A follower of Satan

Originally posted by @black-beetle

Still, when it is said "children of Satan", it does not relate to a transmission of substance to the fallen man, but to a mark as regards the corruption of his nature caused by his revolt, a fruit that came into being from his choice, not from his nature. A useful, in the context of your tradition, metaphor with many layers of sensemaking. devil is nobody's Father.

I think you miss the point. The nature of man was effected when ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

The line in the dust that God dry was to not eat. When he ATE the original good creation of man became complicated with a foreign element. He was "constituted" (Rom. 5:19 RcV) a sinner.

The fact of a change in nature is underscored by the Son of God.

"Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt; for by the fruit the tree is known." (Matt. 12:33)

The nature of the tree has a law governing what kind of fruit spontaneously is produced from it. God's salvation has to go to the root of the problem - the need for a new nature. And then there is the saved person's responsibility to lean how to live no longer by the old nature but by that new nature.

Originally posted by @sonship
[quote] Still, when it is said "children of Satan", it does not relate to a transmission of substance to the fallen man, but to a mark as regards the corruption of his nature caused by his revolt, a fruit that came into being from his choice, not from his nature. A useful, in the context of your tradition, metaphor with many layers of sensemaking. devil is ...[text shortened]... person's responsibility to lean how to live no longer by the old nature but by that new nature.

No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
The above exegesis is in full accordance with both the accurate meaning of the verb in Koine and the hermeneutics of the Orthodox Greek Christian tradition, and also in accordance with Calvinism. Kindly please provide your sources and denomination.
😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle

No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure what you mean by "the context of our conversation". It clouds the matter to me a bit. After that you seem to want to examine credentials. Well, I can tell you up front that I am not a fluent reader or writer of Koine Greek. That's great if you are, IF you are.

We had a Jehovah's Witness here some time ago posturing like he really knew Greek to argue that the Word was not God in John 1:1. Forgive me if you am not real quickly persuaded of something when Koine Greek is mentioned.

God created the original body of man. The "body of sin" is something as a result of Adam's disobedience.

Paul speaks not only of the lusts and desires of "the thoughts" as a source of sinning, but also the lusts and desires of "the flesh."

"Among whom we also all conducted ourselves once in the lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the thoughts, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as the rest." (Eph. 2:3)

If the evil of man was solely a matter of the mind, I see no reason why the apostle would speak of "the desires of the flesh AND of the thoughts". He could just write about the evil desires and lusts of the thoughts. Right ?

Sin is personified in Romans 7 as practically and evil "person" working in the fallen body of man driving him to do against the better desires of his mind.

"But if what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me." (Rom. 7:20)

if I understand you rightly, you are saying that thing of sin is not a nature. But for a considerable part of Romans it is a corrupt nature with something of a "life" of its own.

He delights in the law of God in his mind. But a different law is working in his members of his fallen body.

"I find then the law with me who wills to do the good, that is, the evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man,

But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my members. Wretch man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? " (Rom. 7:21,24)

You know that Jesus Christ had no sin. Right? He knew no sin.

"He who did not know sin he made sin on our behalf ... " (2 Cor. 5:21)

Yet when Jesus came He came in the likeness of "the flesh of sin".

"God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin ..." (Rom. 8:3a)

He came fully in the appearance of a fallen man yet without that corrupt poison nature which we all possess in "the body of sin" - "the body of this death".

Notice Paul also said these passions of sins operated in the members of the body.

"For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which acted through the law, operated in our members to bear fruit to death." (Rom. 7:5)

The above exegesis is in full accordance with both the accurate meaning of the verb in Koine and the hermeneutics of the Orthodox Greek Christian tradition, and also in accordance with Calvinism.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kindly please provide your sources and denomination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do not denominate. We meet as one church for one city as we see in the New Testament. Division of the church universal is only geographical and based on localities.

Here is a FAQ which contains some statement of faith about the local churches.
http://localchurchesfaq.org/

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
-------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... which contains some statement of faith about the local churches.
http://localchurchesfaq.org/[/b]

Edit: We had a Jehovah's Witness here some time ago posturing like he really knew Greek to argue that the Word was not God in John 1:1. Forgive me if you am not real quickly persuaded of something when Koine Greek is mentioned.

I am not a Christian, but as a native Greek I am fluent in Greek and I do understand perfectly well Koine Greek. Of course you know I am not robbie, you know I am not a JW, you know we had conversations in the past when you were known as jaywill, and you know I participated in many conversations in which you, robbie and other friends were using Koine in an at least quite strange way. It is natural; Greek is rich but Koine is not the Attico-Ionian, and the scribes of the Bible used Koine just because it was the lingua franca of that era, not because it was their native language. My Greek ancestors back then had really to struggle in order to enable themselves to make haid or tails from the gibberish of the scribes of the Holy Book. Lost in translation anybody can be, but this is simply the tip of the iceberg.
😵

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
-------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... which contains some statement of faith about the local churches.
http://localchurchesfaq.org/[/b]

Edit: I am not sure what you mean by "the context of our conversation". It clouds the matter to me a bit.


The context of our conversation is the OP and the hermeneutics on John 1 and John 8:43-45. As regards the OP, I said this is not a Christian perspective and I explained the reasons why. Regarding John, my fair answers are posted on the previous pages. I see no other context that the above mentioned😵

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
-------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... which contains some statement of faith about the local churches.
http://localchurchesfaq.org/[/b]

Edit: If the evil of man was solely a matter of the mind, I see no reason why the apostle would speak of "the desires of the flesh AND of the thoughts". He could just write about the evil desires and lusts of the thoughts. Right ?

Wrong. He argues that both the sensual desires And the intentions (from which the thoughts emerge) matter. Both of them are strictly mind-depended.
😵

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] No sonship, your interpretation is, in my opinion, false.

At Rom. 5:19 the verb kathistamai (I am brought into a condition [of sin, in the context of our conversation] / I have the property [of sin, in the context of our conversation] and thus I become a sinner) is simply a mark of the corruption of the nature.
-------------------------------- ...[text shortened]... which contains some statement of faith about the local churches.
http://localchurchesfaq.org/[/b]

On the previous pages I commented in full and I offered my fair answers and my sources, because I do know that the Christian religion is full of denominations. As a student of the Word, I wanted to share my view and, if possible, to learn a thing or two. For Orthodox, Calvinist, Catholic approaches are some amongst many. You do not acknowledge this fact, very well, I can do nothing about it, and it concerns me not. I am not here because I want to preach, and I am not here because I want to be a subject of preaching. You see, I replied you already on page 4 as regards the exact nature of falsehood and sin; all in all, when it is said "children of Satan", it does not relate to a transmission of substance to the fallen man, but to a mark as regards the corruption of his nature caused by his revolt, a fruit that came into being from his choice, not from his nature.
Who made this choice? Adam and the Girlie, deceived by the Snake. Their children have this fruit too, as is the case with heredity when somebody suffers from HIV and the virus passes from his body to somebody else's body by specific means. The nature remains the same, but it is corrupted because of the falsehood, which is the cornerstone of sin.
A useful, in the context of your tradition, metaphor with many layers of sensemaking. devil is nobody's Father -not that I am expecting this to be soon understood😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: If the evil of man was solely a matter of the mind, I see no reason why the apostle would speak of "the desires of the flesh AND of the thoughts". He could just write about the evil desires and lusts of the thoughts. Right ?

Wrong. He argues that both the sensual desires And the intentions (from which the thoughts emerge) matter. Both of them are strictly mind-depended.
😵

Wrong. He argues that both the sensual desires And the intentions (from which the thoughts emerge) matter. Both of them are strictly mind-depended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is nothing wrong with the body we inherited from Adam's disobedience then then what would be the need for its transfiguration if Christ's salvation?

" ... we eagerly await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will transfigure the body of our humiliation to be conformed to the body of His glory, according to His operation by which He is able even to subject all things to Himself." (See Phil. 3:20,21)

If the total problem is with the mind and the thoughts, why the need for transfiguration of the "body of our humiliation"?

Why wouldn't it just speak of the mind of our humiliation needing the only change?

Originally posted by @black-beetle

On the previous pages I commented in full and I offered my fair answers and my sources, because I do know that the Christian religion is full of denominations. As a student of the Word, I wanted to share my view and, if possible, to learn a thing or two.
For Orthodox, Calvinist, Catholic approaches are some amongst many. You do not acknowledge this fact,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wait a moment.
I acknowledge that you are a student of the Scriptures as myself.
I acknowledge Greek Orthodox theology, Catholic theology and Calvin's writings.
I am not an expert on them in an extensive way.

In addition to these I would mention Brethren theology and some post Brethren theology.
It is kind of a ever moving target as the Holy Spirit continues to lead Christians into all the truth. Along the way schools of thought become established.

I am most influence by the ministry of post Brethren ministers including two Chinese brothers by the names of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. I would consider that in latter times students of the Bible can glean the top cream of Bible exposition which has gone by in former ages and build up them what God is further illuminating to His people.

Understand then that I regard that Greek Orthodox, Catholic, and Reform theology and brother Calvin all may have contributed something valuable to our understanding of God's word.

I have never read a complete book by John Calvin myself.


very well, I can do nothing about it, and it concerns me not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I respect all the Christian brothers who contributed to theology.
I am comparing what your brief word said to what I read in the New Testament.
I can't even vouch that I know for certain that you are representing Greek Orthodox teachers in total. You must know that even among Orthodox or Catholics sometimes different teachers have different concepts.

At this point I am just taking your word for it that "THIS is the Greek Orthodox position" or "THIS is what Calvin said". Don't be bothered. But I would want to really verify that.

I mean no disrespect.
Often times my delivery is unnecessarily offending though.
I'm sorry because I encourage exploration into the Word of God.

Let me put it this way. I just intend to tell you why I believe a certain thing and what are my reasons for saying a certain thing. You know? ... being " ready to give an answer for the hope that is within you"

I was RELIEVED to find out that all of my problem as a sinner was not just with my mind. I don't know about you, but I received with welcome relief that some of the problem stemmed from man's fallen corrupted body. It puzzles me a little why resistance is often leveled against what seems pretty clear from places like Romans 6, 7.

I am not here because I want to preach, and I am not here because I want to be a subject of preaching. You see, I replied you already on page 4 as regards the exact nature of falsehood and sin; all in all, when it is said "children of Satan", it does not relate to a transmission of substance to the fallen man, but to a mark as regards the corruption of his nature caused by his revolt, a fruit that came into being from his choice, not from his nature.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First I need to understand what it is you are saying.

Do I understand you to be saying that fallen man did not have a compounding of a nature to him which he did not have as freshly coming from the creation of God?

Are you meaning: Ie. The created nature was damaged. But there was no sin nature added to man which he had not before?

Of course I would never argue that our created nature was damaged.
But I think the damage is because of a foreign element added into man's being of some kind.

if I understand you rightly, I think you are saying that no foreign element, "substance" for lack of a better word, or anything, was put into man's constitution.

If that is what you mean then it sounds to me that "the body of sin" is just the result of wrong thinking. But I would say wrong thinking is also influenced by "the body of sin".

And this is why for the Christian it is important as to WHERE he sets his mind.
To set the mind on the regenerated spirit is divine life and peace.
But to set the mind on the flesh is spiritual death.

"For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the [reborn human] spirit is [divine ZOE] life and peace." (Rom. 8:7)

The Christian SETS the mind on one part of his being and there is spiritual death.
The Christian exercises to SET the mind on a new, regenerated chamber of his being and the result is divine life and peace.

The mind is effected by where it is SET.
Am I right?

I am not here because I want to preach, and I am not here because I want to be a subject of preaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, preaching on a discussion forum can get annoying.
Can I get an Amen?

Originally posted by @black-beetle
On the previous pages I commented in full and I offered my fair answers and my sources, because I do know that the Christian religion is full of denominations. As a student of the Word, I wanted to share my view and, if possible, to learn a thing or two. For Orthodox, Calvinist, Catholic approaches are some amongst many. You do not acknowledge this fac ...[text shortened]... s of sensemaking. devil is nobody's Father -not that I am expecting this to be soon understood😵

. devil is nobody's Father -not that I am expecting this to be soon understood
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember, that I somewhat agreed by putting it this way, much more weight is put on God being the Father of His saved.

For sure we have many more passages speaking of God as our Father (as believers) then we do saying the Devil is our father. But we have a few verses emphasizing that there is a fallen nature, derived from an enemy of God -

for example "children of wrath" in Ephesians 2:3 or "children of disobedience" in Colossians 3:6.

I would agree with you in my way of saying the NT announces many more times that God is the Father of the believers in Christ. So that is where the weightier emphasis I would want to put.

I think I hear you saying "children of" would not mean anything about an added nature. Maybe it just means a damaged good nature.

Let's go on to talk about salvation in Christ, whatever the problem is.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Edit: We had a Jehovah's Witness here some time ago posturing like he really knew Greek to argue that the Word was not God in [b]John 1:1. Forgive me if you am not real quickly persuaded of something when Koine Greek is mentioned.

I am not a Christian, but as a native Greek I am fluent in Greek and I do understand perfectly well Koine Greek. Of ...[text shortened]... he Holy Book. Lost in translation anybody can be, but this is simply the tip of the iceberg.
😵[/b]

I just lately saw this Black Beetle.

I am not a Christian, but as a native Greek I am fluent in Greek and I do understand perfectly well Koine Greek. Of course you know I am not robbie, you know I am not a JW, you know we had conversations in the past when you were known as jaywill, and you know I participated in many conversations in which you, robbie and other friends were using Koine in an at least quite strange way. It is natural; Greek is rich but Koine is not the Attico-Ionian, and the scribes of the Bible used Koine just because it was the lingua franca of that era, not because it was their native language. My Greek ancestors back then had really to struggle in order to enable themselves to make haid or tails from the gibberish of the scribes of the Holy Book. Lost in translation anybody can be, but this is simply the tip of the iceberg.

Thanks for more clarification. I see.

I am not a Christian, but as a native Greek I am fluent in Greek and I do understand perfectly well Koine Greek.

Great. I respect that.
But I think you should get the Lord Jesus to come into your heart to become His lover and a Christian.

Let go and let God.

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] Wrong. He argues that both the sensual desires And the intentions (from which the thoughts emerge) matter. Both of them are strictly mind-depended.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is nothing wrong with the body we inherited from Adam's disobedience then then what would be the nee ...[text shortened]... b]?

Why wouldn't it just speak of the mind of our humiliation needing the only change?[/b]

Because the body we inherited from Adam's disobedience is simply ashes and dust without the soul

(soul, the mark of the manifestation of life, whose nature is divine under all circumstances since the Father of the soul is strictly G-d the Father; body and soul are one, and the Orthodox fathers believe that the soul envelops the body)

and without the transfiguration (by means of accepting Jesus) of the spirit

(which is defected because of the falsehood induced to the mind of the fallen man by the Snake)

to the state it had before the falling from Grace. This is how the necessary transfiguration of "our body of humiliation" is possible.

Since physikos anthropos is, for one, mortal, and, for two, already dead even when he is alive in the fallen world because he is not pneumatikos anymore, only by G-d’s power through the Son and by Grace can the spirit be given back, thanks to the sacrifice of the Son of G-d, so that a person may live again.
He does not speak of the "mind of our humiliation" because the humiliation of the man in the fallen world affects the trinity (body, soul, spirit) that marks his existence in whole.
😵

Originally posted by @sonship
[b]
I am not here because I want to preach, and I am not here because I want to be a subject of preaching. You see, I replied you already on page 4 as regards the exact nature of falsehood and sin; all in all, when it is said "children of Satan", it does not relate to a transmission of substance to the fallen man, but to a mark as regards the corruption of ...[text shortened]... nd the result is divine life and peace.

The mind is effected by where it is SET.
Am I right?

Edit: But I think the damage is because of a foreign element added into man's being of some kind.

Yes; falsehood, sonship.
😵