Posted on 10/31/2013 10:27:20 AM PDT by GonzoII
Drop the pretense ... the Spirit within Jesus IS The Holy Spirit. THAT seed cannot sin.
HF
Got it.
Even in self-defense, in war as a soldier, the death penalty, the battles that God commanded the Israelites to do, the animal sacrifices they made, the animals they ate?
I think that passage needs a little subtlety to its interpretation. What about English peas? Can we kill them? I like the “thou shalt not murder” interpretation
Gospel of Thomas? Well if it is Gnostic, then yeah, it is wrong. And in any event, it is not in the Bible, and so is not authoritative.
The very fact that he was able to be tempted, means that as a human, he could sin.
Yup, that might have worked. I meant no disrespect. The word is not capitalized in The Bible ...
Yeah, I think I do.
It’s not biblical, so no sound theology can be built on it.
It may be factually correct in points, but is not inspired.
But say I’m wrong. How do you think this will change the Christian orthodoxy? And if it won’t, what use is it to our moral understanding?
However, the point is that He did not, and which is thrice confirmed, and it is the manner of the Holy Spirit to make known notable deviations from the norm among its characters:
From the age of Methuselah to the strength of Samson to the number of toes of Goliath, to the diet of John the Baptist, to the notable chaste holiness of Anna, to the supernatural transport of Phillip, to the signs of an apostle, to the sinlessness of Christ, to the singleness of Paul and Barnabas, and uncharacteristic duplicity of Peter, etc., etc.
In contrast is the sinlessness of Mary and perpetual virginity, departures from the norm among a quite important figure. But Roman Tradition does not need actually Scriptural evidence.
It escapes me right now, but I think it was Augustine who
believed the perpetual virginity of Mary could be proven
from Luke. He said that when the angel Gabriel announced to
her that she would conceive a son her question
"how shall this be since I know not man" shows that she had
made a vow of perpetual virginity. The logic being that since
she was already espoused to Joseph the reply would have
made no sense because she was thinking about a conception
through the natural marital act. This of course would
have been done in the normal course of events and thus she could
conceive a son. But she leaves this possibility out when she says
"I know not man" i.e. not now nor or am I planning to later in my marriage.
`
That is simply another example of the perverse reasoning of men seeking to support an extraBiblical tradition with Scripture. Mary's reply is not, "How shall this be, seeing I WILL NOT know not a man, but that "seeing as I know not a man," as she was not in a consummated marriage. The idea that this means she had taken a vow of perpetual virginity, and that Joseph agreed to this is simply absurd.
Both would be extraordinarily exceptions to the norm, as is the virgins birth, but as abundantly seen when something as this is true among notable characters in Scripture, the virgin birth is clearly stated, as is Christ being sinless, but a unique marriage in which there is consent to leaving but not to cleaving (normally grounds for RC annulment) and the perpetual virginity is not, and what is said best Mary having relations after the Lord's birth.
Sex between a husband and wife is good, ordained by God.
Only Roman Catholics make it out to be dirty.
Consider the exegesis of these church "fathers" (without attacking their piety):
Jerrome:
The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we [priests] must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray...Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage.
The skewed conclusion of Jerome is readily apparent in the light of the fact that marital relations are not the only things that may distract from prayer for a time (which does not mean it cannot/should not be practiced prayerfully like other activities), but eating, driving, etc. also may. Thus to be consistent, Jerome's logic is that a minister (which are never called priests as a distinct class) cannot eat or drink, or engage in any like physical activity.
Yet in further seeking to use Scripture to support his skewed view of marriage, Jerome next invokes Genesis 2 and 7, arguing,
"This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)
So much for sending out disciples by pairs, while this renowned Bible scholar (for his day) ignores that it was after the 4th and 6th days that God said His creation was God (Gn. 1:18,19,31) Thus according to Jerome's logic even numbers also denote cleanness.
Similarly, Augustine held a perverse view of marital relations, believing that Heb. 13:4 only means the marriage bed is not defiled if fornication and adultery or relations without the intent to procreate is avoided, and that marital intercourse could not be engaged in without sinful passions, though these were excused for Christians. In On Marriage and Concupiscence (Book I, cp. 27) he states,
Marriage is itself "honourable in all" Hebrews 13:4 the goods which properly appertain to it; but even when it has its "bed undefiled" (not only by fornication and adultery, which are damnable disgraces, but also by any of those excesses of cohabitation such as do not arise from any prevailing desire of children, but from an overbearing lust of pleasure, which are venial sins in man and wife), yet, whenever it comes to the actual process of generation, the very embrace which is lawful and honourable cannot be effected without the ardour of lust, so as to be able to accomplish that which appertains to the use of reason and not of lust....This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15071.htm
Now, this ardour, whether following or preceding the will, does somehow, by a power of its own, move the members which cannot be moved simply by the will, and in this manner it shows itself not to be the servant of a will which commands it, but rather to be the punishment of a will which disobeys it. It shows, moreover, that it must be excited, not by a free choice, but by a certain seductive stimulus, and that on this very account it produces shame. This is the carnal concupiscence, which, while it is no longer accounted sin in the regenerate, yet in no case happens to nature except from sin. It is the daughter of sin, as it were... http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.xvi.v.xxvii.html
Similarly, Tertullian argued that second marriage, having been freed from the first by death,
“will have to be termed no other than a species of fornication,” partly based on the reasoning that such involves desiring to marry a women out of sexual ardor. (An Exhortation to Chastity, Chapter IX.—Second Marriage a Species of Adultery, Marriage Itself Impugned, as Akin to Adultery; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf04.iii.vi.ix.html)
The reasoning here would easily extend to any gratification of the flesh, from eating chocolate to scratching a itch, yet, again, Scripture does not teach that the marriage bed is unclean, nor (by extension) that anything that gratifies the flesh must be sinful (cf. Col. 2)
The imbalanced tradition on marriage versus celibacy led to the belief that clergy were to be single and practice continence even if married, or single or widowed ones could never marry, yet married pastors with children was evidently the norm in the NT church, (1Tim. 3:1-7) with the only known single pastors being two traveling apostles, and who yet had the power to marry. (1Cor. 9:5)
I am really torn on this.
On one hand He was fully God, so no.
On the other he was fully man, so yes.
He was under the same charge as Adam was.
Adam lived in Paradise and sould not keep one law.
Jesus was in a fallen world and kept them all.
Adam had all he needed.
Jesus lived in the wilderness and suffred all sorts of needs.
All I know is I thank God for the Second Adam.
If the RC version of perpetual virginity is true...Poor Joseph!
He could have, but he didn’t.
Is God a liar?
Is God a liar?"
No sarc intended here but if "he could have" in regards to
the first than he could be in regards to the second but
God is Truth and unchanging so He cannot lie.
The answer must be yes in regards to the humanity of Jesus Christ, but since he always remained obedient in His relationship to God the Father, He demonstrated how we are to walk.
Christ didn’t perform human good, rather He performed His life in submission to the volition to the Plan of God the Father, which is righteous and just.
As the second Adam, Jesus Christ was also the second man ever lived who was born with a pure human spirit. Only He was able to provide the Perfect Sacrifice on the Cross, redeeming the sins of all mankind, past, present, and future, when they were imputed to Him. His spiritual death on the Cross, paid for the unlimited substitutionary atonement (covering) for all sin, redeeming all from the slavemarket of sin, propitiating God’s wrath on sinners, reconciling man to God the Father, being judged for all sin, thereby allowing us to face God and confess our sin through faith in Christ,.... to be recognized as something righteous, which God is now free to immediately give us eternal life, by His grace and remain perfectly Holy with respect to His Integrity, demanding perfect Justice and Righteousness whenever exposed to anything unrighteous or unjust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.