@donnie,

donnie:

John 3:14
"As [Num 21:9] Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must [Matt 8:20] the Son of Man [John 8:28; 12:34] be lifted up;

When the Lord Jesus said "As Moses lifted up the serpent", He definitely was not giving us any idea that He would symbolize 'sin' or the "nature of Satan" on the Cross. He had used similar phrases to teach an intricate part of His work (see Matt. 12:40). Biblical symbolism does not give us the idea that Christ took upon Himself the nature of Satan when He hung on the Cross - otherwise the WOF would be saying that God saved the world by a Man who had the nature of Satan. This idea being espoused by many today is an unfortunate heresy - because they simply have closed their eyes to the bold declaration of the Son of God: "for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me" (John 14:30).

donnie:

A lack of proper understanding of the message of salvation is what is responsible for the weakness we see in the church today.

That's true - and it is precisely on account of that fact that we're seeking to discuss this and understand what the bible teaches on the subject.

donnie:

You talk about the incarnation I'm talking about what happened on the cross

That was to help you distinguish the context of the term "nature" and to show what exactly the bible records that Jesus took upon Himself. I'm still waiting for you to show me where God said that Christ took the nature of Satan upon Himself. Have you done that, even after giving you some time to sort yourself out?

donnie:

I dare say that you do not understand the scriptures you just quoted.

Okay, thanks. I would then have expected you to explicate them for our consideration.

donnie:

No no no, you are getting it all wrong.

When he was condemned to the cross, A righteous man was condemned. But on that cross of calvary, something happened. Something beyond the ordinary. Our sins were layed on him, he took upon himself a form that words cannot fully describe. All manner of sickness sin and disease fastened themselves to His body.

It was a shock to them when they pierced His side and blood and water gushed out showing that His heart had ruptured in just six hours! The roman centurion went on His knees when he saw this.

For all of that, you have not explained how you dribbled in the idea that He took "the nature of Satan" upon Himself at the Cross. You have only sudated so much on what Scripture does not teach - and we shall go on to see the next strain of thought when you brought in the classic WOF ideology of Christ having to die spiritually!

Cheers.

@donnie,

donnie:

He had to die Spiritually first in order to die physically.

Here is just the reason why I delayed all this while in my response. So that I don't run the risk of misreading you, I would ask that you quietly and simply define your use of the term "die spiritually". Throwing words around is not the best way to do Biblical studies.

donnie:

9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth

In the highlighted verse above, the margin KJV has it as plural (ie deaths) indicating that he died two deaths. Spiritually (his seperation from the father) first, then physically. For the father who does not behold iniquity turned his back on Jesus who had been made sin for us. This is what made Jesus cry out: father why have you forsaken me.

Okay, I hear - but your summations are simply wrong. The Bible says that Jesus died ONCE -

Rom. 6:10
"For in that he died, he died unto sin once:
but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God."

Heb. 9:28
"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins
of many; and unto them that look for him shall
he appear the second time without sin unto salvation."

Heb. 10:10
"By the which will we are sanctified through
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once
for all."

1 Pet. 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"

The margin of 'death[b]s[/b]' does not support the idea of a number of times that you supposed in Christ's death on the Cross - the Bible nowhere teaches that it was TWO deaths - and the texts just quoted shows that Christ died only once.

Second, to argue for a "spiritual death" would mean that Christ became a sinner on the Cross - and where is it written that a "sinner" is able to save another sinner?

Third, Isaiah 53:9 is explained in the NT in passages that demonstrate the degree of suffering He endured on our behalf, rather than supposing that he died a number of different deaths. Paul expresses His death this way: "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross[/b]" (Php. 2:8).

And fourth, as is clear from 1 Pet. 3:18, the death Christ suffered was "in the flesh" and not "in spirit". Please could you be so kind to find me a verse that says Christ died "in spirit" in addition to the singular testimony through the Bible that He died in the flesh? We know that spiritual death is defined Biblically as people who are "dead in [i]trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1, 5 and Col. 2:13) - and unless you want to force that idea into the Bible, I don't see where it is said that Christ "died spiritually".

If you take time to see what is meant by spiritual death in the Bible, you might as well want to retract on your statements and ideas. Do you care to engage in such a study?

donnie:

Jesus speaking to the Jews, said, Ye are of your father the devil (why? bc they had his nature) and the deeds of your father you will do (naturally). They had his nature of sin, therefore they were slaves of sin, Abrahamic covenant or no Abrahamic covenant. The law was Holy but they were carnal.

What was needed was a new creation.

I have already dealt in some measure with the meaning of people being referred to as "children of Belial" - it simply has to do with their moral outlook on life and the principle (not nature) by which they lived. In one word, it is a perculiar expression of being 'wicked', and it does not teach therefore that such a person has the "nature of Satan". You should understand that the Devil has a nature that is IRREDEEMABLE (i.e., beyond redemption despite what could be done to affect it) - and that is NOT the same thing as human nature - otherwise, Christ would not have been able to redeem us if He died "in spirit" (spiritual death) as is the case with sinners.

Now, dear donnie, I'll give you time to muse over the foregoing so that we discuss your objections as we go along. I wanted you initially to gather your thoughts together, define your concepts, seek answers from the WORD, contextualize your inferences, and then present a sound understanding on the subject instead of making statements that you can't defend from Scriptures.

There are still loads of issues for you to address. But at the moment, I'd rather you go back and make any modifications on your previous summations that I haven't dealt with - or leaving them as they appear will invite a serious walk over from me.

Enjoy for now.

@ pilgrim,

It is not true that Christ became a sinner. According to the scriptures, He became sin.

I did not say that sin is not an act. I said it is more than an act. At least i know that according to the bible, everything  or action which is not of faith (that worketh by love) is sin (in the new testament).  But sin is a nature.

I am really not ready to take you through a bible lecture on the concept of sin now. But i will like to leave you with a question that i think might help you punder a bit and of course, it'll help me understand more who i am dealing with:

Are there christians who are also sinners? Can you be a christain and a sinner at the same time? What about the one who was born again with the life of God who commits sin? Is he a sinner? How does God see him?

WOF? what dat mean? I'm not into all that classification.



God bless.

@ Backslidder,

Moses, Enoch and Elijah did not go to hell by God's divine purpose. That is why it was possible for Moses and Elijah to appear at His transfiguration, for they were in heaven.

When we talk about the saints of old who were sent to hell/hades. Many think we are refering to the place of punishment or torment but that is not so.

Hell as it was then, was not just for the wicked but also for the righteous who awaited redemption. There was a great gulf seperating the place of the righteous (Abraham's bosom) and the place of the wicked. I am sure you can remember the rich man and lazurus. The rich man could see lazarus (who was in Abraham's bosom) from that place of torment in the same hades but lazurus was not in torment.

Where do you think those who were raised along with Jesus at His ressurection came from? For He took them with him into heaven at his ascension into heaven.

Passage: Ephesians 4:8:
8This is why it[a] says:
   "When he ascended on high,
      he led captives in his train
      and gave gifts to men."[b]

Where is hell?

@donnie,

donnie:

@ pilgrim,

It is not true that Christ became a sinner. According to the scriptures, He became sin.

This is such a serious laugh, donnie. . . because you're trying to cringe away from the full implication of your assertion that Christ took the "nature" of Satan upon Himself - which up until now you still haven't been able to provide clear pointer from Scripture to the idea.

donnie:

I did not say that sin is not an act. I said it is more than an act. At least i know that according to the bible, everything or action which is not of faith (that worketh by love) is sin (in the new testament). But sin is a nature.

I'm still humbly requesting answers to my questions that you properly "define sin" and distinguish that from the "nature of Satan" - since you alleged that my missing the point was because I had not defined those terms.

So far, words are being used in your discussions and rejoinders which up until now do not take us any nearer to confirming where the Bible teaches your idea that Christ took the nature of Satan upon Himself!

donnie:

I am really not ready to take you through a bible lecture on the concept of sin now. But i will like to leave you with a question that i think might help you punder a bit and of course, it'll help me understand more who i am dealing with:

I appreciate and welcome any queries you might have; but it is rather unfruitful for someone to make so much of his ideas and claim that is what the Bible teaches - and for all that boast, you're just not "ready" to show where indeed the Bible teaches such things as you espouse! It only makes me wonder often if at all people who take to such attitudes have anything to share in the first place - for no matter how assertive you may be on any subject, you may still be sincerely wrong if you cannot rest your heart on what the WORD teaches.

donnie:

Are there christians who are also sinners? Can you be a christain and a sinner at the same time? What about the one who was born again with the life of God who commits sin? Is he a sinner? How does God see him?

Lol. . . I thought you only wanted to present "a question", and ended up with about five?

No worries. Now your questions in brief:

"Are there christians who are also sinners?
Can you be a christain and a sinner at the same time?"

Christians who are born again could fall into sin where they are not careful to walk in the Spirit. The Bible teaches that if we (i.e., Christians) say that we have 'no sin', then we lie and the truth is not in us. However, when we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

"What about the one who was born again with the life of God
who commits sin? Is he a sinner? How does God see him?"

Nonetheless, believers are not called "sinners" but saints - because their sins have been taken away by Christ. Christians (believers who are 'born again') are not seen as "sinners" even when they fall in sin; rather, because they are God's children, He metes out divine discipline to them that they may be partakers of His peaceable fruit of righteousness (Hebrews 12).

It is essential that we be careful to define our concepts according to the WORD, especially in regards to what we mean by the "nature of Satan" - for that is far more than merely connoting it to mean "sin". When I read from you as to HOW that applies to the work of Christ on the Cross, and WHERE in the Bible it is taught, then I'll show you just what you're mixing up.

Rejoice.

@donnie,

donnie:

Moses, Enoch and Elijah did not go to hell by God's divine purpose. That is why it was possible for Moses and Elijah to appear at His transfiguration, for they were in heaven.

John 3:13
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that
came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is
in heaven."

Dear donnie, you would have to deal with such texts in the Bible as quoted above. This is why I often appeal to discussants: try not making assumptions without first carefully checking them out from God's WORD.

donnie:

When we talk about the saints of old who were sent to hell/hades. Many think we are refering to the place of punishment or torment but that is not so.

The place was never called HELL in Scripture, and you should not be mixing them up as "hell/hades". It was rather our English translators who unfortunately tendered that error and many believers up until today are still propagating that fallacy. The place rather is HADES, not "hell".

donnie:

Hell as it was then, was not just for the wicked but also for the righteous who awaited redemption. There was a great gulf seperating the place of the righteous (Abraham's bosom) and the place of the wicked. I am sure you can remember the rich man and lazurus. The rich man could see lazarus (who was in Abraham's bosom) from that place of torment in the same hades but lazurus was not in torment.

Neither of them was in "HELL" - rather, Jesus spoke of Hades: "And in HADES he lift up his eyes, being in torments" (Luke 16:23 - please consult your study tools to clarify on the point). "HELL" is a very different sphere and is the place of the final Judgement (see Revelation 20:10).

donnie:

Where do you think those who were raised along with Jesus at His ressurection came from? For He took them with him into heaven at his ascension into heaven.

Passage: Ephesians 4:8:
8This is why it[a] says:
"When he ascended on high,
he led captives in his train
and gave gifts to men."

Dear brother donnie: first the saints who were raised from the dead went into the city and appeared unto many - they were not taken into heaven with Christ:

Matthew 27:52-53
"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints
which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection,
and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

1 Corinthians 15:6
"After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once;
of whom the greater part remain unto this present,
but some are fallen asleep."

Second, Ephesians 4:8 was not referring to the redeemed; but rather, it refers to the triumph of Christ over the diabolic host of Satan's domain - the devil himself, death, sin, demons, spiritual wickedness in high places, principalities and powers. In declaring the victories of Christ, the apostle Paul was using a language construct of war imageries that was well-familiar to his recipients at the time. Analogous to this imagery is the call we find in Judg. 5:12 --

"Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song:
arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive,
thou son of Abinoam."

The passage in context is clear that Barak's "trophies" were those he had taken captive from the camp of his enemies. He was to "lead" his captivity "captive" (i.e., parade them in open disgrace and penultimate humiliation).

Even Christ Himself used such constructs - which was simply the understanding that a 'stronger' man plunders the enemy before he divides the spoils:

Luke 11:22
"But when a stronger than he shall come upon him,
and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour
wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."

That was precisely what Christ did - for He spoiled the enemy, the result of which we read in the NT:

Colossians 2:15
"And having spoiled principalities and powers,
he made a shew of them openly,
triumphing over them in it."

From all indications, the collective testimony of Scripture does not lead one to the inference that those who rose from the dead in Matthew 27:52-53 were taken into heaven. Not so. . . for we are given to understand that they also were alive for a certain time on earth while Christ was in heaven (1 Cor. 15:6); for in God's providence, they couldn't be made perfect and be in heaven without us (Hebrews 11:40).

Blessings.

@Pligrim.1: Jesus sis some spoiling? Wow, I thought that was restricted to Muhammad alone. I am just curious that the lamb did some spoining from the enemy! Whatever that means, etc!

And please stop quoting the writing or letters of others, eg paul/Saul who was not a companion of jesus. Further he turned the ruling of Jesus upside its head! I want you to quote the saying as per the teaching of jesus, directly from the mouth of the master Jesus (AS), himself!

You see, Paul at best is like the second generation personality, while peter, mark, luke who were with Jesus were like the first generation/companions. Yet, neither generations and even Muhammad was the speaker in Qur'an! So for you to quote romans, corinthians and the like to say anything about Jesus is disgenuous, at best. You will find only a few statement that could be atributed to have come from Jesus, in the Gospel. The rest, close to 90% is from everyone else!

You can not say Jesus died into sin, unless it means that he was not God! God does not die and since He alone is the One Who sets the parameter of what is sin and what is not, then He can not be categorised otherwise. Maybe you should know when you say kabiyesi, in Yoruba language, the true Kabiyesi is GOD HIMSELF and HE IS ONE!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Pligrim.1: Jesus sis some spoiling? Wow, I thought that was restricted to Muhammad alone. I am just curious that the lamb did some spoining from the enemy! Whatever that means, etc!

I wonder if you had a nightmare about pilgrim.1? What's all this incoherent babblings about?

olabowale:

And please stop quoting the writing or letters of others, eg paul/Saul who was not a companion of jesus. Further he turned the ruling of Jesus upside its head! I want you to quote the saying as per the teaching of jesus, directly from the mouth of the master Jesus (AS), himself!

If you don't mind, would you please stop hyperventilating like you're in a motor-park in the back-streets of a mainland bridge? What's all this caterwaul about what part of the Bible I'm to quite and what part to note quote? Are you that daft to not have noticed that your own Muslim brethren have been trying to squeeze in Muhammad into the Gospel of John and yet only ended up sculpting their illiteracy all the more as you showcased here?

I feel sorry for you - especially when you demonstrate a huge gap in your IQ. You may have a seething hate for Paul; but as long as he did you no harm, please fold your tail between your legs and scamper back to your arabian mat, you hear?

You don't bumble out to others what part of the Bible to quote from or not. No one ever queried you what Hadiths or what abrogated verses of the Qur'an you could or not quote from. If you want to discuss with people, borrow some intelligence from aneighbour if your batteries are running low.

olabowale:

You see, Paul at best is like the second generation personality, while peter, mark, luke who were with Jesus were like the first generation/companions. Yet, neither generations and even Muhammad was the speaker in Qur'an! So for you to quote romans, corinthians and the like to say anything about Jesus is disgenuous, at best. You will find only a few statement that could be atributed to have come from Jesus, in the Gospel. The rest, close to 90% is from everyone else!

Okay, I hear. And who's that someone else - Muhammad, abi?

Puhleeezzee!! ^{(ohh. . Seun, where's the "hiss" emoticon naw?)}

Olabowale, you don't have the slightest clue what you intend to argue. I have asked you guys to square up on the issue of the LOST Gospels and Torah; and up until now you both have been playing your duplicty more frantically. Have you settled down to find an answer to the question of where the LOST Injil and Torah of Allah are located? Obviously, babs787 hasn't come up with anything yet - perhaps he's still frantically searching for materials on the question to plagiarize!

olabowale:

You can not say Jesus died into sin, unless it means that he was not God! God does not die and since He alone is the One Who sets the parameter of what is sin and what is not, then He can not be categorised otherwise. Maybe you should know when you say kabiyesi, in Yoruba language, the true Kabiyesi is GOD HIMSELF and HE IS ONE!

Sorry, Jesus did not die "INTO" sin - that is the colossal drivel Muslims are known for.

'Christ "died FOR" our sins according to the scriptures' - 1 Corinthians 15:3.

Scream your guts out - yes, that's "1 Corinthians" that you asked me to not quote from.

Besides, may I remind you that Muhammad actually complained that Allah had been HURT by a mortal man? Shocked? I should suppose not (if you ever study Islam at all); but here again:

Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf
who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?"
[Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 59, #369]

So, uncle Olabowale, your "allah" is this and that and the other pplus them. .!! Thank you. Could you please let me know how inspite of all said and done, Muhammad could still plan an assassination at a man whom he supposed had "hurt" Allah?

You don't even know where you dropped your school leaving certificate. When you find it, perhaps I might have the leisure to pay you any attention.

Cherio.

@Pilgrim1,

I do not agree with you on where the dead saints are right now. Let's attend to your points one at a time.

Dear brother donnie: first the saints who were raised from the dead went into the city and appeared unto many - they were not taken into heaven with Christ:

Indeed the Saints arose and were seen in Jerusalem as testified in Matthew. But where did they go afterward? Were they sent back into Abraham's bosom? I think not.

Second, Ephesians 4:8 was not referring to the redeemed; but rather, it refers to the triumph of Christ over the diabolic host of Satan's domain - the devil himself, death, sin, demons, spiritual wickedness in high places, principalities and powers. In declaring the victories of Christ, the apostle Paul was using a language construct of war imageries that was well-familiar to his recipients at the time. Analogous to this imagery is the call we find in Judg. 5:12 --

While I understand the tradition of the Victorious that you are talking about, the context of Ephesians does not support that this is what Paul was refering to. The Bible declares that Jesus took those in captivity with Him up to heaven. Verse 9 mentioned that He went to the land of the dead for that sole purpose. Demons don't live in Hades but in the air. The captives He took with Him were Abraham and the other Saints. Though justified by faith, they could not yet enter heaven until Jesus sacrifice was complete.

Even Christ Himself used such constructs - which was simply the understanding that a 'stronger' man plunders the enemy before he divides the spoils:

You've only butressed my point by this statement. Jesus plundered Hades of its prized possession - the Saints.

That was precisely what Christ did - for He spoiled the enemy, the result of which we read in the NT:

It wasn't Satan that was holding the Saints down in Hades. Remember Lazarus telling the rich guy that there was a gulf that kept them from each other. Neither Satan nor the demons live in Hades or Hell to fight Jesus or keep Him from taking the captives with Him on His way to heaven. The Angels who live in Tatarus are in chains and couldn't fight Him either. If there was any fight between Jesus and the demons, it will have to be in the air.

From all indications, the collective testimony of Scripture does not lead one to the inference that those who rose from the dead in Matthew 27:52-53 were taken into heaven. Not so. . . for we are given to understand that they also were alive for a certain time on earth while Christ was in heaven (1 Cor. 15:6); for in God's providence, they couldn't be made perfect and be in heaven without us (Hebrews 11:40).

You must be mixing up some few things here. 1 Cor 15:6 does not refer to these Saints but to the Disciples of Jesus. As for Hebrews 11:40, the basis for making these Saints perfect was accomplished after Jesus's death and resurrection. so if they are now made perfect, then they will be in heaven with us, and not in Hades. Like paul said, once we are absent in the body now, we will be present with the Lord.

Now let's read further in Hebrews 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect If you look at the role-call there in Zion, the Church is regarded as a separate entity from the spirits of just men made perfect. In other words. The Church represents the believers of our days who go straight up to be with the Lord in heaven when we sleep. The spirits of the just men made perfect are those rescuesd from Abraham's bosom who are made perfect with us as mentioned in Hebrews 11:40.

@Pligrim.1: Fortunately, I do not have nightmares! When I read your entries of Oct. 22, I found that you quoted Roman 6/10, where it was stated that Jesus died unto sin. My sister, High scholl and even University is not of my concern, anymore. Thats for my children and for you young people. I am not screaming and am too busy to think about you, except whatever is good for you that i pray that you get.

The problem with all of us, is that we will avoid truth and by sticking to our conviction, we may be unable to evaluate issue whereby we fail to exercise good Judgement.We are discussing religion, so lets kep it at that. Thanks'

@Tayo-D,

How body?

Tayo-D:

I do not agree with you on where the dead saints are right now.

I understand - and this is the sort of challenge I love.

But just one thing: please carefully go through again and let's see if you're not missing something vital.

Hint: ask yourself if the saints who rose actually ascended with Him.

That could be a good reference point; and if that could not be clearly enunciated, all the rest is mere conjecture.

I look forward to yours.

Cheers.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Pligrim.1: Fortunately, I do not have nightmares! When I read your entries of Oct. 22, I found that you quoted Roman 6/10, where it was stated that Jesus died unto sin. My sister, High scholl and even University is not of my concern, anymore. Thats for my children and for you young people. I am not screaming and am too busy to think about you, except whatever is good for you that i pray that you get.

Dear sir, there's a huge difference between dying INTO sin and dying UNTO sin! This is not a huge thing for university degree to understanding; but you didn't wait for any dialogue before you rushed a post claiming that Jesus died into sin!!

Olabowale, this rascal attitudes you Muslims put up trying to invade Christianity with allegations of sub-standard scholarly is what I really don't have the time to entertain. It's quite simple: the Muslim lust is to seek to discredit what you don't know nor can understand - as long as Muhammad said this, that or the other, you would rather use that to clutter anything that is non-Islamic. You guys little realize the huge mistake you commit every single time when asked to stand up to your assertions - and then we begin to see the duplicity that you parade as "defence" for islam!!

You don't use obvious fallacies to "attract" people to reason and faith. Fools will swallow such duplicity; but that's okay for them. . . as long as you don't begin to use that as the yardstick for TRUTH and integrity!

If we're going to discuss anything, you should be willing to seek an inviting dialogue. Your attitude so far has been hugely a gap (inspite of my patience with you). State your points, respect what you don't know about, never assume a lazy attitude of actually doing your home work in seeking to understand issues - so that you don't present your muddled ideas for "TRUTH". It is nauseating to read your complaints and then wonder if you could be taken seriously as a gentleman.

Olabowale, it does not help any Muslim to first be sarcastic towards Christianity before you even seek to open a dialogue. That attitude runs deep in Muslim blood - and I shared my testimony with you in the Christian thread as to how God delivered me from something worse than that wich I inherited in Islam!

It shouldn't cost you anything to engage in a mutual and enabling dialogue with people. You asked at one time if I've ever seen anyone insult any of the prophets - and you're the same person who came back sarcastically saying interjecting your posts with: your god died! If someone reading that begins to rail Muhammad and call him all sorts of things, Muslims will begin to wail that Christians are bad people!

After how many years of being a Muslim and now an elderly man, what has your belligerent attitude to Christianity served you personally? And with that type of attitude you want to "connect" with my dad - because you assume he's an errand boy? Pleeease.

I believe a word should just be serve to wake you up from that strain of ideology. Engage in discussions - and let's see that you're making some effort towards maturity.

Cheers.