Pieces of meat that walk and talk?

Originally posted by leunammi
True to form old chap, true to form.

Just like you old chap. Making claims without proof,.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Yet another statement you will not find in the Bible....
Sin is passed down through the father,
Please provide a quote thanks.
You are full of it. Doctrines of churches, created by churches but which does not exist in the Bible...

This is what happens when you make the Bible your God.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Is that it? You are a disgrace to name 'Christian'. People like you should shut up and only speak when you are spoken to.instead of making yourself look like a fool.

Hypocritical again, not taking your own advice.

Originally posted by FMF
No I didn't miss the point at all. Different Christians have different interpretations about 'what god says'.

You do indeed miss the point.

God's Word is the final authority. I do not interpret God's Word. God's Word interprets me and everyone else.

The error you hold to is profoundly wrong. What you think is inside out. You have it backwards. And the thing that makes it so incredible is the fact that you know you do, as do the others.

Originally posted by josephw
You do indeed miss the point.

God's Word is the final authority. I do not interpret God's Word. God's Word interprets me and everyone else.

Yes you do interpret "God's Word", josephw. Every Christian, to varying degrees and in varying ways, interprets "God's word" and they come up with a whole range of understandings and interpretations and applications. Any "point" you seek to make that fails to recognize this diversity and difference ~ and, oftentimes, disagreements ~ among Christians is neither here nor there, at best, and, less charitably. demonstrably and deliberately false.

Originally posted by leunammi
I am not so inclined to believe your statement "Jesus was born with Original Sin". Sin is passed down through the father, and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. To imply that Jesus was born with sin is to make the Holy Spirit out to be sinful. No?

Unless of course you refute the Holy Spirit's role in Jesus' conception, then the point is moot. IMO

This is one of the splits within Christianity. There's no point in MY getting into it. I just got tired of nobody talking about why Jesus was baptized and decided to present the view that, being fully man and fully God, Jesus would need the purification ritual like anyone else. Of course his fellows would have looked at him askance if he acted like he didn't need it.

Originally posted by JS357
This is one of the splits within Christianity. There's no point in MY getting into it. I just got tired of nobody talking about why Jesus was baptized and decided to present the view that, being fully man and fully God, Jesus would need the purification ritual like anyone else. Of course his fellows would have looked at him askance if he acted like he didn't need it.

Jesus did a lot of things due to the Law and to fulfill all righteousness, none of those things were due to Jesus having sinned.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Jesus did a lot of things due to the Law and to fulfill all righteousness, none of those things were due to Jesus having sinned.

Do you mean to say that Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist was a case of him just 'going through the motions'?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Jesus did a lot of things due to the Law and to fulfill all righteousness, none of those things were due to Jesus having sinned.

But my little discourse on the gorilla in the room does not really touch on the notion of "Jesus having sinned." In fact it says that Jesus never chose to be sinful, and never was sinful of his own volition. If Jesus was born into a sinful state due only to being born into the sin of his (and our) ultimate ancestors (and he would know this) then it isn't really his fault, nor is it ours, it was just that to be fully human he had to become like us in all essential ways. And thus, he needed and demonstrated the ritual of purification by baptism, and did it sincerely, not for show.

Originally posted by JS357
If Jesus was born into a sinful state due only to being born into the sin of his (and our) ultimate ancestors (and he would know this) then it isn't really his fault, it was just that to be fully human he had to become like us in all essential ways.

I attempted to probe this issue on page 7 of this thread but it would seem it's something that the Christians in attendance on this topic may not want to address.

Originally posted by leunammi
I am not so inclined to believe your statement "Jesus was born with Original Sin". Sin is passed down through the father, and Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. To imply that Jesus was born with sin is to make the Holy Spirit out to be sinful. No?

Unless of course you refute the Holy Spirit's role in Jesus' conception, then the point is moot. IMO

Deuteronomy 24:16 says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” and that “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ez 18:20).

Originally posted by FMF
I attempted to probe this issue on page 7 of this thread but it would seem it's something that the Christians in attendance on this topic may not want to address.

Pity, I often learn something from my Christian colleagues when they air their differences, especially when they cite the Bible.

Originally posted by JS357
But my little discourse on the gorilla in the room does not really touch on the notion of "Jesus having sinned." In fact it says that Jesus never chose to be sinful, and never was sinful of his own volition. If Jesus was born into a sinful state due only to being born into the sin of his (and our) ultimate ancestors (and he would know this) then it isn't reall ...[text shortened]... eded and demonstrated the ritual of purification by baptism, and did it sincerely, not for show.

If a man was required to do something He did it too, why wouldn't He? This was true of Him
in all points in His life, it wasn't any different in all the things He did too, for example when
He healed people of Leprosy He would tell those He healed they still had to go to the
priests to get checked out as the law demanded. He didn't have sin in His life at all, I'm not
surprised that some here want to paint Him as being less than He is, but they cannot
do it using scripture, it only shows they have a different Jesus than is actually in
scripture.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Deuteronomy 24:16 says “Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin” and that “The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself” (Ez 18:20).

You are not talking about the same thing. Closer would be found in Hebrews 7:

6 But he whose descent is not counted from them received tithes of Abraham, and blessed him that had the promises.
7 And without all contradiction the less is blessed of the better.
8 And here men that die receive tithes; but there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Originally posted by FMF
Yes you do interpret "God's Word", josephw. Every Christian, to varying degrees and in varying ways, interprets "God's word" and they come up with a whole range of understandings and interpretations and applications. Any "point" you seek to make that fails to recognize this diversity and difference ~ and, oftentimes, disagreements ~ among Christians is neither here nor there, at best, and, less charitably. demonstrably and deliberately false.

You have it wrong. God's Word isn't interpreted by man. When it is disagreements arise.

Private, or personal interpretation means the one doing the interpreting will project his own meaning into the text. The text speaks for itself. One can study the text, learn from the text and be influenced by the text, but one cannot apply meaning to the text. The scripture speaks for itself.