Why Jesus did not have pimples

Andrew · Oct 17, 2002

"First we no longer make sacrifices for Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. Again you must remember that Job lived during the times of the Old Testament and during such times the father served as priest in the family."

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you use this to say that it's a pastor's duty to do this. Now you say it's OT stuff.

"Do you even want me to respond to such an absurd statement? Have you not read about the Old Testament sacrificial system?"

i was talking in terms of types.

nevermind.

Ioustinos · Oct 17, 2002

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you use this to say that it's a pastor's duty to do this. Now you say it's OT stuff.----Andrew

Now where did I say that pastor's made sacrifices?

I believe you are trying to refer to my statement in post #75 of this thread which said:

Does your pastor concern himself with your soul? If so then he is sinning because he is fearing that you might not understand enough doctrine or that you might not walk a righteous life! This is the role of a Pastor; that is to concern himself with the state of your soul! The same can be said for Job for as the father he was the family Preist!

As one can clearly see I did not say it was a pastor's duty to perform sacrifices, which would have been dumb. Rather I said that just as Job was concerned for the spiritual state of his sons, so too a pastor is concerned over your spiritual well being. Big difference in what I said and the way you read it.

God bless

Andrew · Oct 18, 2002

can we pls move back to the topic of the thread? tks

Vixen Evenstar · Dec 16, 2002

Originally posted by Andrew
Some Christians believe that Jesus was only Spirit-spotless. ie he had pimples and other teenage maladies, was sometimes sick etc. That can't be true. The substance cannot be inferior to the shadow:

Lev 21:
16 And the LORD said to Moses,
17 "Say to Aaron, None of your descendants throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God.
18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long,
19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand,
20 or a hunchback, or a dwarf, or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles;
21 no man of the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD's offerings by fire; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.
22 He may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy things,
23 but he shall not come near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a blemish, that he may not profane my sanctuaries; for I am the LORD who sanctify them."

thats funny. I was just reading that and wondering- Isn't that kind of harsh? I mean, they are not aloud to come near to offer the bread of God? It seems.....well..i dunno....prejudiced almost.....

SpiritPsalmist · Dec 16, 2002

Originally posted by Vixen Evenstar
thats funny. I was just reading that and wondering- Isn't that kind of harsh? I mean, they are not aloud to come near to offer the bread of God? It seems.....well..i dunno....prejudiced almost.....

and thank Jesus that we don't have to go through all that anymore. 

This scripture is in ref to what the priests and the people, in the OT had to go through in order to be cleansed from their sins.  It was also a ref to what Jesus later did at the cross.

He was the spotless Lamb of God.  Crusified for the sins of the world.  It was finished.

 

Outspoken · Dec 16, 2002

Yup, spiritually he was spotless. that doesn't mean he didn't have "pimples". That is just the result of living in a fallen world, just like getting sick.

Andrew · Dec 16, 2002

thats funny. I was just reading that and wondering- Isn't that kind of harsh? I mean, they are not aloud to come near to offer the bread of God? It seems.....well..i dunno....prejudiced almost.....

dun quite understnd what you mean here. The sin these people were doing was offering bad unworthy sacrifices (rotten bread, sick lambs, etc) to God, so much so that God himself said: " Why dont you present these things to earthly kings and see if they wld accept it!"

adam332 · Dec 17, 2002

Interesting Andrew, I agree. This is the similar to the unleavened(uncorrupted) bread compared as His body. Which also is why I believe that during the last supper He would have never compared His blood, fermented(corrupted) wine, but instead it must have been new wine.

Christ is ALWAYS described as pure, holy, undefiled, uncorrupted, without sin, etc... therefore sickness, pimples, alcohol, etc... could never be representative of Him.

Outspoken · Dec 17, 2002

"Christ is ALWAYS described as pure, holy, undefiled, uncorrupted, without sin, etc... therefore sickness, pimples, alcohol, etc... could never be representative of Him."

so you're saying that Mary was also never sick in her life? Nor most of the people in the bible? This is unrealistic and not biblical. You can think that idea is true, but you can't prove it biblically. Christ could have been sick, had pimples, etc...that is the result of him coming down to live in a fallen world in a fallen body.

adam332 · Dec 17, 2002

How is that saying that Mary was never sick? Mary's father wasn't the HS, and what does the other people of the Bible have to do with this subject.
No-one else has had Christ's divine nature, your comparing apples to oranges. He can raise all the righteous out of their graves and glorify them into eternal life, but His body couldn't fight a common cold, is that what your trying to tell me? What part of without blemish are you not getting?

There was only one thing strong enough to wound my savior, and that was the weight of the sin of the world, and that is all that ever left a scar on our Messiah.

seebs · Dec 17, 2002

I was expecting this thread to be a product placement for some kind of zit cream. How disappointing!

Outspoken · Dec 17, 2002

"How is that saying that Mary was never sick? "

Mary was "pure". Christ's divine nature was SPIRITUAL not physical.

"What part of without blemish are you not getting?"

Its without spiritual blemish. christ had dirty feet just like the rest of us, hate to break it to you, but you're trying to deny the humaness of Christ.

Andrew · Dec 17, 2002

Christ is ALWAYS described as pure, holy, undefiled, uncorrupted, without sin, etc... therefore sickness, pimples, alcohol, etc... could never be representative of Him.

I'm glad you can see this simple truth.
Disease, virus, germs, could not have lived in Jesus or triumphed over His body.

adam332 · Dec 17, 2002

Mary was pure? Where do you find that? Mary WAS NOT BORN OF THE HS!
Only Christ was! She was born of TWO SINFUL PARENTS. Christ's power was over all, both spiritual and physical or are you not aware of His spiritual power physically healing lepers? did He ever catch leprosy? Are you trying to act as if He spiritually walked on water but physically He drowned.

I am quite aware of His humanity, it was formed so He could take the sins of mankind upon Himself. Christ had a mission, which did not entail pimples or the flu. Unless you are trying to tell us that His mission required illness.

Is your next step in making Christ MORE human, gonna' tell us that He sinned too?

Outspoken · Dec 19, 2002

"Disease, virus, germs, could not have lived in Jesus or triumphed over His body."

then you're denying the humaness of christ and denying what the bible says in my opinon

"Mary was pure? Where do you find that?"

The bible I'll get you some verses later.

"Is your next step in making Christ MORE human, gonna' tell us that He sinned too?"

*sigh* no, but he was human and being human he had a body just like the rest of us, vunerable to disease, cuts, scrapes, etc.

"Are you trying to act as if He spiritually walked on water but physically He drowned."

No, he physically walked on water, but if someone wanted to and he allowed it he could have drown, yes. He had a human body.

adam332 · Dec 19, 2002

I'll be waiting for those verses Louis....

SavedByGrace3 · Dec 20, 2002

Question:
What does the word "behold" mean?

As in:
"Behold, the works of God."

or,

"Behold, the truth is here"

If I visited your house, and you said "boy, am I hungry, I wish I had a sammige"... and I responded with: "behold, all the food is in the kitchen"... what am I actually telling you?

In the OT the word "behold" is translated "Lo" or "look" 103 times.

If we read Job chapter two, and do so without the preconcived idea that God is granting satan permission to crush Job, I think a different view emerges.

First of all, satan was not asking for permission to smash Job. Satan did not need permission!
Secondly, God is the one who brought Job up, and satan was trying to goad God into crushing him. When God would not do it, He only did this: He pointed out a fact that satan did not know.... He said:
"Lo (behold); everything he has is in your hands...." It is possible that satan did not know the hedge was down, and God had to point it out to him.
This is only a statement of permission if you make it so. I think God was just responding to satan`s goad by saying: "don´t try to get me to do this evil thing... that is your game! Look, everything he has is already in your hands, you go do your own dirty work! "
Satan had the power and authority to harm Job alll along. He did not need Gods´permission. Job granted satan permission to harm him by fear and ignorance. And so the thngs he greatly feared came upon him. God did not push the hedge down, Job did. So there is no permission granted here.

SpiritPsalmist · Dec 20, 2002

Originally posted by didaskalos
Question:
What does the word "behold" mean?

As in:
"Behold, the works of God."

or,

"Behold, the truth is here"

If I visited your house, and you said "boy, am I hungry, I wish I had a sammige"... and I responded with: "behold, all the food is in the kitchen"... what am I actually telling you?

In the OT the word "behold" is translated "Lo" or "look" 103 times.

If we read Job chapter two, and do so without the preconcived idea that God is granting satan permission to crush Job, I think a different view emerges.

First of all, satan was not asking for permission to smash Job. Satan did not need permission!
Secondly, God is the one who brought Job up, and satan was trying to goad God into crushing him. When God would not do it, He only did this: He pointed out a fact that satan did not know.... He said:
"Lo (behold); everything he has is in your hands...." It is possible that satan did not know the hedge was down, and God had to point it out to him.
This is only a statement of permission if you make it so. I think God was just responding to satan`s goad by saying: "don´t try to get me to do this evil thing... that is your game! Look, everything he has is already in your hands, you go do your own dirty work! "
Satan had the power and authority to harm Job alll along. He did not need Gods´permission. Job granted satan permission to harm him by fear and ignorance. And so the thngs he greatly feared came upon him. God did not push the hedge down, Job did. So there is no permission granted here.

Thanks didaskalos,

That's what I saw too but just could not put it in as good of words.

 

Quaffer

Andrew · Dec 20, 2002

Gnosticism is basically the idea that nothing physical is real. everything is spirit. the emphasis is on the spiritual only.

John had to address this by saying that the Word/God was made flesh. So the physical exists too.

gnosticism has thus also led to the belief that the physical nature of Jesus was not important -- gosh he cld have been cross-eyed for all you know who cares! -- just focus on the fact that he was spirit-spotless, that's all that matters.

Outspoken · Dec 20, 2002

"Satan did not need permission! "

HUH? Yeah, he does. If you read what christ says you will see that. Satan ASKED to cut down peter like wheat. He must ask for permission because we belong to God.

okay, this is a long read, but its a good one and just for the record, I'm not catholic, though I do enjoy reading thier docerine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

"Gnosticism is basically the idea that nothing physical is real. everything is spirit. the emphasis is on the spiritual only.
"

Andrew, you're mixing up philosphies. Gnostics believe matter is real, but it is evil. John did address the gnostics by saying The word became flesh though. Gnostics are more dealt with in the book of col. as well. You're wrong about your analysis. Gnostics would say Jesus COULD NOT HAVE become physical because it was evil. This idea lines up with your ideas more then ours. You believe Jesus was not human at all, because he could not be sick, something humans go through. Your emphasis is that if he was he couldn't have been perfect, ie evil matter...Gnostics don't really line up with either side fully, but it is more apt to adapt to your thoughs more then ours.

Why Jesus did not have pimples

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

I am a Cat

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Standing in the Gap

Well-Known Member

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t

Standing in the Gap

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t

God Made Me A Skeptic

Standing in the Gap

Well-Known Member

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t

Standing in the Gap

Deut. 10:12 And now, Israel, what doth the LORD t

Jesus is Lord of ALL! (Not asking permission)

Heavy lean toward Messianic

Well-Known Member

Standing in the Gap

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency