1-3). But Christ is not “in Adam” like us, and the perfect Son does not assume anything fallen.

For these reasons, it’s better to affirm that Christ’s human nature was unfallen and sinless by the sovereign, sanctifying agency of the Spirit. Our inborn inclination to anti-God rebellion was not part of Jesus’ human makeup. Jesus was fully human and experienced the effects of living in a fallen world, but he did not share the guilt or disposition of Adam’s sin passed on to us. Jesus never committed a sin, nor could he (Matt. 3:15; John 8:46; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1Pet. 1:19). He was tempted like us, but he perfectly obeyed his Father, even unto death, as our covenant mediator, thus accomplishing our salvation as the man Christ Jesus (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 5:5-10).
But if Jesus could not sin (i.e., impeccable), were his temptations genuine? Although Jesus did not sin, how is he like us if he was not able to sin? To answer this important question, we need to remember the following points.

First, Jesus was genuinely tempted yet “without sin” (Heb. 4:15). As the obedient Son, from the beginning of his ministry to the cross, he faced temptations and sufferings for us (Luke 4:1-13; 22:39-46). Yet this does not entail that his temptations were identical to ours in every respect. Why? Because although Jesus is fully human, he is also the divine Son and his temptations reflect this fact. For example, Jesus was tempted to turn rocks into bread (not something we are tempted with) thus using his divine power instead of obeying his Father’s will to render human obedience for us (Heb. 2:5-18; 5:8-10; cf. Rom. 5:12-21). Also, unlike us, Jesus was not tempted by anything internal to himself. He was not enticed by sinful desires contrary to God’s creational and moral norms since there was no sin in him, not even a predisposition to sin, given the sanctifying work of the Spirit. Instead, Jesus was tempted by normal sinless human weaknesses and external forces. He was tempted by hunger, fear of pain, and his own holy affections. Foremost among these desires was his perfect fellowship with his Father, which he wrestled with in Gethsemane. In fact, we can say that Jesus’ temptations were not only genuine; they were more real than we could ever imagine or experience since he never yielded to temptation as we do. He unswervingly and joyfully obeyed his Father’s will at great cost for our salvation.

Second, Jesus is impeccable because he is the divine Son who assumed a human nature, and as such, his human nature never existed apart from its union in the Son (i.e., hypostatic union). Jesus is not merely another Adam; he is the head of the new creation, the eternal Son incarnate. And as the Son, it’s impossible for him to sin and to yield to temptation because God cannot sin. In fact, it’s this truth that grounds our assurance that God’s plan cannot fail and why the last Adam is greater than the first.

Third, although Jesus is impeccable due to his divine person, it’s also true that he, as our covenant representative, had to render human obedience for us. The Son’s action in and through his human nature did not change the integrity of the nature; he lived, acted, and faced every temptation as a true man to redeem us. And as Scripture wonderful reminds us, it’s for this reason that Jesus not only secured our eternal salvation but also became our sympathetic Savior (Heb. 2:18; 4:14-16). Also, we must emphasize the Spirit’s work on Christ’s human nature. Jesus is impeccable because he is the eternal Son who subsists and acts in both natures, but Jesus did not sin because of his reliance on the Spirit at work in him. From conception, the Spirit sanctified, gifted, and empowered Jesus in his humanity so that he obeyed for us as a man.

All of this entails that Jesus’ temptations were genuine although he could not sin. As the sinless one who could not sin, he still had to choose to forgo his rights and privileges for us, even to death on a cross (Phil. 2:8; Heb. 12:2-3). But by doing so, he perfectly fulfilled the Father’s will by the Spirit, secured our redemption, and in his humanity became the pattern of our glorified humanity (1Cor. 15:45-49).

(4) As a result of the incarnation, the divine Son now subsists and acts in two natures without changing the integrity of either nature, confusing them, or making them a hybrid of divine and human. Yet, the Son was not limited to acting through his human nature alone since he continued to act through his divine nature as he has from eternity.​

In and through his human nature, the Son lives and acts within the normal physical, mental, volitional, and psychological capacities of an unfallen, sinless human nature. As the Son, he experienced the wonder and weaknesses of a human life. He grew physically and mentally (Luke 2:52), experienced tears and joy, and suffered death and a glorious resurrection for his people and their salvation (John 11:33, 35; 19:30; 1Cor. 15:3-4).
However, the same Son who experienced these things as a man also continues to live and act as he has done from eternity as God the Son in relation with the Father and Spirit. This truth is taught in Scripture’s affirmation that the incarnate Son continues to uphold the universe (Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3), alongside Christ’s other divine actions during his life and ministry. In Christ, his two natures remain distinct and retain their own attributes and integrity (against Monophysitism that blended Christ’s two natures), yet he is able to act through both natures. The Son, then, is not completely “limited” by his human nature; he is also able to act “outside” (extra) of it in his divine nature as he has always done. The Son, who has always inseparably acted from the Father and by the Spirit, continues to do so. But now, due to the incarnation, he acts through both natures without changing or diminishing either nature.

(5) By the incarnation, our Lord Jesus Christ became the first man of the new creation, our glorious mediator and new covenant head.​

By his incarnation and work, Jesus, God the Son incarnate, has reversed the work of the first man and became our Lord and Savior (Rom. 1:3-4; Heb. 2:10). He has become perfectly qualified to meet our every need, especially our need for the forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 7:22-28; 9:15-10:18). Given who God is, it’s only the incarnate Son who can redeem us by doing a divine-human work as our Redeemer. As the divine Son, he alone satisfies his own judgment on sinful humanity and demand for perfect obedience (Rom. 5:12-21). As the incarnate Son, he alone identifies with us as our representative and substitute (Heb. 5:1). Our salvation hope for the payment of our sin and our full restoration as God’s image-bearers is only accomplished by Christ alone (Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:5-18). As a result, our Lord Jesus Christ rightly demands and deserves our faith, love, and obedience.
I don't see clear and direct reasons as to why Christians are not Nestorian. For example, Chalcedon and the Bible say that Human Nature and Divine Nature are inseparable (by permeating each other). I don't see that anywhere in the writings. Do you?
 
I don't see clear and direct reasons as to why Christians are not Nestorian. For example, Chalcedon and the Bible say that Human Nature and Divine Nature are inseparable (by permeating each other). I don't see that anywhere in the writings. Do you?
I think by inseparable which they are and its true the misunderstanding comes from equating nature with person. With God and with Jesus nature and person are not a 1 to 1 ratio as with man. Man has a 1 to 1 ration of person and nature. God has a 3 to 1 ratio with Persons and nature and Christ has a 2 to 1 ration with natures/person. Christ is only a Divine Person having a human nature. So when we say Christ has 2 natures those natures are not on an equal playing field. They cannot be since Christ is God/Divine and man/human. The human is always under the Divine yet He is fully God, fully man.

We would never say man is equal with God that would be heresy right. But with Christ many want to say and actually believe the natures are equal and some would even say the human nature was stronger than the Divine nature or that the Divine nature was subservient to the human nature in Christ. Thats how Nestorianism creeps into the Person of Christ that we are seeing in this thread. Its how Kenosis creeps into the Person of Christ which we are also witnessing with peccability, the Omni's, Immutability etc.... just to name a few of Gods eternal attributes that are Unchangeable. Yet with many God's eternal attributes in the Son changed at the Incarnation which is heresy. The Creeds I quoted this morning point that out which are biblically based with their Theology.

hope this helps !!!
 
I think by inseparable which they are and its true the misunderstanding comes from equating nature with person. With God and with Jesus nature and person are not a 1 to 1 ratio as with man. Man has a 1 to 1 ration of person and nature. God has a 3 to 1 ratio with Persons and nature and Christ has a 2 to 1 ration with natures/person. Christ is only a Divine Person having a human nature. So when we say Christ has 2 natures those natures are not on an equal playing field. They cannot be since Christ is God/Divine and man/human. The human is always under the Divine yet He is fully God, fully man.
I agree that it's 1:1 (nature/person) for man and 2:1 for Christ. I think that Nestorians believe that.

Anyways, I'm trying to understand your first point in that you attribute their Nestorianism with their misunderstanding of equating nature with person.
We would never say man is equal with God that would be heresy right. But with Christ many want to say and actually believe the natures are equal and some would even say the human nature was stronger than the Divine nature or that the Divine nature was subservient to the human nature in Christ. Thats how Nestorianism creeps into the Person of Christ that we are seeing in this thread. Its how Kenosis creeps into the Person of Christ which we are also witnessing with peccability, the Omni's, Immutability etc.... just to name a few of Gods eternal attributes that are Unchangeable. Yet with many God's eternal attributes in the Son changed at the Incarnation which is heresy. The Creeds I quoted this morning point that out which are biblically based with their Theology.

hope this helps !!!
I agree that the Divine Nature is much more stronger than the human nature. There's no doubt about that. But if there's no permeating between the two, as Nestorians believe, then it makes no difference whatsoever to human nature (and by extension to Christ because of their heretical view that Christ has a Dual Personality condition).
 
I think by inseparable which they are and its true the misunderstanding comes from equating nature with person. With God and with Jesus nature and person are not a 1 to 1 ratio as with man. Man has a 1 to 1 ration of person and nature. God has a 3 to 1 ratio with Persons and nature and Christ has a 2 to 1 ration with natures/person. Christ is only a Divine Person having a human nature. So when we say Christ has 2 natures those natures are not on an equal playing field. They cannot be since Christ is God/Divine and man/human. The human is always under the Divine yet He is fully God, fully man.
After some thought, do you mean that Nestorians fail to realize that Jesus is 100% purely a God Person? In that case I agree.

So we see Nestorianism in full bloom in our friends here. Both their misrepresenting of Jesus' Personhood and their unwillingness to acknowledge the permeating of the Divine Nature with the human nature in Christ. And because of their heresies they cannot understand Bible verses that tell us that we can "partake" of Divine Nature.
 
I agree that it's 1:1 (nature/person) for man and 2:1 for Christ. I think that Nestorians believe that.

Anyways, I'm trying to understand your first point in that you attribute their Nestorianism with their misunderstanding of equating nature with person.

I agree that the Divine Nature is much more stronger than the human nature. There's no doubt about that. But if there's no permeating between the two, as Nestorians believe, then it makes no difference whatsoever to human nature (and by extension to Christ because of their heretical view that Christ has a Dual Personality condition).
They basically say/believe His Divine nature was subservient or in some cases (kenosis) did not exist for 33 years and was only human and operated only as a man( Nestorian). Since Christ is a Divine Person and not a human person we see the root of these false teachings concerning Christ.

If Christ is truly a Divine Person and not a human person then when Christ died, The Son died which was the entire reason for the Atonement. And as you and I know death means separation of the spirit/soul from the body. Jesus said many times the purpose for His coming was to suffer and die for sin. He predicted His death many times. Its just another fallacy/ misnomer to say " God cannot die ". God as Spirit cannot die( Incorporeal) but God becoming a man can surely die ( corpereal )since that is the reason for His 1st Coming to make atonement for all the sins of the world. Because He was God the Atonement is of infinite value. We read in the OT that a perfect /sinless man can only make atonement for himself and no one else, but a man who is God can make atonement for all.

Psalm 49:7- No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them
 
They basically say/believe His Divine nature was subservient or in some cases (kenosis) did not exist for 33 years and was only human and operated only as a man( Nestorian). Since Christ is a Divine Person and not a human person we see the root of these false teachings concerning Christ.
Ok.
If Christ is truly a Divine Person and not a human person then when Christ died, The Son died which was the entire reason for the Atonement. And as you and I know death means separation of the spirit/soul from the body. Jesus said many times the purpose for His coming was to suffer and die for sin. He predicted His death many times. Its just another fallacy/ misnomer to say " God cannot die ". God as Spirit cannot die( Incorporeal) but God becoming a man can surely die ( corpereal )since that is the reason for His 1st Coming to make atonement for all the sins of the world. Because He was God the Atonement is of infinite value. We read in the OT that a perfect /sinless man can only make atonement for himself and no one else, but a man who is God can make atonement for all.

Psalm 49:7- No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them
Nestorians are a funny bunch. First they say that God cannot die and then they say Jesus spiritually died. Those are contradictory statements. Nestorians think that we're stupid and will not pick up on their manipulating of the truth.
 
I asked you to tell us how your Arian/Nestorian thinking explains how the making of bread is a temptation whereas bringing back Lazarus from the dead is not and I'm still waiting............

I haven't given my explanation yet so why are you putting words in my mouth? You just can't help it I see.
I have no idea how you are connecting those buzz word creeds to what I say.

Lift up a few of you lazy fingers and cite what those "buzz word" creeds teach, and then show how what I am saying is the same.

Until then. You are just bluffing.... and its typical manipulator's technique. I have no time for your empty claims.
 
They basically say/believe His Divine nature was subservient or in some cases (kenosis) did not exist for 33 years and was only human and operated only as a man( Nestorian). Since Christ is a Divine Person and not a human person we see the root of these false teachings concerning Christ.

If Christ is truly a Divine Person and not a human person then when Christ died, The Son died which was the entire reason for the Atonement. And as you and I know death means separation of the spirit/soul from the body. Jesus said many times the purpose for His coming was to suffer and die for sin. He predicted His death many times. Its just another fallacy/ misnomer to say " God cannot die ". God as Spirit cannot die( Incorporeal) but God becoming a man can surely die ( corpereal )since that is the reason for His 1st Coming to make atonement for all the sins of the world. Because He was God the Atonement is of infinite value. We read in the OT that a perfect /sinless man can only make atonement for himself and no one else, but a man who is God can make atonement for all.

Psalm 49:7- No one can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for them
What is this Chemistry class for the Trinity?

You say words, but do not have content to define anything.

Put you cards on the table and stop bluffing. Give real objective facts. Not claims and sloppy misapplication.

This is becoming like a subjective philosophy class about how you feel things should be about God sprinkled with a few misapplied verses to give it the right feel for making it look like you know what you are talking about.

Show me you know what you are talking about....not that you learned things in class... which you and Synergy keep bantering about to give the appearance of legitimacy.

One good thing... This escapade here has helped me to better identify how it feels to be Donald Trump when he must face fabrications and lies from the jealous media. Its weird.

I'm not running for office. If God does not promote me? I'm not promoted. If He does? You will learn something.
 
Last edited:
I asked you to tell us how your Arian/Nestorian thinking explains how the making of bread is a temptation whereas bringing back Lazarus from the dead is not and I'm still waiting............

I haven't given my explanation yet so why are you putting words in my mouth? You just can't help it I see.

Synergy... You never contribute anything constructive.
You flail about throwing out concepts hoping something will stick.
 
Synergy... You never contribute anything constructive.
You flail about throwing out concepts hoping something will stick.
For me to speak to your understanding of Christianity, I would need to know your background. I assume you were born Jewish? You became Christian afterwards and participated in one or more Christian denominations? Can you tell me which denomination? Is there anything else significant in your Christian walk like have you studied Judeo-Christian History? Things like that might help me to speak to your understanding of Christianity.
 
I have no idea how you are connecting those buzz word creeds to what I say.

Lift up a few of you lazy fingers and cite what those "buzz word" creeds teach, and then show how what I am saying is the same.

Until then. You are just bluffing.... and its typical manipulator's technique. I have no time for your empty claims.
@civic has done a great job in sending you pages and pages of Christian concepts and doctrines definitions. What part do you not understand?
 
I don't.
I am.
Why would it even enter your head I, or anyone, would want to follow you?

You're following someone that taught you the things you're just repeating. It is statement of self awareness. You're resisting the Truth. Most everyone in theology desires that other men follow them. I don't. It is simple as that. My goal is solely to make to answerable to God and God alone.

So have I. There are atheists who study theology. It's hardly a commendation that one studies. :)

You're wrong. It is commendable to study but it should cause someone to stop learning. There is a difference between study and learning.

Most people simply study to confirm their bias. That is not learning.
 
So you witness that Jesus said that the Father would not abandon Him. Yet, you insert your belief God abandoned Christ.

Jesus said very clearly that The Father was with Him. Your appeal to Christ being in agony and dying doesn't establish that God forsook Christ. You're the one that needs to establish this. Not me. I believe what Jesus said.

Like I have repeatedly said. Christ was dying and abandoned His body. That is what happened. He gave up the "Ghost" He left His body. The body of Christ was buried in a tomb. However, He arose again.

Christ committed Himself to the Father....

Luk 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

In everything the Father never abandoned Christ.

Now, clearly tell me where I'm wrong.
@GeneZ

I don't see that you acknowledged my answer. Why?
 
I made the point first then the bait n switch continued as a diversion
What was your point? God can't be tempted so why you arguing over whether Christ was tempted or tested? Satan wasn't trying to test God, he knew Jesus, as the Son of God, could easily turn the stones to bread.

Try dealing with the situation on hand instead of avoiding the issue.
 
What was your point? God can't be tempted so why you arguing over whether Christ was tempted or tested? Satan wasn't trying to test God, he knew Jesus, as the Son of God, could easily turn the stones to bread.

Try dealing with the situation on hand instead of avoiding the issue.

Heb 4:14 Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven,[f] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
 
For me to speak to your understanding of Christianity, I would need to know your background. I assume you were born Jewish? You became Christian afterwards and participated in one or more Christian denominations? Can you tell me which denomination? Is there anything else significant in your Christian walk like have you studied Judeo-Christian History? Things like that might help me to speak to your understanding of Christianity.

You do not have to speak to such an understanding, sir.
Because, I never was denominational.

There are a few Bible teaching, non-denominational, churches in the country.
Some are good, correctable, and always spiritually maturing.
Others, can be a horror show of everyone mutating into their latest false teaching on the menu.
Denominationalism sets boundaries and restrictions as to how far one can mature in understanding.

So? Just use the Word of God to make your points. Not naming concepts and creeds.

Stay with the Word of God.

And, if are going to resort to naming creeds?
Explain what it is that the particular creed professes rather than just referring to its title.

For example. You seem real hot on using the title "Nestorianism."
When you do that? Do you know what that does?
Most Christians do not even know what Nestorianism entails.
So, just citing the name that way you may sound informed (to the uninformed).
Doing so, you never EDUCATE anyone by doing that!

If you want to banter around Arianism?
Don't just use the title leaving those who don't know what that means remaining uneducated.
Cite specific parts of the creed you are assuming I conform with.
Then allow for me to respond to what your are screwing up.

That way? We all can get an education.....
 
Back
Top Bottom