Inheritance was more than money. As examples, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph all inherited the promises of GOD from their fathers. That was spiritual inheritance.
While I now believe in the sinful nature again
- Thread starter LW97
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Inheritance was more than money. As examples, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph all inherited the promises of GOD from their fathers. That was spiritual inheritance.
No, it does not. Jesus did not have a sinful nature. Your blasphemy knows no bounds. At least, in this life. But there is the after. Be ready.
Readers be aware in the event you missed DtB's posts in the other thread that they started so as to blaspheme Christ. And claim he was born with a sinful nature.
That thread apparently being left alone by those in Christ realizing the motive of its creator and creation has now caused its creator to open that same blasphemous discourse here.
Don't pay it attention! No thing you can say will dissuade them their agenda. As you can read in the far too many pages of their original post concerning their claim of Christ having a sinful nature.
Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do.OK.
Romans 8:12 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.8.12.NLT
That was God's call not the fathers:
Being descendants of Abraham doesn’t make them truly Abraham’s children. For the Scriptures say, “Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted,” though Abraham had other children, too. This means that Abraham’s physical descendants are not necessarily children of God. Only the children of the promise are considered to be Abraham’s children. For God had promised, “I will return about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son.” This son was our ancestor Isaac. When he married Rebekah, she gave birth to twins. But before they were born, before they had done anything good or bad, she received a message from God. (This message shows that God chooses people according to his own purposes; he calls people, but not according to their good or bad works.) She was told, “Your older son will serve your younger son.” In the words of the Scriptures, “I loved Jacob, but I rejected Esau.”
Romans 9:7-13 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.9.7-13.NLT
You are in GRAVE error!
Jesus did NOT have a sinful nature, He was made in all things like unto His brethren, coming in the likeness of sinful FLESH (Greek, "sarx", not "phusis") (it was his flesh that He got from Eve, through Mary, hence He is called the Son of David, Abraham's seed and Eve's seed), being tempted in all things like as we are, yet WITHOUT sin, because He never yielded to temptation no matter where it came from, either the world, the flesh or the Devil, so He is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners. Rom 8v3, Heb 2v14,17, 4v15, 7v26, John 2v14-17.
The clear mistake that this fellow makes is that the sin nature is not the same thing as the flesh. It is the sin nature (or old man/nature as Paul calls it) that has been crucified with Christ for the Christian. We have been resurrected with Christ and now have a new nature in our spirit level.
So the believer no longer has the old nature, but the believer still does have the flesh.
Sadly many Bible translations get this mixed up: As in post #15 the Greek word is "sarkos" which is flesh in Romans 8:12. (See below the italics "sinful nature" is from the Greek word sarkos.
Nowhere in the NT is the Christian said to have the the old man or old nature. But the Christian does still have the flesh, which is where our battle is! But at our spirit level we have the new nature where the Holy Spirit dwells. This does give us the power source to live above the pull of the flesh.
Check it out and do a study of the NT if you don't believe this or if this concept is new to you.
I must say the guy does have a good message, but he misses this clear Biblical concept: The believer has one nature not two! But we do have the flesh..
So the believer no longer has the old nature, but the believer still does have the flesh.
Sadly many Bible translations get this mixed up: As in post #15 the Greek word is "sarkos" which is flesh in Romans 8:12. (See below the italics "sinful nature" is from the Greek word sarkos.
Nowhere in the NT is the Christian said to have the the old man or old nature. But the Christian does still have the flesh, which is where our battle is! But at our spirit level we have the new nature where the Holy Spirit dwells. This does give us the power source to live above the pull of the flesh.
Check it out and do a study of the NT if you don't believe this or if this concept is new to you.
I must say the guy does have a good message, but he misses this clear Biblical concept: The believer has one nature not two! But we do have the flesh..
Christians are born again with a new nature and no longer have the old nature/man/sinful nature. But they do have the flesh. The verse you quote (Rom. 8:12) has the Greek work "sarkos" which is "flesh" and not "sin nature". The Christian still has the flesh, but not the old man/sin nature. Nowhere in Scripture is the old man equated with the flesh (sarkos). They are two different things.
After all this discussion you persist in your heretical view about Christ. Shame on you. If Jesus had a sinful nature, He could not possibly have become the Savior of the world.
It is the same thing see:
Therefore, dear brothers and sisters, you have no obligation to do what your sinful nature urges you to do.
Romans 8:12 NLT
https://bible.com/bible/116/rom.8.12.NLT
It is not heretical and yes, He could be the Saviour with a sinful nature like ours:
What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin.
Romans 8:3 GNT
https://bible.com/bible/68/rom.8.3.GNT
I wrote it above and will write it again. The Greek text in Rom. 8:12 very clearly uses the word "sarks" which is the flesh. Paul never uses "sarkos" when he means old man or sin nature. They are two very different things.
The KJV, ESV, and NASB all use "flesh" in this verse.
Sorry . . . Check out this verse too - Romans 8:3 - the Greek word is "sarkos" which is "flesh". Jesus had flesh like we do but he did not have a "sinful nature".
I am not a Bible translator, but I have studied and taught New Testament Greek for 30 years. But it doesn't take a Bible degree to see what I am saying. Just get out Strongs Concordance and look at the Greek word that is used.
Imagine you, diving into a terrible translation to support your errant beliefs, and then yanking it out of context to boot.
I will take credible Bible translations published by boards of credentialed translators with a broad spectrum of theological backgrounds over your armchair Bible translation skills.
Actually it seems you prefer to choose the translation that fits your armchair theology . . .
I will take the actual Greek word used in the text rather than your choice of English translation. But you do what you want: that is your choice . . .
Love you brother,
Chester
I disagree. Paul wouldn't tell believers to put the old man off if he didn't still exist.
Multiple times proofs were provided by me and others in Christ to prove your blasphemy. God is the Holy Spirit. In the other thread you were told quite directly that the sin nature only passes through the father, due to Adam's sin. God was the creator/father of Jesus. Sin came into the world through one man; Adam. ((Romans 5:12)) "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned."
Jesus' virgin birth insured he was not born with a sin nature.
Colosians 2:9 says, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of deity in bodily form."
What DevotedtoBible is arguing then, when God is holy spirit and Emmanuel was God with us, is that God had a sin nature when in the flesh of Emmanuel, Jesus, the Christ. And in that aforementioned thread they claimed not only that Jesus had the sin nature but he just chose not to sin.
Maybe it is a matter of not realizing the enormity of the transgression DtB is devoted to here. What you're arguing is actually a compounded blasphemy. Claiming Jesus was born dead in his sins, because he was born with a sin nature that by definition can do nothing but sin. And also claiming in that argument that you insist upon, that Jesus/God was born with a sin nature and just chose not to sin, is arguing repeatedly, since Jesus was God, that God is not perfect and sinless.
Posting the full article so that there is no chance to avoid the facts by choosing not to click a mere link to the information.
Blasphemy (Bible Study Tools)
Definition. In English "blasphemy" denotes any utterance that insults God or Christ (or Allah, or Muhammed) and gives deeply felt offense to their followers. In several states in the United States and in Britain, blasphemy is a criminal offense, although there have been few prosecution in this century. In Islamic countries generally no distinction is made between blasphemy and heresy, so that any perceived rejection of the Prophet or his message, by Muslims or non-Muslims, is regarded as blasphemous.
The biblical concept is very different. There is no Hebrew word equivalent to the English "blasphemy, " and the Greek root blasphem- [blasfhmevw], which is used fifty-five times in the New Testament, has a wide meaning. In both Testaments the idea of blasphemy as something that offends the religious sensibilities of others is completely absent.
The Old Testament At least five different Hebrew verbs are translated "blaspheme" in English translations. Translators choose "blaspheme" when, for instance, the verbs "curse" (qalal [l;l'q]), "revile" (gadap [@;d"G]), or "despise" (herep) are used with God as the object. No special verb is reserved for cursing or insults directed at God.
However, to curse or insult God is an especially grave sin. It can be done by word or by deed. There is little distinction between the sinner who deliberately abuses the name of the Lord ( Le 24:10-16 ), and the one who deliberately flouts his commandments ( Nu 15:30-31 ). For both, the death penalty is prescribed. Similarly, the prayer of the Levites in Nehemiah 9 calls "awful blasphemies" all that Israelites did when they made the golden calf (9:18).
David's flagrant sin with Bathsheba may be called a blasphemy ( 2 Sa 12:14 ), but a more likely translation is that David has "made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt" (NIV). Instead of testifying by lifestyle to the character of the Lord, David's action confirms the blasphemous belief of the nations that the Lord is no different from any other national god.
The New Testament. The Greek root blasphem- [blasfhmevw] can be used of strong insults thrown at other people ( Mark 15:29 ; Acts 13:45 ; Eph 4:31 ; 1 Peter 4:4 ), or even unjust accusations ( Rom 3:8 ), but it is more usually used of insults offered to God (e.g., Rev 13:6 ; 16:9 ). Jesus is accused of blasphemy for pronouncing forgiveness and for claiming a unique relationship with God ( Matt 26:65 ; Mark 2:7 ; John 10:33 ).
Jesus picks up the Numbers 15 passage about blasphemy in his famous saying about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit ( Matt 12:31-32 ; Mark 3:28-29 ; Luke 12:10 ). Numbers 15:22-31 distinguishes between unintentional sin committed in ignorance (for which forgiveness is possible), and defiant sin, called blasphemy, for which there is no forgiveness. Jesus teaches that the blasphemy for which there is no forgiveness is that against the Holy Spirit; all other blasphemies, particularly those against "the Son of Man, " may be forgiven. Insults thrown at "the Son of Man" may be forgiven because they are committed in ignorance of who he really is: his heavenly glory does not appear on earth. But to ascribe obvious manifestations of the Spirit to the devil's agency is a much more serious offense not committed in ignorance.
This downgrading of the significance of blasphemy against Christ marks an important difference between Christianity and Islam. Whereas Muslims are bound to defend the honor of the Prophet, for Christians Jesus is the one who says, "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me" ( Rom 15:3, ; quoting Psalm 69:9 ). He deliberately accepts the vilification of others and prays for the forgiveness of those who insult him ( Luke 23:34 ). In this, he sets an example for Christians to follow. According to Peter ( 1 Pe 2:19-25 ), they must accept insult and blasphemy without retaliation, as he did.
There is only one kind of blasphemy that Christians must resist: the blasphemy they will bring on themselves if they cause a fellow believer to stumble through the thoughtless exercise of their freedom ( Rom 14:15-16 ; 1 Cor 10:28-30 ).
As you did reference your thread wherein you insisted Jesus had a sin nature, and now you're in this thread, and I suspect shall further your argument in the other sin nature thread, you are fully aware of what you're doing. When you are told it is blasphemy, the one unforgivable sin, and continue on, it would be a shame that anyone who is in Christ would let this thread grow in page count like your own thread did. As people of good heart and sincere spirit hope to change the mind of one who is dedicated to arguing Jesus was just a man. Because arguing he had a sin nature denies divinity. And that too is blasphemy.
Christians are suppose to lead people to learn how to be saved. Not help them damn themselves further.
I hope this thread dies for lack of the attention your argument generates while Jesus , where two or three are gathered, is here among us and witnessing this whole thing.
God knows the heart of everyone. Even the unbeliever.
He see's you. And so too do we.