Quote:
Originally Posted by Esaias
The virgin birth IS intrinsically relevant to Jesus being the sinless Messiah. Just not due to any supposed avoidance of an alleged inherited sin nature, which concept is nowhere taught in Scripture but was imported by the catholic church to buttress their sacramentalism and practice of infant baptism and later doctrine of purgatory.
|
You will find sin nature in Judaism in the yetzer hara.
As to whether it is "original sin" is a different matter. In other words, you can say that a baby is not acting under a sin inclination. That is a different discussion.
There was plenty of ECW discussion of the inclination of sin totally outside the reference of the RCC. The Ambrosiaster quote I gave from the 300s is a good example. There was no doctrinal organization entity calling the shots at the time.
Quote:
Romans
https://books.google.com/books?id=sTmPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA203
God Sent His Son in the Likeness of Sinful Flesh.
Ambrosiaster:
For whom was this impossible? For us of course, because we could not fulfill the commandment of the law, since we were subject to sin. For this reason God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. It is the likeness of our flesh because, although it is the same as ours is, it was sanctified in the womb and born without sin, neither did he sin in it. Therefore the womb of a virgin was chosen for the divine birth so that the divine flesh might differ from ours in its holiness. It is like ours in origin bur not in sinfulness. For this reason Paul says that it is similar to our flesh, since it is of the same substance, but it did not have the same birth, because the body of the Lord was not subject to sin. The Lord's flesh was sanctified by the Holy Spirit in order that he might be born in the same kind of body as Adam had before he sinned. By sending Christ God used sin to condemn sin.... For Christ was crucified by sin, which is Satan; hence sin sinned in the flesh of the Savior's body. In this way, God condemned sin in the flesh, in the very place where it sinned.
|
Commentary on Paul's Epistles.27 CSEL 81:255
==================
As for you claiming the virgin birth is intrinsically relevant, without Jesus having any difference in nature, you have a responsibility to explain how the virgin birth is "intrinsically relevant"
Arthur Custance gave you a simple and elegant explanation, the sin nature passes through the male, and thus Jesus starts off pure, in a way available to no other man.
What is your other specific explanation of your "intrinsically relevant"?
==================
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Alvear
very interesting
|
Thanks.
It is a type of missing link in understanding the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ
==============
Our friends in Texas were aware of the Arthur Custance teachings in the 1970s, from the Doorway Papers. He was not strong on all issues, but on this one he was superb.
We also were focused on the blood of Jesus in those early days. From that they drifted away, even at one time doing a type of mockery of the blood of Jesus as being a real, literal element, a type of stage event that veered from satire towards blasphemy.
This is one reason why understanding the blood of Jesus actually physically landing on the mercy seat can be a beautiful confirmation of the scriptural imperative. And it used to be very wonderful when we sang "Oh, precious is the flow..". With deep enthusiasm and conviction.
Similarly, their public statements about baptism, on their website, no longer indicate anything about the blood of Jesus for remission of sin, their historic apostolic doctrines. Instead they talk of a "pledge of the old nature", as if the old nature has a value to be pledged! An abomination doctrine. No mention of
Acts 8:37. (Your Portuguese and Spanish Bibles should have that verse and
1 John 5:7, the heavenly witnesses.)
Then there is their downhill move to a worship of "yahweh". If that has any place in Brazil, please allow me to help you look into that deeper. However, Spanish and Portuguese countries usually correctly stay with Jehovah when pronouncing the tetragram (as in
Psalm 23) and keep Jesus in the center or worship.
Around the time you left Texas, maybe a little after, this became more of a trap among the Homestead Heritage folks, they even brought in the totally crapola hybrid gibberish pseudo-Hebrew 'Yahshua', and acted as if that is a superior name to the Lord Jesus Christ. Apostasy disguised as 'new light'. (If you do want a Hebrew equivalent, Yeshua or Yehoshua are the correct names, however they took the gibberish name because they wanted to match the dark-side 'yahweh', which is actually the devil jupiter. You might remember that focus on yahweh from the 'prayer rooms' and occasional 'prophecy'.)
Hope you do not mind the little catch up
.