Bidam: If it aint meant for me then it aint meant for the body of Christ and should be treated as an agnostic heresy.

On the contrary, it isn't any form of heresy but one must be careful when sharing the gospel, especially to people that are still struggling with basic issues. I am sure grace teachers or antitithers were not as bold in the past as they are today when delivering messages even on Nl. Some religious people can stone you to death before you say jack

Bidam:
Christ broke sabbath laws and interpreted Mosaic laws differently e:g the adulterous woman, Explain your self here.

Jesus did not stay under the law all through His life. There was a period of transition when Jesus started speaking in parables, he started to shift more towards grace and his passion. Most times, the disciples find it hard to comprehend what he was saying, not until he left the scene and even more clearly when Paul came on the scene.

OLAADEGBU:

You can see from the reference below that the body of our Lord Jesus Christ was a special creation that has not been formed by the normal process of genetic inheritance. God formed His human body with the same Power and Wisdom by which He had formed the universe.

The verse you posted is very thought-provoking I must admit, but it is a stretch to claim that the body Jesus was referring to there was any different from normal men. The word "Kartartizo" as translated 'prepared' in Hebrews 10:5 doesn't refer to any supernatural perfection beyond Jesus saying God formed him like he formed every man. That word was used by Paul in 2 Corinthians 13:11 to implore all christians to be "Kartartizo"(translated Perfect). Same way it was translated "mend", "fix", "repair" in other places as well as "framed" in Hebrews 11:3 that you mentioned. God indeed "formed" all men in their mother's womb- meaning the law of reproduction was instituted by God and ALL God's creation were very good in his sight. See Jeremiah for example:

Jeremiah 1:5King James Version (KJV)
4 Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying,
5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

David also said his was wonderfully and fearfully made by God. Is it not the human flesh he is referring to? The same one that Isaac, Abraham etc had. It was the same WORD that formed Jesus in Mary and she carried him in her womb for 9 months LIKE EVERY OTHER MAN. Jesus wasn't created from "Dust" like Adam was.

PastorKun:

I just finished watching joagabje's latest home video I had refrained from watching it before because as usual i expected it would be a waste of precious MB but i am glad i watched this one cause it provided quality entertainment The actors Joagbaje used in this episode deserve an Oscar for their scintillating performance the only poor actor was Joagbaje himself as i couldn't determine whether he was trying to laugh or cry in the perfomance he put up in the last one minute of the video but all said sha it was a really entertaining comic relief.

PS: Joagbaje looks like a fish out of water on that pulpit. he looks like a reformed and dressed up area boy hustling to make a living.

I have watched the video posted by joagbaje. Is joaagbaje a pastor? Did anybody noticed that the first guy who claimed he was HIV was different from the guy on the other scene (the one who wore a sweater, doubling for the guy doing a testimony and showing joaagbaje praying for him). Is this the height of it all?

shdemidemi:

He has always been an adversary.. God had stepped into the devil's world to liberate those kept captive. The devil offered God what in truth belongs to him- the world. What was God's response- 'Ye shall not tempt the Lord your God'

Jesus quoted from exodus 17 where He was tempted at Massah.

No normal man could have resisted such temptation.. After 30 days of no food, who would turn down bread? He had no iniquity in him, whether he be tested or not.

This is hogwash and it doesn't explain James 1:13. The bible says it is men that get tempted to sin and not God. Satan offered Jesus the world because he saw Jesus as exactly what he was FUNCTIONING as- a man and nothing else. In Exodus 17 Satan didn't tempt God to sin and again I repeat that I have never said anywhere that Jesus is not God. I said while on earth Jesus didn't FUNCTION as God.

Joagbaje:

You are really very blind .

Look at the flash back in the video again and see how skinny the guy was like a full blown aids. Can you make someone act to be skinny. This is a person who is a staff at the airport. Who mentioned his full name . You must be really blind.

I am disappointed at you. I noticed the scam. The actors are not the same. Shame on you fake pastor

mbaemeka:

This is hogwash and it doesn't explain James 1:13. The bible says it is men that get tempted to sin and not God. Satan offered Jesus the world because he saw Jesus as exactly what he was FUNCTIONING as- a man and nothing else. In Exodus 17 Satan didn't tempt God to sin and again I repeat that I have never said anywhere that Jesus is not God. I said while on earth Jesus didn't FUNCTION as God.

James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself tempted no man. Looking at the statement it seem contradictory, knowing that God tempted and tried Abraham-

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


and God was Himself tried by evil utterances from the children of Israel. God wrath immediately befell them. 1 cor 10:9


James was actually referring to the righteousness nature of God, which is different from dual nature that exist in man. Every believer has the nature of evil which is also known as the sinful nature or the old man/adamic nature and the nature of righteousness/ the new man made present as a result of the new birth.

These two natures are present in every christian. The bible say they are in constant war to control a believer.
Gal 5
17 The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses

These sort of war isn't present in God nor in Christ. He has just one nature and that is the righteousness nature.

James 1:13 was referring to an inward temptation within God that will propel Him to respond to evil desires. He is also saying God isn't the reason why men are susceptible to the sinful nature today.

esere826: Just wondering....

so is it not possible for someone to be a fraud and genuine healer at the same time?

there are some lines that are just too thin and can easily be crossed back and forth
Its like saying that you expect rich people to be squeaky clean all the time
how is that possible? even for Bill gates (or at least his Microsoft corporation)?

(someone like Inspired motor comes to mind here. Is he fraud or genuine?. I think he is both)

it hurts...
but mehnnn that's just the way it has always been

Is inspired motors a fraud? Woooow

Revolva: Pastor this man has been blind all his life...some one brought him here last week to be healed and today when you were praying he got healed....the atmosphere of miracle has touched and healed him....

oohh praide the lord....come out...Pastor asked where are you from- I came all the way from Benin to Lagos my sister brought me here....and today i am healed.. from blindness...

Pastor - you mean you have never seen light before in your life

yes..sir..

praise tha lord..

pastor bring out hand his white handkercheif...ask the healed member what colour is this the man said white....Omo na OJE..WASHING....lol..how e take know the colour...all his life he has been blind

OMG you are so damn right. I think I have seen a couple of those videos.

mbaemeka:

I take it that like some other people that have been trolling on this thread, you get your own definitions of biblical truths from the dictionary. Because, I don't understand how SINFUL would mean full of sin when I am telling you that the construction Paul made in Greek means that Jesus wore the same flesh with SINFUL men. In other words, the flesh he had was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin, and to prove my point I gave more than 5 different translations of the same verse with all saying the same things together with other references in his writings but you cannot do same to establish your own point.

Is the issue now the NUMBER of Bible passages given?
You asked for my understanding of Romans 8:3 and I did, giving you portions of scripture to buttress my position.
And now you come up with: “I take it that like some other people that have been trolling on this thread, you get your own definitions of biblical truths from the dictionary.”

What language are you using in communicating with me? IGBO?
Like I have said EARLIER words have meanings. No one therefore has the right to decide what a word means.
The koine Greek used for the NT, for example, is a very exact language so when people say in that language ‘go forward’, it cannot mean something else.
So when you say sinful means ‘susceptible to sin’ that is a TWISTING of the definition of the word SINFUL. Is there a dictionary for the English language? What do you use it for?

HUMILITY makes for teachability. You do not seem to me to be humble enough to ADMIT your error. Instead you are making it your strong point to evade issues in whatever way you can. You may drop in another person’s name in someone else’s post hoping to bring in that person’s position into controversy and shift focus from you. You also deliberately engage in what I have described as underhand tactic. This way you cannot LEARN.

Instead of just admitting that you were wrong in stating that Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH what you now doing is to attempt to reframe your position. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. When you made that initial statement did you talk about Paul’s construction of the sentence? What is the Greek construct of the sentence? Tell us clearly.

For your information ‘the flesh he had was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin’ IS NOT the same as ‘SINFUL FLESH’. You cannot convince a good O level English student on this.
Let me ask you this: ‘Was Adam’s flesh sinful flesh before the fall?’

Just the simple admission of ‘I’m wrong on this’ is taking you such a long time to do.
Maybe it will be ‘negative confession’ and you must always be ‘positive’ even in the face of losing face.

Like I’ve pointed before now also, you just think you must answer every post about you.
In the process you don’t even take time to critically look at what your ‘opponents’ post. Your adrenalin just wants to rush into responding. Maybe you assume Mbaemeka MUST have the last say.

SirJohn: @mbaemeka,
I have been trying to PM you for a while now. You seem to know about CE ojo and I'd appreciate if you respond to my PM.
there are things I don't want to say on the forum as they may involve some names.
Kindly oblige my request.
Regards

Abeg say them here. There is no need to cover these liars. You have been doing a wonderful job. Please finish it up. Do you know how many vulnerable people who have been saved for these scammers and those you will saved in future?

Boss13:

I have watched the video posted by joagbaje. Is joaagbaje a pastor? Did anybody noticed that the first guy who claimed he was HIV was different from the guy on the other scene (the one who wore a sweater, doubling for the guy doing a testimony and showing joaagbaje praying for him). Is this the height of it all?

Yeah I noticed, obviously they were two different people but joagbaje is claiming that they look different cause he was skinny and infected with HIV in the first scene which is obviously a lie.

trustman:
Is the issue now the NUMBER of Bible passages given?
You asked for my understanding of Romans 8:3 and I did, giving you portions of scripture to buttress my position.
And now you come up with: “I take it that like some other people that have been trolling on this thread, you get your own definitions of biblical truths from the dictionary.”
What language are you using in communicating with me? IGBO?
Like I have said EARLIER words have meanings. No one therefore has the right to decide what a word means.
The koine Greek used for the NT, for example, is a very exact language so when people say in that language ‘go forward’, it cannot mean something else.
So when you say sinful means ‘susceptible to sin’ that is a TWISTING of the definition of the word SINFUL. Is there a dictionary for the English language? What do you use it for?
HUMILITY makes for teachability. You do not seem to me to be humble enough to ADMIT your error. Instead you are making it your strong point to evade issues in whatever way you can. You may drop in another person’s name in someone else’s post hoping to bring in that person’s position into controversy and shift focus from you. You also deliberately engage in what I have described as underhand tactic. This way you cannot LEARN.
Instead of just admitting that you were wrong in stating that Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH what you now doing is to attempt to reframe your position. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. When you made that initial statement did you talk about Paul’s construction of the sentence? What is the Greek construct of the sentence? Tell us clearly.
For your information ‘the flesh he had was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin’ IS NOT the same as ‘SINFUL FLESH’. You cannot convince a good O level English student on this.
Let me ask you this: ‘Was Adam’s flesh sinful flesh before the fall?’
Just the simple admission of ‘I’m wrong on this’ is taking you such a long time to do.
Maybe it will be ‘negative confession’ and you must always be ‘positive’ even in the face of losing face.
Like I’ve pointed before now also, you just think you must answer every post about you.
In the process you don’t even take time to critically look at what your ‘opponents’ post. Your adrenalin just wants to rush into responding. Maybe you assume Mbaemeka MUST have the last say.

lol, you guys are incredible and the more you keep evading the simple thing I asked of you the clearer it is becoming that you didn't even know that passage of scripture existed. You simply typed "Jesus didn't commit sin" on Google and began rearranging and regurgitating what some people said.

I don't know how for example, the KJV referred to the Holy Spirit as "itself" in Romans 8 now I tell someone that what they really meant was "himself" and go on to show different translations saying "himself" even as I show other verses showing the personality of the Holy Spirit as a he, while another person keeps using a dictionary to define "itself" for me and insisting that the Holy Spirit is some impersonal force.

This is what your rigmarole feels like. Can you just take that word LIKENESS as used in Romans 8:3 and see if any time it was used it referred to something entirely different from what it is compared with and stop giving me scriptures that say Jesus offered his body (without commiting sin) for the world or had sin imputed on him- nobody on this thread has said anything contrary to it. What I have maintained and continue to maintain from the scriptures is that Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men. (Pardon the Tautology)

mbaemeka:

lol, you guys are incredible and the more you keep evading the simple thing I asked of you the clearer it is becoming that you didn't even know that passage of scripture existed. You simply typed "Jesus didn't commit sin" on Google and began rearranging and regurgitating what some people said.

I don't know how for example, the KJV referred to the Holy Spirit as "itself" in Romans 8 now I tell someone that what they really meant was "himself" and go on to show different translations saying "himself" even as I show other verses showing the personality of the Holy Spirit as a he, while another person keeps using a dictionary to define "itself" for me and insisting that the Holy Spirit is some impersonal force.

This is what your rigmarole feels like. Can you just take that word LIKENESS as used in Romans 8:3 and see if any time it was used it referred to something entirely different from what it is compared with and stop giving me scriptures that say Jesus offered his body (without commiting sin) for the world or had sin imputed on him- nobody on this thread has said anything contrary to it. What I have maintained and continue to maintain from the scriptures is that Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men. (Pardon the Tautology)

shdemidemi:

James 1:13 says God cannot be tempted by evil and He Himself tempted no man. Looking at the statement it seem contradictory, knowing that God tempted and tried Abraham-

Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,


and God was Himself tried by evil utterances from the children of Israel. God wrath immediately befell them. 1 cor 10:9


James was actually referring to the righteousness nature of God, which is different from dual nature that exist in man. Every believer has the nature of evil which is also known as the sinful nature or the old man/adamic nature and the nature of righteousness/ the new man made present as a result of the new birth.

These two natures are present in every christian. The bible say they are in constant war to control a believer.
Gal 5
17 The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses

These sort of war isn't present in God nor in Christ. He has just one nature and that is the righteousness nature.

James 1:13 was referring to an inward temptation within God that will propel Him to respond to evil desires. He is also saying God isn't the reason why men are susceptible to the sinful nature today.

Oga no vex, this doesn't make any sense. James was referring to Evil tempting God to sin and he said by the revelation of the Holy Spirit that it CANNOT happen.

I don't understand how you are trying to stretch what happened in Exodus as evil tempting God to sin. How can rebelious people asking God to do something for them be referred to as tempting God to sin?

The simple and shut point of the issue is that GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED BY THE DEVIL TO SIN yet the same devil tempted Jesus to sin while he was on earth. And we know Satan did this because Jesus was functioning as a man on earth.

That's why I asked you another question to help you understand my point. I said does God grow in wisdom? The obvious answer is NO because GOD IS WISDOM. But the bible says Jesus grew in wisdom. There are many other points capable of filling 2 books that show Jesus was functioning as a man and that was the issue that led the discourse this far.

donnie:

Brother, what led us here is the fact that they don't want to agree that those who have the Holy Spirit can walk in the same miraculous life that Jesus walked in. They have even denied him needing the Holy Spirit to work the miracles. When they could not defend the heresy thus far they claimed he had a different flesh that the Holy Spirit could only use to work miracles and since other men don't have that flesh we cannot walk in the same power.

mbaemeka:

Brother, what led us here is the fact that they don't want to agree that those who have the Holy Spirit can walk in the same miraculous life that Jesus walked in. They have even denied him needing the Holy Spirit to work the miracles. When they could not defend the heresy thus far they claimed he had a different flesh that the Holy Spirit could only use to work miracles and since other men don't have that flesh we cannot walk in the same power.

Bros I must commend you... Not Just for the way you have fulfiled that scripture "rightly dividing the word of truth", with consitency in the delivey of the gospel message; but for your patience. Like Stephen, they cannot withstand the wisdom by which you speak. I tell you, i have been on nairaland long enough to know that many of these folks oppose you, not because they think they know better, but because in your attempt to explain, they might learn a few things from you. Reminds me of my early days on NL.

Keep it up brother. One luv!

mbaemeka:

lol, you guys are incredible and the more you keep evading the simple thing I asked of you the clearer it is becoming that you didn't even know that passage of scripture existed. You simply typed "Jesus didn't commit sin" on Google and began rearranging and regurgitating what some people said.

I don't know how for example, the KJV referred to the Holy Spirit as "itself" in Romans 8 now I tell someone that what they really meant was "himself" and go on to show different translations saying "himself" even as I show other verses showing the personality of the Holy Spirit as a he, while another person keeps using a dictionary to define "itself" for me and insisting that the Holy Spirit is some impersonal force.

This is what your rigmarole feels like. Can you just take that word LIKENESS as used in Romans 8:3 and see if any time it was used it referred to something entirely different from what it is compared with and stop giving me scriptures that say Jesus offered his body (without commiting sin) for the world or had sin imputed on him- nobody on this thread has said anything contrary to it. What I have maintained and continue to maintain from the scriptures is that Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men. (Pardon the Tautology)

Don't forget that this is where we started:

ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.

But you have been trying very hard to avoid responsibility for that your statement.
Instead of just admitting that you were wrong in stating that Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH what you now doing is to attempt to reframe your position. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other.

Look again at what you said there;

ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.

I showed you that Jesus regarded his flesh as very IMPORTANT. Whereas you said not good enough.

Maybe i should try to make it easy for you. Can you say a body (flesh) with ebola is the same as one without ebola? The same body, yes; but different in some way?
In the same way can a body with sin nature be the same as one WITHOUT the sin nature?
Can it be any easier?

So when you say "Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men" again what do you mean?
If one has sin nature and the other DOES NOT HAVE sin nature can they be EXACT?
Is that so hard to see?

donnie:
Bros I must commend you... Not Just for the way you have fulfiled that scripture "rightly dividing the word of truth", with consitency in the delivey of the gospel message; but for your patience. Like Stephen, they cannot withstand the wisdom by which you speak. I tell you, i have been on nairaland long enough to know that many of these folks oppose you, not because they think they know better, but because in your attempt to explain, they might learn a few things from you. Reminds me of my early days on NL.
Keep it up brother. One luv!

Brother, I read virtually all your posts back then but noticed you don't come here too often again. I usually would have kept mum about somethings but the lies were getting too much.

All the best man.

Cheers.

PastorKun:

Yeah I noticed, obviously they were two different people but joagbaje is claiming that they look different cause he was skinny and infected with HIV in the first scene which is obviously a lie.

Shame to joaagbaje. He is a disgrace. Please someone should archive that video so that it cannot be manipulated. I am shocked that a man would reduce to this level of scam to deceive people. Does joagbaje think people on nairaland are those miscreants he pays to stage a miracle and tell false testimonies? He needs to be in jail. He was even defending his act that the guy was skinny due to HIV. I also noticed that the guy who was giving the testimony gave out too much information than necessary. These scam artist, always quoting from a book to support their stupidity, remember that when you die, your punishment shall be worse of. Continue in your act of deceit like joagbaje. I hate liars because they are thieves and it seems joagbaje learnt from the best - his mentor Chris oyakilome.

Trustman, this is another translation.

Romans 8:3 NLT

The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

What you posted was exactly what I said but you asked for scriptures and I showed you Romans 8:3 then you said the translators used LIKENESS and I said that's what it means but you objected to it. I have shown you many more translations and this one above is the 6/7th but you keep insisting I meant something else even when I have explained what I meant several times already and I would do so again now:

Jesus having SINFUL FLESH as used in Romans 8:3 doesn't mean he sinned or that his flesh was full of sin. It simply means he HAD the same type of flesh that sinners had/have. What is the type of flesh? The one susceptible to sin; the one that sin and it's consequences can affect etc. One of the consequences of sin is DEATH that's why Jesus was able to be beaten and die like normal men.

When he resurrected, he did so with another flesh. This one Paul described as Immortal because it is not susceptible to sin or it's consequences and it is this body Christians would have at the rapture.

As per Jesus' body I am the one who believes it was very important because it had to absorb all the sins of the world and the consequences of sin namely death and diseases amongst others. I have never downplayed the importance of his body and I can never do that. But what I would not also do is LIE that he had another type of flesh different from what men have because I want to claim nobody can work in the same power with Jesus.

That is what kick-started this discourse and nothing else. Jesus flesh had to be bruised because of our iniquities and infirmities. And there's only one flesh according to the bible that men have (and can suffer the bruises he suffered) and that was the EXACT SAME FLESH that Jesus had while on earth and he had it because he WAS FUNCTIONING as a man even though he is GOD. Making him 100% man and 100% God and not half man-half God as you are trying to claim.

trustman:

I showed you that Jesus regarded his flesh as very IMPORTANT. Whereas you said not good enough.

Don't be disingenuous you said "Precious and unblemished lamb" meant that Jesus had a different body and I said No that it meant Jesus blood was precious and unblemished as the lamb should be and that Jesus' didn't sin while he was in the same flesh with sinners. I then told you that if the unblemished the bible referred to while addressing the lamb was as used in OT that Jesus' body that had dents and defects would not have been good enough.

I cannot possibly say his body was not good enough as a sacrifice when I have been telling you all through that the salvation he wrought for us includes HEALING which is possible because of his bruises. You on the otherhand claim the only thing we are saved from is SIN- disrespecting the scourgings that the lord's body faced.

Maybe i should try to make it easy for you. Can you say a body (flesh) with ebola is the same as one without ebola? The same body, yes; but different in some way?
In the same way can a body with sin nature be the same as one WITHOUT the sin nature?
Can it be any easier?

Stop exposing your ignorance. Sin nature refers to the spirit of the unsaved man and I told you that repeatedly. Jesus didn't have that spirit so he didn't have the nature of sin. BUT he had the SAME BODY that sinners have. Why is that important? because now that we are born again we have a recreated human spirit by the action of the intermingling of the Holy Spirit in our regular bodies making our spirit righteous and truly holy. This means we are fit to achieve the same miracles that Jesus had. So you reference to Ebola is a dud because Ebola affects the flesh and not the spirit same way nails affected the criminals by Jesus' side as it affected him too.

So when you say "Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men" again what do you mean?
If one has sin nature and the other DOES NOT HAVE sin nature can they be EXACT?
Is that so hard to see?

Mr A is a sinner and he has a flesh called T. Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T. Both men have the EXACT SAME FLESH but they have different natures.

IS THAT SO HARD TO SEE?

mbaemeka:

Don't be disingenuous you said "Precious and unblemished lamb" meant that Jesus had a different body and I said No that it meant Jesus blood was precious and unblemished as the lamb should be and that Jesus' didn't sin while he was in the same flesh with sinners. I then told you that if the unblemished the bible referred to while addressing the lamb was as used in OT that Jesus' body that had dents and defects would not have been good enough.

I cannot possibly say his body was not good enough as a sacrifice when I have been telling you all through that the salvation he wrought for us includes HEALING which is possible because of his bruises. You on the otherhand claim the only thing we are saved from is SIN- disrespecting the scourgings that the lord's body faced.

Stop exposing your ignorance. Sin nature refers to the spirit of the unsaved man and I told you that repeatedly. Jesus didn't have that spirit so he didn't have the nature of sin. BUT he had the SAME BODY that sinners have. Why is that important? because now that we are born again we have a recreated human spirit by the action of the intermingling of the Holy Spirit in our regular bodies making our spirit righteous and truly holy. This means we are fit to achieve the same miracles that Jesus had. So you reference to Ebola is a dud because Ebola affects the flesh and not the spirit same way nails affected the criminals by Jesus' side as it affected him too.

Mr A is a sinner and he has a flesh called T. Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T. Both men have the EXACT SAME FLESH but they have different natures.

IS THAT SO HARD TO SEE?

One of your shortcomings is being too quick to respond.
I have said this at different times.
Instead of carefully looking to understand issue you rush to answer because you feel you must have the last say.

Show me where i made this statement quoted by you:

Don't be disingenuous you said "Precious and unblemished lamb" meant that Jesus had a different body and I said No that it meant Jesus blood was precious and unblemished as the lamb should be and that Jesus' didn't sin while he was in the same flesh with sinners.

The following actually shows your little understanding of Christ's work and ministry:

I cannot possibly say his body was not good enough as a sacrifice when I have been telling you all through that the salvation he wrought for us includes HEALING which is possible because of his bruises. You on the otherhand claim the only thing we are saved from is SIN- disrespecting the scourgings that the lord's body faced.

On this your post:

Stop exposing your ignorance. Sin nature refers to the spirit of the unsaved man and I told you that repeatedly. Jesus didn't have that spirit so he didn't have the nature of sin. BUT he had the SAME BODY that sinners have. Why is that important? because now that we are born again we have a recreated human spirit by the action of the intermingling of the Holy Spirit in our regular bodies making our spirit righteous and truly holy. This means we are fit to achieve the same miracles that Jesus had. So you reference to Ebola is a dud because Ebola affects the flesh and not the spirit same way nails affected the criminals by Jesus' side as it affected him too.

Can you answer one question: 'Was Adam's flesh before the fall the same in its entirety as the flesh you have today, Mbaemeka?
Answer directly and lets see who is ignorant.

This again shows your flawed reasoning:

Mr A is a sinner and he has a flesh called T. Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T. Both men have the EXACT SAME FLESH but they have different natures.

The situation i presented was of one WITHOUT something.
Therefore your presentation should have read: Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T minus old sin nature.
And your conclusion would be:
Therefore Both men DO NOT have the EXACT SAME FLESH as they have different natures.

Is it clearer now?

Boss13:

Is inspired motors a fraud? Woooow

are you a fraud?

shdemidemi: On the contrary, it isn't any form of heresy but one must be careful when sharing the gospel, especially to people that are still struggling with basic issues. I am sure grace teachers or antitithers were not as bold in the past as they are today when delivering messages even on Nl. Some religious people can stone you to death before you say jack

The point is you said God died, i corrected you that it was a man that died according to scriptures Not God died. Just like so many of you are throwing stones @mbaemeka saying Jesus came as a man.

Jesus did not stay under the law all through His life. There was a period of transition when Jesus started speaking in parables, he started to shift more towards grace and his passion. Most times, the disciples find it hard to comprehend what he was saying, not until he left the scene and even more clearly when Paul came on the scene.

Jesus preached the Gospel of the kingdom...Grace, healing, prosperity, faith, salvation, holiness are all encapsulated in ONE gospel that is the Kingdom of God.Sorry the only guys that needs to grow with the whole plans and unveiling purposes of God are you guys and your fixations on only grace.

FUNCTION like God
How many planets/animals have you created?

mbaemeka:

Your interpretation is illogical and you would not understand why. When God said he made man in his image and likeness it simply meant to look like him and to . . .wait for it. . . FUNCTION like him! That's why I said Jesus FUNCTIONED as a man. Jesus is GOD but he chose to FUNCTION like a man. He had to have everything that other men had including their very flesh and nothing less or more. Let me show you 3 other translations.

For what the law was not able to do because it was feeble through the flesh, God, sending his Son in the image of the evil flesh, and as an offering for sin, gave his decision against sin in the flesh:
- Basic English Bible
For what was impossible to the Law--powerless as it was because it acted through frail humanity--God effected. Sending His own Son in a body like that of sinful human nature and as a sacrifice for sin, He pronounced sentence upon sin in human nature;
- Weymouth Bible
The Law of Moses cannot do this, because our selfish desires make the Law weak. But God set you free when he sent his own Son to be like us sinners and to be a sacrifice for our sin. God used Christ's body to condemn sin.
- CEV

Why did Jesus need to have the same flesh? To identify with our weaknesses, to subject sin for us showing us that it was possible with his help, to use his body as the sin-sacrifice.

If he had come in any other flesh to condemn sin then it was useless to test or tempt him and it is equally useless to expect us to walk without committing sin. For we do not have the flesh he had when he walked without sin. That's nonsense.

Let me help you understand something- Why was it possible for Jesus to die? There is no middle ground- he either had a body that was mortal or one that was immortal.

mbaemeko is contradicting himself right here

Look at your contradictions

I cannot possibly say his body was not good enough as a sacrifice when I have been telling you all through that the salvation he wrought for us includes HEALING which is possible because of his bruises. You on the otherhand claim the only thing we are saved from is SIN- disrespecting the scourgings that the lord's body faced.

https://www.nairaland.com/1892195/truth-behind-christ-embassy-healing/23#26560543

ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God[b]. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.

Which is quite unfortunate and borders on the stupid for this; a sacrifice even if it was unblemished will get cuts as it is sacrificed. You can't reject a sacrifice as blemished out of the cuts (read stripes) it incurred while it was being sacrificed.

SO Jesus bruises did not make his flesh blemished. We may stretch it further and claim that since Jesus died on the cross, the sacrifice was already dead and as such unfit

esere826:
are you a fraud?

If I claim to be a pastor and I quote from a book that is designed for the Jewish people and is 2000 years old - probably. If I make assertions that I have a direct telephone line to God and I call him and he tells me all the problems of the world - maybe. If I design miracle shows where I select familiar faces to play certain roles for me like joagbaje did - certainly, if my main objective is to live on the monetary contributions of members and pay a certain percentage to head office - sure. If I stand on pulpits/stages and tell people to close their eyes and pray and that everything will be okay rather than go resolve their issues and if I tell my members that by wearing selected aprons that no bullets or physical ailment will afflict them and I move around with stern looking bodyguards and undergo regular checkups in the finest hospitals the world can provide - then yes.

However, since I am none of this. I feel well damn please to affirm that I am no fraud. Do you do similar stuffs like what I mentioned above?

Bidam: The point is you said God died, i corrected you that it was a man that died according to scriptures Not God died. Just like so many of you are throwing stones @mbaemeka saying Jesus came as a man.

Bidam, God sacrificed Himself for the world in the person of His son. What is so difficult to understand in that! The more reason why I went back to show where God went into a covenant with man. If man failed, God pays; If God fails, God pays. This is because God put Himself on both sides of the covenant while man was asleep. God is invisible, He had to come in a physical image of His son to die.

Bidam:
Jesus preached the Gospel of the kingdom...Grace, healing, prosperity, faith, salvation, holiness are all encapsulated in ONE gospel that is the Kingdom of God.Sorry the only guys that needs to grow with the whole plans and unveiling purposes of God are you guys and your fixations on only grace.

Jesus preached prosperity! No Bidam.

I can excuse you for saying he preached healing although he did not. Healing was a tool used to attract people to hear the message. Healing was never the message of Christ.


what is the crux or the fulcrum of this entire Jesus story-
2 peter 3
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation ; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

SALVATION SALVATION AND SALVATION....not healing, not prosperity. If you are fortunate enough to have those, glory be to God. But never equate godliness to riches or good health.

The good news/good tiding of God is the free gift of salvation to all who believe (Grace)... we must not play it down by transient healing, prosperity or wonders or all the WoF people tend to bother themselves with.

donnie:
Bros I must commend you... Not Just for the way you have fulfiled that scripture "rightly dividing the word of truth", with consitency in the delivey of the gospel message; but for your patience. Like Stephen, they cannot withstand the wisdom by which you speak. I tell you, i have been on nairaland long enough to know that many of these folks oppose you, not because they think they know better, but because in your attempt to explain, they might learn a few things from you. Reminds me of my early days on NL.
Keep it up brother. One luv!

Sorry, Bros, I didn't quite get you.

Is writing a whole lot of contradictory, verbose and meaningless stuff, rightly diving the word?

Is a penchant for cheap vulgar words and graceless speeches, wisdom in speech?

Is being incorrigible an ability to teach?

Your post reveals that you are an "oldie" and very few men change their position, especially, on doctrinal matters on nl. You are nonetheless welcome. However your guy is not doing anything well here. I have stopped reading the "nonsense" (to use his own vocabulary) he writes. I would however give you a chance here. So help us explain this statement in simple but straight to the point statements: "Jesus had a sinful flesh". That will do for now.

trustman:
One of your shortcomings is being too quick to respond.
I have said this at different times.
Instead of carefully looking to understand issue you rush to answer because you feel you must have the last say.
Show me where i made this statement quoted by you:
The following actually shows your little understanding of Christ's work and ministry:
On this your post:
Can you answer one question: 'Was Adam's flesh before the fall the same in its entirety as the flesh you have today, Mbaemeka?
Answer directly and lets see who is ignorant.
This again shows your flawed reasoning:
The situation i presented was of one WITHOUT something.
Therefore your presentation should have read: Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T minus old sin nature.
And your conclusion would be:
Therefore Both men DO NOT have the EXACT SAME FLESH as they have different natures.
Is it clearer now?

1. Adam's flesh is the same flesh all men have and that is the same flesh Jesus had while on earth.

2. I have seen that you don't know who a man is with your repeated references to the flesh. A man is a SPIRIT BEING who has a soul (realm of the mind) and who LIVES in a BODY or FLESH.

So you if one man has Ebola and Another one is Ebola free they have the same FLESH. That's why I told you that every other man born into this world by virtue of a man and a woman would have a SINFUL SPIRIT because of the fall. Jesus on the other hand came with a RIGHTEOUS SPIRIT because he was fathered by God but his flesh was the same with other men because he was mothered by a mortal.

So Jesus was not a sinner but he HAD the SAME FLESH that sinners had.

As per your lies about the "precious and unblemished lamb" exchange with me I don't have the time to fish out what led to my rebuttal. You wanted to claim that since Jesus was referred to as the precious and unblemished lamb then it means his body was different from other men and I said that is a lie. That precious and unblemished lamb as used there was in reference to his BLOOD because if the writer was referring to Jesus' body and 'comparing' it with the lamb as used in the OT (that wasn't allowed to have any defects before it was slain) then Jesus body won't have been good enough seeing that his was already dented before he was slain.

Jesus' body as the perfect sacrifice was achieved by HIS NEVER COMMITTING SIN and not because he had any different flesh because he never had any different flesh.

vooks: mbaemeko is contradicting himself right here

Look at your contradictions


https://www.nairaland.com/1892195/truth-behind-christ-embassy-healing/23#26560543


Which is quite unfortunate and borders on the stupid for this; a sacrifice even if it was unblemished will get cuts as it is sacrificed. You can't reject a sacrifice as blemished out of the cuts (read stripes) it incurred while it was being sacrificed.

SO Jesus bruises did not make his flesh blemished. We may stretch it further and claim that since Jesus died on the cross, the sacrifice was already dead and as such unfit

You would only fool the people in your camp with this mischievous way of taking my words out of context like you do the whole bible.

In the OT the lamb that was to be offered as the sin-offering was to be a white lamb born and bred without any defects or even spots. A single black spot would rule the lamb out as the sacrifice for sins.

Jesus' body was to be offered in the same way but the implications of it meant that he was to never commit any sin. Period. I repeatedly said it on this thread that unblemished when referring to Jesus' body means he never sinned and not that he had a different flesh. That's why I said if the unblemished body of Jesus was to be taken as literal the way the lamb in the OT was then Jesus badly beaten body would not have been good enough.

But you guys are so dishonest to accept a simple truth and only agree with yourself to go against those who expose your ignorance of the word. Imagine someone who said Jesus body and blood were natural now criticising someone who not only said here repeatedly that his blood was divine but also explained the significance of his body, which amongst other things is for our healings. But you guys are the one's who deny healings and claim medical science has replaced it thereby bringing serious disrepute to the body of Jesus.