Does God have an actual breath in Old Testament? Your question sounds like such to me. I can't answer it, but it is a good question to see if anthropic breaths are non-existent. God seems to have forces which look like hands, forearms, legs, sound of mouthbite etc., but they aren't human, and are not always present.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'd have to know what you mean by "actual", but I presume it means literal.
Yes. God has a sentient consciousness of mind with volition and emotions. The Divine Logos incarnate as Theanthropos had/has a rational soul.
Matthew 12:18
"Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul (psuche) is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall shew judgment to the Gentiles."
(quoting Isaiah 42:1)
"Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul (nephesh) delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles."
What else would a sentient consciousness of mind and volition with emotions be? Soul is the sense of self, with the functional faculties of the mind/will/emotions. The soul is distinct from the spirit, though only the Logos can pierce and partition them for distribution (merismos).
It was God's own Logos that divided asunder His own Spirit out from His own transcendent Self (Soul) at the Divine Utterance to create both realms of existence. That was the procession (exerchomai) of the Logos (John 8:42), and the procession (ekporeuomai) of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26) into eternity when/as God created it.
They weren't INternal processions, as initially insisted by Tertullian and later copiously formulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. Ex- and ek- aren't eis- or en-.
This is the second of the three things the ANFs and ECFs missed in their formulation (as did all other opposing historical views that were anathematized).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So the rational soul of the humanity assumed by the Logos is how you come to the answer "yes"? God has parts?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You will have to unpack this prose in terms more conducive to discussion. As it reads it is something Mssr. Freelight (a member here) would be writing.
My usual response is "moonbeams" which is what comes to mind when reading these sorts of ecstatic utterances.Is there eternal generation anywhere in what you have written? I think you are implying that the Logos and the Holy Spirit (thanks for spelling them out) were both generated by God the Father versus the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
AMR
Try both. Maybe it will rid you of Open Theism and a God that has multiple souls.
Please tell me you're not a Dispensationalist.
I am an Acts 2 dispensationalist...3 strikes and I'm out:jawdrop:
Open Theism, Moral Government Theology, Pentecostal, trinitarian, semi-Pelagian (?), free will relational theist, anti-Calvinist (at least hyper...), etc.
What really matters is that I know and love the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, the one true God.
I have never said that God has multiple souls and I have never read trinitarian literature that has used that phrase. Straw man caricature suits your purposes, no doubt.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Ummm... no. I came to that answer from Matt. 12:18/Isaiah 42:1, and other passages in support.
God doesn't have "parts". Is your soul a "part"? Why aren't individuated subsistences "parts"?
A soul is much less a "part" than would be multiple subsistences of/in a substance. (I'm assuming those are your preferred English semantics over substance and essence for hypostasis and ousia, so I've paralleled that for convo with you.)
Are you trying to contend that a psuche would be a "part", but that an entire individuated "person" (subsistence) wouldn't be a "part"? That's a blind ambiguity, at the very least.
Yes, the beginning lexical portion of my exegesis always has to clarify Rhema and Logos for all those who don't know what they are.
Would you define Rhema and contrast it to Logos, just for clarity? And would you clarify just exactly how the Son is the Logos? In what way is the Son the Logos of God? Was He ever the literal Logos of God? Or is it merely a title?
As it reads it is something Mssr. Freelight (a member here) would be writing.
I've read freelight's stuff and blasted it as the occultic and mystical esotericism it is. He presents the most perfect integrated amalgamation of anithesis to the truth I've ever encountered. The near-perfect parallel counterfeit. Antichrist. The esoteric for what is SUPPOSED to be EXoteric, but we have feeble doctrines of men in place instead.
It's lexical. From scriptural renderings. You don't evidently understand merismos and exerchomai and ekporeuomai and erchomai and pempo and a host of other Greek terms in their actual definitions.
It far exceeds eternal generation, but yes. You must caricature everything to your own doctrine. It's just not a good filter at its foundation. The rest of the sub-tenets are spot-on, as I've indicated by the majority of my agreement with even your extended positions of doctrine beyond Theology Proper.
If you can't get the Logos right, you can't know (epignosis) who Jesus is. The Logos is the literal Logos of God. His Logos was made flesh and dwelt among us. God's Logos, which was WITH and WAS God. The Son is God's Logos. His Divine Logos. As Theanthropos.
I usually don't, but it's for brevity not irreverance.
Yes (but you still don't get the foundation at all). The EOC had that part right. Filioque is a joke. It can lend itself to the ultimate spiration of an inifinte and exponentially-expanding pleroma of alleged subsistences ("persons").
If the love of the Father and the Son spirated the Holy Spirit, then the love of the Father and the Holy Spirit could/would spirate subsistence 4; and the love of the Son and the Holy Spirit could/would spirate subsistence 5.
Then the love of the Father and subsistence 4 could/would spirate subsistence 6; and the love of the Son and subsistence 4 could/would spirate subsistence 7; and the love of the Holy Spirit and subsistence 4 could/would spirate subsistence 8.
Then the love of the Father and subsistence 5 could/would spirate subsistence 9; and the love of the Son and subsistence 5 could/would spirate subsistence 10; and the love of the Holy Spirit and subsistence 5 could/would spirate subsistence 11.
And then spiration would continue with Father/Son/Holy Spirit each with subsistence 6/7/8/9/10/11, and all could/would spirate a compounding of more subsistences. And then F/S/HS each could/would spirate with all those subsistences for more and more and more subsistences. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdium.
BAM! Infinitely expanding plethora of God-"persons" galore as a pleroma. That's the Filioque. Just because they stopped and limited the love of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, it doesn't mean the above isn't the valid potential applicational eventuality of dual procession.
And to say it doesn't facilitate such possibility is to deny the mutual love of the Holy Spirit with each the Father and the Son according to the same introduced paradigm of spiration by such mutual love.
Self-impugning. Self-refuting. Layers of nonsense because nobody got the foundation right to begin and had to keep band-aiding it all up. Like perichoresis (don't get me started).
What you don't yet comprehend is that the singular simultaneous two-fold procession of both God's Divine Logos (the literal and actual Logos of God) and God's Divine Pneuma (the literal and actual Pneuma of God) occured at the Divine Utterance of ALL creation, including BOTH realms of existence (eternity AND temporality).
Procession is not creation, nor inception of any kind. The processions were exerchomai/ekporeuomai OUT OF/FROM God's ousia INTO eternity when/as God created it BY HIS LOGOS. It's the third heaven. God created it. It doesn't inherently exist as the UNcreated "state of being" of God. God created eternity/heaven. We and the angels don't dwell in God's "state of being". We will dwell in the everlasting realm of existence that He created for Himself and us.
All this occurred prior to the beginning point of formulation for ALL historical God-models. Everyone is compensating for this omission. That's why nobody got it right. All must be reconciled to this central objective truth. That's what I've done rather than create more schizm, but nobody recognizes it in their stupor of dogma.
The Apostle knew what he was talking about when He penned His Gospel by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. John had a vocabulary that the Spirit could have utilized to pen "Ho Huios" instead of "Ho Logos" to start the prologue of John 1:1.
But it reads... "In the beginning was the Word..." (not the Son). But it's too easy to filter this criticism through one's own error of doctrine and other errors of doctrine. That's not my doing.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Despite your views, I don't consider you outside the faith.
None are inherently salvific or damning.
Yep.
You have indeed repeatedly indicated that F/S/HS are/have individuated centers of sentient consciousness and volition. Sentient consciousness and volition is a soul.
The Creedal Dyohypostatic Trinity does NOT represent F/S/HS with multiple minds/wills. The singular mind/will of God is in the ousia, not individuated distincly within each hypostasis.
This is what I'm referring to about others not even knowing their own professed doctrine. Multiple individuated sentient consciousnesses crosses the line toward Tritheism as Triadism. It's individuated ousios within an ousia, not individuated hypostases within an ousia.
That's why I call most professing DyoHypos Triadists. They are. YOU are. You're not a Trinitarian.
That's the (further) damage that's been done by the English semantic "person/s". It's anthropomorphized enough to multiply God's singular sentient consciousness and volition into three.
It's rank heresy to the formulators, but de rigeur alleged O/orthodoxy to modern professing DyoHypos. It's why I was lost.
(And this is a non-adversarial informative post for clarification and explanation. But you're a Triadist.)
As I understand it, humans are comprised of body, soul, spirit. But there is a catch in that a body can be animate or dead. This is not true with the spirit. The spirit is not made of earthly materials as is the body and does not decay.
When a person dies the spirit does not die, instead the Father stores the person's spirit until it can be returned to a body.
So what is a soul? A soul is a live body with spirit intact.
When a person dies the spirit does not die, instead the Father stores the person's spirit until it can be returned to a body.
So what is a soul? A soul is a live body with spirit intact.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Just as with everything else uncreated divine versus created, there's a distinction between God's singular soul and man's singular soul.
God created man. For man, a soul is the result of spirit-body joining. In Genesis 2:7, man "became" a living soul after being formed from the dust of the ground (body) and the breathing of life into his nostrils (spirit). Man IS a soul because he HAS a soul.
If one doesn't understand God's utter transcendence as Creator, it's impossible to superimpose man's understanding upon God in such manners as evidenced by your posts.
Whatever.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yep. If eternity is not created, it's UNcreated. That would mean eternity IS God, and that's exactly what the O/orthodox error states.
I think it at least borderlines on blasphemy. God alone is UNcreated. Eternity (adh in Hebrew) was created. God INhabiteth it.
Those who insist eternity isn't created have a god who is too impotent and immanent to even create his own dwelling for all everlasting.
And a Dyohypostatic Trinity is impossibly incompatible with a created eternity.
"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." Psalm 33:6
A Dyohypostatic Trinity isn't compatible with scripture.
The Monoousiaic and Monohypostatic God created ALL.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Jason0047
Member
Dear PPS:
Grace, peace, and love to you from the Lord Jesus Christ. I do hope all things are going well for you. Anyways, to get down to business:
Well, first, I would like for you to describe to me the difference between God existing from everlasting to everlasting in Psalm 90:2 and eternity.
Well, when I say God created time I am referring to the fact that God created linear time. "Linear Time", (Which is a part of the Creation) is a straight line that exists in the present moment and continually moves forward into future present moments leaving past present moments as being unretrievable. So "Linear Time" is like a hard to see string that burns on one end of an infinite spool of thread with the flame being the present moment.
God exists outside of this thread. For He has declared the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10).
Also, when you look at Isaiah 57:15 by the fact God alone inhabits eternity as being something he created, you are not taking into account that this could just be a natural result of who is. For when you look at 1 Timothy 6:16, you would also have to make the assumption that God is not light either because it says he dwells in the light which no man can approach. But yet we know God is light (1 John 1:5) and the source thereof (Revelation 22:5). So when you read in 1 Timothy 6:16 that God possesses immortality, you also have to assume that God does not possess the characteristic of light, too.
For is it possible for God to exist in all points in time? Yes.
Did God need to create Eternity in order to inhabit it? No.
For God does not need to create light to dwell in it for he is light and God does not need to create eternity because inhabits it as a natural part of his being.
Is it possible for God to have created a separate pocket of linear time or a thread called the creation knowing what is on that thread (Sort of like a toy earth in glass globe or a ship in a bottle)? Yes.
For although time is actualized for us in linear time, that does not mean God does not exist outside of linear time.
For we know that a portion of God can at least be measured; And if something can be measured, then it suggests that time exists. For time is the recording of a particular person or thing in space that can be effected by sequential change. God was not doing nothing in Eternity's past. I am sure He was doing many things. These changes or moments in time can be recorded. This is what I would like to call a dimension of time known as Eternity. It is a special place of time that only God inhabits alone as a part of His being (Isaiah 57:15). For the Lord is the only One who exists from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).
Our entire linear time is a pocket of time that is frozen to God. He can see the entire thread of our existence from beginning to end in this world and he can interact with all points in that thread.
Now, although I partially agree with Dr. Missler that God is outside our dimensionality of time; However, I believe this to be linear time and not time altogether, though. Anyways, to help you understand how our concept of linear time is different to God, watch this brief video by Chuck Missler here...
| God & Time | |
Also, watch the first seven minutes of this Voyager episode here, too...
| Star Trek Voyager "Blink of an Eye" | |
However, let me put it to you another way to help you understand that God knows the future in perfect detail. God could have created a dream (i.e. simulation) at a super high fast speed that would let our creation play out before Him before God actually created everything physically. The Lord our God could have simply played out the scenario of our creation in His own mind. In other words, God created molecules knowing what they were going to do. God created gravity, knowing what it was going to do. So God knew what he was going to create and God knew how was going to react within His creation before it actually happened in our linear time.
Explain this using Scripture please.
God alone has Immortality. This is a distinguishing characteristic of God that is different than His creation. For man will live and have immortal lives, too (Because God will give them the life to live on forever). However, only God alone has true immortality because He exists outside linear time and inhabits a natural state of time that is natural to his being called "Eternity." That is why His sovereign over all of creation. He did not need to create eternity anymore than he needed to create light. God's natural characteristics is light and an eternal nature or being.
Insulting my character or my intelligence is an "ad hominem" on your part. Cosmogony is explained in Genesis chapter 1. It is one of my all time favorite chapters. In fact, seeing you appear to come off as knowing more than me, you probably do not know that the life of Jesus Christ is described to us in Genesis chapter 1. You can check that out here.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90762
God is light and God is Spirit. For the Lord did not have to create light of which He naturally is. God did not create the essence of his own Spirit. It is naturally who actually is in essence or being.
"God is immutable. Because God has no beginning and no ending, He can know no change. He is everlastingly "the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" (James 1:17).
First, God is immutable in His essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Malachi 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade."
~ Arthur W. Pink.
First, God is immutable in His essence. His nature and being are infinite, and so, subject to no mutations. There never was a time when He was not; there never will come a time when He shall cease to be. God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. All that He is today, He has ever been, and ever will be. "I am the Lord, I change not" (Malachi 3:6) is His own unqualified affirmation. He cannot change for the better, for He is already perfect; and being perfect, He cannot change for the worse. Altogether unaffected by anything outside Himself, improvement or deterioration is impossible. He is perpetually the same. He only can say, "I am that I am" (Exodus 3:14). He is altogether uninfluenced by the flight of time. There is no wrinkle upon the brow of eternity. Therefore His power can never diminish nor His glory ever fade."
~ Arthur W. Pink.
God has neither evolved, grown, nor improved. God creating eternity suggests that he must be bound by it in some way and be improved by it. But God is not bound by anything nor can God improve. He is already perfect. For God is beyond the creation and linear time. For the Lord exists in an eternal state of being because that is a part of His natural being. Just as being Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent is a part of his natural being. God's Omni-temporality is no different.
The word "Godhead" appears three times in Scripture (Acts 17:29 KJV) (Romans 1:20 KJV) (Colossians 2:9 KJV), which is a clue from the Holy Spirit that this a reference to the Trinity (i.e. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit); Just as Christ being three days in the grave before His resurrection represents the same thing.
Again, we see the number "3" appear in Acts 17:29 KJV when it tells us to not compare the Godhead to (1) gold, (2) silver, or (3) stone .
Also, Romans gives us the context that the word "Godhead" is not about divinity or divine power, either; For the words "eternal power" which is a derivative of one being "divine" is used next to the word "Godhead".
Romans 1:20 KJV - "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"
In addition, the fact there are many many parallels of the Godhead within nature (as Romans 1:20 tells us) should give us a clue, as well.
White Light which we get from the Sun is made of equal amounts of these three basic colors...
1. Red
2. Green
3. Blue
Another model of the Trinity in nature is in the mysterious event or phenomena we call Fire. Fire needs Three things in order to survive or exist! It needs...
1. Heat
2. Fuel
3. Oxygen.
Water which is essential for us to live is made up of three in one...
1. Hydrogen Atom
2. Hydrogen Atom
3. Oxygen Atom
Atoms which are the building blocks of life are three in one...
1. Protons
2. Electrons
3. Neutrons
When God formed the first man Adam in the Garden of Eden he made him out of…
1. Water.
2. Dust (Clay Soil)
3. Breath of Life (A Living Soul)
"But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." ~ (Genesis 2:6-7 KJV)
In fact, it makes sense that if God has three parts (i.e. Father, Son, Holy Ghost), then we should have three parts, too; Especially seeing we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). For according to 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we have…
1. A physical body
2. A spirit body
3. A soul (that controls both)
Also, when we look at the word "Godhead" in Colossians, it says ALL the FULNESS of the Godhead dwelled within Christ bodily.
Colossians 2:9 KJV - "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
Godhead did not dwell within Christ at 5% capacity.
Godhead did not dwell within Christ at 30% capacity.
Godhead did not dwell within Christ at 99% capacity.
But ALL the Fulness of the Godhead dwelled within Christ at 100% capacity.
For even if you were to try and define the "Godhead" as meaning "divinity" in this passage, you would still have to conclude that....
ALL the Fulness of the Divinity (or the Godhead) had dwelled within Christ bodily. Which makes it pretty clear He is God Almighty then.
In fact, the second word "head" from within the word "Godhead" can be used in a way to speak of an "agency head" or an "authority head" or "Parent head of household" which could involve more than one person who is in charge or authority.
Do you believe Christ pre-existed as the eternal uncreated Son of God who is a separate person of God the Father? A separate person who co-exists as the second person in the Godhead (i.e. the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) as one God? The Son of God who is distinct enough to dwell within the Father (and vise versa)?
First, some Modalists do not like to be called Modalists. There is another Modalist on TOL who says the same thing. However, other Modalists would call this person a Modalist by their beliefs, though. So if you are not a Modalist, please explain to me how you are not one.
Second, Modalism is nothing new for me. I have been debating it for a while now. Check out my old post here for the reasons why I think Modalism is unbiblical.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91068
Uh, this does not sound like you are being humble or having the heart of a child, my friend. The Scriptures tell us that we must be converted and be as little children (Matthew 18:3). Treating others as if they are of lesser importance to you, is not of the Kingdom of God, my friend. We as Christians are to serve and love others.
Anyways, I love you by the power of Christ Jesus.
Please be well.
And may God bless you.
Sincerely,
~Jason.
Source Used:
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Attributes/attrib_07.htm
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
This is essentially my problem, as well. It at least appears gimmicky to say that one has to take the long way around to get to a point. When it comes to this particular issue, he simply isn't capable or precise enough to rock any boat, despite contrawise claims. The best 'conversion' scenario I see, is someone so confused that he 'has' to listen to someone else trying to pack up the pieces of the mess another is allowed to make. I'd stop him before they all littered my floor, unless I were compelled otherwise. To date, I am not, and wonder if my thread is better served away from this mess of 30 pages. I know of no pastor worth his degree, that would be caught in this muddle. It is a convoluted mess inside, and modalism on the outside packing, but with confused hints of 'parts' in unitarian language.You will have to unpack this prose in terms more conducive to discussion. As it reads it is something Mssr. Freelight (a member here) would be writing.
Is there eternal generation anywhere in what you have written? I think you are implying that the Logos and the Holy Spirit (thanks for spelling them out) were both generated by God the Father versus the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son.
AMR
Let the buyer beware. We've no idea about ingredients or packaging label accuracy, at this stage in the game (about 30 pages into this thread).
A claim that my triune position has an uncreated eternity has quickly fallen flat and shallow as pure and nothing but, assertion for me. He has been completely inept and inadhesive in that seemingly blind assertion.
I think Pp needs about 3 or 4 years to get his thoughts together and to learn to be cogent. Pastors at his church falling in line with him? I'm not buying it. Put one or two of them on here to 'explain' comprehensibly in clarity. This ain't it.
You're projecting agian. :noway: Your false christ has modes of holiness (Matt. 24:4-5, 24).
Godrulz: “I believe He could have, but did not…” link
See:
Godrulz
You are not righteous and holy (Ez 9:15). God is (Jn 1:1, Heb 4:15). You lie can and do lie about God (2 Pe 2:1). God does not lie about himself (Tit 1:2).
"Ezr 9:15 ...(4.) He speaks as one much assured of the righteousness of God, and resolved to acquiesce in that and to leave the matter with him whose judgment is according to truth (v. 15): “Thou art righteous, wise, just, and good; thou wilt neither do us wrong nor be hard upon us; and therefore behold we are before thee, we lie at thy feet, waiting our doom; we cannot stand before thee, insisting upon any righteousness of our own, having no plea to support us or bring us off, and therefore we fall down before thee, in our trespass, and cast ourselves on thy mercy. Do unto us whatsoever seemeth good unto thee, Jdg. 10:15. We have nothing to say, nothing to do, but to make supplication to our Judge,” Job 9:15. Thus does this good man lay his grief before God and then leave it with him." Henry, M. (1994). Matthew Henry’s commentary on the whole Bible: complete and unabridged in one volume (p. 625). Peabody: Hendrickson.
Jason0047
Member
Jesus who is God Almighty in the flesh (The Eternal Word - Second person of the Godhead) (1 John 5:7) could not have sinned ever! Jesus who is the uncreated eternal Son of God came down from heaven into a flesh of a man and humbled himself as a servant. Jesus still remaining 100% God Almighty withheld the use of his divine powers and relied upon the Father for everything so as to be our substitute. When Jesus ascended up to heaven and obtained eternal redemption for us in accomplishing his mission of salvation for us here on this Earth, he then had the full unrestrained access or use of His divine powers again.
Jesus did not have a human father, so the curse of sin from Adam (Which is passed thru the seed of a male) was not placed upon him. Jesus still had flesh from Adam which had the lust and the pride of life within it. Yet Jesus being God was incapable of being tempted to do any wrong or evil because He was God.
All other men besides Jesus are sold under bondage to sin and separation from God. For all have sinned and come short of God's glory. For all men need a Savior. No man can be righteous apart from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. For our righteousness is as filthy rags. For it is God or Christ's righteousness that justifies the sinner and it is the Lord's righteousness that does the good work within a believer's life.
But we must understand that salvation is not legalism by going back to the Old Testament or by keeping a certain set of rules alone because if we slip up, we always have God's grace to fall back upon. Nor is salvation Antinomianism, either. For the moral law still applies under the New Testament. Yes, it is true living holy and bring forth works in and of themselves (apart from God) cannot save you because everyone has sinned and is condemned under the curse of Adam. However, if one is truly abiding with Christ, then they will naturally bring forth a true faith that involves a life of righteousness and fruitful works or deeds for God's glory and Kingdom.
Jesus did not have a human father, so the curse of sin from Adam (Which is passed thru the seed of a male) was not placed upon him. Jesus still had flesh from Adam which had the lust and the pride of life within it. Yet Jesus being God was incapable of being tempted to do any wrong or evil because He was God.
All other men besides Jesus are sold under bondage to sin and separation from God. For all have sinned and come short of God's glory. For all men need a Savior. No man can be righteous apart from the righteousness of Jesus Christ. For our righteousness is as filthy rags. For it is God or Christ's righteousness that justifies the sinner and it is the Lord's righteousness that does the good work within a believer's life.
But we must understand that salvation is not legalism by going back to the Old Testament or by keeping a certain set of rules alone because if we slip up, we always have God's grace to fall back upon. Nor is salvation Antinomianism, either. For the moral law still applies under the New Testament. Yes, it is true living holy and bring forth works in and of themselves (apart from God) cannot save you because everyone has sinned and is condemned under the curse of Adam. However, if one is truly abiding with Christ, then they will naturally bring forth a true faith that involves a life of righteousness and fruitful works or deeds for God's glory and Kingdom.
LOL. Is your last name Armstrong?
Lance is a guy, I'm not.
How could He be our example?
How could He be made like unto His brethren in every way?
God anointed Jesus with Gods powers and due to His overcoming Jesus was given authority over all powers permanently.
God did not leave divine powers behind and then be given them back again. That is as silly as you saying Jesus drank all mans sins in the garden.
No curse was ever placed on any son from their father. Only the propensity to sin is, and according the kings of Israel it was not direct from one father to their son, for many sons of evil men were nothing like their father and versa visa.
The Bible says Jesus was tempted.
We are not robots, and neither are the children of the righteous regarded by God as being as filthy rags. Only those who fell away from God who became worse than they ever were before knowing God are described as being like filthy rags.--2 Peter ch 2:21-22.
True, but the fruit of righteousness is in the lives of thousands who do not know much of church theology.
LA