Why do Catholics Worship Mary?

To be a Christian, you must admit the fully man nature

Yes, and to say otherwise would be to agree with the teachings of the

antichrist...

"Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is

of God: And

every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it

should come."

1 John 4:2,3
...such as we find in the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception,

which

denies the "fully man nature of Jesus."

- such as we find that andrew has no idea what the Immaculate Conception

is.

Isn't that true, andrew?

Andrew spouts off about a lot of Catholic issues, but he shows a very poor
understanding of what Catholicism teaches. He's only interested in quoting
texts that appear, on the surface, to prove his anti-Catholic position, and
he's not interested in understanding his snippets in the context of all of
Catholic teaching. Context and Andrew are not friends.

Regarding Andrew's statement about the "fully man nature of Jesus" - Andrew
believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature, the nature man had AFTER the
fall in Eden. His teachings are contrary to Catholic teaching, as well as
the official position of his own Adventist denomination, as well as the
majority of Protestant denominations.

The effect of his teaching, which many Adventists take to this extreme, is
to say that if Jesus had a fallen nature, and never sinned, we too, having
fallen natures, can live completely sin-free. Surprisingly, this teaching
offers Adventists an opportunity to believe in the Immaculate Conception,
which Andrew should note has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a
fallen nature or a pre-fall nature. Catholic teaching is that Mary had a
fallen nature, and was saved from it by the grace of Christ when she was
conceived, just as we are saved from it by the grace of Christ at baptism.
(Andrew disputed that before, claiming that Catholic teaching is that Mary
had a pre-fall natuer, and refused to comment on the evidence I provided to
show him he was wrong.)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Teresita

2006-06-28 01:41:17 UTC

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"

Post by Stephen Korsman
Regarding Andrew's statement about the "fully man nature of Jesus" - Andrew
believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature, the nature man had AFTER the
fall in Eden.

The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible
in order to back up the teaching that Christ's human nature was not a
fallen nature. Catholics must accept them because they are dogma.
Protestants emphasize the bible over tradition, they cannot be held
culpable for not believing in these things.

--
Encyclopedia Teresita

http://home.comcast.net/~rubyredinger

Andrew

2006-06-28 15:40:49 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

I have more respect for a Catholic who unashamedly acknowledges
the above, rather than for those who try to perform fancy, theomental
contortions in order to try to prove that what they believe is "Biblical."

Andrew

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-29 00:20:35 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

I have no respect for Adventists who tell lies about Catholic teaching in
order to further their own agenda.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-06-29 00:49:39 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

Okay, then here's another one:

When the Church took up Sunday observance to the exclusion of the Sabbath,
this was not documented in the NT.

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-29 01:03:19 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

When the Church took up Sunday observance to the exclusion of the Sabbath,
this was not documented in the NT.

100% true. Catholicism believes that the Apostles took up Sunday
observance, although Andrew denies that Catholicism believes this, in spite
of the evidence that Catholicism does believe this.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Andrew

2006-06-29 01:12:19 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

When the Church took up Sunday observance to the exclusion of the Sabbath,
this was not documented in the NT.

Although I disagree with any supposed change of the Sabbath, I commend
the honesty of the above - and the below:

"I will give $1,000 to any man who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday
is the day we are bound to keep...The observance of Sunday is solely a law
of the Catholic Church . . The Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday and
he world bows down and worships upon that day in silent obedience to the
mandates of the Catholic Church."
--Hartford, Kansas, Weekly Call, quoting Priest
Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 22, 1884

http://www.bible-sabbath.com/million_offer2.htm

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-29 11:07:19 UTC

Post by Teresita
The Catholic Church teaches a lot of things that aren't in the bible

When the Church took up Sunday observance to the exclusion of the Sabbath,
this was not documented in the NT.

Although I disagree with any supposed change of the Sabbath, I commend
"I will give $1,000 to any man who will prove by the Bible alone that Sunday
is the day we are bound to keep...The observance of Sunday is solely a law
of the Catholic Church . . The Church changed the Sabbath to Sunday and
he world bows down and worships upon that day in silent obedience to the
mandates of the Catholic Church."
--Hartford, Kansas, Weekly Call, quoting Priest
Thomas Enright, C.S.S.R., February 22, 1884
http://www.bible-sabbath.com/million_offer2.htm

Note that it comes from an anti-Sunday website.

The real belief of the Catholic Church is that the Apostles began Sunday
observance. Andrew cannot refute the evidence for that; he just ignores it.

When someone says that "the Catholic Church instituted Sunday observance" it
must be understood in the light of the Catholic belief that the Apostles
were Catholic, as well as the Catholic belief that the Apostles instituted
Sunday observance.

Andrew is not willing to understand things the way they are - he needs them
to be the way he wants them to be in order to make a dent on Protestant
Sunday observance.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-28 09:47:15 UTC

Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"

Post by Stephen Korsman
Regarding Andrew's statement about the "fully man nature of Jesus" - Andrew
believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature, the nature man had AFTER the
fall in Eden.

What Catholicism teaches that isn't explicitly taught in the Bible is at
least implicitly taught there - e.g. the Trinity. Most teachings, whether
Catholic or Protestant, are a matter of interpretation of the Bible anyway.
As for the nature of Christ, Protestants in general share the same belief as
Catholicism. Yes, they cannot be held culpable for not believing certain
things, but the same goes for JWs not believing in the Trinity. God is
bigger than we can imagine, and isn't subject to the way people judge other
religions. Adventists et al are certainly not damned because of their
beliefs ... but they shouldn't go around misrepresenting the faiths of
others.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-06-29 00:31:44 UTC

Subject: Re: Why do Catholics Worship Mary?
Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.adventist,alt.religion.christian.baptist,za.religion.christian
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:47:15 +0200

Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"

Post by Stephen Korsman
Regarding Andrew's statement about the "fully man nature of Jesus" -
Andrew believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature, the nature man
had AFTER the fall in Eden.

Protestants emphasize the bible over tradition, they cannot be held
culpable for not believing in these things.

Adventists et al are certainly
not damned because of their beliefs ... but they shouldn't go around
misrepresenting the faiths of others.

Certainly when Andrew does this I will call him to task, but if he
believes Jesus has a fallen human nature that's his call. It's not
totally unreasonable, since Jesus gets his human nature from Mary. I know
some Calvary Chapelites who avoid the Immaculate Conception issue by
asserting that sin nature is passed in only the male genetic code.

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-29 01:00:49 UTC

Subject: Re: Why do Catholics Worship Mary?

alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.adventist,alt.religion.christi
an.baptist,za.religion.christian

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:47:15 +0200

Post by Teresita
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:36:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"

Post by Stephen Korsman
Regarding Andrew's statement about the "fully man nature of Jesus" -
Andrew believes that Jesus had a fallen human nature, the nature man
had AFTER the fall in Eden.

Protestants emphasize the bible over tradition, they cannot be held
culpable for not believing in these things.

Adventists et al are certainly
not damned because of their beliefs ... but they shouldn't go around
misrepresenting the faiths of others.

Certainly when Andrew does this I will call him to task, but if he
believes Jesus has a fallen human nature that's his call.

That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as anti-Christ,
if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called anti-Christ.
For the most part, the time he spends in Catholic/Adventist discussions
misrepresenting the Catholic faith.

Post by teresita
It's not
totally unreasonable, since Jesus gets his human nature from Mary. I know
some Calvary Chapelites who avoid the Immaculate Conception issue by
asserting that sin nature is passed in only the male genetic code.

A lot of Protestants say that. Some Adventists too. Although the
Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a
fallen or pre-Adamic nature. It's about Mary's conception.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-06-29 02:16:29 UTC

A lot of Protestants say that. Some Adventists too. Although the
Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a
fallen or pre-Adamic nature. It's about Mary's conception.

Understood, but the theological underpinning of the I.C. is not to give
Mary yet another cool attribute, but to buffer the Word Made Flesh from
the post-Edenic fallen nature of humanity.

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-30 18:14:32 UTC

A lot of Protestants say that. Some Adventists too. Although the
Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with whether or not Jesus had a
fallen or pre-Adamic nature. It's about Mary's conception.

Understood, but the theological underpinning of the I.C. is not to give
Mary yet another cool attribute, but to buffer the Word Made Flesh from
the post-Edenic fallen nature of humanity.

True, in that it's not to give Mary a cool attribute. All Marian theology
points to Christ's glory. Although I don't see it as designed to buffer
Jesus' nature. From the earliest commentary on it in the 2nd century, it
was seen as Mary being honoured through Christs' grace, not as an argument
for his sinlessness. Catholicism doesn't use it as such a buffer, and the
concept that Jesus had a sinless nature developed without it, and doesn't
require it, in Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant theology. Some have taken
it as a tool in that way, but that's not official Catholic teaching, and
only applied post facto.

God bless,
Stephen

--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

teresita

2006-06-29 02:18:33 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as anti-Christ,
if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called anti-Christ.

The belief that John called anti-Christ, if one reads 2 John 1:7, is to
claim that Christ was a spirit with the illusion that he had a body. It
was a variety of gnosticism which spurned the flesh.

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-29 11:04:12 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as anti-Christ,
if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called anti-Christ.

The belief that John called anti-Christ, if one reads 2 John 1:7, is to
claim that Christ was a spirit with the illusion that he had a body. It
was a variety of gnosticism which spurned the flesh.

Andrew claims that it's the belief that Jesus had a pre-fall nature.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-06-30 03:25:19 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as

anti-Christ,

Post by Stephen Korsman
if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called

anti-Christ.

Post by teresita
The belief that John called anti-Christ, if one reads 2 John 1:7, is to
claim that Christ was a spirit with the illusion that he had a body. It
was a variety of gnosticism which spurned the flesh.

Andrew claims that it's the belief that Jesus had a pre-fall nature.

Well maybe that's how 2 John 1:7 reads in the SDA bible, but in the KJV it
goes like this: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist"

Stephen Korsman

2006-06-30 18:09:37 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as

anti-Christ,

Post by Stephen Korsman
if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called

anti-Christ.

Post by teresita
The belief that John called anti-Christ, if one reads 2 John 1:7, is to
claim that Christ was a spirit with the illusion that he had a body.

Post by teresita
was a variety of gnosticism which spurned the flesh.

Andrew claims that it's the belief that Jesus had a pre-fall nature.

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

God bless,
Stephen

--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

Andrew

2006-07-01 01:31:10 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as

anti-Christ, if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called
anti-Christ.

Andrew claims that it's the belief that Jesus had a pre-fall nature.

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.
God bless,
Stephen

Jesus had the divine nature as do those who are born again. He also
accepted the law of heredity as the Scriptures indicate, and as denied
by the RC doctrine of the IC.

We have been warned that those controlled by the antichrist power
will try to deny that He came "in the flesh" (2 John 1:7).

"God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."
Romans 8:3

Andrew

Ya'betz

2006-07-01 03:14:20 UTC

Post by Andrew
We have been warned that those controlled by the antichrist power
will try to deny that He came "in the flesh" (2 John 1:7).

2John 1:7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, people who do
not acknowledge Yeshua the Messiah's coming as a human being. Such a person
is a deceiver and an anti-Messiah.
Christians should not even answer your posts Andrew because you are
teaching fallacies, twisting Scriptures, presenting verses out of context.
In short, you are a heretic and an anti-Christ according to 2John 1:10.
2John 1:10 If someone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, don't
welcome him into your home. Don't even say, "Shalom!" to him; 11 for the
person who says, "Shalom!" to him shares in his evil deeds.

Post by Andrew
"God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,
on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh."
Romans 8:3

Romans 8:3 For what the Torah could not do by itself, because it lacked
the power to make the old nature cooperate, God did by sending his own Son
as a human being with a nature like our own sinful one [but without sin].
God did this in order to deal with sin, and in so doing he executed the
punishment against sin in human nature,
You're going straight to Hell Andrew. Repent.

Post by Andrew
Andrew

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-01 18:16:59 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
That it is. But then he's condemning his own denomination as

anti-Christ, if he chooses to claim that such a belief is what John called
anti-Christ.

Andrew claims that it's the belief that Jesus had a pre-fall nature.

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.
God bless,
Stephen

Jesus had the divine nature as do those who are born again.

Jesus had the divine nature as God the Father did.

He had a human nature, just as Adam did prior to the fall.

Those two statements are agreed upon by all Catholics, Orthodox, and the
vast majority of Protestants, including Adventism.

Post by Andrew
He also
accepted the law of heredity as the Scriptures indicate,

Since sin is not genetic ...

Post by Andrew
and as denied
by the RC doctrine of the IC.

The Immaculate Conception does not influence the sort of nature Jesus had.
You're talking rubbish again. The fact is that you can't get Catholicism
straight.

http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/148/Andrew

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-07-02 05:19:36 UTC

Post by teresita
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-02 11:46:40 UTC

Post by teresita
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
human nature of Christ. (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256)

He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)

Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with
like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. (Testimonies, vol.
2, p. 509)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Andrew

2006-07-02 13:01:55 UTC

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
human nature of Christ. (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256)
He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)
Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with
like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. (Testimonies, vol.
2, p. 509)
God bless,
Stephen

Stephen, are you ALSO (along with Teresita) considering becoming a
Seventh-day Adventist? I'm sure you would receive a warm welcome!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Teresita <***@newsguy.com> wrote in message ***@drn.newsguy.com

I am a Roman Catholic who is considering joining a Seventh Day Adventist Church.
--
Encyclopedia Teresita
http://web.newsguy.com/teresita
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew

teresita

2006-07-02 15:40:35 UTC

Post by Andrew
Stephen, are you ALSO (along with Teresita) considering becoming a
Seventh-day Adventist? I'm sure you would receive a warm welcome!

Warm welcome as in being tied to a stake and set on fire. I know how they
are towards "enchanted" persons.

alanm

2006-07-03 14:42:15 UTC

Post by Andrew
Stephen, are you ALSO (along with Teresita) considering becoming a
Seventh-day Adventist? I'm sure you would receive a warm welcome!

Warm welcome as in being tied to a stake and set on fire. I know how they
are towards "enchanted" persons.

It wasn't a fire with Andrew. It was an ice pick. That lobotomy was
unfortunate.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-02 16:28:28 UTC

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
human nature of Christ. (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256)
He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)
Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with
like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. (Testimonies, vol.
2, p. 509)
God bless,
Stephen

Stephen, are you ALSO (along with Teresita) considering becoming a
Seventh-day Adventist? I'm sure you would receive a warm welcome!

I have no such intentions.

Which of the above statements by Ellen White was she correct on, and in
which did she err?

God bless,
Stephen

--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

teresita

2006-07-02 17:05:36 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Which of the above statements by Ellen White was she correct on, and in
which did she err?

I'm still not clear on what Andrew's position is.

Did Jesus have a human nature?

If so, was it only a partial human nature with the fallen part taken out
or was it fully fallen?

If it was a partial human nature, why was Christ's sacrifice efficacious
for redemption? (In other words, if only partial human nature is
sufficient, why not sacrifice a chimpanzee which has 98% of human genetic
nature?)

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-04 18:44:32 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Which of the above statements by Ellen White was she correct on, and in
which did she err?

I'm still not clear on what Andrew's position is.
Did Jesus have a human nature?
If so, was it only a partial human nature with the fallen part taken out
or was it fully fallen?
If it was a partial human nature, why was Christ's sacrifice efficacious
for redemption? (In other words, if only partial human nature is
sufficient, why not sacrifice a chimpanzee which has 98% of human genetic
nature?)

It seems to be that he had a human nature, and original sin. Historical
Christianity never considered that a requirement ... in fact there is a good
article about how it's a bad thing for him to have original sin at
http://formeradvent.temp.powweb.com/Proclamation2004_SepOct.pdf

A human with a fallen nature can't redeem more than himself. He can't even
redeem himself.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-06 20:00:44 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
A human with a fallen nature can't redeem more than himself. He can't even
redeem himself.

"Man could not atone for man. He was created lower than the angels, and

his sinful,

fallen condition would constitute him an imperfect offering, an atoning

sacrifice of

less value than Adam before his fall. God made man perfect and upright,

and after

his transgression there could be no sacrifice acceptable to God for him,

unless the

offering made should in value be superior to man as he was while in his

state of per-

fection and innocency.
The divine Son of God was the only one of sufficient value to satisfy the

claims of

God's perfect law. The angels were sinless, but of less value than the

law of God.

They were amenable to law. They were messengers to do the will of Christ,

and be-

fore him to bow. They were created beings, and probationers. Upon Christ

no re-

quirements were laid, as upon created beings. He had power to lay down

his life,

and to take it again. No obligation was laid upon him to undertake the

work of atone-

ment. It was a voluntary sacrifice that he made. His life was of

sufficient value to

rescue man from his fallen condition. The Son of God was in the form of

God, and

he thought it not robbery to be equal with God. He was the only one, who

as a man

walked the earth, who could say to all men, Who of you convinceth me of

sin? He

had united with the Father in the creation of man, and he had power

through his own

divine perfection of character to atone for man's sin, and to elevate

him, and bring

him back to his first estate.
The Son of God was next in authority to the great Lawgiver. He knew that

his life

alone could be sufficient to ransom fallen man. He was of as much more

value than

man, as his noble, spotless character, and exalted office, as commander

of all the

heavenly host, were above the work of man. He was in the express image of

his

Father, not in features alone, but in perfection of character. As he was

without

blemish, he alone could become an acceptable offering for man."
-- EGW

Sort of contradicts your position on Jesus' sinful nature, doesn't it?

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
human nature of Christ. (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256)

He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)

Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with
like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. (Testimonies, vol.
2, p. 509)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-04 19:07:53 UTC

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not

that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an
antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the
human nature of Christ. (Selected Messages, Vol. 1, p. 256)
He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)
Not possessing the passions of our human, fallen nature, but compassed with
like infirmities, tempted in all points even as we are. (Testimonies, vol.
2, p. 509)
God bless,
Stephen

Stephen, are you ALSO (along with Teresita) considering becoming a
Seventh-day Adventist? I'm sure you would receive a warm welcome!

No.

Which of those statements by Ellen White is incorrect?

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Andrew

2006-07-02 12:43:22 UTC

Post by teresita
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

**

2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself
likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had
the power of death, that is, the devil;

2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation
for the sins of the people.

2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Hebrews 2:14-18

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-02 16:35:27 UTC

Post by teresita
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who
confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and
an antichrist"

To Andrew "come in the flesh" means having a sinful nature.

EGW, Spiritual Gifts, vol. 4a, p. 115: It was in the order of God that
Christ should take upon Himself the form and nature of fallen man."

him the seed of Abraham.

Post by Andrew
2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might
be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to

God, to make reconciliation

Post by Andrew
for the sins of the people.
2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to

succour them that are tempted.

Post by Andrew
Hebrews 2:14-18

It says nothing about Jesus having a sinful human nature.

He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)

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:
(Romans 8:3 KJV)

Sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, not send in sinful flesh.

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.
(John 1:14 KJV)

Not made in the likeness of flesh, but made real flesh, but not made sinful
flesh, just it's likeness.

God bless,
Stephen

--
--
Stephen Korsman
***@theotokos.co.za
www.theotokos.co.za

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

teresita

2006-07-02 17:08:11 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Not made in the likeness of flesh, but made real flesh, but not made sinful
flesh, just it's likeness.

Newsflash, Stephen: Flesh in and of itself is not sinful or evil (that is
gnosticism). It is flesh directed by a disobedient will that creates the
total sin package.

Andrew

2006-07-02 19:58:22 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Not made in the likeness of flesh, but made real flesh, but not made sinful
flesh, just it's likeness.

Newsflash, Stephen: Flesh in and of itself is not sinful or evil (that is
gnosticism). It is flesh directed by a disobedient will that creates the
total sin package.

"The will is the governing power in the nature of man, the power of decision,
or choice. Every human being possessed of reason has power to choose the
right. In every experience of life, God's word to us is, "Choose you this day
whom ye will serve." Joshua 24:15. Everyone may place his will on the side
of the will of God may choose to obey Him, and by thus linking himself with
divine agencies, he may stand where nothing can force him to do evil.

-- Education p.289

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-04 18:52:22 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Not made in the likeness of flesh, but made real flesh, but not made sinful
flesh, just it's likeness.

Newsflash, Stephen: Flesh in and of itself is not sinful or evil (that is
gnosticism). It is flesh directed by a disobedient will that creates the
total sin package.

-- Education p.289

He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature but
not the sinfulness of man. (S.D.A. Bible Commentary, Vol. 7, p. 912)

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-04 18:49:06 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Not made in the likeness of flesh, but made real flesh, but not made sinful
flesh, just it's likeness.

Newsflash, Stephen: Flesh in and of itself is not sinful or evil (that is
gnosticism). It is flesh directed by a disobedient will that creates the
total sin package.

Agreed. Flesh itself is not evil. That is Andrew's position.

The term "flesh" in the Bible can refer to the fallen human nature that
wants to serve this worldly things. In that sense, it refers to our sinful
nature. In the context of Romans 8, it's specifically stated that the flesh
referred to is sinful.

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:
(Romans 8:3 KJV)

Not all flesh is sinful. Andrew concludes that because Christ came in the
flesh, he came with a sinful nature. He equates flesh with sinfulness.

Christ became flesh - but not sinful flesh. Flesh does not equal sin.

God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
website: http://www.theotokos.co.za/adventism/
blog: http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/

IC | XC
---------
NI | KA

add an s before .co.za

teresita

2006-07-04 19:40:32 UTC

Post by Stephen Korsman
Not all flesh is sinful. Andrew concludes that because Christ came in the
flesh, he came with a sinful nature. He equates flesh with sinfulness.
Christ became flesh - but not sinful flesh. Flesh does not equal sin.

Okay Stephen, then we are on the same page.

Stephen Korsman

2006-07-06 19:45:58 UTC