This is a bit of an involved question, but the short answer is the Truth. The Bible is God's own Truth about existence as a whole. This is actually why Christianity is not a religion at all.
Religions are systems created by human beings to explain their existence. Their key features are the nature of man and his relationship to God and therefore to the visible and invisible world around him. The sense in which religions are separate from philosophies is only in the specific concern of the former with the methods of worshiping God, whether by sacrificing animals at specific times and intervals, or by saying a prayer formula so many times at such and such times everyday, or by attending elaborate ceremonies organized to follow a certain pattern every so often, etc. Apart from such matters of liturgy and the issue of whether a God or gods exist and what their identity may be, there is no real difference between philosophy and religion since both do the same thing: attempt to explain existence for human beings.
The Bible, on the other hand, does not merely offer an explanation for human existence. It is a matter-of-fact, take-it-or-leave-it documentation of existence for human beings from God's Perspective. That there are other holy books which claim to be the same is of little consequence because any honest examination of such books will soon show their subjectivity. The authors or proponents of such writings are always in the vantage position or the privileged position. In other words, they might as well have written such things to make themselves look good or favor themselves in the specific way that the books did.
The Bible does treat some people with favor but an honest examination again shows that even these people are never treated so with no qualification. The Israelites suffer as much as any other sinning nation, even right up to the point of losing nationhood like not a few of their own enemies did. Later, Christians are warned very strictly in the New Testament in books like Revelation of similar judgment with one entire church era advised that it will be summarily removed or ended if believers of that time did not repent (Revelation 2:5) and others warned of varying degrees of punishment for waywardness. In short, it would be an insane person or group of persons who would take it into their heads to write the Bible in the hopes of capturing human imagination and promoting the worship of the God of the Bible. Those who are promised anything for obedience to that God find that they have to wait until they die or until their God comes back to take over and rule the Earth before they really get the benefits of such obedience. They are told that this world is a place of suffering for them although even in it they will be comforted enough to keep plodding on. Evidently, the Bible is unique in its objectivity.
Additionally, its explanation of human existence is perfectly plausible and reasonable. The God too revealed in it is as complex and perfect as would be expected of the Maker of the existence we see in and around us. He does not fit human flights of fancy but He does meet the purest hopes of humanity and exceed them exactly the same as He plumbs the depths of human fears and surpasses them as well.
All this bears repeating. The Bible, while obviously specially interested in Israel and the Church (which are actually the same thing), is centered around the God it reveals rather than around any human person or group. The nation Israel and the spiritual organization called the Church are both important because of God's Interest in them rather than for their own sake. The way that God deals with them shows that they are not so important as to define God. God defines them so completely that being born Israelite meant nothing if you did not also respect and obey God and becoming a Christian meant very little if you did not proceed to "bear lasting fruit" and nothing at all if you stopped believing in Christ. So, the Bible is completely objective and centered around God as the object of interest rather than human beings or their fantasies.
This makes sense in any exploration of meaning since existence, if it has any meaning at all, can only be explained from the perspective of the Creator of all things. Since He made all things, He must have had a reason to. That reason must be intimately connected with His Creatures but it would not enslave Him to them so that they define Him.
In conclusion, what the Lord Jesus Christ offers that nobody else does is the Truth of God Himself irrespective of human idiosyncrasies.
true what you wrote up there. I just ask the question because of others who might have such question. The God of the bible doesn't fit into man's ideology.
solite3: true what you wrote up there. I just ask the question because of others who might have such question. The God of the bible doesn't fit into man's ideology.
Thank you for the question. Whatever the reason behind any question asked, I consider it an opportunity to produce spiritual food for fellow believers. As you may know, I do debate with atheists and others for this exact reason.
[b]Question #75: Because you are ignoring the obvious, but I am so pleased you answered those 6 questions. You dont know how much it means to me you answering them. It permits me to better understand you, better understand yor station(s), better know why and how you come to be in the position(s) you reveal about yourself, topic and whatnot. That is the objective, thery arent trick questions, and there are never nothing malicious intents with my questionings. Thank you.
Response #75: To be clear, I don't consider them trick questions. I find them condescending and annoying. I would be happy to answer questions to clarify what I believe for others. But your questions are designed ostensibly to demonstrate the errors in a position that you do not agree with. That is not something that I ordinarily have a problem with. The problem is that with such a design, when you get answers you don't expect, you may be sorely tempted to accuse your opposite of some kind of malpractice. That is why I would rather you just made your case and if we can agree, we do. If we cannot, we would at least know why we cannot and have a chance of disagreeing amicably.
Question #76: Well, I know you cant deny that part of Jude is very similar to 2 Peter, hence my "what do you know about the source(s) of Paul, Peter and Jude letters that got them concerned to write about myths and heresies"
First, I am going to show you here next, evidence of Jude quoting Peter, before talking of other sources, or "sources" as you put it, Jude and Peter quoted from. There are more of Jude quoting Peter, but this just one, as it is, is enough and factual. More can be provided upon request
17But you, beloved, remember what was foretold by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ 18when they said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow after their own ungodly desires" - Jude 1:17-18
"Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires." - 2 Peter 3:3
Response #76: There is no doubt - and I have not expressed any such in this regard - that Jude is similar to 2 Peter. But it is a leap of logic to go from that to concluding that either copied from the other. That is also why many antichristians pretend that Matthew copied Mark and so on. As I said, both Jude and Peter wrote under inspiration. There is absolutely no need to claim that there was any copying going on at all since they were both writing under the same influence. This is itself yet another proof of the whole Bible's consistency. All over the Bible, even though there are multiple human authors, the theme is one and the proof is in how each agrees with the other.
Question #77: You at times can be so predictably suspicious of my questioning, that it makes you go on a defensive and tangent
My question was: "Do you know that Jude references and quotes from Peter when he writes?", which required at most a Yes or No binary answer, at worst I dont know. Anyway I never doubted the inspiration under which Jude wrote, but I have shown with the above that Jude references and quotes from Peter when he writes, which was the question asked.
Response #77: First, that it sounds defensive to you does not mean that it is.
Second, there was no tangent at all. As I explained above, there was no necessity to assume that either copied from the other. If, in fact, any copying happened, why do you assume that it was Jude who did it and not Peter? There is no reason to infer that any copying happened. Both of them were writing under the same spiritual influence so it is not unexpected that they should say similar things.
Third, I have told you before that there are such things as false dichotomies. If I have no reason to assume what you assume, I cannot be reasonably expected to give you the answers you expect. I cannot tell you that "yes, I know that Jude copied Peter" or "no, I don't know that/if Jude copied Peter" or whatever the third option might be in your thinking when I know that Jude and Peter wrote under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and thus did not need to copy each other.
Question #78: Well, I am sorry to be the one bursting the bubble and letting you know that they both made references to non apocrypha and/or pseudepigrapha books, that rightfully are rejected to be in the bible, case in point The Book of Enoch
"See the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone and to convict the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done" - 1 Enoch 1:9
14Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones 15to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” - Jude 1:14-15
How can you, in light of the above, say The Book of Enoch is a recent hoax, where it is clear as day shows Jude 1:14-15 echoing 1 Enoch 1:9?
Response #78: I can say so if I know that someone who read Jude decided to create a book of Enoch after the fact containing those quotes so that with it he can sell other lies.
Question #79: Absolutely and backed with scripture
Response #79: I'm afraid I don't know any such Scriptures.
Question #80: You are, sometimes, like just here, too quick to protect yourself from a harmless and innocent question. All I merely asked was "how many apocrypha, non apocrypha and/or pseudepigrapha books have you so far read, that you are cocksure Paul wasnt referring to the Genesis 6 story and the heresies surrounding it". The question had nothing to do asking about reading all the books in the world
I dont need to have read all the books in the world that I should be sure of anything at, but if you read like I do, you would have read the book of Enoch, as a non apocrypha and/or pseudepigrapha book, or read any of the apocrypha books
Response #80: Your question was not innocent. But I won't argue with you if you insist that it was. The second paragraph in your response is why I answered you the way I did. I don't need to know anything from the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books to be sure what to believe. That is not to say that I am not familiar with some of them. But there are far more pseudepigraphical books than one can read in one lifetime. If our understanding of the Bible depended on knowing what these false books say, then we are hopeless to ever be sure what the Truth is.
But it doesn't. To understand the Bible, we need only the Holy Spirit, the Bible itself and gifted and prepared Bible teachers.
Question #81: I only stop reading when I am six foot under but for sake of this thread, I can tell you I have read the book of Enoch along with some other good, bad and ugly books.
Response #81: That is your choice and I have no part in making it for you. For myself, I would rather spend my time reading and rereading my Bible, listening to a gifted and prepared Bible teacher and studying what material I need to to prepare myself to teach others properly. The last may include some of these books you speak of if my gift for apologetics required knowledge of them. So far I haven't seen that it does, so I am not much concerned with them.
Question #82: On the contrary. It is just that, I haven't yet read anywhere in the bible of a celestial popping out and physically appearing looking like a human being on its own accord and without been sent on an errand by God or not in an official capacity and so that it a precedent that shows and can be used as a reason whywe dont see celestial beings popping out and physically appearing looking like a human being on their own accord and without been sent on an errand by God or not in an official capacity
Response #82: [1]Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. [2]And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. [3]And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." [4]But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'" [5]Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple, [6]and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, 'He will command His angels concerning You'; and 'On their hands they will bear You up, So that You will not strike Your foot against a stone.'" [7]Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.'" [8]Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; [9]and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." [10]Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" [11]Then the devil left Him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him. Matthew 4:1-11 NASB
Now, even without any Bible passage offering such an example as the above, it is still a very bad idea to assume that if the Bible does not say something, then it must mean something else by its silence. We don't know everything about the affairs of the spiritual. We barely even know what the ground rules are here. We can glean enough from the Bible to be able to walk in total confidence in God but far much more is happening spiritually than God is pleased to tell us in the Bible. The right attitude to have then is one of humility. What we are not told we ought not to assume recklessly.
Question #83: C'mon now Ihedinobi3, it's me, please stop pulling my leg. "Myriad" used in those bible context is not used as an actual or fixed number. "Myriad" means a unit of ten thousand, but the bible says they are myriads, effectively a countless or extremely great number of celectial beings or angels 10,000
Response #83: Ten thousand times ten thousand is an actual number. A thousand thousands is an actual number. Still, my position is that it is impossible for the number of creatures that God made to be infinite. They are not God Who is truly infinite. We may be unable to count as high as the number of all the angels but there is a finite number of them. But what the Bible does say is not that their number is infinite but that they were "tens of thousands of tens of thousands and thousands of thousands" or "myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands". That is finite, ______, not infinite.
Question #84: This is a quiet truth, that is not a version of anything widely known, as it is an original knowing. Some people fall victim to dogma and ill-informed teaching. There is nothing more damaging to a discovered truth than attachment to an old error and closeness to the truth, because the thing about the truth is, not a lot of people can handle it. You can be standing right in front of the truth and not necessarily see it, and people only see and get it when they're ready to see and get it. The only people who are and are going to be mad at you for speaking the truth are those people who have been believing a lie
Response #84: That is neither here nor there. You gave the impression that there was something more. Still, let it be.
I will only add that the Truth is not meant to be hidden - except from those who do not want it - and it certainly does not present a badge of arrogance for learning it. Those who know the Truth are under obligation to help others who are willing to learn it (Matthew 10:27). We don't present ourselves as some kind of elite because of what we know. That is knowledge puffing us up or making us arrogant (1 Corinthians 8:1). Love teaches us to help others with what we know.
Question #85: ".Again the Lord said to Raphael, Bind Azazyel hand and foot; cast him into darkness; and opening the desert which is in Dudael, cast him in there." - Book of Enoch 10:6
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;" - 2 Peter 2:4
I always any day, will take Peter and Jude's words on any matter first before taking yours on board Ihedinobi3, no disrepect or insult intended.
When Peter in 2 Peter 2:4 above, used that hypothetical "if" in his letter, he was quoting from the Book of Enoch 10:6 shown above and talking about how out of place as to be amusing, it is to believe in all that fantasy of angels humping human beings and further on, in 2 Peter 2:11, he denies that angels were accusing other angels, saying they (i.e. meaning angels Michael, Uriel, Raphael, and Gabriel) wouldnt bring such a slanderous accusation against these supposedly angels having sex with human beings before God
Response #85: I wouldn't have it any other way, I assure you.
As for your quote, I believe I have already addressed it. The Book of Enoch is a worthless waste of time and a dangerous one too for those who will not follow the biblical method for growing in the Truth.
Question #86: Your best is not good enough
Response #86: I would worry if you were the Lord Jesus.
Question #87: Brilliant deduction, however, the thing about the truth is, not a lot of people can handle it because the greater the ignorance, the greater is the dogmatism, but there certainly are different paths of learning and growth anyway, so I say may you continue to abound in His grace
I will asap reply to your other post with the comment about "The KJV translated wrong in Genesis 6:4. The Nephilim were not giants".
Response #87: There is only one way to grow in the Truth, that is, to come to know and understand the whole teaching of the Bible: we must submit to the authority of a pastor-teacher whose teaching is approved by the Bible and stick with his ministry until we have learned everything that the Bible teaches as a whole (Ephesians 4:11-14). There is no other way.
Question #88: Of course you wouldnt have anything more to add because you and I know that, there is nowhere it is in a clear and detailed manner, leaving no room for confusion or doubt, stated that angels are called sons of God. Nowhere in the bible, is it forcibly and clearly expressed that angels are sons of God. What is so difficult, in admitting this truthful fact Ihedinobi3?
Response #88: I don't know any such thing. If these passages, as clear as they are, are not clear enough in your judgment, why should I expect you to receive any other witness? I doubt that you would accept even one that says unequivocally that "angels are sons of God". You have your own agenda which has nothing to do with what the Bible actually says in this regard, so it is not surprising that you reject its witness.
Question #89: Of course, I know Genesis 6:2, 6:4, Job 1:6, 2:1, 38:7 and Luke 20:36 and that they arent talking of angels as sons of God, but I wanted to be sure you are not hinging your conjectures on any other bible verses, I am not aware of
I cant believe you're bold enough to say "You only appear to have a completely different take on them than one would warrant." but nothing spoilt, I am not fretting, because I know the penny will drop sooner or latter
Response #89: What you believe in this is between you and the Lord. You do not accept my authority as a teacher so I can hardly be held responsible for you here. As for my conjectures, what else would you call something you are hell-bent on rejecting? Are you saying anything different from what atheists say when they call the Gospel and the Bible a fiction? Suffice to say that just like your "simple" retelling of the Genesis 6 passage, your explanation of these passages you reject are bound to be just as convoluted and just as based on foreign intrusions into the Bible.
Question #90: You underlined men and daughters to show the contrast in the storyline's change in tone and it switching to using sons of God and daughters of men instead of the previous ordinary use of men and daughters words, for a reason, didnt you? I am glad you did that because that was a freudian slip on your side
Response #90: I can't help what you choose to see. I underlined men and daughters because both words were present in the phrase "daughters of men" which I also underlined. As I explained later, there is nothing else that you can call daughters who are born to men which would be clearer than "daughters of men". You thought to insist that there was some sort of switching happening all on your own. Clearly, no such thing happened. Men had daughters and those daughters were referred to as daughters of men since that is what they were. There is nothing better that they could have been called.
To an ill-informed and unprejudiced mind, the words, as they stand in Genesis 6:4, states, as clear as day, that the Nephilim, who were on the earth in those days, as existing, before the sons of God began to go into the daughters of men. It didnt even say marry or know them, as Adam and others knew their wives, but says: "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" Bluntly put, the "sons of God" fairked the "daughters of men" literally." - by _______: 8:38am On Feb 12
The above inverted commas is what you're asking a hebrew explanation from. Are you sure I mentioned anything about Hebrew in my comment there, hmm?
Response #105: This is the comment I meant:
Ihedinobi3, the word Nephilim in Hebrew means giants. If you want me to elaborate, and go into the etymology details and literal meaning of Nephilim, I will, but only if you ask me to, so suffice to say, the Nephilim were giants, human beings initially with incredible stature and strength before brains met brawn. The beauty of the "daughters of men" was the catalyst. - _______ (https://www.nairaland.com/5011271/said-angels-dont-sexual-feelings/1#75647915)
Question #106: I applaud your honesty in saying you do not know of such thing.
If you were able to show me where it is forcibly and clearly expressed that angels are sons of God, of course, I will glad eat the humble pie, ask for your forgiveness, admit I got it all wrong and accept on the face of the unequivocally proof you give
My agenda is not to suffer ignorance gladly, and please stop, at every moment being defensive and anxious to avoid opposing views
I remember I previously warned and told you that you are responsible for what you teach
I am in good company of Paul, Peter and Jude who call what you believe in to be myths and teaching heresy. Please, dont even go there, we are not talking about the Gospel and the Bible being fiction, but rather this is about believing in celestial beings otherwise known as angels impregnated human beings
It's OK, I am not sweating it
My hands are up in the air, and I am guilty as charged. Yes it does make one become infuriated at times when a well-known respected teacher knows not these things
You dont like tables you're standing on being shaking, it seems, isnt it Ihedinobi3?
Some of the differences between you and I are, I love and can take criticism. I dont shy from saying things bluntly as they are. I dont call a spade a fork. It is my work to correct anybaga, I will bring any baga to the water trough, and from there the onus to drink is on you and not me. No one, including not you, a heavyweight, even not me typing, is a sacred cow. I dont mind whose ox is gored, I will say it as it is and there's nothing personal to it. I fear no one, as a clear and innocent conscience fears nothing.
So my brother, I dont start fights and then you turn around and claim that my questions are harmless and innocent Ihedinobi3, but rather I engage people by laying down my stick alongside their stick on the ground and throw in questions because he who is afraid to ask questions, is ashamed of learning. I dont like making assumptions, so that's why I try asking questions Ihedinobi3.
It is better to answer a question even without settling the matter than to try settling the matter without any attempt to answer the question. Asking questions is as important as answering them. He who asks a question is a fool for a minute but he who does not, remains unknowing and a fool forever, so can you see there is a reason and method in the questioning madness?
Now about what and when you say "... a disassociation from an erroneous doctrine you put forth once for you to bristle and try to start a cantankerous debate. I wasn't even trying to correct you. I only said that you were wrong in associating me with what you taught since I didn't hold the same views. That was all. But you cannot stand having anyone hold different views from you, can you? ...". Well I am quite sure Ihedinobi3, you are a father and not just an ordinary father, but you are a loving, fair, evenhanded and just father. I like to believe you are fair and impartial in treatment or judgement, well if you, an earthly father have all this admirable qualities when dealing with human beings, how much more than that, do you think God, our Heavenly Father has? You really believe, circumstances of every action we took whilst on earth would not be considered by God isnt it? You really think that people wouldnt be offered a free legal representative in the person of Jesus an Advocate, to defend them and put a defence to the Judge. Did you not notice, that after a length, I didnt drag the matter with you anymore? I understand, some of us, at times entertain elements of parochialism in matters such as that one you wouldnt agree with or accept.
Phew. Are you done talking? You are taking this personal and to heart now Ihedinobi3. You are becoming over sensitive. Where did this thought of "... far more arrogant than you know... desire to be top dog... false sense of superiority... lack of fear of God.... " and others emanate from? Dont mix bad words with the bad mood you're in please.
I've always learned a great deal from questioning as in when I ask questions, more than as opposed to ordinary straight talking or discussions. I think its Albert Einstein, one of the finest brains about who said: "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." but my curiosity questions rubs you the wrong way, it apparently seems, as you dont like me questioning your answers and/or comments.
Ihedinobi3 do you know what I find remarkable about intelligience? Intelligience, is not that you know everything without questioning, but rather, is, you question everything you think you know.
I am humbled by the testimony you've just shared here, and so again I pray may you abound in His grace to know that angels do not have gender, there is no male or female angels and that angels werent given the ability to procreate human beings. Now if you agree and accept these facts, how do you explain away, how angels supposedly managed to obtain the ability to conceive and bear children with daughters of men?
Not so fast Ihedinobi3, come back here. You are getting it twisted up with your "You are the one who hold that the Book of Enoch is rightly excluded from the Bible thereby admitting that it is not inspired and yet it is this book that informs your interpretation of a Bible passage which is itself inspired. This is notwithstanding the fact that the book is a recent hoax and the fact that the Bible always interprets itself." comment. I never anywhere suggested that the book of Enoch is an inspired book. I had advanced the point that the book is an old hoax from the first/second century that the contents of it, Peter Jude and Paul were familiar with because of its existence in their times alive and so tackled the angels having sex with human beings myths circulated and aided by the books just like that one. If Tertullian, an early Christian father figure, wrote in c. 200 that the Book of Enoch had been rejected by the Jews because it contained prophecies pertaining to Christ then it wouldnt be a recent hoax as such, dont you think Ihedinobi3?. It is an old hoax that, recently was, in batches, unearthened, rediscovered and found again.
Despite the difference(s), I highly appreciate you though , so I tell you what Ihedinobi3, if you are hellbent on insisting that, it is angels being referred to in Genesis 6:4 and elsewhere other places, then I cannot help thinking, so be it my dear beloved brother.
PS: I am sorry Ihedinobi3 were you banned and your post hidden because of responding to me? I have sent you a message to the personal e-mail shown on your Profile signature anyway
Response #106: As I always do, I am offering you formal notice that I am quitting this discussion. I have considered reasons to continue and do not find them compelling enough to proceed. A particularly compelling reason is your misrepresentation of things that I have said but I think that any honest person reading the exchange will see where you have. Clarifying would only prolong a pointless conversation.
However, for the purposes of clarity, I will summarize what I consider the most important things to me in this discussion:
Touching the subject exclusively:
1. Judging only by what the Bible itself actually says, Genesis 6 documents a monumental event in human history which was about God's Love for the Human Race, namely, the global flood that made sure that the Savior would still be born to save humanity.
2. That is, the event we have been discussing was a deliberate attempt by Satan to prevent the birth of the Savior and the deliverance of the human race. His cohorts, who had already demonstrated their taste for physical existence and experience, took for themselves women from among human beings with whom they produced the Nephilim.
3. The Nephilim were hybrids who possessed physical durability and intellectual ability as well as superhuman ability that made them desirable as relatives. This is natural. Women (and certainly men) have always had a desire to produce children or be related to people of exceptional qualities. So, in time, the Nephilim strain came to pretty much overrun the human species.
4. By the time Noah was born, there were very few humans left. At the time that God intervened, "all flesh [had] corrupted its way upon the earth". Pure humanity was a seriously endangered species by that time.
5. Now, because of the incredible durability and abilities of the Nephilim, even if there were a group of human beings who were willing to fight, the Nephilim are very hard to kill even if you could outsmart them in a fight. For this reason, only God's intervention would be able to eliminate them from the picture and guarantee the perpetuity of the human line so that His Promise of a Savior would be fulfilled.
6. Hence, a global flood which covered the earth long enough to make sure that the Nephilim all died.
7. This was really all that Genesis 6 was about: the preservation of the human race, not merely the punishment of evil since evil is always present in human beings.
8. It is merely tangential that rebel angels demonstrated sexual desire there.
Having said that,
1. You obviously have less respect than a believer ought to have for the Bible. This puts you in far greater danger than you appear to have any concept of.
2. You also are too arrogant to appreciate that everyone has a God-given right to believe and teach whatever they please. They will answer to God for how they use their free will, not to you.
3. You are quick to deny all sorts of things including that you offer yourself as a teacher of the Bible, but you actually do offer yourself as one. So, let me warn you: be very careful what you tell other people that God says. You will not get away with misleading anybody at all about God's words. In fact, you will have greater condemnation from Him than anybody else can have if you do.
4. It is in your best interest to never add anything to what the Bible says or to take anything away from it. This is related to #1 and #3 above. Leave the Bible as it is. If you do not understand it, be diligent in seeking and praying for a gifted and prepared teacher to explain it to you. Do not seek anything outside the Bible to explain the Bible.
Question #107: Where in the text does it say that the antichrist is the devil's son?
Response #107: [15]And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel." Genesis 3:15 NASB
Question #108: So you are implying the devil has many sons?
Response #108: I was answering definitively that the Antichrist is Satan's literal son, not implying anything further.
He has only one such offspring according to the Bible and it is the Antichrist. All other children of his are necessarily people of the same spiritual bent as he since he champions all evil. That is, the sense in which all unbelievers are his children is that they are all rebels like him and he is the chief rebel against God.
Question: I came across this question on a forum and decided to help share it here for more contributions
"I want to ask this question because I discovered that people have different perspectives on the issue of Christiana participating in politics. Many people think and belive that politics is not good for good and heaven minded Christians. So I decided to bring up the issue here, since this is a Christian forum. Fellow Christians please clarify me on this issue so that I will know what to say next time. THANKS ALL".
Response: Hi there.
I'm a believer in Jesus Christ committed to following the Bible wherever it leads.
[19]We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. 1 John 5:19 NASB
[30]I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me John 14:30 NASB
[5]And he led Him up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. [6]And the devil said to Him, "I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. [7]Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." [8]Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'You shall worship the Lord your God and serve Him only.'" Luke 4:5-8 NASB
[44]In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever. Daniel 2:44 NASB
[29]But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; [30]and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; [31]and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. [32]But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord... 1 Corinthians 7:29-32 NASB
These are a sampling of passages that teach one thing: believers have a kingdom that is not of this world to look forward to. This world belongs to Satan. God does exercise sovereignty over it since He created it but Satan is currently usurping it. Because of that usurpation, God cursed it and bound it over to decay (Genesis 3:17-19; Romans 8:20-21). Therefore, it is only an effort to oppose God to try to fix this world before God Himself lifts the curse. That is the effort of all the politicking in the world: to oppose God in some way. It is not always apparent that that is what is happening but it is what is happening.
For this reason, the Christian is better advised to avoid politics. The affairs of this life are best left to the spiritually dead. They are the most exercised about it, after all, and they have no hope beyond this life. But we who believe look forward to a Kingdom that will never fail. Beginning from the Return of our King at His Second Advent, we will rule the world until time ends and this creation passes away. Then, in eternity, we will rule over all creation with the Lord God.
The idea that because believers are the salt of the earth and the light of the world we ought to participate in politics is, like all the attempts to enemy makes at corrupting the Word of God, a lie. We are salt and light only in so far as we are upholding the Truth of God through spiritual growth and progress and ministry. That means that as long as we are learning the Truth of the Bible and applying it to our lives and as long as we are helping others to do this as well (if they want it), we are being salt and we are being light. Not participation in politics in the devil's world.
This world's many ills (including even its physical conditions, particularly its physical conditions) will only be fixed by the Lord Jesus Christ at His Return (Romans 8:21; Ezekiel 47:1-12). The efforts of the unbelieving and of misguided believers today involved in politics are doomed to failure. Even worse, they are only paying the way for the emergence of the worst despot the world has ever seen in the Antichrist.
So, it is wise for the believer to avoid politics and concentrate on spiritual growth for their own spiritual safety.
Question: Pls guys it's long but pls take time to read all through Hi everyone, I'm a boy of 18yrs and I'm suffering from the sin of masturbation! I started viewing porn since I was 11yrs old and started masturbating since I was 13, I've tried several times to quit it but the highest I can go is 3weeks. I've never had sex before and I've never had a girlfriend before. Fast forward to 2018 during the ASUU strike I gave my life to Jesus Christ and regretted committing all the sins I've committed in the past and reconciled with my cousin whom I haven't spoken to for a year. I read my Bible and prayed day and night then ASUU called off the strike and the devil used it as an opportunity to trap me then I began staring at girls backsides in school and saying in my mind that its not a sin if u don't lust after them, people around me were saying all sort of bad stuffs, and the school itself was loading me with work and I stopped praying and reading my Bible daily ( but I do it 3-4 times a week) and concentrated on studying my school books and started viewing sex related front page threads on nairaland, then one night I wanted to pray and sleep but I was too weak to pray so I said the Lords prayer and slept then I had a dream that I was in a room with some boys and girls my age and we were talking then the others left me alone with 1 girl and she started touching me and started touching her and just as we were about to have sex I woke from my dream then a demon was present with me attaching itself to me from my back and holds me tight , all I could see were its hands and legs it never let's me see it's face (it's not the first time, it usually does this to me at night whenever I masturbate in the day time) then I prayed in my heart and it left 3 days after that event I viewed a sex related FP thread and boom I masturbated for the first time after 3months and I felt bad and forsaken. Then I asked for forgiveness and went back to it again and finally asked for forgiveness again last night I cried seriously because I knew I wasn't worthy but believed I could be forgiven then after the prayer (about 20minute which was my usual for praying) then I read my bible and slept then woke up at 4:00 and wasn't feeling sleepy so I prayed and read my bible then I began to feel sleepy so I slept, then I had a dream were I held chicken in my hands then I put it in my mouth and realizing I was dreaming, I knew it wasn't right to eat in a dream so I removed it from my mouth and woke up,, Boom I saw the scariest thing I've ever seen my life a spirit wearing a red shirt and a blue jeans trouser staring at me beside my bed but I couldn't move or speak but I wasn't afraid and I was praying in my mind, I don't know if it was a demon or a spirit but it was as short as a 12yrs old boy very dark and skinny but the face wasted clear enough for me know whether it was human or demon, then it left and I regained my self so I got up and prayed then went back to bed and took my phone and starting browsing football news because I wasn't scared of it and the time was 5something then.
I've never told anyone this my problem before, I really never want backslide again. Pls if there is any advice u have for me pls say it really love u guys so much!
Response: Hello there.
I'm sorry to hear this trouble that you have. However, it is not nearly as uncommon as it may seem to you. Every single Christian stumbles no matter how great or mature they are. Of course, the more mature a Christian gets, the less they stumble into gross sin like the one you are complaining about here. This is why it is very important for Christians to make it a point of duty to grow up spiritually.
It is a joy to hear that you take your Bible-reading and prayer seriously. Not many Christians today take it as seriously as you do, and it is tremendously important. However, Bible reading and prayer are only one part of the equation. Spiritual growth comes from taking pains to learn the Bible in-depth from a gifted and prepared Bible teacher. Reading your Bible is important both so that you can see for yourself what it is that God says, and so that you can be sure that what the teacher is telling you is actually true. But growing spiritually will simply not happen unless you commit to learning the Bible under one teaching ministry that feeds you substantive and correct Bible teaching.
As you grow, like I said, you will find it easier to give up sinful habits and adopt godly ones. If you don't grow, it remains a very daunting daily battle that will constantly rob you of your joy and peace. To be clear, it will never cease to be a daily battle, but spiritual growth and maturity does make it easier to win more often.
None of us will ever be perfect in this sinful body, but we can reach a very high level of sanctification, if we are willing to fight for it with spiritual growth.
I really hope that this gives you hope and that it stirs your zeal to follow after the Lord. If it does, I very highly recommend https://ichthys.com where I learned and continue to learn. There are several Bible studies written up there in a systematic and exhaustive way that will open the Bible up to you. You can start small with the Peter series and work your way up. There is also a systematic theology there that captures the main doctrines of the Bible so that you can appreciate how the Bible works.
Besides Ichthys, which is very heavy on text with only audio versions of the text as the multimedia available there, there is also www.bibleacademyonline.com. This one is also highly recommended, and is a video ministry. If you prefer that media, you can use it instead. The important thing is not whether it is video or text or audio or even who the teacher is. It is that you get the Truth straight. These two teachers are people that I highly recommend. But the choice is up to you whether it is one of them or it is somebody else entirely outside of the two of them.
Whoever you choose from wherever, never lose sight of your Bible. Keep it close to make sure that your teacher is telling you the Truth about what God says.
I will say a prayer here for you. I would also be very happy to help in any further way you need me to.
Grace be with you.
PS.: In the meantime, when you fall into sin, just confess your failure to the Lord, and get up and keep running. Don't allow a false sense of guilt to cripple you and cost you your zeal for God. We ought never to sin, but the Lord is always ready and willing to forgive us when we confess our sins. He will still discipline us so that we grow in our fear of Him, which guards us from sinning foolishly against Him in the future. But everything I said in the foregoing is the only way to actually deal with this decisively.
Question #1: Dr. Luginbill recently linked me to your efforts regarding [url=http://ichthys.com/Odii%20Foundational%20Principles/About%20Angels.pdf]Angels and the Nephilim in Genesis 6[/url] when we were discussing resistance to teaching in the Bible study I am leading. I must say -- you handled the issue quite well, and I was thrilled to see someone else standing up for the truth in this manner. My friends were pushing back a bit on the idea of the sin nature being inherited through the male line (and related matters), but they were nowhere near as resistant as your correspondents!
Response #1: Thank you for your very kind words about that conversation. I post on a Nigerian forum where all kinds of people congregate to do all kinds of things including attack the Truth and try to trip Christians up. I used to be active there for a few years before I left and a couple years later found Ichthys. I went back because I needed an outlet, a place to share what I have been learning. It's been amazing practice so far. I'm deeply grateful for it. I'm also very grateful that the Lord has seen fit to use it to produce material that other believers like you have found valuable. I desired that very greatly.
An idea about your friends' concern about the inheritance of sin through the male line: I'm sure I don't know what the conversation was, but I know that that was a little bumpy for me too at some point. I found that Romans smooths out travel there very well. Paul said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that sin and death entered through one man, not through two people, or through one woman (see Romans 5:19, for example). I consider that pretty conclusive. Perhaps some of them might. It might also help the related matters, if they are really only troubled by the inheritance of the sin nature.
Question #2: Thanks for your suggestion. I don't think I used this particular angle, but I'm not so sure it would work. I see exactly the point you make... but I'm afraid my friends wouldn't buy it. After all, we understand that Eve possessed a sin nature too, and she wasn't born through human procreation. To my understanding, after the fall, both Adam and Eve came to posses sin natures (however exactly this happened), and humans since then (with the exception of Jesus) have been born with one since it is passed down through the male line.
They would probably say something along the lines of "Romans 5:19 says that sin came into the world through Adam's choice, not that the sin nature is passed down through Adam's male line." Ultimately, what they say isn't wrong (i.e., I think the verse is talking about Adam's choice as well). It's just that -- as you and I believe -- Adam was not only responsible for causing the fallen state of man in an abstract moral sense, but also in a very physical sense (pace wrong notions from Augustine of "imputation of sin" and so on).
Response #2: About the sin nature, forgive me if I am pursuing it more than you wish. Say the word, and I'll stop. It seems easy to me to deal with the concern you state here. Eve acquired the sin nature the same way Adam did: by eating the fruit. I think the close association of sin and death in the Bible makes it clear that that was what the Lord was warning them about when He commanded them not to eat the fruit. The fruit did give them an expanded conscience but it also corrupted their flesh with sin. But from Romans, it seems abundantly clear to me that only Adam was burdened with passing it on to the next generation. I also think it would be quite wrong to say that Romans 5:19 means that sin came in through Adam's choice as if to mean that sin was perhaps like bad air. Eve sinned by eating the fruit. So, there was sin already before Adam ate the fruit. The only sense I see in which "sin came in" can be interpreted is in the sense that it became a permanent part of the human experience in this life. That would instantly lead to the understanding that we all inherit the sin nature through the male line (consider Romans 5:12 as well).
The sin nature is not really a nebulous thing, in my thinking. It is just the twisting of our bodily operations, so that our physical bodies are not in sync with our spirits anymore. Its appetites are out of control. So, we are constantly bombarded with desires that come at the wrong time or target the wrong thing. Our bodies were built in the beginning m with the desires that they have. They are not in themselves wrong, but the fruit that our first parents ate twisted them. Curiosity, for example, is critical to enjoying the cosmos that God created. We exist, in part, to wonder and be amazed at the things that God has done, is doing, and will do. But our curiosity in this flesh has been twisted so that we are wondering and being amazed at depraved things, for an easy example, consider sexuality: the very telling term, "bi-curious", etc. As James says, we are tempted to sin when our evil desires seduce us. Then, Paul devoted chapter 7 of Romans to describing the connection between their body and sin. Our bodies seem to have a mind of their own, so to speak, independent, it seems, of our own mind. It's like a robot that you wear to work with but which suddenly begins to malfunction, resisting your control and producing feedback to reprogram the controls so that it can do things you don't necessarily want it to do. That is the sin nature: a malfunctioning body (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:27).
Question #3: I'm going to think about your comments regarding the sin nature more. I do not think you are out of line at all for continuing the discussion -- after all, that is more or less the goal for the group we are forming. I will say that my confusion in part is stemming from the understanding that Adam was more culpable for his sin as he ate in full knowledge, while Eve was deceived. I have commonly heard the interpretation that this is what Romans 5:19 (and similar) are getting at -- that it was due to Adam's "fuller knowledge" that sin is said to come through him (= through his choice), even though Eve had already eaten of the tree.
I don't know if that is right, but that is what I have been taught growing up, and so that is where I was "coming from" initially. We didn't get into this in my Bible study explicitly because I wasn't 100% sure on the origin of the sin nature as it relates to Genesis/the fall, and I try not to teach anything that I am not 100% on. So I mostly talked about the sin nature as a concept, and how the virgin birth was important since it meant that Christ didn't have one.
I'd be happy to hear any more thoughts you have on the matter, though.
Response #3: I learned from Ichthys that Adam was more culpable because he ate in full knowledge of his disobedience. I have no reason to doubt that. In Genesis 3, as the Lord apportioned punishments to each of the players in the debacle, Adam is the one for whose sake the earth itself is cursed. This seems significant to me because of the breadth of curse. I note also that Eve (representative of all women there) was made subject to her husband. All this is in addition to Paul's later comment that Eve, and not Adam, was the one deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). But I don't quite understand the term "fuller knowledge". Perhaps it refers to the difference between what Eve reported that God said and what God actually said. That would make sense. But, it isn't because of this "fuller knowledge" that Adam was more culpable. It is because Adam ate the fruit fully cognizant of his error in doing so. Eve, on the other hand, was tricked into doing it.
That culpability which 1 Timothy 2:14 clearly declares is what explains the declaration of Romans 5:19 that it is through the male half that sin "came in". The female half also had sin, obviously. So, the making of many disobedient must mean the inheritance of the sin nature. That happens through the male line, according to 1 Timothy 2:14.
I believe that yours is the right approach: teach only what you are sure that the Bible says. I'm positive that that is the only way to proceed if one will please the Lord and keep His sheep safe. Of course, the teaching gift means that we can gain insight into the Bible in ways that may be a little like seeing through a fog. But that is not something to handle recklessly. Leaps of faith may bring us into greater understanding, but each leap will be from one Bible foothold to another. The more we do it, the better we are at it. Soon enough, we begin to recognize that point of light that pierces the fog, and learn to distinguish it from flights of fancy that go straight down into error and heresy. In my experience so far, it seems to me that the more we get out of our own "selves", and commit more to following the Lord, wherever He leads no matter where that may be, no matter how we may feel about it, the deeper He brings us into "all the Truth", as He promised in John.
PS: Correction - it is Romans 5:19 which teaches that sin nature is inherited through the male line, not 1 Timothy 2:14. I said it in other parts of the email. It was an error in the 4th paragraph.
Response #4: It looks like a panel discussion, and it's a 58-minute video. I'm disinclined to watch it, not least because Bible teaching is not a democratic exercise.
Regardless what the video says, it is true that no human descendant inherits the sins of its forebears. Each person is responsible for their own sins.
It is important, however, to note that because of Adam's own witting disobedience to God, all of his descendants inherit a sin nature, that is, a flesh that is sinful, so long as they are born of male seed. That is what Romans 5:19 teaches. Our physical bodies, derived from male and female seeds, are bodies of sin (Romans 6:6; Romans 7). This is why there is no righteous person (except the Lord Jesus Christ Whose physical body was conceived not of male and female seeds, but of female only). The corruption of our bodies guarantees that we all sin from birth until we die.
In conclusion, we do not inherit sin from our parents, but we do inherit a sinful physical body from them that guarantees that we will sin and therefore need Salvation from God.
Question #5: [The video] clearly confirmed that there is nothing like *inherited sin/original sin* from Parents to children. New born babies do not need salvation because they are *pure/unsoiled* like *God* who is there *originator* Sin *must* be *a commission or omission* It is when a human being can omit or commit sin then he/she needs *salvation* because *salvation is deliverance from sin* They used biblical passages to explain all its details and misconceptions about *inherited sin/original sin being unbiblical and against the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ* I will encourage any Christian to take time to download and listen to that video because it is worth sharing and transferring to believers from generation to generation by way of sound teaching and instructions on Christianity.
Response #5: I agree with everything you said except
"New born babies do not need salvation because they are *pure/unsoiled* like *God* who is there *originator*"
Right from birth, we all sin. Sin is natural to us because our bodies are bodies of sin (Romans 6:6). So, it is not that babies are pure. They are not.
The reason that babies and other children who die before the age of accountability are saved is that all human beings have had their sins paid for by the Lord Jesus, so only those who reject His Sacrifice or who fail to accept it are condemned. Children below the age of accountability have neither rejected the Sacrifice nor failed to accept it, since they are not able to do either. So, when they die at that age, they are automatically saved.
Another way to explain that is that every human being has their name in the Book of Life until they die rejecting or failing to accept the Sacrifice that the Lord Jesus made in their behalf. That is when their names are struck off.
Question #6: The *phrase sin is natural to human being is wrong*, we were not created by sin rather by *God* who is *pure, holy and unsoiled* These are some of the clarity done in that video. Jesus Christ was asked who is the greatest in the kingdom of God, He brought a little child and placed before everybody while telling them that *it is only those who are like a little child* that is greatest in the kingdom of Heaven hence *child-likeness* defines purity/Sanctity/Godliness/Holiness e.t.c. Adam was not created and he started sinning, he started manifesting sin in Genesis 3 hence chapter 1 and 2, he was without sin; the same way is a child until he/she begins to omit or commit sin. Adam did not transfer body of sin unto us rather we have the ability to make positive or negative choices based upon the examples placed before a child as he/she grows thus a child with *Christian up bringing might not even manifest these sinful abilities unless he/she moves outside their parental supervision/guide* Much more understanding of this topic is taking time to watch this video. Great Grace!!!
Response #6: As I told you on your thread, I don't consider the video of much value.
As for whether what I said is true or not, Romans 5-7 is enough to help anyone understand. In Romans 5:19, we are told explicitly that we all became sinners because of one man's sin. In Romans 6:6, we are told explicitly that our bodies are bodies of sin. In Romans 7, Paul teaches us through the Holy Spirit that while our spirits are pure and incorruptible, our bodies are outlaws that seek to disobey God at every turn.
That is where I stand: on the Scriptures, not on any human ideas.
Question #7: One thing about this video is not from any human knowledge, it is clearly based on God's word, it might also interest us to know that there is growth in revelations and knowledge of Scriptures, when you are not ready to learn, unlearn and relearn then growth in revelations will be a serious issue for such a person. The term all have sinned did not include *new-born babies* who did not transgress the law because sin is the transgression of the law rather it is referring to the *initiation and consciousness of sin and death in the world amongst every conscious human person not a *transfer of inherited sin*, having the body of sin means every human being became a sinner from *conception* and *God* in whose image we are created is *sinful* because we are what He is thus "In his own image and likeness, He created them, man and woman He made them" {Genesis 1:26-28} from your own *literal translation and I suppose that this is not what you want to say?*. In Genesis 1 and 2, there was no sin or body of sin in Adam until Genesis 3 where he disobeyed God hence the *only time any man or woman has body of sin is when he/she begins to disobey God by omission or commission*. Ezekiel 18:20 "The Children shall not be punished for the sin of their father, the father shall not be punished for the sin of the children rather the soul that sinned shall die". The Death of Christ Jesus was to make us *not become controlled/distracted/manipulated* by the *presence of sin and its effect* in our lives and on those who believe which Adam activated upon the whole of creation, it did not take away sin from the world just like the passage you are quoting. "By one man's sin, all have sinned yet by one man's obedience all will be made righteous", yet after Jesus Christ purchased redemption by His Blood on Calvary human beings still *sin* even those who believe in Jesus Christ some times still *sin*. You can see that sin involves being conscious of sin and getting involved with it which cannot be an attribute of a child however when he/she starts growing conscious of his/her thoughts and actions, he/she needs to be encouraged to reject and denounce sin in all its appearances, accept Jesus Christ as Lord, become baptized so that the Holy Spirit consciousness will *always prevail over the worlds/sinful presence and consciousness* in his or her life through fellowship.
Question #8: There is much in your post that I find troubling for any believer, much less a teacher, to say, but I don't think it is my place to correct you. Since you are a teacher, I expect that you will figure it out with the Lord.
What I will answer here I will answer only because I will defend what I have myself offered here as the Truth, and because I think it is the root of the errors in what you teach. Feel free to accept or reject it, but I hadn't responded to you because I was looking for a debate. I was interested in what you had to say about sin as a concept because of the video you shared. My comments have been to clarify my position on the issue. I don't expect you to adopt it, but I believe completely that it is true.
This is what I am going to respond to in your post:
"One thing about this video is not from any human knowledge, it is clearly based on God's word, it might also interest us to know that there is growth in revelations and knowledge of Scriptures, when you are not ready to learn, unlearn and relearn then growth in revelations will be a serious issue for such a person."
There are two things here, so I will split them up.
I. "One thing about this video is not from any human knowledge, it is clearly based on God's word..."
I read your post through, and I did not see why you believe that the video is "clearly based on God's word". I did see your allusion to something you called "[my] own literal translation". That seemed to me to suggest that you did see the things I said that the Bible said in the Bible itself. If I am correct about what that phrase meant, then you know that I wasn't making any of it up. The only trouble is that you do not accept the literal reading in the Bible. The question then would be "why?"
I did not add or remove anything from what the Bible actually says in those passages. It seems to me that you recognize that. But you also reject this literal reading - more accurately put - of the Bible. There are, of course, many situations in the Bible where what is written is not meant to be taken literally, but rather symbolically or metaphorically. In those situations, the Bible itself provides indicators that the reading is to be received symbolically and not literally. An easy example would be Revelation 12 where the Bible tells us that "signs" appeared in heaven. Following this indicator, Satan is described graphically as a huge seven-headed dragon (or snake), and Israel as a woman clothed with the sun, crowned with stars, and given eagles' wings to fly with. Clearly, these are not supposed to be read literally. They were all a "sign", that is, a representation, a graphic, a metaphor, or a pointer to a substantive meaning. Such an indicator is lacking in the passages given. In fact, in Romans 7, Paul used a metaphor - marriage - to explain the relationship we have to our sinful bodies. In other words, if the sinful bodies were the metaphor, then why would he be using another metaphor to explain that metaphor?
This is the first problem: you accept the video to be based on the Bible, but apparently not because it agrees with the Bible. So, why do you while rejecting what I said when it is clearly in the Bible?
II. "...it might also interest us to know that there is growth in revelations and knowledge of Scriptures, when you are not ready to learn, unlearn and relearn then growth in revelations will be a serious issue for such a person."
I completely agree that there is growth in understanding the Bible that does involve learning new biblical truths, giving up lies that you previously thought were truths, and refreshing and confirming yourself in the truths that you already knew. In fact, this is what spiritual growth means in essence. It is also what the Lord Jesus calls all of us to: to learn the Truth, believe it, apply it to our lives, and help others who are willing to do the same.
My concern here is that judging from the rest of your post, you seem to not quite appreciate that Truth is stable and unchanging. It seems to me as if you think that we can read just anything out of the Bible at any time. This is not true. The Truth is stable and immutable. It will never be altered even a little. For that reason, once you learn the Truth, it is not wrong if you never turn around and believe something different. The Truth gets clearer for those who labor in learning it, this is true, but it does not change. So, one does not go from "all have sinned" and "God has bound everyone over to sin so that He may have mercy on them all" to "newborns have never sinned". Either the first is true, and thus the Bible is true, or the second is true, and thus the Bible is false. Unless the Bible indicates somewhere that newborns are excluded from those for whom the Lord Jesus Christ died, it is merely a fantasy to imagine that they do not sin.
As a matter of fact, we all sin from the first breath. It is not for nothing that David said under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that he (that is, his body) was formed in iniquity, and he was conceived in sin. That is true of us all because our bodies are tainted. Only the Lord Jesus came into this world with a sinless Body, so He never had the urge to sin against God, although His possession of a true free will meant that just like Adam and Eve, He could sin if He wanted to. This is what the Bible actually teaches.
One cannot learn that and then "unlearn" it, without doing damage to one's faith in the Lord. If we have learned what the Bible says, then every further unlearning will really be a refining of what we have already learned, so that it becomes purer and more comprehensive. A simple test to know whether we are keeping safe in the process is to see if the Bible says what we believe. If it doesn't, then we have some "unlearning" to do. Otherwise, we are fine and should only confirm ourselves in what we have learned to be true from the Bible.
In conclusion, I would encourage every Christian - including you certainly - to make sure that what they believe comes from the Bible and to be humble enough to stick to what they have learned from it, rather than allow themselves to be seduced from a pure faith in the Lord to follow after "revelations" and "knowledge" that are really anything but.
Question #9: Thanks for your contributions so far however, I have observed that you did not watch the video because you are making references to the same Scriptural passages they explained hence there is no need trying to impose my "revelation or knowledge" to you since the video adds no value to you. Great Grace!!!
Response #9: I implore you not to be upset about that. My curiosity was not about the video, but about why you shared it. I already knew what the Bible teaches about original sin, namely, we don't inherit our parents' or ancestors' sins, rather we inherit sinful bodies from our fathers so that we all sin from the first breath. So I didn't see a need to watch the video, especially considering the expense in time.
Furthermore, I don't find it useful to watch people try to interpret the Bible in groups. It is often a democratic exercise, and it never yields much spiritual value. It can be entertaining, but that's it.
If you feel that the video explains your position better than you have done, then excuse my presumption. As I said, I am not trying to debate with you about this. What you believe is your responsibility. It only becomes mine when you accept me as your teacher. As I said, you have presented yourself here as a teacher, so I don't presume that I am responsible for your doctrinal safety.
Cheers.
Question #10: Honestly, my curiosity is rising all the more... You already knew about *original sin* then you were still *curious to ask what the video was saying?* Then my main curiosity is How do you create the biblical balance that; human beings do not inherit their parents sins, ancestors sins yet they inherit *body of sin from our fathers*; this *fathers are they not part of our ancestors*? Another question is for *Christians* who have *received the new creation in Christ for all things including his/her body and "the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus* now *married on the altar of Christ Jesus* then give birth to a child that has the body of sin?
Christianity *must* be submerged *under Jesus Christ teachings thus "You search and keep on searching and examining the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and *yet it is those [very Scriptures] that testify about Me*" {John 5:39 amp} not just Paul's letter or Peters or any other authors of the new testament unless *error abounds* even Peter cautioned us about *carefulness in Paul's teachings because it is deep and some people may misinterpret it* thus "...just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him [by God], 16 speaking about these things as he does in all of his letters. In which there are *some things that are difficult to understand*, which the untaught and unstable [who have fallen into error] twist and misinterpret, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." {2 Peter 3:15-16 amp}. The reason why all the *few* new testament epistles were accepted as canonical was because its alignment/agreement with *Jesus Christ teachings in the 4-gospels* not to even mention the removal of those gospel that were presenting Jesus Christ as a magician.
Look at Jesus Christ teachings and sayings about little children "At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, *unless* you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven" {Matthew 18:1-3 NIV}.
"People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, *anyone* who will *not receive the kingdom of God like a little child* will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them. {Mark 10:13-16 NIV}
"But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple courts, “Hosanna to the Son of David,” they were indignant. 16 “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him. “Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “ ‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise’?” {Matthew 21:15-16 NIV}
Does any of the scriptural passage define *little children* as *having body of sin* ?
Response #10: I would rather not debate with you about this. As I said, I am sure that what I said is correct, and I do not agree with you. If you prefer to believe what you do in spite of the witness of the Bible, I have nothing to say in the matter. But I will answer the questions you asked me.
1. I asked what the video said because I was curious about what you saw in it that you thought was important for us all to know. I didn't know what the panelists said, but I knew the correct doctrine on the issue, so I was not intending to watch it. But I wanted to know what had impressed you in it.
2. A body of sin is a different thing from the specific sins we commit. The body of sin is our body which is corrupted so that we remain in a constant struggle against sin as long as we live in it. Sins are the actual things that we think, say, and do which displease God. Inheriting a body of sin is not then the same as inheriting somebody else's actual sins.
3. Becoming believers makes us heirs to God's Promise of Resurrection when we will finally be actually married to the Lord Jesus in new bodies that have no sin in them, and which are eternal and perfect and powerful in every way, bodies just like the glorious one that our Lord Jesus has right now. So, becoming a believer does not change our flesh right now from being weak and sinful or from producing children with the same taint of sin. It only guarantees that if we remain loyal to the Lord Jesus until the end of our lives, we will inherit new sinless bodies that are like the one our Lord now has.
4. There is no reason to expect the Lord to say anything about children having bodies of sin in those passages when He had already said it elsewhere. What we would expect naturally is for Him to use that opportunity to teach that children are excepted from the principle that not only are we all sinners because we inherit Adam's corrupted flesh, but that they too do not sin. But the Lord Jesus said neither in those passages. He said there that the Kingdom of God belongs to children, but He also said elsewhere that adults must become like children if they will ever be saved. Since salvation is by grace through faith, the Lord Jesus only meant that the Kingdom of God belongs to those who are willing to, just like a child, cast themselves upon God's Mercy and trust Him to save them with the simplicity of a child's faith. It does not mean at all that children never sin, only that they find it ridiculously easy to trust someone else.
Question #11: This is a learning platform which is interactive, it is not about *imposing my beliefs on you or anybody*, if you know and you do not share and interact, the spring of life (Christ Jesus) inside you is not being allowed to gush up to eternal life{John 4:13-14};
this question you did not clarify me on it, "How do you create the biblical balance that; human beings do not inherit their parents sins, ancestors sins yet they inherit *body of sin from our fathers*; this *fathers are they not part of our ancestors*?"
2. A body of sin is a different thing from the specific sins we commit. The body of sin is our body which is corrupted so that we remain in a constant struggle against sin as long as we live in it. Sins are the actual things that we think, say, and do which displease God. Inheriting a body of sin is not then the same as inheriting somebody else's actual sins.
My contribution here; the body of sin meant by Paul in Romans 6:6 is not *human body which is created as a corrupted entity* else "God is being defined as corrupted because man was created in the image and likeness of God" {Genesis 1:26-28} another thing that will help here is "body of sin" was used by paul in Rom. 6:6 then in Rom.6:12 "mortal body" was used. Rom.6:6 "body of sin" in my own understanding is "the attempted dominion/control/blackmail/manipulation of the devil over a human being the moment he/she starts committing sin" which happens when "sin which is transgression/disobedience of instruction/rule/law/regulation of God takes place {1 John 3:4, James 4;17} hence a baby/child does not have *body of sin* just like Adam and Eve did not have a body of sin in Genesis 1 & 2 until they disobeyed/sinned against God in Genesis 3 then *this body of sin* was activated in them hence *body of sin* gets *activated in any man or woman when he/she starts sinning either by omission or commission* not *something inherited from God His Creator; the Father of all Spirits and life{Hebrews 12:9} during creation or inherited from parents whether believers or unbelievers {Ezekiel 18:20}*, if Adam and Eve did not sin in Genesis 3 there will be no *body of sin activated in mankind* hence there will be no need for salvation/redemption by Jesus Christ. Another insight to understand *body of sin* and when it gets activated in each human being not as an inherited habit is this passage "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" {Genesis 2:16-17 KJV} hence death is made active *only in those who disobey instructions* which does not fit in with little babies/children. Disobedience to God activates *body of sin* which *brings* death, body of sin is not just our continued struggle against sin inherited from God through creation or from human parents or Adam/ancestors. This is Romans 6:6 KJV "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin"; the *body of sin* analysed here is *commission and omissions* of a knowledgeable human being that must be surrendered to Christ for *complete destruction* which *makes him/her to *serve sin* and not * a human inherited corrupt nature that struggle against sin* Sin can only be committed by a man or woman who has *knowledge* of instructions/rules/law not a child/baby. "mortal body" in my own understanding is *the body, soul and spirit of man as was created in the resemblance of God without any corruption yet has a free-will/free-choice to agree or disagree with God{His Creator}" because God saw that *all* he created *was good* which does not imply *corruption*. Having *a corrupt body that remains in constant struggle against sin* is for those who *have knowledge* and not for babies/children who do not know what is *sin*. What you are trying to stand upon is "trying to say that man is inherently evil from conception" which is tagged *gnosticism*{one of the heresies of 2nd and 3rd centuries} just like so many people misinterpret Psalm 51 where David said "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" {Psalm 51:5 KJV} as if it is saying we were created by *sinful God* or *we inherited sin from our parents* instead of the *interpretation* that *sin's effect of death, sickness, wars, chaos, diabolical-manipulations, witch-crafty, devil's impacts, abortion e.t.c is being felt by every human being starting from the womb. This is my little contribution to your point number-2, I will get to others where I have issues later.
Response #11: About your first paragraph, I know what Nairaland was built for. I also know that it is impossible to learn the Bible through arguments. Only submission to a gifted and prepared Bible teacher makes that happen (Ephesians 4:11-14). That is why I am not prepared to argue with you or any other teacher. If I am questioned about the things I say, I will answer, but I never assume that those who challenge me are either willing or able to learn from me. I answer always to make a witness that the Truth was given to them, and also for the sake of those who may be willing to hear me.
Regarding your question, the difference between the body we inherit from our fathers and the sins we don't inherit from either our fathers or our mothers was my answer. That is, yes, our fathers are among our ancestors, but that does not mean that we inherit their sins. What we inherit from them is the body we have about which Paul says that there is "another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members" (Romans 7:23).
I have already told you that I have no intention to debate with you, so I am not going to comment on the rest of your post.
Question #12: You are my friend whom I love with all my heart and all my soul and all my being and emojis and all but you sure are no child!
The Bible did not witness here, Ihe! You did. With your understanding and interpretation of your own reading of the Bible. And not everyone agrees with you. I have to say.
The rest though. I agree. This response is for the sake of courtesy.
Response #12: This post (i.e., Response #6 above) was a description rather than any kind of interpretation.
Question #13: You read in Romans that "your body is a body of sin" and without checking whether your body was a body of sin did you just takes Romans word for it, or did you check your body and find that it was a body of sin like Romans said? I ask because it's your body, Ihe, but here is where I'm confused.
You have not checked other peoples bodies but you seem to have decided that "their bodies are bodies of sin" too because Romans said so.
I don't get how you did that
Response #13: Perhaps this is a bit of a confusion for you - I'd prefer to believe that it is - or else it is dishonesty (I hope it isn't).
Your complaint was that I was promoting my own interpretation. I have just shown you that, just like in an earlier conversation with you, I was merely repeating what the Bible says, so even if I have made an interpretation, it is no more than saying what the Bible says using easier words and concepts to provide a bridge of understanding. So, this is actually what the Bible says, not some idea of my own that I am demanding that others submit to.
Now, you have left what you complained about to complain about my faith in the Bible. What that means is that you either would prefer not to admit that you were wrong about your first complaint (or you just forgot to express your appreciation of your error), or else you really don't care if you are wrong so long as you continue to throw obstacles up against accepting what I say as true. The latter is something I expect from antichristians. It is, in fact, why I call some unbelievers antichristians. Knowing what it means for anyone to be antichrist, I prefer to give everyone the benefit of the doubt before treating them like that, so this is me doing that for you. I want to hold a different opinion of you, so I am allowing for the possibility that you just sped past your appreciation of your error.
To equate the truth with the lie is a terrible thing to do to other people. No one is forced to accept the truth as true, but it is wickedness to deceive people about what is true. If I have offered an explanation or description of what the Bible says that is true to the Bible itself, it is evil to say that it is the same as any other interpretation that anybody else is pleased to come up with, because that only means that the Bible is not truth. If the Bible can be made to say whatever anybody wants it to say, it cannot be true. If the Bible is not true, then human beings are hopeless - certainly, those who believe the Bible are doomed.
Therefore, I would celebrate your honesty when you admit that you have difficulty dealing with biblical theology, and condemn your dishonesty when you attack the veracity of the Bible for no real cause.
Regarding your concern about my faith in Romans, first, I believe the Bible because I believe in the Person Who wrote it. To explain, those who conduct their lives according to the Constitution of the United States do so because they believe that the document is good for accomplishing what its authors wrote it for, that is, they believe that if the Constitution is followed, then the States will attain to and maintain the greatness that the authors and revisers envision and promise. In the same way, I believe the Bible because I have total confidence in its Author. So, I assume that everything that I read in it is true because He said it. I don't need to test or check or confirm it. He is worthy of my trust, so I take for granted that He does not lie about anything.
Second, I have a human body, and I live around human beings. I have found that it is a struggle to "stay good" for any length of time at all. So I have already seen proof in my own self that God did not lie about that. Additionally, I have never met a single person in my life who does no wrong. Every single human being I have come across slips up in some way, if they are not really blowing it in some other way. So, I have even more proof that this thing that God inspired Paul to say is true indeed.
Again, if I had NO PROOF at all, I would still believe it, because God does not lie. The proof only strengthens my confidence in Him, so that I have that much more reason to believe other things that He says even before I have proof of them.
That is what it means to be a Christian: to trust God. I trust Him, ________. That is the difference (and it is a great big world of difference) between me and you.
Question #14: This [part of your post] was the answer to my question, ihe, and all I asked for. Thanks for it.
I choose to have faith in people myself. I check the evidence on their body and do not take Paul's word for it that their body is full of sin because Paul never met the people I meet so isn't exactly in a position to be telling me what fills their body. I do not ever think people are being dishonest, lying, deceiving or have bodies full of sin, unless I see sin in their body myself, because once I make the assumption that their body is full of sin it affects how I behave towards them. I'd likely find it difficult to love them if I assumed their body were full of sin already, so I always check their body first and not just assume their body is full of sin.
If I do not check their body first to see if it is full of sin, it's like I'm covering my eyes so I don't see the evidence because the preconceived belief Paul put in my head is the absolute truth and its not possible for me or Paul to be wrong! But covering my eyes and not checking the evidence is like blinding myself, and is, at the very least, an act that would be like filling my own body with sin and while focusing on the speck of sin on the bodies of others. Paul is no excuse to make me fill my body with sin like that!
In my checking first, and not just taking Paul's word for it, I have found lots of unsinful bodied people too. Perhaps because my thoughts of them is they are unsinful they live up to my unsinning expectations. This might be because I live amongst people who don't sin so much because they been learning to not sin for close on 2000 years, but even in Nigeria, I don't tend to find most people I meet have bodies full of sin. I know my body is not full of sin so why would I go about thinking everyone else's body is full of sin?
You are correct about _____, ihe, ______ has not got faith in the Bible. Jesus met a lot of people who had 'faith' in the Bible of his day and some of the names he called such people were not exactly those that promote a behaviour I should emulate so my faith is in the Lord God Almighty whom I see not and in my fellow human beings whom I do see, because how I treat the least of my fellow humans whom I see, "ye have done it unto me". I do not focus on the body because my focus is on your mind.
Response #14: As I always say, you are welcome to your beliefs. I don't care about them. If you love the Truth, great for you, and I'm happy to make friends since we love the same Person. If you hate the Truth, bad for you, and I'm under no compulsion to be friends especially if I have to endure a constant assault on the Truth from you. In the end, whether you love or hate the Truth, you alone gain and you alone lose. My only gain comes from having an easier relationship with you if we share the same attitude to the Truth. Otherwise, it really is none of my business.
Still, your post seems to have answered my question: you don't care at all whether I interpret the Bible correctly or not. Your sole interest is to corrupt what I say with your challenges. You will attack me for interpreting, alleging that all interpretations are equally valid, and that I wish to subordinate other people to myself. Clearly, you don't care if either of these allegations you make is true. Your business is to make them, so that I have an obstacle to deal with. If I get past that, you just find another and throw my way. Now, if it were just me whom you were troubling, I would not care so much, if at all, because they are easy enough challenges to dismiss. But I have many weak brothers and sisters for whose sake I bother to post on this platform. Whether it is your intent or not, your constant antagonism opposes their well-being. That is something for which you will pay extremely dearly on the Day of Jesus Christ, if you do not repent and yield to the Gospel first.
Regarding your claims about Jesus Christ, as with nearly everything you say about the Bible, you are also wrong here. The Lord Jesus condemned the Pharisees and the Scribes for not believing the Bible that they read. He told them that if they did, they would have believed Him too. But, you obviously don't care if the Bible said that at all. You are simply playing to the common narrative that the Pharisees were Bible-thumping hypocrites who ultimately murdered the Lord Jesus, as if believing the Bible were somehow the issue. But, you're just as Bible-thumping and Bible-ignorant as they were with your pretence to competence in biblical theology and your arrogant claim to being the Law. So, it is entirely possible for someone to make a big deal of reading the Bible even while learning and believing nothing in it.
Question #15: I do care ihe, especially as you are interpreting it on a public forum where thousands will read it and be edified if your interpretation is edifying and die if it is killing!
I understand him to be condemning the scribes and the Pharisees for believing and for not doing what was written in the bible that they should actually do. Or is that not the lesson taught in the parable of the Samaritan with its very believing but not doing priest and Levite, and that of the tax collector with the 'righteous' Pharisee?
In fact ihe, was it not for the sin of excessive believing and not exactly doing that Christ heaped Seven Woes on the scribes and the Pharisees?
Response #15: Actually, no, it wasn't the lesson at all. The lessons were that
1. Christians ought to look out for one another in every way and at all times, even at cost to ourselves, because that is what it means to love your neighbor; and
2. the tax collector, rather than the Pharisee, was the one who understood the Law, believed it, and did as it demanded, because the Law teaches that we are all sinners in desperate need of God's Mercy, and that God is a God of both Justice and Mercy, and is not only willing, but also able and desirous to forgive the sinner, if they ask for mercy, and also that God calls all sinners, no matter what their sin - whether it is a little or plenty, ignorant or arrogant, great or small - to repent and ask for His Mercy.
John 5:46-47 is clear that the religious elite of His Day did not believe the Bible at all.
Question #16: I am looking out for you because you are my neighbour and not because you are a Christian, ihe. Jesus told me to, “Go and do likewise" when he warned me with the Parable of the Priest of God who for fear of becoming defiled wouldn't look out for the pagan Samaritan not knowing he defiled himself by not doing.
John 5:46-47 refers to their belief and acceptance of Christ, and not about their understanding and belief in their Bible of the day, which they preached and told others to believe but themselves "did not practice". They constantly threw their belief at Christ too with their 'why you working on the Sabbath', 'why you no wash your hands', 'why you eating with those sinners', 'who are you to forgive sin', 'who are you to raise the dead', 'there is a demon in you' etc!
I put it to you that they did 'believe' ihe, just like satan also believes, and that understanding and doing what is said in the Bible is what they lacked.
Response #16: 1. I don't really care about what you do, as I said before.
2. You have the story backward. It was a Jew travelling from Jerusalem to Jericho who fell in among false friends who robbed him and nearly murdered him. This is why you get the lesson wrong. A Jew should have been helped by a Priest and a Levite sooner than by anybody else. But they failed in their duty, and a Samaritan, who was almost a Gentile, was the one who helped.
3. About John 5:46-47, you mean to teach me the Bible, _________? Do you really believe that I have anything to learn from you about the Bible? Regardless, the words on the page are glaring enough. I would be a fool to bother to add anything to what the text itself says here.
Question #17: I know. You only care about what you believe.
I wouldn't deign to attempt to teach you the Bible, Ihedinobi3. You already know it all so why would learning me attempt to teach it to know it all you? Thankfully, we are not the only ones on here learning not just from our words but from the Spirit of our Words too which also glare.
Please know that I teach you not. I just cast my seed and let it fall where it may by the GoG, Amen.
Jesus tends to stretch his lessons a bit, ihe, this is him, said, "______, let your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees or ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven". I like heaven, see. The peaceful blessing lovely heaven within.
Indeed the "Jew should have been helped by a Priest and a Levite" since they were of the same family who all believed the same things, but the question being answered was "Who is my neighbor?”, and not "Who is my family?" Ihe, it is glaringly there:
“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
Imagine! Not the priest or the Levite but the not family non-believing defiling pagan worshipping but doing good Samaritan.
The instruction I get is, "_____, go and do likewise".
You must forgive me allowing myself to be ministered to, Ihe.
Response #17: I have nothing more to say to you about this matter, __________, so I must leave the conversation at this point.
Question: WILL GREAT TRIBULATION TAKE PLACE BEFORE THE RAPTURE? This question is from Sister F.T. in London, asking if Great Tribulation will first take place before the Rapture.
ANSWER: Glad to hear from you ma. The teaching that Great Tribulation will take place before the rapture is a misconception that some denominations are teaching. We need the help of the Holy Spirit to have the right understanding of what we read. Some particular Scriptures have different and deeper meanings and it is the Holy Spirit that will guide us accurately.
Rapture will first take place before the Great Tribulation. According to the Book of Luke 17, Rapture will not take place during tribulation and sorrow, but during merriment, false peace and enjoyment. That is the clear cue of when the rapture will take place, and the current situation of the world perfectly fits in. From Luke 17 verse 26, "And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man:27 They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28 Likewise as it was also in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built;29 but on the day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30 Even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed."
That is going to be the condition of the world when rapture will take place. Then He said, " I tell you, in that night there will be two men in one bed: the one will be taken and the other will be left. 35 Two women will be grinding together: the one will be taken and the other left. 36 Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.” Luke 17:34-3
The teaching of Tribulation before Rapture will only mislead people to think that Rapture cannot take place now, by so thinking, it will make them to feel relax and relent of their expectation for the rapture, thinking that Rapture cannot take place any time now, whereas Jesus Christ told us to expect His Rapture any moment, but since they believe that Great Tribulation will first take place, it will be impossible for them to believe the warning of Jesus that rapture will take place any moment, because they expect Tribulation before Rapture. That is the extend a little misinterpretation of the Scripture can go. When we misinterpret the Scripture, no matter how small, it will lead to serious error. The question is that what will cause the Great Tribulation to start if not the Rapture? There cannot be Great Tribulation without the Rapture.
There is no such thing in the Bible that children of God suffered with the sinners before God came to save them. Before the flood, God first rescued Noah and his people; before the judgment of God on Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord first rescued Lot and his children, and Jesus Himself said His coming would be exactly like those previous two incidents, so where did the pre-rapture Great tribulation teachers got their teaching from? It's from the pit of hell.
So, we should not wait or worry about Great Tribulation, instead we should prepare for the Rapture which can happen any moment from now. After we are caught up with Christ in heaven through the Rapture, the Left-behind on earth are the people who will face the Great Tribulation of the Anti-Christ.
I hope you understand?
This is from Revelation of Truth Evangelical Ministries, RTEM, Nigeria.
Although it is not typically my habit to interfere in other people's teaching, I am doing so here both because I have time on my hands and because this is one of the deadliest lies in the Church visible today.
To begin, I am a believer in Jesus Christ committed to following Him according to the Bible.
We'll begin at Luke 17, the passage that you drew on.
[29]but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. [30]It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. [31]On that day, the one who is on the housetop and whose goods are in the house must not go down to take them out; and likewise the one who is in the field must not turn back. [32]Remember Lot's wife. [33]Whoever seeks to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it. Luke 17:29-33 NASB
The above includes two verses that you also quoted but ignored in your answer. Clearly, the issue wasn't merely that it was a time of merriment but that it was in the midst of reckless enjoyment that judgment came upon the unsuspecting. This was the parallel that the Lord gave us for His Return.
Throughout the New Testament including passages like 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (especially verse 3 there), Matthew 24:3-31 (especially verse 29 there), Luke 21:7-28, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 13:7-18, (especially verses 7 and 10), and in many Old Testament passages like Daniel 11-12 (especially 11:33, 12:7), the Bible teaches without mincing words that believers have a major time of persecution coming before the Lord returns to resurrect the entire Church from Adam and Eve to the last person to believe in Him before His Return, and to claim the world as His to rule.
In Luke 17, the Lord compressed His teaching just like the archangel who brought an answer to Daniel did in Daniel 11:24 as well. The time of prosperous tranquility is the same time that the Lord was alluding to in Luke 17:26-28 and that Paul was speaking of in 1 Thessalonians 5:3. It is the six months of quietness that John was given to see in his vision in Revelation 8:1. It is called "half an hour" in that verse in prophetic language. During that time, the world will be in great quietness and prosperity, so that only those who take the Bible seriously will actually be ready for what will follow.
It is during that properity and quietness that the Antichrist will begin his sneaky campaign to take over the world as Daniel 11:24 teaches. He will take power first in Tribulational Babylon then (the richest parts of the realm). From there he will take power over the territories that once constituted Rome. Then he will launch his campaign for global domination subduing Africa and the Middle East (the South) before going East.
At the end of those six months, before the Antichrist has taken power over the whole world, the seven warning judgments (described as the seven trumpets in Revelation) will begin. These judgments are to warn the unbelieving world against siding with the Antichrist. So, of course, they will not harm believers at all. It is not that believers will be completely immune to the effects of that judgment, no. We will not be immune. For example, when the second trumpet causes those massive tsunamis that will destroy a third of the world's shipping, we may very well lose any commerce that we had tied up with such shipping, but we will not starve then because of it. The Lord will provide abundantly then for all who trust in Him, although He has warned us:
[20]Come, my people, enter into your rooms And close your doors behind you; Hide for a little while Until indignation runs its course. [21]For behold, the Lord is about to come out from His place To punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; And the earth will reveal her bloodshed And will no longer cover her slain. Isaiah 26:20-21 NASB
And we should heed what He said to Baruch too in a similar time:
[2]"Thus says the Lord the God of Israel to you, O Baruch: [3]'You said, "Ah, woe is me! For the Lord has added sorrow to my pain; I am weary with my groaning and have found no rest."' [4]Thus you are to say to him, 'Thus says the Lord, "Behold, what I have built I am about to tear down, and what I have planted I am about to uproot, that is, the whole land." [5]But you, are you seeking great things for yourself? Do not seek them; for behold, I am going to bring disaster on all flesh,' declares the Lord, 'but I will give your life to you as booty in all the places where you may go.'" Jeremiah 45:2-5 NASB
The Tribulation will begin with these warnings. We believers should actually rejoice because that is the beginning of the Day of the Lord. It is the most definite signal that we are about to see our Lord return in power not only to resurrect us but to destroy Satan's rule over the world and replace it with His Own. This is exactly what the Lord tells us in Matthew 24:33 and in Luke 21:28:
[28]But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." Luke 21:28 NASB
It is during these warnings from the Lord that the Antichrist will be taking over the world through war and through subterfuge. His rule over the world will be fully established by the midpoint of the Tribulation, that is, three and a half years into the Tribulation. It is at that point that he will begin to seriously and enthusiastically persecute believers. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that believers will already have been "raptured" by then, nor is there any teaching in the Bible about any kind of rapture (pace wrong interpretations of 1 Thessalonians 4:17).
What the Bible teaches is Resurrection, that is, the bodily change of all those who believe in Jesus Christ from mortality to immortality. Those who have died or will die before the Lord Jesus returns will be raised from the dead with new powerful bodies just like the one that our Lord already has now, then those who are alive at His Return will be changed in their bodies to become just like the Lord too. Then we will all assemble to Him in the air where He is waiting. Right after that, we will enter the final battle of Armageddon with Him where He will destroy all the world's human forces led by the Antichrist to destroy Israel, while we resurrected believers then will wipe out all rebel angel forces arrayed against the Lord.
But this will all come after the last three and a half years of worldwide persecution that will be carried out against believers with a third of all believers living at that time killed for their Faith, and another third seduced or threatened into falling away into apostasy because of the times, and a final third living to see the Lord return in His Second Advent (Daniel 8:10; Revelation 12:4, Zechariah 13:8-9). It is that persecution that will occasion the seven punitive judgments that Revelation calls the seven bowl judgments. At the end of those judgments, the Lord will return to fight the battle of Armageddon. That Return is His Second Coming. And it is also at that Return, as I have said, that we will be resurrected to be with Him forever.
In conclusion, there is not a single part of the Bible that teaches at all that there will be a rapture much less that such a rapture would precede the Great Tribulation. The seven-year Tribulation including the Great Tribulation of three and a half years when believers will be horribly persecuted worldwide is the prophetic threshold of our Lord's Return and our Resurrection to rule over the restored Earth for a thousand years.
Finally, when you say that teaching that the Rapture follows the Tribulation will make believers relax and not be ready, you are joining in a two-century-old lie. It is not true at all. It is actually the opposite that is true. When believers think that they have been exempted from the Tribulation, it tells them to be lazy about their Faith. After all, they will be caught up and taken away from all the horror that will come upon the world. What then is their concern except to go to church religiously and try to be nice people? Here is the Truth:
We are called to learn everything that the Bible teaches and to live according to it and to help others who are willing to learn it too. This is how we build the spiritual backbone to face down all of the troubles of this life that oppose our faith. Whether we live to see the Tribulation or not, we will all experience personal tribulations in our lives as tests of our faith (Acts 14:22; 1 Peter 1:6-7). The seven-year Tribulation is a most horrendous time, no doubt, but it is really just what all believers experience at various points in their individual lives, only this time it is on a global scale embracing an entire Church era, that is, the Laodicean Church. We cannot escape Tribulation, certainly not by being believers, even if we are nice ones who go to church every Sunday. Tribulation is our business. It is a huge part of why we are still on Earth after we believe. After we have believed in Jesus Christ, our faith must grow and be tested. If we take the pains of growing our faith, we will come through our tests stronger and glowing like gold that is precious in the sight of our God. If we don't, we may lose even what faith we do have, when we are tested. Therefore, knowing that the seven-year Tribulation will precede the Resurrection will tell any sensible believer to get cracking on the job of spiritual growth and ministry. It is not nearly an easy thing to grow up spiritually when your enemy is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you. The Tribulation is not a pleasant time to get serious about spiritual growth. That is why as much as a third of the true Church will be lost to apostasy at that time. Many believers will not make it because the pressure will prove too much for them. Another third will be tested right up to the point of giving up their physical lives just to prove that the Lord Jesus is more important to them than their very own lives. For those who live to see the very end of the Tribulation and our Lord's glorious return, you can imagine what sorrow and pain they must endure until that time. So, no, it is not true that teaching the Truth in this case will cause anybody to relax. In fact, it makes those who aren't serious about their Faith to simply turn away and follow after the lies they please, while those who are willing to grow will get serious very quickly.
I think that it is necessary to add that the whole business of not knowing when the Lord will come for us is occasioned in the Bible by the fact that the precise day and hour of the Lord's Return is kept from all creation (Zechariah 14:6-7). So, even at the end of the Tribulation, especially at the end of the Tribulation, believers will need to stay ready because the precise moment of the Lord's Return is unknown.
Keep in mind that the last moments of the Tribulation will be a time when all the world's armies are on the verge of destroying the Third Temple and Jerusalem. Many believers will be in Israel then, having fled from Tribulational Babylon before it is destroyed by the Antichrist. The pressure then will be so intense and the outlook so bleak that it will take strong faith in the Lord to continue to wait for the Lord. It will take such faith too to not fall into any trap that the Lord has come when He hasn't. As the pressure grows, and the seven years look like they're already up, but the Lord is still not back, it will grow easier to be discouraged or to be deceived into following a false Savior in the hope that he will deliver us from the marauding forces right outside the door at the time. It will take tremendous faith then to continue to wait for the Lord's Deliverance no matter what.
When the precise Day of His Return arrives, His actual Return will be unmistakable even if still surprising because the exact moment is unknown. He will rip apart the sky like lightning, and descend with a shout and the sound of the trumpet calling for the assembly of all resurrected believers to Him.
This is what the Lord has told us so that we will not be deceived at that time by any false Messiahs.
Question #1: Hello Everyone. Please I need your help with my Christian life. I got baptized with the Holy Ghost on June30th and since then I've been experiencing God's love and touch. But I've been unable to still get rid of some addictions from my life(I've been able to get rid of many through his help tho). But whenever I'm enjoying a closer relationship with God, I just fall back to the sin and start all over again. Its been very saddening for me and I don't know what to do. The addiction is pornography. Your advise, help and all is highly welcomed. Thank.
Answer #1: We do have a responsibility to God to lead sanctified lives free from the taint of sin but we will never be perfect in this life. So, let me encourage you to also give your attention to pursuing spiritual growth and production for your Lord. In doing so, you will also find the strength to more and more consistently triumph over your sinful tendencies.
But in dealing more directly with addictions, it would be wise to avoid whatever might trigger an episode and be quick to confess every failure and get back to controlling yourself. Always keep in mind that when we sin or do righteousness, it is a choice we make ourselves. We never get pushed into it by anybody. We choose. So you can live each moment free from an addiction by your own choice. But in this race, we all stumble a lot. And we only get better and better at running straight by growing spiritually.
Question #2: But why are we asked to be perfect?
Answer #2: Sorry, didn't see this question before.
We are commanded to be perfect because we are supposed to prove our calling and our choice of the Lord Jesus Christ as our Master by striving to be like Him. But we will never be perfect with a body of sin. What counts though is that we demonstrate our desire for perfection by striving moment by moment, day by day to actually be perfect and confessing every sin and every failure so that we maintain fellowship with the Lord in fervent hope of a day when we will exchange this sinful body for a perfect, eternally sinless one.
Question #3: There are forms of perfection which definitely do not apply to us while on earth, but to walk perfectly before God is possible.
God said to Abraham:
Genesis 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Answer #3: But did Abraham succeed at obeying that command? See Genesis 20 for one possible illustration of his own very human imperfection.
Question #4: Christ said
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Answer #4: And the Spirit of Christ said through James:
James 3:2 [2]For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well...
Which is why He also says through John
1 John 1:8-10 [8]If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. [9]If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [10]If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
Question #5: Even, concerning Job, this was recorded about him
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.
Answer #5: And the Lord said this to Job too:
Job 38:1-2 [1]Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind and said, [2]"Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
Question #6: Lastly, the ultimate goal of the church is perfection
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Answer #6: Perfection here means maturity. It is not the same as sinlessness. Even a believer as mature as Paul was stumbled every now and then. Peter too was a very mature believer and was with Paul one of the greatest apostles but he too stumbled every now and then.
We ought to strive for maturity by all means. But sinlessness is not a wise goal to assume that we can achieve while we still live in a body of sin.
Question #7: God won't be saying all these if it is unattainable. We can't strive for it if we don't first believe it is possible. Let's not assume it is impossible, but believe it is possible and then strive for it.
Answer #7: As I began to say above, sinlessness is not a wise goal to assume that we can achieve in this body of sin. We will continue to stumble until we put off this flesh and put on the new body from above. This does not mean that we ought not to resist sin. We must. The more we love the Lord the less we will want to sin against Him. This is true and worthy of all belief. But we cannot reach sinlessness in this body. We must receive a new body to be completely free of sin.
Insisting on believing that we can be completely free of sin in this body will only lead to self-righteousness and hypocrisy worthy of the Pharisees. We will be tempted to start redefining sin to suit ourselves. But if we accept that we live in a body of sin from which we hunger to be delivered, then we will also maintain a running battle for sanctification and continue to maintain a humble hope of Resurrection that glorifies the Lord we love.
Question #8: To all these I will only say that we may try as we may to rationalize and evaluate from the human perspective, what is possible or not but that will not take us anywhere. Remove the power and grace of God from the equation, and Christianity becomes as dead as any other religion. But with God, all things are possible. Done with the conversation. Have a nice time.
Answer #8: Indeed I agree that with God all things are possible. That is why we must strive to walk in sanctification confident in the ability of the Lord to change our bodies of sin into bodies of perfect righteousness so that we can live freely before Him without concern that we might fail Him again.
Like this no sweet nau. Na only you dey your thread?
Ask and let others answer to nah. And let others also ask you.
Well, I have a question and your belief about Tribulation time period will determine your answer.
I believe in post-tribulation, so here I go.
The Bible says that, in fact Apst Paul says that the Trumpet will sound and the dead in Christ shall rise first then those who will be alive shall be changed to a glorious body and be taken out of here.
After this event, a 7 year period will open which the AntiChrist will assume leadership which will lead to people accepting his Mark 666 before they can participate in any social life.
After the 7years, the Eternal King Jesus will return, The AntiChrist will be bound and cast into the Abyss for One Thousand Years, while Christ reigns and rules over the earth.
Now, my Questions:
1). What will happen to those had already received the Mark of the Beast? Will they be cast off the earth with their Master?
2). If not, will they enjoy the reign of Christ just like the redeemed?
3). If they will be allowed to inhabit the earth in that time, will they still marry and have children?
4). Will their Children carry the Mark of the Beast automatically as we did the nature of Adam?
Shepherd00: Like this no sweet nau. Na only you dey your thread?
Ask and let others answer to nah. And let others also ask you.
Well, I have a question and your belief about Tribulation time period will determine your answer.
I believe in post-tribulation, so here I go.
The Bible says that, in fact Apst Paul says that the Trumpet will sound and the dead in Christ shall rise first then those who will be alive shall be changed to a glorious body and be taken out of here.
After this event, a 7 year period will open which the AntiChrist will assume leadership which will lead to people accepting his Mark 666 before they can participate in any social life.
After the 7years, the Eternal King Jesus will return, The AntiChrist will be bound and cast into the Abyss for One Thousand Years, while Christ reigns and rules over the earth.
Now, my Questions:
1). What will happen to those had already received the Mark of the Beast? Will they be cast off the earth with their Master?
2). If not, will they enjoy the reign of Christ just like the redeemed?
3). If they will be allowed to inhabit the earth in that time, will they still marry and have children?
4). Will their Children carry the Mark of the Beast automatically as we did the nature of Adam?
Pls let's discuss.
Shalom.
Hi there.
The thread is open to everyone. I said as much in my opening post, and I have also had conversations here with others. Additionally, the thread was not created for entertainment, so I don't look to start conversations just so that I can talk. I created the thread to answer biblical questions for anyone who is willing to listen to my answers.
Also, I don't believe in "spiritual growth by committee", so I don't ask questions just to take a vote on what to believe. I follow a single teaching ministry, and I'm content to take my questions there when I have them. What that ministry does for me is what I try to do in some small way for others through channels like this one.
This is the part of the Bible you were referring to:
50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [r]imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this [s]perishable must put on [t]the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this [u]perishable will have put on [v]the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” 56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57 but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord. 1 Corinthians 15:50-58
Paul is not here addressing when the resurrection will happen, but rather the bare fact and the details of it. What He says is essentially this: we must be resurrected for God's Promise to us to be kept. We cannot inherit the Kingdom of God in mortal flesh, we must be changed first. Nothing here addresses when the Resurrection will occur.
Alternatively, the following passage is sometimes brought up for such a view as you have put forward here:
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep [k]in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive [l]and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a [m]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive [n]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 NASB
It's quite clear that Paul was addressing the issue of departed believers. The grief of losing a loved one can make the best of us irrational, but when we are believers and the loved one is a believer too, the dynamic ought to be different. We cannot help grieving, nor should we prevent ourselves from feeling the pain of loss. We're in the devil's world, after all, so pain is normal for now. But we are those who have believed the Gospel and the Faithfulness of God, therefore, when we grieve, we ought to grieve keeping in mind that God has promised us resurrection.
The Lord Jesus WILL return, and when He does, says Paul, He will bring with Him those who died in the Lord. Then those of us believers who are still alive at His Return will be transformed so that we will be together with those we lost and with our dear Lord eternally with no more pain of parting.
This is what Paul was teaching here. There is nothing in this passage directly addressing the timing of the Return of the Lord Jesus. Other passages (a mindboggling number of passages too, to be sure) address that latter matter.
For example, in his second letter to the same group of believers, Paul says the following too:
2 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the [a]coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your [b]composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a [c]message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
To begin with, you should take note of the phrase, "our gathering together to Him". This is the exact same event that Paul was talking about in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. It is also the thing around which the erroneous doctrine of "the rapture", which it seems to me that you subscribe to, is built. This gathering together is the same thing that the Lord Jesus was talking about in Matthew 24:31, Mark 13:27, and Luke 17:34-37. Paul also taught it in considerable detail in 1 Corinthians 15. It is what he is speaking expressly about in 1 Corinthians 15:23, 51-52. It is called the Resurrection of the Just, or just the Resurrection. It will only happen at the Return of the Lord Jesus, not before.
Also, the context of nearly all the passages I have just shared with you is clear that the Lord Jesus will return only once, not twice. He will not come the first time to "rapture" believers and then come the second time to vanquish Antichrist and rule the world. 2 Thessalonians 2:1-4 is clear that the Coming of our Lord Jesus and "our gathering together to Him" is the same event, and it will only occur AFTER the Antichrist has been revealed.
According to the Bible, in Revelation 12-13, the Antichrist/the Beast will only be revealed at the midpoint of the 7-year Tribulation that the world must endure before the Return of our Lord. We know from Revelation, the Gospels, the Epistles, Daniel and other prophets, and in fact from the whole Bible that there will be an unprecedented persecution of believers during that time, especially from the unveiling of the Antichrist until the near-destruction of Israel, at which time the Lord will return, resurrect all the saints, destroy the Antichrist and all his human forces, regather Israel from exile, judge the Church, restore the Earth to perfect conditions, and rule it with the saints for a thousand years.
Throughout that seven-year Tribulation, unbelievers will be subjected to terrible judgments from the Lord including the seven Trumpet judgments of the first half (with the seventh Trumpet being the commencement of the second half), the seven Bowl judgments of the second half (with the seventh Bowl being the commencement of the events of the Second Advent, including the destruction of Tribulational Babylon, Armageddon, and the baptism of fire that will kill all humans with the Mark of the Beast). Believers will not be subject to these judgments although they may feel some of the effects, for example, if your unbelieving debtors die from some of these judgments at that time, you may be unable to reclaim what you're owed. But even so, the Lord will provide abundantly for all of us who stay faithful through the horrors of that time. The main thing that believers will suffer during the Tribulation will be persecution, not the judgments of the Lord upon hardened unbelief.
At the end of the seven years, the Lord Jesus will return just when all other hope is lost and Jerusalem is about to fall to the worldwide forces that have overrun Israel then. Then, He will take the Antichrist and his prophet and throw them straight into the Lake of Fire (not into the Abyss, see Revelation 19:20). Following that, He will destroy all the global forces arrayed against Israel at that time (Revelation 19:21).
At the end of this short work that He makes of all these forces, He will rain a baptism of fire all over the world targeting specifically only those who have the Mark of the Beast (Ezekiel 39:6; Matthew 3:11-12). So, in answer to that question, no one who has the Mark of the Beast will experience the Millennium. Some people will refuse to take the Mark even if they also refuse to become believers. Some of those people will survive right to the end of the Tribulation. Some of them, at least, will believe when they see the Lord Jesus return in Glory. Such people are among those who will be the starting population of the Millennium along with resurrected believers.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, KENOSIS, THE GREAT COMMISSION, AND PAUL (A)
Question #1: FIVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS THAT ARE KEEPING ME AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY. 1. Problem of "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is the Creator".
There is no way for the Trinitarian Christians to reconcile John 1:1,14 , Colossians 2:9 and Hebrew 1:8 etc (which proclaim that Jesus is God ) WITH Hosea 11:9/Malachi 3:6/Acts 2:22, John 17:3, John 20:17, John 14:28, John 14:1, Luke 6:12, Mark 10:18, Acts 3:13, Matthew 24:36 etc that dispute this claim. Again, there is no way for the Non-trinitarian Christians like Jehovah Witnesses to reconcile John 1:3, 1st Corinthians 8:6 and Colossians 1:16 ( which proclaim that all things were created THROUGH Jesus Christ) WITH Isaiah 44:24, 48:13, 45:12 and 66:2 which declare that God created the heavens and the earth ALL ALONE, BY HIMSELF, BY HIS OWN HANDS AND NOBODY WAS WITH HIM.
Response #1: God is not Man. Jesus is BOTH God and Man. God did not change in His fundamental nature to become Man. Rather, He also took on the nature of Man so that in One Person God and Man are united.
Question #2: 2. Problem of "Jesus being sent ONLY to the Israelites ( check Matthew 15:24, 10:5-6, 19:28. Compare Matthew 28:19, Mark 16:15, Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:8 WITH Acts 10:1-28, 11:1-18,19, Galatians 2:7-9 and James 1:1). Suppose you are being asked to distribute a packet of sweet to some children in your vicinity with an instruction to START WITH THE MALE CHILDREN BEFORE THE FEMALE. Now one of the female children approaches you for the collection of her own sweet. Please before God and man would you say; " I WAS ONLY ASKED TO GIVE THE MALE" ? Of course, you would not utter such kind of statement. You would definitely say "IT IS NOT YET TIME FOR THE FEMALE" or something similar to that . Likewise, if it was already in the divine plan that JESUS AND HIS APOSTLES WOULD PREACH TO THE JEWS FIRST AND THEN LATER TO ALL THE GENTILES as the Christian scholars want us to believe, then Jesus' statement directed to that Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:24 should have been: IT IS NOT YET TIME FOR THE GENTILES or something similar in meaning rather than “I WAS SENT ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL(Matthew 15:24 NIV)”. Why did Jesus have to say such a statement if he was truly sent to the entire world to die for our salvation ? Again, some of the Christian scholars opined that the reason why Jesus said he was sent ONLY to the Israelites was to TEST the faith of that Canaanite woman. But if this is the case, then Jesus would have committed an act of LYING by saying he was sent ONLY to the Israelites if TRULY he was sent to the entire world. So how could an esteem and beloved prophet of God like Jesus have committed an act of LYING for something that is very trivial ( just to test the faith of one woman) ? He could also have tested the faith of that woman WITHOUT LYING by simply say " It is not yet time for the Gentiles". Therefore, no matter how you think about it; Matthew 15:24 will continue to be a problem for Christianity.
Response #2: He was sent to Israel only because Israel was God's channel for blessing the whole world.
Question #3: 3. Problem of an innocent, righteous and beloved son who was placed under the CURSE of his own lovely and merciful father (Gal. 3:13, Deut. 21:23) in order for the father to forgive and ultimately save his sinful adopted children ( i:e the Christians) from his punishment. Of course, it is totally IRRATIONAL for an innocent, righteous and beloved SON of a compassionate, lovely and merciful FATHER to be under the CURSE of the same father !!! The God of the Bible, the alleged father of Jesus Christ, has been described in the same Bible as being compassionate, lovely and merciful ( See Psalm 78:38, 145:8-9, Luke 6:36, 1 John 4:8 etc ). Similarly, Christians also agree that Jesus must be an innocent, righteous and beloved son . Therefore, in order to avoid the IRRATIONALITY of putting such an innocent, righteous and beloved son under the CURSE of such a compassionate, lovely and merciful father, we have to conclude that Jesus did not die on the cross. Even Paul knew very well that it is IRRATIONAL to believe that Jesus was ACCURSED by God. This is the reason why he contradicts himself by saying as follows; "Therefore, I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus ACCURSED !” (1st Corinthians 12:3). Yet the ONLY WAY for Jesus not to become "accursed" was for him NOT to die on the cross since it is clearly written in the the same Bible that ANYONE that is crucified is accursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23, Galatians 3:13 ).
Response #3: But it is not irrational for a father to work himself to the bone to feed his children and provide for them even at an age when they could do so for themselves. Nor is it irrational for able-bodied men to put their lives at risk for other people in war as soldiers.
The Lord Jesus was perfectly righteous and never did anything wrong. But on the Cross, He willingly took on the full weight of all human sin in His Body and became sin so that all of God's Anger against sin would be vented on Him. He did not personally deserve it but once He took our position, He made Himself fully deserving of it. That was His Ultimate Righteous Act - dying for those who do not deserve it.
Question #4: 4. Problem of "Jesus' private appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus" NOT BEING FORETOLD to the original apostles: ( Compare Acts 22:6-9 WITH Matthew 24:23-28, Luke 10:18 . Compare Matthew 5:17-20, 23:1-3 With Romans 10:4, Colossians 2:14, Ephesians 2:15 and Galatians 3:23-25. Compare Genesis 17:9-14, Luke 2:21 With Galatians 5:2-4, Acts 23:12-14. Compare Acts 21:18-31 With Acts 26:1-8, 19-21, Romans 3:7. Compare Luke 12:1-2 with Acts 23:6. Compare 2 Corinthians 12:16 with Jeremiah 48:10)". Yet the same Paul wrote ALMOST HALF OF THE BOOKS that make up the New Testament . See the foundation upon which the edifice of Christianity is erected!
Response #4: I'm not sure what this means exactly. I can't see the connection between your objections and the passages you provided. So, explain a little more.
Did Jesus need to tell His disciples that He would appear to Paul later? Why did He?
Was Paul disqualified in some way from writing Scripture? How was he?
Question #5: 5 . Problem of " the Bible and Christianity not being endorsed by God " ; the words "Bible" and "Christianity" are no where to be found inside the Bible. Yet an exclusive divine book and a true faith from God MUST have a unique name given to it by God Himself for identification and to distinguish it from all other false faiths that exist on the earth. Not the name given to it by the people as in the case with the "Bible" and "Christianity" . Even the word "Christian" found in the Bible was neither COINED by God nor Jesus; not even by original apostles of Jesus in Jerusalem. But by Paul and his colleagues ; people that never met Jesus during his earthly ministry (check Acts 11:26).
Response #5: This one seems very frivolous to me. Until Jesus Christ was born, nobody knew that His Name would be Jesus although prophecies about His Coming began right at the beginning of human history.
"Bible" is just a term of convenience. You can say "Scripture" or "Scriptures" if you prefer. Those ones are in the Bible. As for "Christian", it too is a term of convenience. Before the mockery that eventually became the name, we were called disciples, followers of "this Way", brethren, children of God (as we still are called), saints, believers etc. We simply accepted a mockery and by so doing redefined it.
Obviously too, it wasn't Paul who coined the term. In fact, he never used it. It was unbelievers who called believers Christians first in Antioch. In fact, the actual term they used was "Chrestians". Its modern equivalent would be "Goody Two Shoes" "Holy-Holy" "Holier-than-thou" etc. It was a mockery for the moral behavior of Christians. In time, it was corrupted to Christians which meant "(members) of the House of Christ". Peter is the only believer in the Bible to use the term at all.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, KENOSIS, THE GREAT COMMISSION, AND PAUL (B)
Question #6: 1.Hypostatic union loosely states; "Within the person of Jesus Christ, there were two natures : Divine and Human" . This is impossible. The person of Jesus Christ as proposed by Christian theism can not exist. The reason why is because within the person of Jesus Christ, there are two CONTRADICTORY natures. God is by definition perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, all-wise, eternal, omnipotent, etc. Humans are by definition imperfect, ignorant, limited, not all-wise, mortal, impotent, etc. These two contradictory natures CANNOT CO-EXIST in one person for one reason : They are contradictory and violate the law of non-contradiction. For example, Does the person of Jesus know everything? If no, then he does not have the omniscient nature of God (Matthew 24:36). If yes then he does not have the ignorant nature of humans and he is not really human. Is the person of Jesus Christ perfect? If No, then he does not really have the God nature. If yes, then he does not really have the imperfect human nature (Ecclesiastes 7:20). Is the person of Jesus Christ all-powerful? If yes, then he is not really human (Mark 14:38). If no, then he does not really have the God nature (Psalms 115:3). You can not be both God And Human in one person.
Response #6: You have the wrong conception of contradiction. Things are not contradictory unless they negate each other. When they do not, they are merely different. For example, light is different from darkness and contradicts it since where there is light, there can be no darkness. And if darkness prevails in a certain place, then there is no light there either. But green and blue are different and non-contradictory. Green is very clearly not blue. But green can be part of a color mix with blue without negating blue.
In the same vein, the human nature is incalculably inferior to the divine but it does not contradict it. The divine nature is simply infinitely greater than the human. This is why the Bible makes a very emphatic point about the great Sacrifice of God the Word in becoming human. It actually describes that as "voiding" Himself of His Divinity in Philippians 2:7. The Greek word translated there as "made Himself nothing" or "emptied Himself" is the one from which there theological term "Kenosis" was developed. It describes how in His First Advent, the Lord Jesus made Himself able to live like a true human without any of the advantages of His Deity. He did not cease even then to be Deity. He just never actually used that "part" of Himself until after He resurrected and was glorified and kenosis ended.
Another way to look at what He did is to imagine a King who changes out of his royal robes and divests himself of all symbols of his authority and dons the apparel of a peasant and goes to walk among the poor in his land. Unless he is recognized and permits it to be otherwise, he will be treated just like any other peasant. But he does not cease to be king. This is not a perfect parallel but it is close enough to help here.
In conclusion, there was no contradiction.
Question #7: 2. Jesus did not send his apostles to preach to the world. Follow the evidence below " I was sent ONLY TO THE LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL(Matthew 15:24)" “Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the LOST SHEEP OF ISRAEL(Matthew 10:5-6)" "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL(Matthew 19:28)" It is crystal clear from all these verses that Jesus and his apostles were sent ONLY to the Israelites i:e the Jews. However, Christians usually proclaim that command of NOT preaching to the Gentiles was later cancelled and replaced by the new command of preaching to all the nations of the world just before Jesus ascended to heaven as the verse below indicate; " Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19 )". In this very verse, Jesus asked the apostles to carry out TWO great assignments; 1.To preach to all the nations of the world. 2.To baptize the people in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit But AFTER Jesus'departure, did apostles and the other disciples under their authority really act on these two commands ? The following verses show that the apostles and the other disciples did not carry out the first command. In fact, they find it very difficult to visit the Gentiles talkless of preaching to them. See the evidence below; Acts 10:28 NIV: Peter said to them (i:e some of the Gentiles that asked Peter to come ): “You are well aware that it is AGAINST OUR LAW FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH OR VISIT A GENTILE. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean". Acts 11:2-3 NLT: "But when Peter arrived back in Jerusalem, THE JEWISH BELIEVERS CRITICIZED HIM; “YOU ENTERED THE HOME OF THE GENTILES AND EVEN ATE WITH THEM!” The fact that other Jewish believers in Christ criticized Peter on his arrival back to Jerusalem ON THE SAME ISSUE OF VISITING AND ASSOCIATING WITH GENTILES help us to know that Peter knew what he was saying when he said "YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT IT IS AGAINST OUR LAW FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH OR VISIT A GENTILE. (Acts 10:28).
Acts 11:19 NKJV: "Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, PREACHING THE WORD TO NO ONE BUT THE JEWS ONLY". Galatians 2:7-9 NLT: "Instead, they saw that God had given me( Paul) the responsibility of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as he had given Peter the responsibility of PREACHING TO THE JEWS. For the same God who worked through Peter as the APOSTLE TO THE JEWS also worked through me(Paul) as the apostle to the Gentiles. In fact, James, Peter, and John, who were known as pillars of the church, recognized the gift God had given me, and they accepted Barnabas and me as their co-workers. They encouraged us to keep preaching to the Gentiles, WHILE THEY CONTINUED THEIR WORKS WITH THE JEWS." Have you now seen that original apostles of Jesus did NOT really act on the first command of preaching to all the nations. The work of christianizing the Gentiles was MAJORLY carried out by Paul and his colleagues; not by the original apostles of Jesus Christ who spent most of their time in Jerusalem. Some Christians want to argue that the reason why Peter said:"YOU ARE WELL AWARE THAT IT IS AGAINST OUR LAW FOR A JEW TO ASSOCIATE WITH OR VISIT A GENTILE(Acts 10:28)" is because Peter and other apostles find it difficult to discard the Jewish custom of not associating and visiting the Gentiles. However,the fact that Peter responded positively to that VISION and departed with those gentiles on the following day (see Acts 10:29) is an evidence that he never find it difficult to discard this Jewish custom. Again, it is not possible for the apostles and disciples of Jesus to give PREFERENCE for mere Jewish custom OVER a great and important command from their Master. What actually preventing them was the command of "NOT PREACHING TO THE GENTILES" in Matthew 10:5-6 and the fact that Jesus told them CATEGORICALLY that he was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel( Matthew15:24).
What about the second command of baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy spirit ? Again, see the evidence against this command; Then peter said to them, repent, and let everyone of you be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS CHRIST for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the NAME OF THE LORD JESUS (Acts 8:16). So peter ordered them to be baptized in the NAME OF JESUS the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay there for three days (Acts 10:48). If “Matthew 28:19” is true and Jesus did command his apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, then why would apostles go against this command and baptize only in Jesus name ?
As you can see, the original apostles of Jesus did NOT act on the two great commands contained in Matthew 28:19. Do you know the reason why ? Matthew 28:19 and other verses like it DID NOT EVER COME OUT from Jesus'mouth.
Response #7: Depending on the quality of your next response, it is very likely that I will not respond any further on this thread because the above suggests very strongly to me that you are intent on being dishonest perhaps in order to swindle Christians out of their faith and I cannot see how I will be able to discuss amicably with you in that spirit.
First, it is perfectly obvious from your own comment that Jesus DID IN FACT send His apostles and disciples to the rest of the world.
Second, it is perfectly obvious that these apostles and disciples DID IN FACT go to the rest of the world. Whether they did so reluctantly or enthusiastically, they DID GO IN FACT. And, if they did not go, it would not have changed the fact that the Lord Jesus sent them thereby confirming that while He was sent to the Jews and so were they during His earthly ministry, the goal in the end was for what Israel had been offered to spread to all the world.
Third, Paul's work only means that he was more enthusiastic about the Lord Jesus's commands than all the others were. That can hardly be a fault on his part. Would that all of us were.
Fourth, in Jesus Christ Himself, the fullness of God dwells bodily, so that baptism into Jesus Christ is baptism into the Trinity as a whole. There was no contradiction between what Peter said and what the Lord Jesus commanded.
Fifth, it is entirely your own fabrication that Matthew 28:19 is not part of the Bible. Obviously, as demonstrated above, it very much is. Furthermore, from Abraham through all the generations of Israel, it was constantly emphasized that God would bless the whole world through Israel, so there is no reason at all to imagine that the Lord Jesus was not intending to save the whole world or to have the Gospel preached all over the world. In fact, in the incident in the house of Simon the Pharisee, He announced that the story of the woman who broke an expensive box of perfume for Him would be told wherever the Gospel is proclaimed throughout the world.
Question #8: 3. The case of soldiers risking their lives on the battle field in order to save the lives of others from THE ENEMY is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from the case of a father who insist that his only righteous and beloved son MUST BE ACCURSED before he can forgive and ultimately save his adopted children from his OWN punishment; NOT from the punishment of the ENEMY.
Even if the son voluntarily decided to take up the CURSE, the father has every right to reject the offer because it is totally IRRATIONAL for an innocent, righteous and beloved SON of a compassionate, lovely and merciful FATHER to be under the CURSE of the same father !!! The God of the Bible, the alleged father of Jesus Christ, has been described in the same Bible as being compassionate, lovely and merciful ( See Psalm 78:38, 145:8-9, Luke 6:36, 1 John 4:8 etc ). Simiarly, Christians also agree that Jesus must be an innocent, righteous and beloved son . Therefore, in order to avoid the IRRATIONALITY of putting such an innocent, righteous and beloved son under the CURSE of such a compassionate, lovely and merciful father, the conclusion that "Jesus did NOT die on the cross for our sins" must be perfectly true. Even Paul knew very well that it is IRRATIONAL to believe that Jesus was ACCURSED by God. This is the reason why he contradicts himself by saying as follows; "Therefore I want you to understand that NO ONE speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed !” (1st Corinthians 12:3) Yet the ONLY WAY for Jesus not to become "accursed" by God was for him NOT to die on the cross since it is clearly written in the the same Bible that ANYONE that is crucified is accursed by God (Deuteronomy 21:23, Galatians 3:13 ).
Response #8: First, you offer no reason for why it is more rational for able-bodied men to go into battle and risk their lives for other people some of whom would be incredibly ungrateful for the sacrifice than for the Lord Jesus to sacrifice Himself for the sins of the world. So, I see no reason to accept this nebulous difference you insist on.
Second, obviously, there was no insistence on the Father's Part. The Father told the Lord Jesus to lay down His Life only willingly and take it up in a similar manner.
Third, God's Love means that He must protect that which He loves. His Justice means that He must not let any wrong-doing go unpunished or any righteousness go unrewarded. His compassion and mercy mean that He pities the weak and delivers them. Therefore, these things are consistent with His Offer of His One and Only Son to die in our behalf so that we are not destroyed for our sin. If His Son was willing, then He was going to take all of our sin and become responsible for it so that He would suffer the full punishment for sin to deliver us who were too weak to deliver our own selves. And because of this righteous act, His Son too is raised from the dead and given all authority over all creation as well as the Church and all Millennial Believers as His Reward. Thus, God's Love, Justice, Compassion, Righteousness and Mercy are all fully served with none left wanting at all. The Lord Jesus was not made the Sacrifice against His Will. And He was not left suffering forever for our sins.
Question #9: 4. It is VERY IMPORTANT for Jesus to foretell his appearance to Paul on the road to Damascus to the originnal apostles . See the reason below; Before his ascension to heaven, Jesus said to his apostles ; "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying; I am the Christ; and shall deceive many (Matthew 24:4-5)…“Then if anyone says here is Christ or there, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. For false christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possiblye, even the elect. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if anyone tells you; Christ is out in the wilderness, do not go out; or Christ is in the inner rooms, DO NOT BELIEVE IT. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the son of Man. Wherever there is a carcass, then the vultures will gather(Matthew 24:23-28)”. In these verses, we are commanded by Jesus not to believe any account of a person who claims to have seen Jesus in a private manner prior to his universally-visible appearance to all . Jesus was telling us that his returning to earth again from heaven will be clear and unmistakable to everyone. Every eye from every point “east and west” will see him. The people would gather to see Jesus coming from the heaven just like vultures gather over the carcass. Hence, any private appearances of Jesus before this public appearance should be discarded .Therefore, if Jesus’ private appearance to Paul in form of “a great light falling from heaven” would be an exception to this great warning of not believing in private appearances of Christ, then Jesus should have foretold this exceptional event to the original apostles before he ascended to heaven. But Jesus did not foretell anything like that. Instead of pre-informing the original apostles that he would privately appear to someone like “LIGHTNING FROM HEAVEN” before his universally-visible appearance to all, Jesus only informed them as follows;“I saw Satan falling like LIGHTNING FROM HEAVEN (Luke10:18)”.See how all evidence is working seriously against Paul! But is it really reasonable to believe that it was Satan, and not Jesus, that revealed himself to Paul in form of lightning from heaven? Yes, it is not only reasonable but also probable because as at that time Paul was yet to repent from all the evil crimes he has committed against the true followers of Christ (Acts 9:1, 26:11). In fact, his spiritual condition was so bad(1st Timothy 1:13) for anyone to be sure that he possessed nothing of divine power and divine wisdom that could have protected him from such satanic delusion. If the great light that appear to Paul was true Jesus Christ, then one would expect Jesus to command him to repent immediately and secretly meet the original apostles of Jesus who were then living at Jerusalem. On the contrary, Paul even continued to boast and proclaimed that these original apostles of Jesus imparted nothing to him (Galatians 2:6).
Response #9: Your argument is false simply because Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all teach that the Lord Jesus was answering an eschatological question. That is, He was prophesying about the last few (seven, in fact) years before His Return to rule the world. Of course, even Stephen saw a vision of the Lord Jesus after this and nobody accuses him of being a false Christ, false prophet, false teacher or false believer.
Paul, on the other hand, was the 12th apostle chosen by the Lord Jesus to replace Judas Iscariot. The vote cast by the disciples before the Holy Spirit was given to the Church at Pentecost was not sanctified by the Lord, so Matthias was never the replacement.
Paul was chosen by the same Lord Jesus Who handpicked each apostle. No other apostle was voted into the office of the apostle. This is why he was granted to see the glorified Lord Jesus in his turn.
Question #10: 1. Let me try to explain it again for the last time; Yes blue and green are different but not contradictory. But God's nature and human nature are not only different but also contradictory. For example, it is very clear that human being is NOT omnipresent. But God is omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:23-24). Therefore, this very unlimited nature of God directly CONTRADICT the limited nature of human being. Hence, these two contradictory natures cannot CO-EXIST SIDE BY SIDE in one person; one has to vacate for the other to stay . And if the two natures were to BLEND with each other, then this will lead to CHANGE and yet God's nature cannot be changed (Malachi 3:6). For this very reason, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to be both human and God at the same time. In fact, when Jesus was praying to the Father, he said; "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the ONLY TRUE God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent (John 17:3)" . If Jesus himself was referring to another person (i:e the Father) as the "ONLY true God" , then how could Jesus be God ? If Jesus did not use the word "ONLY", then hopefully the Christians may still want to argue that Jesus is also God just like his Father. However, the phrase "ONLY TRUE God" used by Jesus in reference to the father alone implies that apart from the father all others are FAKE.
Response #10: By your logic, since Green is NOT Blue, the two are contradictory. This is obviously wrong. The two are NOT each other but they do not contradict each other either.
The law of contradiction is that nothing can be both A and not-A. On this we are both agreed.
But the issue is what differences are contradictory and what differences are not. Using your example, the human nature is obviously NOT omnipresent but it certainly does exist in space and is able to change locations. Omnipresence only means existence in all locations at the same time. The difference then is not one of quality but one of degrees. Human nature is limited in ability to inhabit locations where the divine is not. This is not a contradiction.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, KENOSIS, THE GREAT COMMISSION, AND PAUL (C)
Question #11: 2. I have given you sufficient evidence (Acts 10:28, 11:2-3, 19, Galatians 2:7-9, James 1:1, Acts 2:38, 8:16 and 10:48) to show that apostles of Jesus did NOT carry out the two great commands contained in Matthew 28:19. Now if you insist that this Matthew 28:19 actually came out from Jesus' mouth, then you have to believe that God has chosen the WRONG PEOPLE to be the apostles of Jesus; the apostles who neglected the commands from their master.
Response #11: You lie, sir/madam. Even by your own admission, they DID preach to Gentiles albeit reluctantly according to you. Peter's story with Cornelius is one of the most famous in Acts of the Apostles. Phillip's with the Ethiopian eunuch is another. There is no doubt that the apostles and disciples were reluctant to preach to Gentiles because they did not really get that God had decreed that the whole world would be saved. But it is a flat-out lie that they did not preach to Gentiles. They most certainly did.
Question #12: 3. It is very RATIONAL both in the sight of God and men for some one to risk his own life in an attempt to save the lives of others from the harm of the ENEMY. However, if there is alternative and easier way you can take to save the lives of others from the harm of the ENEMY or from the harm of YOUR OWN SELF, then it is highly IRRATIONAL for such a person to risk his own life or the life of his close relative. You wrote that Justice of God means that He must not let any wrong-doing go unpunished. But an act of wrong-doing is not a "TANGIBLE SUBSTANCE" you can just transfer from one guilty person to another innocent person. It is absolutely INSEPERABLE from the person that committed the act. For example, there is NO WAY you can punish the act of fornication WITHOUT punishing the fornicators. There is NO WAY you can punish the act of theft WITHOUT punishing the theives. Therefore, if the act of wrong-doing must always be punished as you claim , then it is the very people which committed the act that must be punished; not an innocent and righteous person. See the evidence directly from God's mouth; "The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. But if a wicked man TURNS (i:e REPENTS) from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. NONE OF THE TRANSGRESSIONS which he has committed shall be remembered against him; Because of the RIGHTEOUSNESS which he has done, HE SHALL LIVE. Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should TURN FROM HIS WAYS AND LIVE ? (Ezekiel 18:20-23). As you can see from above, "repentance from our sinful deeds and engaging in the act of righteousness " is what we need to be saved. This is the rational and alternative way that God has chosen to ensure our salvation. THERE IS NO NEED FOR an innocent and righteous son to fall under the CURSE of his own lovely and merciful father before we can be saved.
Response #12: First, if going to war to risk dying for ungrateful strangers is rational, then so is willingly choosing to die for those you love to save them from the consequences of their actions if possible.
Second, sin is rebellion, or better put, treason against God. It made us God's Enemies. And God became our Enemy too. His Justice cannot permit creature rebellion to go unpunished. This is why Jesus is called our Mediator or Go-between in the Bible. He made peace between us and God by accepting responsibility for all of our sin and being punished for all of it.
Third, perhaps what you consider as God in your mind is a completely different thing from the actual meaning of the word. A true God is not limited in ability. The Bible says both that the Lord Jesus "bore our sins in His Body" and that He "was made sin" for us. It said also that God did not desire sacrifice or offerings; rather, He made a Body for the Lord Jesus with which He was to fulfill His Mission. I see no reason to imagine that God could not have made Him carry literally all our sins in His Body. However that was made possible we don't need to know. It is enough that the Bible says that He did.
If you insist on the intangibility of sin and the impossibility of transfer, I must ask how debt is transferable or cancellable seeing as it too is truly intangible. Documents do nothing more than state the fact of the transfer or elimination of debt. If they are tangible enough for you, then you have no reason to object to God's Own Spiritual reckoning of these things.
Question #13: 4. However, the fact that Paul contradicts true Jesus on many important issues is even enough to prove that the revelation he claimed to receive was from fake Jesus Christ. For example, God and Jesus forbid the believers from eating spiritually unclean foods and meat sacrificed to idols (Ezekiel 22:26, Revelation 2:14) but Paul wrote that there is nothing wrong in eating such things as long as you do not eat them in the presence of a weak believer(1st Corinthians 8:8-10, Colossians 2:16).Again, Jesus’ statement in Matthew 24:24 and Matthew 7:21-23 implies that; performing great signs and wonders in Jesus’ name are the things that would accompany the false christs and the false prophets. Yet Paul declare that performing great signs and wonders in Jesus’ name are the things that even commissioned him as true apostle of Jesus Christ (2nd Corinthians 12:12, Romans 15:19). Furthermore, Jesus said: Do NOT THINK I CAME TO DESTROY THE LAW or the (way of the) PROPHETS. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19).
Yet Paul declares as follows: “Christ is the end of the Law (Romans 10:4). But BEFORE faith came, we were KEPT UNDER GUARD BY THE LAW, kept for the faith which after-ward would be revealed. Therefore, THE LAW WAS OUR TUTOR to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But AFTER faith has come, WE ARE NO LONGER UNDER A TUTOR (Galatians 3:23-25). Again, despite the fact that circumcision is an everlasting covenant of God for the Jews i:e the Israelites (Genesis 17:9-14) and Jesus himself was also circumcised (Luke 2:21); yet Paul went ahead to write as follows: “Indeed, I Paul say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to EVERY MAN who become circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged (i.e. cut off ) from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace(Galatians 5:2-4)”. The term “EVERY MAN” used by Paul in the verse quoted above is indisputable evidence that he condemned the act of circumcision for both Jews and Gentiles. If this is not the case, then the Jewish believers in the Jerusalem would not bound themselves with oath that they will never eat nor drink until they kill Paul (Acts 23:12-14). In fact, this single fact alone that Paul condemn the act of circumcision, an EVERLASTING covenant of God, is another prove that “the great light from heaven” that appeared to Paul on his road to Damascus was a false Christ as already foretold by Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry. Furthermore, Bible recorded that the number of Jesus apostles was somehow fixed to be twelve (Matthew 10:2-7, 19:28, Revelation 21:14). Therefore, when Judas Iscariot fell out and there was need for replacement and restoration of original twelve, then one would expect the divine plan to unfold in such a way that original apostles would be pre-informed by Jesus to exercise patience and wait till Paul repents. But instead of waiting for Paul, Matthias was chosen to replace Judas under the guidance of Holy Spirit (Acts 1:20-26). This proves again that apostleship of Paul was not even recognized in heaven. Yet Paul repeatedly called himself an apostle of true Jesus Christ at the beginning of most of his letters. The most astonishing part of Paul and his assertion of being among the apostle of Christ is that, unlike other writers, he almost never quotes Jesus in any of his letters. Yet this is expected from Paul if truly the light he saw falling from heaven was true Jesus Christ. Paul was also caught lying red handed; he was accused of teaching all the Jews among the Gentiles to forsake circumcision and the Law of Moses (Acts 21:18-31). But instead of proving this accusation to be true or false when the King Agrippa asked him about that accusation, Paul now claimed that he was being accused for the hope of the promise made by God i.e. the resurrection of the dead (Acts 26:1-cool and for the fact that he advised people to repent and turn to God (Acts 26:19-21). There is nothing like “circumcision and the law of Moses” in the answers presented by Paul to the King. In fact, Paul himself admitted to be a liar when he said: “For if the truth of God has increased through MY LIE to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner (Romans 3:7)”. Yet the same Paul wrote almost half of the books found in the New Testament. See the foundation upon which the edifice of Christianity is erected!
Response #13: Paul NEVER contradicted Jesus Christ.
i. The Lord Jesus actually declared all foods clean when He said that everything that is eaten goes through the body and is eliminated but what comes out of the heart is really what defiles us.
ii. If we take that to be true, then every single apostle and evangelist and believer who did miracles in Acts of the Apostles was a false Christ and false prophet. That would include Peter and John. But we know that in Matthew 24, the Lord Jesus was referring to the Tribulation. In Matthew 7, the Lord Jesus was speaking of people who deceived themselves with make-believe miracles and sorcery. Clearly, the Lord Jesus gave the disciples power to perform miracles when He sent them out two by two and in groups multiple times. So, in no way can it be said that Paul was a false Christ or false prophet just because he performed miracles. And he was exactly right that the stamp of his authority as a member of the Twelve was the miracles he did and the things he suffered.
iii. The Law was perfectly fulfilled by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Therefore, it was removed by that Sacrifice just as the Lord Jesus pretty much said (:the Law would only pass away after it had been fulfilled). So, Paul was directly in line with the Lord Jesus.
iv. The Lord Jesus told the Samaritan woman that the time would come when the worship of God would be in spirit and in truth so that the religious system of the Jews including circumcision would become irrelevant to true worship of the true God. Paul was therefore agreeing with Christ again there.
v. There is absolutely no reason why the Lord would pre-inform the apostles of anything. There is no evidence that He informed any of them that there would be other apostles as He selected them in their own turn. It was neither their business nor in particular ours. Ours is to know that He has chosen and who He chose if He is pleased to tell us His Choice.
vi. On your comment on Matthias, read my last post again. The Spirit was given in chapter 2 and the vote occurred in chapter 1. Additionally, no apostle was ever elected except for Matthias. Each one was specifically chosen and personally called by the Lord Jesus just as Paul was.
vii. Paul quoted Jesus about the Communion when he was warning the Corinthians about the terrible judgment associated with receiving it unworthily.
viii. It is you who lie. Paul stated the real reason why he was being persecuted. It had far less to do with circumcision and the law since they arrested him fulfilling a vow according to the Law and helping some other men at his own expense to do the same than it had to do with his proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus Christ Whom the Jews hated with a violence.
ix. Paul never admitted to being a liar. He simply offered a hypothetical about an unbeliever who is trying to justify himself by claiming that God cannot condemn him if his sin only served to further God's Plans. You are an incredible liar, sir/madam.
My answers right now are quite rushed but I am confident that they are correct. I just wish I could make more time to actually give you harder ones. You are a very dishonest person. You clearly know what a Bible is and you can read it. Why then you pick and choose things in it and completely ignore others that do not serve your agenda can only be explained by an inveterate dishonesty that is determined to destroy faith in Jesus Christ by any means necessary.
Question #14: Please I Need Trinitarians To Explain Hebrews 1:1-3 For Me:
Hebrews 1:1-3 New International Version (NIV)
1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2. but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. 3.The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. Hebrews 1:1-3 New International Version (NIV)
Response #14: Hi. Your profile suggests that your are a Jehovah's Witness, so you are almost certainly just looking for an argument to prove that your position that Jesus Christ is not God is true.
I think that such a conversation would be a waste of time and energy, but in the event that you may be willing to consider that your position may be wrong, and also for the sake of other readers, I will answer you.
To begin, the three verses say that God the Father Who once communicated to human beings through human intermediaries called prophets has now given us His Last Word, so to speak, through His Son Who is such a perfect representation of Him as to seal up all His Communication to man.
When this Son of His had fulfilled His Mission to purify human beings from their sins, He was received back into Heaven to sit down at the Father's Right Hand.
Now, I would like to add a bit more of that chapter for useful context:
[6]And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." [7]And of the angels He says, "Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire." [8]But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. [9]"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions." [10]And, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; [11]They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, [12]And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end." Hebrews 1:6-12 NASB
As you can see, the angels are commanded by the Father to worship the Son (v.6). Since only God must be worshipped, this is a clear Scriptural witness to the Deity of the Son.
You can also see that the Son is being contrasted with the angels here (vv.7-8 ), so that it makes no sense to think that He is or was ever one of them.
You should also note that from verses 8 to 12, God the Father Who is the Subject of Hebrews 1 is addressing the Son as God and speaking of His timelessness and eternity as well as His absolute superiority to all the created universe.
These things are only a drop in the bucket of staggering Scriptural evidence of the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Question #15: Hi. I would rather consider this as deliberations rather than arguments, and I don't think it's a waste of time to deliberate over an important issue as this. I know that our deliberations will make some to see the truth.
I'm a non-trinitarian and we believe, even as the Bible teaches that there is one God - YHWH and one lord (and son of God), who is the mediator between God and man - Jesus. At the heart of the trinity doctrine is the logic that the father and the son are ontologically divided ie. they are two separate and equal beings. None greater or less than each other, each said to be God.
Its clear that the text here in Hebrew 1:1-3 disagrees with the views of trinitarians.
Hebrews 1:1 Starts off with: "Long ago God spoke to our forefathers by means of the prophets on many occasions and in many ways. 2. Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a son..."
The God here is clearly the father, because it's talking about his son. And the God spoken of here is the one who spoke long ago on many occasions in many ways through the prophets and in these last days, we're talking about the father - Everytime you see God speaking, it's the father according to this text.
Verse 3 continues: He(the son) is the reflection of his (God's) glory and the exact representation of his very being...
According to verse 3, Jesus Christ is a representation (copy) of God's being, he is not of the same being. This is an irrefutable text, there are no grammatical problems, there are no semantic difficulties, really there's no other way to interpret this text.
God is not a representation (copy) of anyone's being, but there is someone who is a representation (copy) of his being - Jesus Christ.
Response #15: You have free will, so you are free to call things whatever you want, even if that is not what they are, and to believe whatever you want, even if what you believe is not true. For these choices, there will be rewards and consequences from the Lord God, not from me.
First, the Bible does not teach what you claim. I already demonstrated that with Hebrews 1:8-12.
Second, the Doctrine of the Trinity does not hold that the Father and the Son are two separate beings, rather it holds that they are two separate Persons Who are One in essence. As One God then, neither is greater or less than the other.
As for Hebrews 1:1-3, if it is clear that that part of the Bible disagrees with the Doctrine of the Trinity, then your arguments will show how it does.
As for the notion that the God Who is being spoken of here is the Father, I don't see how we are in disagreement. I did say the very same thing. That the Father has always spoken through representatives, human and angelic, is borne out through all the Scriptures.
As for the Lord Jesus not being the Father (you yourself said that the Person being spoken of as God here is the Father), that is precisely what the Doctrine of the Trinity teaches. They are not the same Person. The Father is a separate Person from the Son, as I already said, and the Son is His Representative to us. This does not in any way mean that the Son is not God too. As you said, it only means that He is not the Father.
That is why I brought up the rest of the chapter. In verses 8-12, I can't begin to see how it is not clear that although the Son is not the Father, He is quite completely God just as the Father is too.
THE HYPOSTATIC UNION, KENOSIS,THE GREAT COMMISSION, AND PAUL (D)
Question #16: A lot of different interpretations of the trinity these days....But let's go with the version you've presented - The father and son are not two separate beings. They are the same being but separate persons.
I don't still understand why the Bible will imply 2 beings when talking about the father and son by saying: "He (son) is the exact representation of his (father) very being."
According to modern dictionaries every human creature is a human being because he exists. Every person is a being because he exists. The word "being" simply means "to be in existence." Based on this I cannot see how the son and the father can be 2 persons but one being.
This is my major objection to Trinitarianism. It depends on a distinction between “person” and “being” that is not articulated in Scripture. Also i believe that one of the biggest problems with the orthodox doctrine of Christ is that it is unintelligible and results in a person who is both A and non-A at the same time.
We are told that the incarnate Christ was/is both “fully God” and “fully man”. As one who is “fully God” he is said to be omniscient, all-powerful, and omnipresent, yet as one who is “fully man” he would have to be limited in knowledge, power, and location. To say that a person can have all of these attributes at the same time is not just to utter something unintelligible, it is to affirm that which would normally be considered impossible. The sentence “Jesus is all-knowing yet limited in knowledge” appears to have the same logical content as the sentence “Bob is a murderer who’s never killed anyone” or “Joe is a football player who’s never played football.”
Non-Trinitarians such as myself and others don’t necessarily reject the idea of believing in something that one might call “mysterious” but we have a problem believing in that which is logically impossible. Well, reason is part of the image of God that he stamped upon us to enable us to determine what is true and what is not true, and I can’t imagine why we’d discard that attribute when asking the most important question of all: Who/what is God?
Response #16: "Trinity" is only a word we use to label a concept that you find when you read the Bible, it isn't some kind of ideological or philosophical construct that needs to be interpreted. In a sense, you can say that it is an interpretation of the Bible. So, when you say that there are "a lot of different interpretations of the trinity these days," you demonstrate a very poor understanding of the mechanics at play here.
As for what the Bible is implying, your own words are your answer. It is you who claim that the Bible implies something. It does not actually say any such thing. You are merely interpreting it that way. Whether your interpretation is accurate remains to be seen. As for the quote, as I already said, it is clear that Hebrews sees the Father and the Son as two separate Persons. It is also rather obvious that Hebrews reports that the Father regards the Son as God. And we know that God is One, not two, from elsewhere in the Bible. Therefore, we must conclude that Hebrews teaches that Father and Son, though separate Persons, are one God and, therefore, One in essence, since God is One.
As for your appeal to modern dictionaries, I'm not sure that any dictionary makes such an argument, but you are right about the fact that a human person is a single being alone. Multiple human persons do not become one being. That is common sense. But it is also common sense that human beings and other creatures are most certainly not God. For one thing, God is not "a" being. God is Being or Existence itself. That is what His Name YHVH or YHWH means. He is the "IS". Thus, He cannot be a multiple. He is the Infinite One. And in the One Infinite, there are Three Persons, according to the Bible. That there are multiple Persons Who are One in essence is obviously not in the experience of creatures, but that is not a logical problem. It is perfectly logical to expect God Who is Existence itself to be fundamentally different from the things which He caused to exist.
As for a Scriptural distinction between "person" and "being," rest assured that the Bible does teach both that there is one God and that there are multiple Persons Who are each God. I already showed you this in the Hebrews 1:8-12 reference. This is how the Scriptures teach this:
In Deuteronomy 6:4, the Scripture says:
[4]"Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! Deuteronomy 6:4 NASB
So, we know that there is only one God.
In John 20:17, the Scripture says:
[17]Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, 'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'" John 20:17 NASB
And in John 8:54, it also says:
[54]Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; it is My Father who glorifies Me, of whom you say, 'He is our God'; John 8:54 NASB
So, we know that the Father is God.
In Hebrews 1:6, 8-12, the Scripture says again:
[6]And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "And let all the angels of God worship Him." [8]But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. [9]"You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness above Your companions." [10]And, "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, And the heavens are the works of Your hands; [11]They will perish, but You remain; And they all will become old like a garment, [12]And like a mantle You will roll them up; Like a garment they will also be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will not come to an end." Hebrews 1:6,8-12 NASB
So, we know that the Son is God too.
And in 2 Corinthians 3:17, the Scriptures says as well:
[17]Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 2 Corinthians 3:17 NASB
Since the Greek word κύριος, which is translated "Lord" here, is used to translate the Tetragrammaton, that is, the Name YHVH/YHWH, in the New Testament, we know from here that the Holy Spirit is God too.
The logical conclusion then is that although there is One God alone, there are Three Persons identified as God in the Bible.
As to whether they are separate, the Scripture says:
[16]I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; [17]that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. John 14:16-17 NASB
So, we know that the Scripture teaches that there are three separate Persons Who each are fully God in their Own Right but Who together are the One God.
This teaching is what is dubbed the Doctrine of the Trinity.
As for intelligibility, that is really not the Bible's problem. Those who submit to the Bible's authority come to understand it just fine. The problem is when one comes to the Bible to dictate to it what it may or may not say. That is actually the difference between me and you here. I go to the Bible to learn how to think and how things must be understood, but it seems obvious to me that you go to the Bible with a list of demands that it must meet so that it will be believed by you. It is intelligible to me that God is different from me, and from other creatures. I don't mind that. It doesn't bother, concern, or worry me. I'm happy being a lowly creature who is incapable of existing as God does. So, I accept the loftiness of His Existence as fundamentally different from mine, and I worship Him for it.
As for the law of non-contradiction, you misunderstand the issue of A and not-A. "Not-A" does not mean "anything apart from A." It is a philosophical construct used to say "opposite to A." That is, although blue is "not-green," in a colloquial manner of speaking, in philosophy, blue is not "not-green," because green is not opposite to blue. They are only different colors, not opposite phenomena or ideas. An example of an A/Not-A pair would be light/darkness. Another would be good/evil. Yet another would be be/not-be OR exists/does-not-exist.
So, the question is whether human nature is opposite to Divine nature. I think the answer is obviously no. The opposite of Omnipresence, the characteristic of being unlimited by space, for example, is not limitation by space. Localization of presence is a matter of degree, not contrast. The opposite of being able to exist everywhere at once is total absence from anywhere at all. That is, the opposite to Omnipresence is complete inexistence. Likewise, the opposite to Omniscience is not limited knowledge, it is total ignorance. And so on.
So, there is no contradiction between the Divine Nature and the Human. The human one is merely a far inferior one to the Divine one. Incidentally, that was the point of the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus:
[3]Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; [4]do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. [5]Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, [6]who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7]but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. [8]Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. [9]For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, [10]so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, [11]and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Philippians 2:3-11 NASB
That is, the great God loved us enough to humble Himself and become a mere human like us so that He could suffer death - an ignobility to which He was never susceptible - for us so that we could be saved from eternal punishment for our sins. That is a huge deal. This is what Paul says here that we should try to model after. We are to love others enough to humble ourselves too to look out for them, just like the Lord Jesus did for us. Of course, none of us can hope to do what He did, but you get the idea.
In other words, to become Man does not negate Deity, but it would require the "voiding" or "emptying" of Deity that the Lord Jesus had to do to suffer for us. See verse 7 above. Because Deity is so much greater and so much better than Humanity, the Lord Jesus had to impose something theologically called kenosis upon Himself, or else He would never have been able to live like a human or die like one. In fact, the term is derived from the Greek that is translated "emptied" in verse 7 above.
So, this is not a contradiction like "Bob is a murderer who has never killed anyone." Rather it is of the same logical category as "The King dressed up like a peasant and went to live in a village as a poor farmer for a season." It is both possible and logical. The king would simply refuse to use his privileges and rights as a king in order to pull it off. Being a peasant for a while is not opposite to being the king, although obviously both are not the same.
