Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-15-2009, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mercy777 View Post
Are you saying God does not have the power to put himself in a human being or be a human being?
Are we to limit God's power or His love for mankind, His creation?
You have no idea how many times I have heard this said in response to Jesus not being God in the flesh. And yet if I use that argument to prove universal salvation (if God wants to save, has the power to save, are we to limit his power by saying he won't) and it never seems to work...

How am I limiting God's power or his love by stating that he couldn't be man and God at the same time... If you want to know what I think.. well here it is: God is spirit. If the fullness of God's spirit is too big to fit in a house or temple...

1 Kings 8:27 "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You, how much less this house which I have built! (see also Acts 17:24, Psalm 115:16, Acts 7:48-50)


...then I believe a human body could not contain him either.
Quote:
And this is why salvation came to the Gentiles, because of the Jews unbelief.
Romans 11:13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? 16If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
The Jews rejected him as Messiah.. not God. They would have stoned him if he had proclaimed to be God.

Quote:
John 14:7 If you really knew me, you would know [ Some early manuscripts If you really have known me, you will know] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

John 14:9 Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
SEEN in this context is not visual...

Webster's: To perceive by mental vision; to form an idea or conception of; to note with the mind; to observe; to discern; to distinguish; to understand; to comprehend; to ascertain

Jesus came to show us the father... he is the IMAGE of the father...

If I see Jesus then I have been shown the father.. even if only by reading the scripture.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-15-2009, 06:04 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Well here is one of my many qualms with the idea that Jesus was born of a man and that he still qualified as a sacrifice for the world.

Psalm 49:7
No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him-

If Christ was merely a human being, and not the only begotten son of God immaculately conceived of the holy spirit and in fact the incarnation of deity, God become a man, then his death is not able to ransom anyone from sin and death. It seems to me believing this way really is tantamount to denying the lord who bought you(ransomed you from sin and death) ...
Did Christ live forever? Physically? or did he really die?

Psalm 49:5-9
Why should I fear when evil days come,
when wicked deceivers surround me—
those who trust in their wealth
and boast of their great riches?
No man can redeem the life of another
or give to God a ransom for him—
the ransom for a life is costly,
no payment is ever enough—
that he should live on forever
and not see decay.


First the whole Psalm is talking about riches of men in the physical world and second, all men will die. There is nothing that will make men live on forever physically and not see decay.

Jesus came with spiritual life. Life IN God. Life with God.

God himself chooses what he does. All that Jesus taught came from God. Nothing he said or did was not shown or told to him by God. If God anointed Jesus.. a regular human being... then who are we to say that that was insufficient for God to give all humans salvation?

The context does not speak to the validity of your argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 06:05 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 8,725,642 times
Reputation: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Where does this stuff come from?

"The sin nature is passed down through the male?"

Did they find a sin gene finally?

Where in the bible do you get this?

I always wondered if the Y chromosome was the cause...perhaps women are exempt from having sin altogether if we can't pass it on?

Sweet!
Regardless of the sin issue, the fact is if Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, he would have been ineligible to sit on the throne of David, because the genealogy of Joseph Goes through Jechonias(Coniah), of whom it was declared that none of his descendants should ever sit on the throne of David.

Below is an excerpt from the book "dispensational truth" ...


Quote:
That we may have no difficulty in tracing the ancestry of Jesus, two genealogical tables are given us. The first, in Matthew, is of Joseph, and traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham. The second, in Luke, is of Mary, and traces Jesus' ancestry back to Adam. See the Chart on "The King." A careful examination of these genealogies shows what a safeguard God threw about the birth of Jesus and how careful He was to see that the Scriptures were literally fulfilled in Him. Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus back to David, through Solomon; Luke traces it back to David through Nathan. That there are similar names in the two tables presents no difficulty as such a thing is common in tracing any long line of descent. Again the statement in Matthew that "Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, " and the statement in Luke that Joseph was (as supposed) the son of Heli is easily reconciled, for Joseph could not be the son of both Jacob and Heli. The fact that the translators of the King James version use the word "supposed" and that the word "son" is in italics (which indicates that it is not in the original but is placed there to make sense), shows that some other word could be inserted that would make sense, and that word is "son-in-law, " and so it should read, "Joseph which was the 'son-in-law' of Heli." This makes the genealogy of Luke that of Mary, for two genealogies so clearly unalike could not both be the genealogy of Joseph.

Matthew

But why two lines of descent, one through Nathan and the other through Solomon? Why was not Mary's genealogy sufficient? During King David's residence at Hebron, while he was as yet only the king of Judah, six sons were born to him. Of these, three appear to have died in infancy. Of the other three, Amnon was murdered, Absalom perished while in rebellion against his father, and Adonijah, having attempted to usurp the throne, was subsequently put to death by Solomon. The right of succession to the crown was thus secured to the sons of David born "after" he was enthroned king over all Israel.
The children that were born to David after he was crowned king over all Israel are also enumerated. 1Chron. 3:1-3. Of these two only need be mentioned, Nathan and Solomon. Solomon, as we know, succeeded his father as king, but Nathan was older than Solomon, and on that ground might have contested Solomon's right of succession, though we are not told that he did. Nevertheless Solomon's title had the shadow of Nathan's claim upon it, and that there should be no cloud upon Jesus' title to- the "Throne of David, " God ordained that Mary, the mother of Jesus, should be a direct descendant of David through Nathan, the "legal heir" to the throne. But Jesus had no right to David's Throne through Mary, for she was not in the "Kingly Line" of descent through Solomon. How then was Jesus' right to David's Throne to be brought about? Only by marriage.
Here we see the wonderful way in which God safeguarded the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus. He saw to it that Mary married (after conception) a man who could not be the natural father of Jesus, because of a taint or defect in his ancestry.
Joseph was a lineal descendant of David through the "Kingly Line" of Solomon, but in that line there was one Jechonias (Matt. 1:11, Matt. 1:12), called in Jer. 22:24-26, Coniah, of whom God had said,
"No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the 'Throne of David' and ruling any more in Judah."
So we see that Joseph could not be the "natural" father of Jesus, for no descendant of his could sit on the Throne of David and "prosper." This forever sets at rest the claim that Joseph was the "natural" father of Jesus, and establishes the fact of His "Virgin Birth."
The marriage of Joseph and Mary made Jesus the adopted son and "legal heir" of Joseph. The title, unaffected by the curse pronounced upon Coniah, was thus conveyed to Jesus, in whom there centres, through both Nathan and Solomon, exclusive right to the "Throne of David."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Jhn 20:25-28
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.
I think I addressed this already in the Jesus is deity thread but I will say:
It doesn't say whether Thomas even put his hands on Jesus at all.. he exclaimed instead. The the exclamation is ignored completely in the text.
Also a couple verses later this is the conclusion to the whole book of John:

John 20:31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Why not just state that Jesus is God here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
Regardless of the sin issue, the fact is if Jesus was the natural son of Joseph, he would have been ineligible to sit on the throne of David, because the genealogy of Joseph Goes through Jechonias(Coniah), of whom it was declared that none of his descendants should ever sit on the throne of David.

Below is an excerpt from the book "dispensational truth" ...
Jechonias is Jehoiachin the King of Judah that is released from prison in Jeremiah 52. At least the footnote in the bible says that...

Also, I think you are wrong because it is Mary who descended from Nathan's line (not the royal davidian line) and Joseph who descended from Solomon.. Isn't that true? Matt. 1

So you are saying (or the article rather) that Jesus could have fit the prophecy if Joseph was his father but Mary is sufficient because she was still the line of David and MARRIED to a man descending from the kingly line of David?

How does that make sense?
I am lost here. Isn't the article stating that Joseph was the correct line from which the Messiah would descend? Yet you say Joseph could not have been Jesus' father?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:17 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 8,725,642 times
Reputation: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Jechonias is Jehoiachin the King of Judah that is released from prison in Jeremiah 52. At least the footnote in the bible says that...

Also, I think you are wrong because it is Mary who descended from Nathan's line (not the royal davidian line) and Joseph who descended from Solomon.. Isn't that true? Matt. 1

So you are saying (or the article rather) that Jesus could have fit the prophecy if Joseph was his father but Mary is sufficient because she was still the line of David and MARRIED to a man descending from the kingly line of David?

How does that make sense?
I am lost here. Isn't the article stating that Joseph was the correct line from which the Messiah would descend? Yet you say Joseph could not have been Jesus' father?
It makes complete sense ... He was of David through both lines through his parents. Yet he was not of David naturally through Joseph but by marriage, which means he was not a descendant of Coniah, but still had a birthright by virtue of marriage through the kingly line.

As i understand it, faith is the substance of things hoped for. So a person ultimately believes what they hope to be true. I am left to wonder why you so strongly deny the deity of Christ. That is what doesn't make sense to me ... But to each their own, we all have our reasons for believing or not believing ...

You should read the article more closely. Joseph was of the kingly line through solomon yes, but he was also through Coniah ... And God commanded that none of Coniah's descendants would be eligible to sit on the throne of David. If Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph, that would have made him a descendant of Coniah by blood, and he would not have been eligible to be king.

It was a double safe guard garanteeing that Christ was worthy of being king through both parents, because Nathan was the eldest of David and could have challenged Solomon for the thrown, yet had Christ been the natural descent of Solomon through Coniah his eligibility to the throne would have been forfeit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:21 PM
 
63,470 posts, read 39,739,901 times
Reputation: 7793
Quote:
Originally Posted by sciotamicks View Post
If you deny one piece of scripture, you deny the whole thing. Simple as that, and Christian you aren't.
First it is always a denial of your interpretation of scripture . . . NOT a denial of scripture. But I am curious . . . you have made this absurd claim before . . . on whose authority do you make it? As for your continued judging of who is and isn't Christian . . . please desist. You have no authority in that matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:30 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
It makes complete sense ... He was of David through both lines through his parents. Yet he was not of David naturally through Joseph but by marriage, which means he was not a descendant of Coniah, but still had a birthright by virtue of marriage through the kingly line.

As i understand it, faith is the substance of things hoped for. So a person ultimately believes what they hope to be true. I am left to wonder why you so strongly deny the deity of Christ. That is what doesn't make sense to me ... But to each their own, we all have our reasons for believing or not believing ...
Well I do want you to understand my position. My position is that Jesus was human. It explicitly states that to deny Jesus came in the flesh is well absurd, antichrist behavior . God is spirit and in 1 Kings is described as not being able to be contained by house or temple...

So with those two facts in mind I then look at Jesus' life. He was sinless.. I have to ask myself if God can be sinless.. if he does not sin can he ever be sinless as a human would be sinless, by choice?

Also, can God suffer and die? I know that some state it was not God but the flesh that suffered and died but that poses a question of how God was supposed to experience suffering and death if in fact he really can't suffer nor die?

Also, God faking the suffering, death and sinless-ness of himself in flesh doesn't make sense to me.

Furthermore, God created suffering, death, and sin.. so why would he have need to experience suffering, death, and being sinless to atone for the human race to himself?

What atonement do you need if you are going to pay yourself back..

Taking into consideration these things, the spiritual message in the scripture, and the gospel as a whole... I cannot believe that Jesus is God.

To me that does nothing to diminish the importance of Jesus' teachings or glory but rather enhances his display of brotherly love and points directly to God the creator and savior of all men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 09:57 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
8,435 posts, read 10,480,126 times
Reputation: 1737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironmaw1776 View Post
It makes complete sense ... He was of David through both lines through his parents. Yet he was not of David naturally through Joseph but by marriage, which means he was not a descendant of Coniah, but still had a birthright by virtue of marriage through the kingly line.

As i understand it, faith is the substance of things hoped for. So a person ultimately believes what they hope to be true. I am left to wonder why you so strongly deny the deity of Christ. That is what doesn't make sense to me ... But to each their own, we all have our reasons for believing or not believing ...

You should read the article more closely. Joseph was of the kingly line through solomon yes, but he was also through Coniah ... And God commanded that none of Coniah's descendants would be eligible to sit on the throne of David. If Jesus had been the natural son of Joseph, that would have made him a descendant of Coniah by blood, and he would not have been eligible to be king.

It was a double safe guard garanteeing that Christ was worthy of being king through both parents, because Nathan was the eldest of David and could have challenged Solomon for the thrown, yet had Christ been the natural descent of Solomon through Coniah his eligibility to the throne would have been forfeit.
Yet that is not a "everlasting" curse apparently because we see:
"'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty." (Haggai 2:23)

Zerubbabel being the grandson of Jehoiachin and was governor of Judah at the time.

I still don't see where Mary's genealogy is shown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 11:07 PM
 
7,374 posts, read 8,725,642 times
Reputation: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by katjonjj View Post
Yet that is not a "everlasting" curse apparently because we see:
"'On that day,' declares the LORD Almighty, 'I will take you, my servant Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,' declares the LORD, 'and I will make you like my signet ring, for I have chosen you,' declares the LORD Almighty." (Haggai 2:23)

Zerubbabel being the grandson of Jehoiachin and was governor of Judah at the time.

I still don't see where Mary's genealogy is shown.
I don't know what to say to you. In various places Jesus is said to be God, by the prophet Isaiah, and then by two of his disciples. Yet these are not enough evidence for you.

When it comes to the genealogies of Christ there are two separate and different genealogies given. They cannot both be Josephs, because one goes through Solomon and the other through Nathan. The fact that the bible says that none of the descendants of Coniah can be king, means that if Jesus was the natural born son of the parent whose genealogy comes down through Coniah, then Jesus cannot claim right to the throne. Being a governor of Judea and being king are two entirely different things, so Zerubbabel being chosen by God for whatever purpose other than being king, is not evidence that the curse was lifted from the descendants of Coniah where right to the throne is concerned. Thus, seeing that the scriptures plainly declare Christ as the only begotten of the father, immaculately conceived by the holy spirit so that Joseph was not his natural father ... And seeing that The writers of the new testament firmly establish that Jesus was the promised messiah who was prophesied to come as the king of Israel who would sit on the throne of David ... The only conclusion that can be rationally deduced is that the genealogy given for Christ that comes down through Nathan is the genealogy of Mary who was the natural mother of Christ, while the genealogy which came down from Solomon through Coniah must have been Joseph whom the scriptures say was not the natural father of Jesus but the foster father by marriage. Any other explanation would make it so that according to scripture Jesus was not eligible for the kingship and/or to sit upon the throne of David.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top