Friends, I just wanted to repost the link to the article on the SONS OF GOD, as the original link which I put up in post no. 25 does not work, here you go:

Sons Of God... Sethites Or Fallen Angels?
"The following article is only a portion of a Biblical study on Demonology: The Doctrine of Fallen Angels- Dr. A.G. Fruchtenbaum. Dr. Fruchtenbaum is a Messianic Jewish believer and founder of ariel.org in San Antonio Texas. He comes from a family line of Levite Priest (father and grandfather) and has knowledge of scripture that is just uncanny, nonetheless having become a believer in Christ at a young age, his father threw him out of the house for converting from Judaism to Christianity at the age of 17 or 18..."
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/fo...er&f=23&t=1327

[kevinvw]

It's a good article Bro. Parrish other than the constant Hebrew and Greek, and the reference to the mythical LXX.

I have to disagree with him when he says that the giants were just strong and not giant in stature though. Goliath was almost 10' tall or taller. That is huge. People 7' tall look like giants to most of us, imagine 3' taller.

Originally Posted by kevinvw

It's a good article Bro. Parrish other than the constant Hebrew and Greek, and the reference to the mythical LXX...

Yes, if you check post 25, I posted that because Bro. Tony was going on about "JEWISH fables" so I gave him a Christian JEW of Levite lineage to illustrate the point from a JEWISH perspective that the subject we are discussing is not a JEWISH fable...
For an excellent "KJV based" review of this issue, I suggest the Bible Believer's Commentary on Genesis, by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman.

[kevinvw]

Yeah, the Bible is true no matter what the Jewish fables say. Just because the Bible says not to listen to Jewish fables doesn't mean that they don't have Bible truth in them. In fact most of them are just a perverted addition to Bible truth, at least from what I've heard and seen. Most interpretations of Genesis 6 seem to be just as perverted as any Jewish fable or wives tale and often ignore the verses that are clearly cross references.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by kevinvw

Bro. Tony, I'm going to have to say that you're flat out wrong about your presumptions that Christ had no sin nature. I don't know of any scriptures that support your position but I do know that the book of Hebrews definitely says that Jesus was like us being tempted to sin, and was made perfect through obedience. You can have your Jesus that never was tempted and doesn't know what it's like to have the natural man nagging at Him all the time, and I will take the Jesus of the Bible that overcame the natural man and the devil put them down every time, who will also help me to do the same because He experienced it Himself.

Kevin, this is the view of the Seventh Day Adventists. And we are even: I think you have "flat" moved over into the Land Of Heresy and ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures in order to prove a point in a Bible forum.

He was tempted to sin, He was tempted as we are but the difference is that we go right ahead and steal, and break the Law which is what sin is, He didn't. He couldn't. God can't get hungry, Jesus got hungry. God don't sleep, Jesus got sleepy. God don't tire, Jesus got weary. God don't feel physical pain, Jesus endured a physical pain none of us could endure. God cannot die, Jesus was dead for 3 days. That don't give Him the capacity to sin. Jesus Christ was human, He was God also.

I know the fad in this forum has been for a number of weeks now not to quote Scripture, people have said "Yea, hath God said?" before to me and it did about as much good then as it does now:

Ro. 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

What was He "obedient" to? Temptation?

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Kevin, I think you need to study to show thyself approved unto God, not me or the forum. To even hint that Jesus Christ was capable of sinning is to say He had a sin nature, and if that is not heresy, I don't know what is.

But I'm not going to tie you to a fencepost and set you on fire.

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by CKG

Exactly what is the sin nature? The NIV mentions it, but it is not in the word of God (KJV). Where did the sin nature originate and how does it get passed down? Do you sin because you have a sin nature? If the sin nature was passed down to you and you sin because you have a sin nature how can you be held accountable for your sin since you sin because of the sin nature which was passed down without your knowledge? We say homosexuals are in error when they say they were born that way, but we turn around and say people sin because they were born with a sin nature . BTW I'm not defending homosexuality and they weren't born that way. Like every other sinner they chose it I suspect sin nature like spiritual death made its way into modern teaching via the polluted stream of reformation theology.

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14-15)

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 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. (Galatians 5:16-17)

I'm not trying to hijack the thread but we need to believe what the Bible says and teaches and not modern pop theology. Our problem is our flesh and our flesh is not the sin nature because there is no such thing. If there was the Bible would teach it. Spiritual death and sin nature are rooted in the Calvinistic teaching of total depravity.

I get the feeling Tony can't accept that the sons of God of Genesis 6 are angels because it is beyond his understanding. Its definitely beyond my understanding, but I accept it because it is clear Bible teaching.

Craig, the heresy that Jesus Christ had a sin nature is found in the Ebionites for one, the followers of Arius, and the Gnostics in general right on up to Ellen White of the SDAs and I think Tony don't accept the fornicating angels of Genesis 6 because it's not sound doctrine.

Grace and peace

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Winman

Tony

I never meant to imply that we should base Bible teaching on ancient art. I didn't say anything like that, and I am surprised you took it that way.

The art is what it is. The Bible tells us of Nimrod, and the first photo was identified as an ancient Babylonian sculpture of Nimrod. They show him as a giant and a hunter. It is what it is.

I do not know who the second sculpture was, but it also appears to be a giant with wings. Now, the wings could have simply been symbolic, I don't know. But we have been discussing the topic that some believe angels took women as wives before Noah's time. I myself believe that is possible from the scriptures.

Another interesting thing about the 2nd photo is the object in the man's right hand. If you ask me, that looks just like a classic flying saucer. Or maybe just a sweet potato. :>)

You can say angels never took physical form, but that is not what the Bible tells me.

Gen 19:1 And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;
2 And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night.
3 And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.

Lot could see these angels and asked them to tarry and "wash your feet". They also ate unleavened bread. So the Bible tells me angels can indeed take on physical reality when needed.

Brother, I know we don't mean to do things but to casual observers sometimes we do imply things by their mere existence.

The Jews picked up and integrated into their culture and faith a lot of nonsense while in Babylon: The "Lilith" fable("Lilu"), the story of the fornicating angels of Genesis 6, Cain's Daddy being Satan, and the "Talmud", the "Teachings Of The Rabbis" that Christ castigated the Pharisees for as "the doctrines and commandments of men..." It's unfortunate that a lot of Christians have fallen for it too.

I saw a thing on TV where there were some paintings from the Middle Ages had some interesting objects in them too, and there are many rock paintings in the American Southwest also that have these objects on them.

Grace and peace brother Win

Tony

[greenbear]

Back to the question of whether Christ was born with a sin nature.


After thinking about this tonight I'm afraid I have to change my mind. Christ could not have been born with a sin nature. And there are plenty of scriptures that show there is a sin nature. Spiritual death and sin nature are taught in scripture, I don't think they are products of Calvinist teaching.

Christ is both a man and God at the same time. God CANNOT sin.
I don't accept Tony's "father's blood" theory but he is correct in saying that Christ was not born with a sin nature.

1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

There is a sin nature. Temptation comes from outside the man but it finds a "hook", his own lust, and he is enticed. Christ was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Unlike the rest of mankind, there was no lust inside Him to draw Him away from the Law and entice Him.
John 14:30

Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

God sent His own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. This verse I believe puts to rest the idea that Christ had a sin nature. God doesn't say He sent His Son of sinful flesh. Christ could not have a sin nature because God cannot be tempted with evil.
Romans 8:3

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by greenbear

Back to the question of whether Christ was born with a sin nature.


After thinking about this tonight I'm afraid I have to change my mind. Christ could not have been born with a sin nature. And there are plenty of scriptures that show there is a sin nature. Spiritual death and sin nature are taught in scripture, I don't think they are products of Calvinist teaching.

Christ is both a man and God at the same time. God CANNOT sin.
I don't accept Tony's "father's blood" theory but he is correct in saying that Christ was not born with a sin nature.



There is a sin nature. Temptation comes from outside the man but it finds a "hook", his own lust, and he is enticed. Christ was tempted like we are, yet without sin. Unlike the rest of mankind, there was no lust inside Him to draw Him away from the Law and entice Him.
John 14:30

God sent His own Son in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh. This verse I believe puts to rest the idea that Christ had a sin nature. God doesn't say He sent His Son of sinful flesh. Christ could not have a sin nature because God cannot be tempted with evil.
Romans 8:3

Sister, the father's blood thing is not a "theory", it's medical fact. And I never said the sin nature is passed on through the blood, but through the male seed, sperm. In my study of mortuary science I had to study hematology, a child in the womb receives nutrients and oxygen via osmosis and returns wastes and carbon dioxide in the same manner, but the blood system of an unborn child is the father's and in no way comes into contact with the mother's.

The father's blood thing is also a theological fact.

Ac 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Sister, with that, you all have fun, I've said all I have to say and anything further would be repeating myself.

Grace and peace friends

Tony

[greenbear]

In my study of mortuary science I had to study hematology

Tony,
Is there anything you haven't done, studied or worked at? How old are you anyway!

I'll look into the father's blood question.