Back 2 Basics wrote:
I know that both sides claim the Bible as their original source. But as to other sources for my views...IFBs do not operate based on a "Confession" or written standard other than the bible. Everything man writes is flawed. Certainly we read and gain insight from one another. But we do not have an "Independenet Baptist Confession of Faith."

It is the same old.......

Pharisee versus Christ.
RCC versus the true Church.
Arminians/FW versus the Reformed Canons of Dordt.
Liberal versus the Evangelical.
Cults versus the Christian.
Heretics versus the Truth.

All denominations work from a confession, whether written or not.
Writing is simply a means of communication.
To reject historical standards is a theological point scoring based on; a] today we are correct, and b] previous centuries were wrong.

1Cor 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

Satan starts young today, but then he always has. Souls he can blind in darkness, assisted by the law of sin in mortals, is what his work is all about.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

2Cor 4:4 In whom the god of this world HATH BLINDED the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

Iconolatry has never worked.

We can observe that in the papist who is still looking at toast, relics etc for his Dulia worship.

But man made religion has a lot of curious quirks and delusions.

DJC49 wrote:
Newcomer *Scholium* misses the point entirely.
And the point?
The point is that GOD PROCLAIMED in His Word, the Scriptures, what HAD TO TAKE PLACE and how He would fulfill His promise of a Redemeer!

So, Poindexter,

"Poindexter" - Dictionary definition is quote; "a person who is intelligent but socially inept; a nerd"

Well, Well, DJC49, what a VERY Christian way to treat someone whose crime is to debate from a different perspective from you.

Your committment to your definition of "seed" is the problem here. You have decided that God CANNOT create a "seed" (specifically one half of a seed namely the egg), without the help of the sinner donor. You are the one who is demoting the Lord from Sovereign and Creator. Not me!

Remember my previous question below on the male sperm part of God creating the body of Christ. WHO created that part in your estimation? Somebody had too. So the female egg, the part which YOU teach is the "sole" contributor to the body of Chist, - (because the other participant was of spiritual origin) which came from the sinner/donor was sanctified at conception?

DJC49 wrote:
I invite anyone and everyone to go to their webpages and read for themselves and SEE if Morris, Taylor, and Payne are not advocating for Christ having obtained His human nature without ANY contribution whatsoever from the genetics of Mary.

Definition of second Adam Jesus, Son of God. God created His body and the spiritual part is eternal therfore did not require God's creating.

DJC49 definition of Christ Incarnate. God created His body, but required an existing egg from a sinner donor, to make Him human???
The reason for this, apparently, is that God/man would not accept that sinners were really saved without the donor egg, by the aforesaid sinner.

The Terminator!!!

AND
responding
DJC49
said,
"Excellent Scriptural reference, *thinking*.
The verse you cited [1John 4:3 KJV] specifically targets the Gnostic/Docetic teachings of the apostle John's time who said that Christ did not have an actual physical body. He only SEEMED to have had one. According to them, the physical was evil and the spiritual was good."

Now hands up all those who suggested, implied or said that Jesus did not have flesh covering His bones.

DJC49 wrote:
There HAS TO BE -- MUST BE -- linkage!
No linkage, no redemption.
Why do you think that Christ had to be birthed into the Adamic race? You, Scholium, have a funny notion that Christ could have popped into existence fully-formed (as was Adam) in some remote location, walked on to the scene, able to sacrifice Himself for our redemption.
Now ... Have you ever wondered why God did not choose to save one fallen angel?
Because He COULDN'T HAVE!
That's right.
There was NO way that an "angelic Christ" could have been knit into the race of angels BECAUSE .....

By contrast, humans come into being through procreation. There's a chain. And there's an ENTRY POINT where a "Christ" can enter into becoming "one of us." Now I'm going to shock you here, Scholium, so hold on ...
In a very real sense, the whole of Humanity, from Adam onward until the last born human, is ONE organism! Yup. One MANKIND living within a continuum of life through space/time. And BECAUSE mankind is such, Christ is ABLE to break into the chain and obtain salvation for those "parts" of the Organism who would believe.
I know I'm going to catch a LOT of flak for this

DJC49 wrote:
But what this gains in Christ being "genetically pure" loses in Christ's ability to save ANYONE of the Adamic race! Christ HAD to be ONE OF US yet w/o sin.

Gal 5:17 For the flesh LUSTETH against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are CONTRARY the one to the other: so that ye CANNOT do the things that ye would."

DJC49 wrote:
MORE texts from Scripture PROVING that Jesus Christ was indeed biologically connected to David:

Anything to place an obligation upon the creature and correspondingly diminish the sovereigty of the Lord.

14 And the Word was *MADE* flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

*MADE* = Greek - to cause to be generate, come into being.

DJC49 wrote:
are you saying that Jesus Christ was never a baby since he had no earthly father?

Would you like to start with Genesis 3:15 and go from there?

2) Gen 3:15 - does not prove a biological connection necessity.

BTW DJC49
I was wondering
If salvation in Christ is essentially based upon the biological connection to Mary, (woman)! - Then who saved the poor old male of the species?

If you suggest that the Holy Spirit "represents" the male in this conception, does this mean HE does not represent the female?

DJC49 wrote:
Who says?

DJC49 wrote:
BUT it does NOT connect Christ with the Adamic race and THAT is the point entirely! There MUST be an ACTUAL interconnection and NOT just a "legal" connection. Christ MUST be "one of us"

Where in Scripture do you find that it is absolutely essential for there to be a biological connection to Mary, to enable God to save the elect?

DJC49 wrote:
If Mary was just an incubator for a created flesh, Jesus could have still been considered a genuine human being (Adam was a created man that did not have a human mother but yet he was still completely human), BUT -- and this is a HUGE "BUT!" -- He would NOT have been part of the ADAMIC RACE

To be a part of the Adamic race you argue for a generate biological connection to Mary.
Yet Jesus was "conceived" of the Holy Spirit. "....conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost."Matt 1:20.

*Conceived* =
"1080. gennao ghen-nah'-o from a variation of 1085; to procreate (properly, of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively, to regenerate:--bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring."

The Adamic race generates from both Adam and Eve (man and woman) to claim membership. Not of one gender only.

To conceive of the flesh is sperm plus egg, - this results in a member of the human race.

The first Adam was created by divine generation.
The second Adam (Jesus incarnate) was created by divine generation, as Matt 1.20 states.

In the real battle he fights for the enemy.

25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

38.The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
because the AV lacks perspecuity,

kenny wrote:
Everyone is born with a tendency to commit certain sins but that is the crux of the whole argument.......

That's the point. When you call these people homosexual or gay, you are making an excuse for their behavior because they were 'born that way'....

As for your second point above, may I change the wording slightly.

""That's the point. When you call these people **SINNERS**, you are making an excuse for their behavior because they were 'born that way'.""

Provides a different perspective don't you think?

As I pointed out below I do agree with you from a Christian perspective we are to teach the Laws and Precepts of God which condemn all sin.

kenny wrote:
Oxymoron: homo sexual.
By calling those who engage in sodomy 'homosexuals', you are giving credence to their argument that they are 'born that way'.