- Aug 31, 2017
- 2,980
- 716
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Charismatic
- Marital Status
- Married
More than possible.
Scripture says much will be revealed to man in the last days!
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More than possible.What if the early church doctrine isn’t accurate? Is that possible?
Of course he received DNA from his mother (Mary).
Okay, are you saying that miraculously Jesus did NOT receive Mary's DNA?Good Day, Albion, who posted: "Of course he received DNA from his mother (Mary)."
Indeed the DNA flesh. Augustine and Ambrose referred to this as Mary's defective stock . The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam and he did NOT receive
the defect of Mary with regard to her sin nature from her Father which was a son of King David.
"'Therefore as man He was tried in all things, and in the likeness of men He endured all things;
but as born of the Spirit, He was free from sin. For every man is a liar, and no one but God alone is without sin. It is therefore an observed and settled fact, that no man born of a man and a woman, that is, by means of their bodily union, is seen to be free from sin." (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin)
The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam and he did not receive the defect of Mary
Okay, so miraculously Jesus did NOT receive Mary's DNA, correct?
Please clarify what you believe. Thanks.The immaculate conception of Christ removes him from the sin nature of Adam
and he did NOT receive the defect of Mary with regard to her sin nature
from her Father which was a son of King David.
Indeed the DNA flesh is from Mary.
Good day, Bill.
It looks like we are in agreement except that I did not address the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Anyway, that controversial doctrine is not dependent upon Mary being sinless, but rests upon the fact that God cannot sin.
I didn't say that He did. Where are you getting that?That is not what is communicated in Philippians. There is no evidence in the text God the Son emptied Himself of Deity.........
I have not said otherwise..........The Divine Logos existed eternally with the Father before the foundations of the earth. Before created time and space and matter. John 1 makes this quite clear.
I don't think so. There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human. Some of the 'proofs' of his divine origin are, in fact, in that category--healing the sick with a touch, walking on water, etc.I didn't say that He did. Where are you getting that?
I said that "He emptied Himself of divine rights and functioned fully as a man only."
Everyone believe that.
No - I wasn't there - but I'll bet they refused to accept your rendition that says that the Logos was an alleged God the Son person previous to the Logos being incarnate in Jesus Christ.Recently, I spent about 2 weeks on the Pentecostal Oneness forumtrying to get them to accept John 1.
No cigar ... they refused to accept John 1 ... end of story.
No doubt you do.I have about 20 NT verses, each of which mentions the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Each verse mentions all Three.....
No - not a "proof" but evidence to be used in an argument for the Trinitarian view.Just another powerful proof of the Triune Godhead, the Trinity.
Both of which were accomplished through faith in God by the man Peter.I don't think so. There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human. Some of the 'proofs' of his divine origin are, in fact, in that category--healing the sick with a touch, walking on water, etc.
Uh, no. You may have misunderstood something if you think Jesus walked on water only because Peter imagined that he saw him doing that. In any case, there are many miracles that Christ worked and they are often taken to be evidence of his divine nature.Both of which were accomplished through faith in God by the man Peter.
Is that a denial of him being God?If the man Jesus, (who existed "in every way as His brethren") accomplished even moe than these things, it is because He did not have a fallen nature through which He constantly grieved the Spirit of God and He possessed the Spirit without measure.
I have no idea where you get that I said that.Uh, no. You may have misunderstood something if you think Jesus walked on water only because Peter imagined that he saw him doing that. In any case, there are many miracles that Christ worked and they are often taken to be evidence of his divine nature.
No - of course not.Is that a denial of him being God?
Sorry. I was thinking that you were referring to Peter seeing Christ walking. That is what I had referred to before. Peter's own walking is not germane to this particular point.I have no idea where you get that I said that.
I said that Peter walked on water by faith in God's Word
I see. If you believe that, you are not permitted to post on this forum (see the rules)....and that it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).
I see. If you believe that, you are not permitted to post on this forum (see the rules).
Peter not God - not Jesus not God. Try to keep up.I said that Peter walked on water by faith in God's Word and that it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).
Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
Of course, anyone walkin' around who is fully God won't act like a human.There is much in Jesus' life that shows more than what is normal for a human.
WOW, we certainly do have some confused people here, don't we!... it had nothing to do with him being God in the flesh (which as a mere man he obviously wasn't).
... Jesus was God manifest in the flesh.
I am almost certain that if a sentence doesn't say what the writer meant it to say, that is not the reader's fault--especially when it happens again and again.Peter not God - not Jesus not God. Try to keep up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?