God as Spirit or flesh and bone

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

He was different. Unique--as to the mortal physical body.

Nope......totally wrong by the way and missed the whole point of being born a 'man"

The bible is very clear that Jesus was made "man".....not "almost human"....

Not "almost a man"

Not "human-looking".......


None of that junk....

The Bible teaches us very clearly that Jesus was born of Mary and is a "man"

1 Timothy 2:5 - "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000 View Post---He was different. Unique--as to the mortal physical body.

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Nope......totally wrong by the way and missed the whole point of being born a 'man"

The bible is very clear that Jesus was made "man".....not "almost human"....

Not "almost a man"

Not "human-looking".......


None of that junk....

What is it about "The Only Begotten Son" you do not consider unique?

Could you explain for us what mortal man here on this earth ever had an earthly mother and a Heavenly Father?

The Bible teaches us very clearly that Jesus was born of Mary and is a "man"

Correct. A unique man. The Only Begotten Son. The only man ever born to this earth with a Heavenly Father and an earthly mother.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

What is it about "The Only Begotten Son"

The term "only begotton" refers to the special relationship the father has with the son....
It's the bond...the special love between them...

This is why the Bible talks about a person being the "only begotten son" when that same son was not the first born son actually....there was a different son that was the first person born , but when you say that someone is the "only begotten" you are pointing to the special relationship you have with that person..

So this has nothing to do with biology, nothing to do with birth order, but has everything to do with a type of loving relationship you have with the person.

Now, while Jesus is the "only begotten" he is still fully human.

remember, there is not one line in the Bible that even slightly HINTS that Jesus was not a man......not 100% full human!!!!



So Jesus has to be 100% fully human as I am, or else I can not trust that the resurrection of Christ means i too can be resurrected.


But because I know that Jesus was fully a 'man'.....was fully a mortal human just as i am in every way, then i can look at his resurrection as a guide to my own future resurrection....

This is why the bible is so clear that Jesus is a "man"

Not a "man-like" creature....

not a "man-looking" person

not a Man/angel cross bread.....

But just a fully,normal, guy......just like me.


The resurrection of Jesus gives me the faith that just as God raised the fully human Body of Christ from the dead, he will be able in the same way to call my dead body from the grave....


AMEN!

[alanmolstad]

So before Jesus was wrapped in human flesh, he was still eternal god as is the father....

Jesus was known as the "WORD" in the book of John, and the WORD is eternally God ....

So Jesus was is and will always be god almighty...but 2000 years ago wrapped himself in human flesh and was born a 100% fully Human!

Still eternal God, without beginning , without ending,,,,
But so that he could die as a man, he was wrapped in the body of men....and was and is and will always be, fully 100% human!

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Now, while Jesus is the "only begotten" he is still fully human.
remember, there is not one line in the Bible that even slightly HINTS that Jesus was not a man......not 100% full human!!!!
So Jesus has to be 100% fully human as I am, or else I can not trust that the resurrection of Christ means i too can be resurrected.
But because I know that Jesus was fully a 'man'.....was fully a mortal human just as i am in every way, then i can look at his resurrection as a guide to my own future resurrection....

This is why the bible is so clear that Jesus is a "man"

Not a "man-like" creature....

not a "man-looking" person

not a Man/angel cross bread.....

But just a fully,normal, guy......just like me.
AMEN!

But when an LDS leader said that God was once like us, some contra-LDS people yelled "He said that God was a SINNER, because if God was just like us, and we are sinners, then it has to mean that God was a sinner."

I am willing to not jump to such unwarranted conclusions in the case of your statement, however. I prefer to ***ume that you mean that Jesus was just like you as far as having a human body was concerned....not that He was just like you in every way including being a sinner.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

But when an LDS leader said that God was once like us, some contra-LDS people yelled "He said that God was a SINNER, because if God was just like us, and we are sinners, then it has to mean that God was a sinner."

Then God was not really like us then Jeff was he?

"As man is God once was, as God is man may be."

And you can't expect to be like God if you reject the first part of the couplet.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Then God was not really like us then Jeff was he?

Then according to your argument, Jesus was not really like Alan Molstad, was He?

So what are ya gonna do with Alan's definite statement that Jesus is "just a fully,normal, guy......just like me." ???

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Then according to your argument, Jesus was not really like Alan Molstad, was He?

Other than in a superficial ways we as people are in no way like God/Jesus. Rather we are his creation and he is our creator.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Other than in a superficial ways we as people are in no way like God/Jesus. Rather we are his creation and he is our creator.

Our spiritual likenesses are more than "superficial". God made us in his image, which I believe means his spiritual image. We share many of his attributes....love, a sense of justice, creativity, a general knowledge of right and wrong, etc. If we allow him into our lives, allow him to live in us and to sanctify us, he will begin to perfect those natural attributes.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Our spiritual likenesses are more than "superficial". God made us in his image, which I believe means his spiritual image. We share many of his attributes....love, a sense of justice, creativity, a general knowledge of right and wrong, etc. If we allow him into our lives, allow him to live in us and to sanctify us, he will begin to perfect those natural attributes.

Would you say that you are just like God?

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Would you say that you are just like God?

No. Far from it.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

No. Far from it.

What a blasphemous statement. No Christian that I know would ever make such a statement.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

What a blasphemous statement. No Christian that I know would ever make such a statement.

Really?

Okay, then, Billy...we are EXACTLY like God.

I know if I had said THAT, you would also be screaming "blasphemy".

You're like some angry little kid who is just looking to punch something (namely me).

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Really?

Okay, then, Billy...we are EXACTLY like God.

I know if I had said THAT, you would also be screaming "blasphemy".

You're like some angry little kid who is just looking to punch something (namely me).

Libby your ignore scripture, you throw out sections of the Bible that you don't like, you refuse to support your opinions with scripture. And you call yourself Christian. Why should anyone believe you?

[Libby]

That's simply not true, Billy. I haven't thrown anything out...and I've very capable of supporting what I believe with scripture.

But, since I am in repentance mode, I do admit that I gave that impression a few months back.

Have I had questions and doubts? Yes. But, I am working my way through those problem areas with my Pastor. I never lost my faith in Christ...which is the only reason this was even possible.

Now, I am sorting out some of the heavier issues that I had with Calvinism. I'm not sure where that will take me.....it "might" take me right back to where I started....I don't know. But, at least, I am back within, what I consider, biblical belief/territory.

You can either make this more difficult for me...or try to encourage and help. It's up to you. So far you seem to be choosing to make it difficult.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

That's simply not true, Billy. I haven't thrown anything out...and I've very capable of supporting what I believe with scripture.

You believe that babies do not sin go ahead and give me some verses that support this position.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Now, I am sorting out some of the heavier issues that I had with Calvinism. .

Why not go to an Arminian church--that seems simple enough.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why not go to an Arminian church--that seems simple enough.

Yes, that is possible, at some point. Right now, my husband is very attached to this Reformed Church. The Pastor there has been very helpful to both of us, so I am reluctant to change, right now, even though my beliefs do not line up perfectly. But, there is really not a lot of constant emphasis on those problem areas, and I have actually grown in faith, in this church. The Pastor's sermons are very Christ centered....and he is very kind. It's really okay, for now.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, that is possible, at some point. Right now, my husband is very attached to this Reformed Church.

But you are having such a hard time with it that it seems like you are drifting further from God rather than closer. I am sure that there is a church that you and your husband can find that is more neutral, at least until you get through some of the issues that you are having and you could always go back. Bottom line is that in practical terms there is not a lot of differences between the two if you sit down and look at it. And that is why I don't mind talking about it because after all is said and done we basically come to the same conclusion. For example a person is either elect or not before he is even born and you can't change that. This is believed by both sides. Look at the atonement issue the atonement is applied only to the elect. This is also believed by both sides. Look at salvation, both believe that we are saved by grace through faith and not by works. Here is another issue--one belief says that you can loose your salvation and the other says that those who fall away were never saved in the first place but the result is still the same in that both would agree that the person is not saved.

[Libby]

But you are having such a hard time with it that it seems like you are drifting further from God rather than closer.

No, not really. I have actually come a long way in the last three months. And, like I said, my husband loves this church, especially the Pastor (and so do I, really), so I am afraid he simply would stop going, if I changed. That's what he did before. It took years to get him back in the church...I don't want to disturb what he has in this one.

Bottom line is that in practical terms there is not a lot of differences between the two if you sit down and look at it.

Yes, I'm coming around to seeing that...which is why I said, I could end up back where I started. I think, I just needed to work through some things that were troubling me. Sometimes, when you step away from something, for awhile, as I did, you can come back with a new perspective.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I'm coming around to seeing that...which is why I said, I could end up back where I started. I think, I just needed to work through some things that were troubling me. Sometimes, when you step away from something, for awhile, as I did, you can come back with a new perspective.

Let me give you an example that shows that when you look at it in a practical way the Arminianism and Calvinism position are really closer than you realize.

1. Person A is elect and will be saved.

2. Person B is not elect and will not be saved.

3. Person A is elect and person B is not elect before either were even born.


Thus far we should be in agreement.

From my point of view person A is elect and will be saved, and person B is not elect and will not be saved.

From your perspective person A is elect and will be saved, and person B is not elect and will not be saved.

Despite our differences in why person A is elect and person B is not elect, it in no way changes the fact that person A is elect and person B is not elect. From a practical standpoint there is no difference.

Lets take that one step further. Neither you or I know who is elect and who is not elect thus both of us would share the gospel with both person A and person B and invite both to come to Christ by faith. And we both would agree that both persons have a choice to either accept Christ or reject him. We would also agree that the basis for salvation is faith and those who place their faith in Christ will be saved. We also would agree that person A will accept Christ sometime in his lifetime and that person B will never accept Christ. Again from a practical standpoint our beliefs are the same.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Let me give you an example that shows that when you look at it in a practical way the Arminianism and Calvinism position are really closer than you realize.

1. Person A is elect and will be saved.

2. Person B is not elect and will not be saved.

3. Person A is elect and person B is not elect before either were even born.


Thus far we should be in agreement.

From my point of view person A is elect and will be saved, and person B is not elect and will not be saved.

From your perspective person A is elect and will be saved, and person B is not elect and will not be saved.

Despite our differences in why person A is elect and person B is not elect, it in no way changes the fact that person A is elect and person B is not elect. From a practical standpoint there is no difference.

Lets take that one step further. Neither you or I know who is elect and who is not elect thus both of us would share the gospel with both person A and person B and invite both to come to Christ by faith. And we both would agree that both persons have a choice to either accept Christ or reject him. We would also agree that the basis for salvation is faith and those who place their faith in Christ will be saved. We also would agree that person A will accept Christ sometime in his lifetime and that person B will never accept Christ. Again from a practical standpoint our beliefs are the same.

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree...practically speaking, they are the same. I saw that when you pointed it out before...

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by Libby

Yes, I understand what you're saying and I agree...practically speaking, they are the same. I saw that when you pointed it out before...

Now lets look at the example of a baby. Jeff would say that a baby all the way up until age 8 doesn't sin. You would say that a baby doesn't sin but a 3-4 year old and upward sins. And I would say that we all sin. We would likely all agree that a child is incapable of accepting Christ. My personal belief (which is not based on scripture because the Bible is silent on this issue, with the exception of David's child, which is why I don't state it as fact) is that a baby/child sins but that since he is incapable of understanding right or wrong and is incapable at that age of accepting Christ he or his is sinful but not accountable thus will likely be saved. Jeff on the other hand says that children up to age 8 don't sin (which means that they do sin but is not called sin because he doesn't know right from wrong i.e. not accountable) thus this is the basis for his or her salvation. In a practical sense we would agree on this point. And your belief is probably in between Jeff's belief and my belief.

[Libby]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Now lets look at the example of a baby. Jeff would say that a baby all the way up until age 8 doesn't sin. You would say that a baby doesn't sin but a 3-4 year old and upward sins. And I would say that we all sin. We would likely all agree that a child is incapable of accepting Christ. My personal belief (which is not based on scripture because the Bible is silent on this issue, with the exception of David's child, which is why I don't state it as fact) is that a baby/child sins but that since he is incapable of understanding right or wrong and is incapable at that age of accepting Christ he or his is sinful but not accountable thus will likely be saved. Jeff on the other hand says that children up to age 8 don't sin (which means that they do sin but is not called sin because he doesn't know right from wrong i.e. not accountable) thus this is the basis for his or her salvation. In a practical sense we would agree on this point. And your belief is probably in between Jeff's belief and my belief.

I'm not sure Jeff would agree that children don't sin...only that they are not accountable until around age eight. I think Jeff and I agree that babies don't sin (and my belief is mostly from observation....I just don't think one can call anything a new baby does "sin"). But, I think they do start sinning quite young (long before the age of three).

I think you're right that we can all agree that children are not "accountable" until they really understand what "sin" means and are old enough to turn to Christ.

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Libby

I'm not sure Jeff would agree that children don't sin...only that they are not accountable until around age eight.

Yes, that is pretty much it--what I believe is that 8 is the minimum age at which a person could safely be considered to be accountable. The actual age will very from person to person, depending individual circumstances such as intelligence, upbringing, environments, etc. For a retarded person from a broken home in an amoral 3rd-world country, a sufficient grasp of good and evil might not be reached until 20 or 40 or 60. A sociopath might never reach that state. That is why we try to only baptize people who seem to meet a minimum degree of accountability for their actions. IMO, some kids are precocious enough to reach that state before they are 8. But we wait until at least 8.

I think Jeff and I agree that babies don't sin (and my belief is mostly from observation....I just don't think one can call anything a new baby does "sin").

Yes. Not just by observation, though--you can arrive at that conclusion merely by common sense, too.

But, I think they do start sinning quite young (long before the age of three).

IMO, only in a few rare cases.

I think you're right that we can all agree that children are not "accountable" until they really understand what "sin" means and are old enough to turn to Christ.

If we ALL agree on the truth of that, then I am glad.