₦airaland Forum

vooks:
The man who used to sleep under the bridge is an oft regurgitated urban legend. No different from the man who was locked in a freezer and froze to death yet it was switched off. Besides, those instances abound in and out of the church so it proves nothing
There is nothing like 'experiences of unbelievers' this is a solid fact. Leave individuals alone. The sons of Ishmael who are not just unbelievers but antichrists wield trillions of petrodollar. Chinaman a virtually pagan Country is rising by leaps and bounds. Two glaring inconsistencies with your theory. Christianity dangling wealth therefore had NOTHING on the world. Vooks couldn't care less because he is not promising billions of dollars to prospective disciples. Mbaemeko is terminally incoherent
God blesses whenever,wherever and whoever He wills not what you command him. Why does it pain you that God is God and you are not god? Isn't this what Provoked Satan to rebellion?

There was a similar ignoramus who spoke as whimsically as you do. He cannot touch my posts now with a 100ft pole because I mopped him with the word of God as I would do to you again if you keep churning out these nonsensical statements. "There is nothing like unbelievers experience"? Try telling that to Isaac or what do you think Jesus meant when he said "Ye are in the world but not of it"? I don't even know where to begin with you on your delusions about "commanding God or trying to be like him". Have you ever seen anyone who went to the President in the name of the President? Do you see how ridiculous you sound with the idiotic notion you have that someone would command God?

As per God wills bla bla whatever way he likes et al. You only spoke like someone who reads the bible like a magazine or how else will you explain for example, how that a man who had never worked for 40 years began to walk immediately 2 disciples asked him to and in that instance not a single word was said to God to elicit the miracle?

I expect the dumb excuses or evasions to happen now in 3...2...

Gombs:


meeeeehn!... Thanks for this! Remember we are not here to convince Nannymcphee, but lay facts side by side. How have you been na?

Good bro. The work has been hectic off late sha but we are on top of the situation. Hows your own end?

vooks:
This thinking is the ruse used to keep charlatans in business and givers perpetually waiting.

1. Broke Christians are those speaking 'in agreement' as they await manifestation of their speaking.
2. Rich Christians are those who have spoken 'in agreement' and are already manifesting their speak

So you can never be wrong with this nonsense whether you have or not. Of course you don't want to stop offering BEFORE you start manifesting,and after manifesting you don't want to stop lest you 'lose' your miracle not to mention to manifest even more

This would have made sense if a man who used to sleep under bridges in Lagos didn't recently sign a multi-billion dollar deal with the Oman government few years after putting the word of God to work and discovering his inheritance in Christ.

A true fiasco in Christianity (if ever there was one) will be those who compare the word of God with the experiences of unbelievers and then strike out bible truths based on such notions. "If Bill Gates is an agnostic but he is the richest man in the world then it therefore means that being Christian or not does not guarantee one wealth" some may say, but if we take it back even to bible days we can tell that many evil kings, Abimelechs and Pharaohs were all wealthy even as people like Abraham and Isaac were- and at least I am sure you would not be foolhardy enough to claim it wasn't God that prospered the latter 2 names I mentioned.

vooks:
And here lies the ruse effectively by charlatans to clean your pockets;
1.Both the haves and have-nots are 'rich'
2.The haves in the congregation are those who have spoken 'in agreement with God' and are manifesting whatever they spoke
3. The have-nots are those who should or are speaking and have yet to manifest whatever they are speaking

So you can never get it wrong with this doctrine regardless of your state.
The have-nots would be damned to stop giving to (man of) God BEFORE you manifest your speak
The haves would be damned to stop giving lest they 'lose' their miracle not to mention miss opportunity to have even more

When Paul made his statement to the Corinthians about Christ being poor for their sakes so that they would be made rich, did he not know about the Macedonians and how "deeply" poor they were?

Notice: I ignored the nit-wittedness you tried to introduce by injecting 'giving' into my post. If you are looking for verses concerning Homologia in the NT you may ask politely and I would oblige you.

vooks:
Thinking is the only activity that separates you from animals. So it is unfortunate that you can't or won't think through.
God may need our consent to save/bless us. If we reject his salvation/blessing, we perish/remain 'unblessed'. There is nothing inconsistent or absurd with man resisting(not consenting) Holy Spirit to his damnation. But there is every lunacy in man resisting(not consenting) his Creator to his immortality!
CONSENT means permission. It may mean merely agreeing but if the agreeing is a NECESSARY condition for death to happen,then technically Jesus needs your permission to take you home
You may also want to show me examples of those who misunderstood Paul as yourself and are still with us today thousands of years later
Enock was translated, he never tasted death. Why do you aks?

If only you realized how idiotic some of your questions are, I am not sure you would keep asking them to me. You are saying too many conflated things and one cannot really tell if it just based on infantile whims or if you are indeed seeking clarity. I asked you a question about Hezekiah and I expect you to answer it as it may help us see who is actually using a thinking faculty or who is just being a troll.

Hezekiah was asked to put his house in order by a sovereign God, but he didn't agree with the idea and the sovereign God let him have his way. If Hezekiah had told you that he had such closeness with his God would you not have made jokes of his statement as you are trying to do mine?

Since Enoch did not die, and it wasn't the rapture yet why do you then feel that it is only the rapture that would prevent death for ANY christian?

vooks:
Negro,
it don't matter which you meant, it is the NECESSITY of CONSENT that baffles. Jesus is basically at your mercy despite him 'reserving the right to call you home'

CONSENT(from you) is necessary for you to check out meaning without it you are immortal

Can God save a man without the man's consent? Can God bless a man without his consent? While pondering on my questions you may also choose to drop the "beg" and "at your mercy" that you have been stretching my posts to mean as I never said Jesus begs for anything.

Do you realise that Paul said Immortality and life was brought to light by the gospel of Jesus? What do you suppose that means and how did Enoch leave this world?

If the love of money is the root of all evil then the lack of it is even worse.

What seems to confuse God's children is the fact that they see "sinners" wealthy, while some of them wallow in poverty. So they wonder if God's promise of Material prosperity is not true or has ceased to exist.

The bible says there is profit in all labor. Which means that if an atheists works hard to get wealth (albeit away from God's provision) he/she will still find some success. The caveat there is that it will only be for a time. David said "I saw the wicked (the Ungodly) rise like a green bay tree but then after a while I looked and he was cut down".

The Christian is not the one trying to get rich for he has been reborn into riches. What we are told to do from scriptures is to discover our inheritance. That's why when people hear some christians say "I am rich" they want to check his bank account to see if he has more money than Bill Gates for him to aver such but that is not the law of faith. Faith speaks in agreement with God. If God says Abrahams blessings are yours (and we know the Abrahamic blessings included wealth) I can in the same token say I am wealthy. Regardless of if I am a taxi driver. In fact, being a taxi driver will only be for a while because as one walks in the law of faith, your life experiences begin to measure up with your confessions.

If Bill Gates has a foster child somewhere that we are oblivious of but this child grows up in penury does he stop being wealthy (if a tangible portion of Bills wealth is willed to him even without his knowledge?). That's the same way with all Christians. Many just don't know this truth and so they find themselves chasing after things that God already said would follow his kids- the same things that unbelievers chase after. And when they don't see the same 'instant' results they conclude that God's word didn't say so even in the face of barefaced scriptures.

vooks:
CONSENT defined

con·sent (kn-snt)
intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
n.
1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consent
You will start living the moment you step beyond Rhapsodies mantras which you are trembling at the very thought of differing with

Consent that I referred to was to cooperate; agree. Hope that makes you feel better.

Do you now see how Hezekiah didn't "cooperate" with God when he was told to put his house in order? Can you juxtapose that with what Moses and Jesus did?

Caveat: Agreeing with God is a mark of true maturity.

^^^^

What a struggle!

^^

I keep giving you lifelines but you keep veering off into further illogicalities because you would not study or understand. Please answer the question about Hezekiah, I dare you to!

Let us breakdown my statement so that you would catch this time (I pray God).

1. Jesus reserves the right to call us home.
2. BUT he doesn't do it without our consent/foreknowledge/cooperation.
3. He is that kind.

Example 1: God wants to call Moses home so he says "Moses, go and die there". Moses says "ok lord" and goes to die.

God reserved the right to call Moses and Moses consented.

Example 2: God wants to call Hezekiah home so he says "put your house in order". Hezekiah says "No lord, I still want to serve you more and I know dead men can't do that". God then says "Ok son, I would give you 15 more years".

God reserved the right to call Hezekiah but Hezekiah didn't consent to it and God wasn't offended. He is that kind.

Mbaemeka says the same things in a synopsis and vooks began throwing fits in frustration.

^^
The resident incorrigible troll. Please respond to my Hezekiah question and maybe we can take it from there.

shdemidemi:
Salvation is never a continuous process. Except you want Jesus to die afresh every time you ask for forgiveness. There is a place of judgement the unbelievers will not even feature -the judgment seat of Christ, the Bema seat.
Bema is simply the Greek word for judgment seat. It came from the Olympics - the seat of the judges. This will only be for believers and the Body of Christ who one day will come before the Bema Seat for rewards.
We will definitely get rewards based on our Christian walk in this life here on earth. Of course, the rewards are going to come to their fruition primarily in the Kingdom economy. Where Christ will be King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the world wide Ruler, and we will be ruling and reigning with Him.
I Corinthians 3:14
"If any man's work abide (survives His scrutiny) which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive (not salvation, but) a reward."
I Corinthians 9:24
"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all (they all take off at the starting gun. But how many receive the prize?), but one receiveth the prize? (now who determines the winners? Judges who sit on the Bema Seat) so run, that ye may obtain."
Our race as christians is to obtain a prize, a reward and not salvation. Salvation is sealed for anyone who has the Spirit of Christ in him.
PASTOR OLU gave a balanced argument when he said anyone that perpetually chase after sinful acts might not have God living in hi in the first place. I respect that. We must also look at it from the angle of carnality due to the weakness of our flesh like he did. What people tend to call sin or 'big' sin is anything relating to sex forgetting that God sees those things we do not pay much attention to as big and monstrous- lying, covetousness, selfishness and even the way we think as monumental sin as well.
Peter faced Jesus with the same attitude of holier than thou, but Jesus made him realise how human Peter is- Peter was told he will fall and how it will all happen. Even after having a prior notice, he fell all the same due to the weakness of flesh. Jesus never said when you fall you shall die but He said 'when thou hath converted, strenghten the rest' that are like you.
No man in the flesh is above a fall, and our salvation isn't hanging on whether we fall but it hangs on the blood of the lamb that can never be washed off.

Endorsed.

^^^^

Oh, the import of your post would be meaningful to those who fear the devil so much so that they have conceded he is the god of your world. I am very different in that regard and that's because I have taken the word of God for who he is and what he has made me: " A god over the devil and his cohorts". So you can see why the more you keep asking me about creating planets, the more half-witted you continue to sound. I never said I was Elohim (creator God) neither have I said that I am a member of the Godhead. But I definitely am god over sickness, poverty, failure, ignorance and death and any other thing that come by the devil and I would not apologise for that.

If you could read words of the bible without adding your flawed interpretations into them, you would have seen where Jesus said to the Jews how God called men "gods" simply because they received the word of God and he concluded that the scriptures cannot be put aside. So why are you offended that I believe the word of God to that degree that it appears foolish to you and other sense-ruled men?

Speaking of death I said 3 things that I am sure you didn't catch and I would just repeat them again for the sake of posterity. One, not all Christians will die. Two, True Christians don't translate out of this world like other men. Paul called it sleep: out of the body and ahome with Christ. And Three, that long life is part of the Abrahamic blessings. So see me as someone who is constantly conscious of these truths compared to some others very similar to satanists who fear death so much they have accepted it as something that could come any time yet they spend all their resources trying to postpone the same death that they pretend not to be afraid of.

Moreso, you would be positioning yourself into more and more delusions if you call me WOF even after I have repeatedly said I am otherwise, yet you exchange pleasantries with some others even on this thread that do not agree with the same things with you. For example, tell us your take on salvation and see if it would agree with Trustman's yet nobody calls you lot by any general name apart from confused.

Apart from that, there's no "WOF" Preacher I have listened to that says anything about death that is contrary to what is seen in the bible so you can keep deriding yourself by lying so you can appease the other confused people who take sides with you. It is akin to the same lies some of you tell about sicknesses and diseases because you have refused to accept God's word as true and provable.

Simeon does not support your folly let me also put a rude reminder. Simeon heard God tell him he would not die until he saw his son born, which means Just like Methuselah if God had tarried with providing his son for another 500 years, Simeon would still have been alive. That's why someone like John the Divine was still alive regardless of how many times attempts were made on his life simply because he was to receive the revelations of the end. So take this into cognizance when you spew out incoherent gibberish because you would not study to show yourself approved.

I would have given you another sound thrashing on the way I used consent but I would be casting pearls to swine so I would ask you another question to further confuse you. When God told Hezekiah to get ready to die did he consent to the idea or did he seek otherwise? If you refuse to answer the question then it is clear that you are the hooligan trying to project his hooliganism on those of us who know so much better.

For your Post scripted question, maybe you should direct it to Jesus himself for he is the one who said Christians will do greater works than him. Unlike you, I accepted the word as truth without trying to rationalize it and the more I did so, the more I witnessed tremendous miracles wrought by my own hands in the name of Jesus to the glory of the father and to the shame of satan and his kids, chief of which are those who are too pusilanimous to act like Jesus spoke the truth.

vooks:
mbaemeki,
You clearly said Christ will seek your CONSENT in taking you home not that you will live to a ripe age. What if you hit a ripe age and don't consent? Will you hit overripe?

https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/20#25871643
Simeon was never promised ripe age nor immortality, just that Christ would be born in his life.

You need to start thinking and meditating on the Written Word instead of regurgitating mantras off Rhapsody of Unrealities negro

Don't be an obstinate dolt. This is what I said:

Jesus has the keys of Hell and Death now so (for us christians) he reserves the right to call us home and/but he doesn't do it without our consent (he is that kind).

This simply means like Hezekiah he can say put your things in order and come home and I can follow the Hezekian route or submit like say Stephen (Submission is better FYI). I know it is too big for you but I am quoting scriptures at least. You tell me, if Simeon had to wait till he was 630 to see the messiah would it have been amiss? All the Holy Spirit told him was that he would not leave this world until he saw the messiah. If Simeon says "I cannot die any how" [cognizant of the promise of the Holy spirit] some religious neophytes would begin to cry blue murder but to their own detriment and chagrin.

As per your reference to exorcism the joke is fully on you given that you endorsed the cretinous notion of the christian having 2 natures as posted by some poster. It is you and such fellows that are cohabiting demons and the old human spirit side by side within. It is responsible for multiple personality disorders and the penchant to twist people's post to satisfy the whims of your very obvious scriptural incapacitation.

trustman:
BabaGnoni, that was a fantastic presentation.

 We now know who are dishonest and trying to do 'damage control' and who have held on to their stand from the start.

LOL. I wanted to ignore this post but this aspect got me laughing real hard. I hope you realize that I am the only one who has said the same things from the beginning of the discourse till now. I can put out the posts of how "Jesus had a heavenly body" and the clique ran to like it, then "Jesus didn't have a heavenly body but a flesh that was different from human flesh" and the same clique trooped in to click likes without spotting the obvious contradiction. Or Whether I should even refer you to "Jesus didn't the Holy Spirit to perform miracles" to "Jesus needed the Holy spirit but he was different in that he had a different flesh from other men" as well as "Jesus' ministry did not start at age 30" "Jesus did not grow in wisdom" "Jesus did not teach before he healed anyone" and many more inane and barefaced contradictions and lies.

BabaGnoni:
Listen, you have no legs to stand on, the NET bible was an indiscrimate choice.
- It was picked at random without merit

All other translations (e.g. King James Bible, New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, NIV, English Standard Version etc) used "in the likeness of sinful flesh" concerning how Jesus was sent

I mean it is this sort of warped reasoning that I had been eschewing to engage since. It is the same warped reasoning that comes up with Eve sexing serpents and "special laws" (created by the delusions of this same. . .) not to eat a certain fruit or to eat every other fruit apart from the certain one. Now the same. . .has come with "all other translations" as though the more than 10 translations I have referred to on this thread are not part of the "all other translations".

Mr man, if you would be kind enough to explain what Paul meant by "In the likeness of sinful flesh" maybe you would not dodge the plethora of scriptures that masticated it in a way it would not confuse you lot as much as it has done so far. A major hint would be the fact that Paul did not say in the "likeness of flesh" (which would have meant it was similar to flesh but not flesh) but he said in the "likeness of SINFUL flesh". In other words, Jesus was housed in the semblance/similitude of SINFUL flesh. Now we know Jesus did not sin neither did he have a sin-stained spirit, so how else could he have had something similar to SINFUL flesh except that that flesh was the flesh of sin; subject to sin; subject to the consequences of sin etc.?

You laid yourself open to ridicule with the above ignorance

Likeness (i.e. in Romans 8:3) is translated from the word Greek "homoíōma"
"homoíōma" by definition originally means a thing made like something else, a likeness, or rather: form; a similitude.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
- Romans 8:3 King James 2000 Bible

Like (i.e. in Revelation 1:13) is translated from the word Greek "homoion"
"homoion" by definition is one like, similar to, resembling, the same as, of equal rank.

And standing in the middle of the lampstands was someone like the Son of Man.
He was wearing a long robe with a gold sash across his chest.
- Revelation 1:13 NLT

Likeness (i.e. in Daniel 10:16) is translated from the word Hebrew "demuth"
"demuth" by definition is likeness, similitude, figures like, figures resembling, form, pattern, something resembling, which resembled, who resembled etc

And behold, one in the likeness of the children of man touched my lips.
Then I opened my mouth and spoke.
I said to him who stood before me, “O my lord, by reason of the vision pains have come upon me, and I retain no strength.
- Daniel 10:16 ESV

Only the thorough interpretations of a bumbly DJ would miss the fact that both homoio[/b]n and [b]homoíō[/b]ma are from the same root word that means similitude or similarity- hence my reference to Revelations 1. That is even an aside from the very obvious fact he that [b]resembled the son of man as used by John in Revelations 1:13 was indeed the son of man and not a different one much the same way in your Daniel 10:16 reference the same Hebrew rendering of the word likeness as used by Paul in Romans 8:3 meant that the one who touched Daniel's lips was in every appearance like sons of men and not a variation or a form. Which makes it very risible that you would think I need the lecture, when it is clearly above you and the cheer team of the confused.

You seem to forget what Adam is incapable of, God is capable, which is why God came down in "whatever flesh it was that was impervious to sin yet suffered the very same consequences that Adam's fallen flesh suffered." sic

I would have exposed you further by asking for just a single reference to buttress this chaff but you would scamper from the thread and create a new monicker as is custom to you and some others. So I would plainly tell you that the above is the epitome of a dumb statement. There are ONLY 2 types of flesh in the scriptures: the one the first Adam had and the one that the second (and last Adam) currently hers. Any other "flesh" is a figment of your confused imagination and if not so, kindly do the needful and post just a single verse of scripture that supports you.

So which same consequence are you claiming the second Adam suffered as the first Adam now?

The consequence of the fall made the first Adam's flesh to be susceptible to wear, tear, growth, death etc., prior to which it wasn't. So when Jesus' body suffered wear, tear and death (the chief consequence of the fall) it was already clear what type of flesh he had. We didn't even to include the fact that sin could be imputed into his body- an attribute that CANNOT happen to the incorruptible flesh that he now has- hence incorruptible.

The first Adam's body "is controlled by sin i.e dominated and ruled by sin and it's consequence"
but same is not with the second Adam's body.
The second Adam broke no law, did not inherit the sinful nature from Adam, hence sin had no rule or claim on the second Adam

Can you just be consistent for once? The first Adam was created spotless YET HE STILL SINNED (i.e he SUCCUMBED to sin) and you claimed the last Adam was "created" the same way with the first (before his fall) which means the Last Adam could have yielded to sin if he let it. So there is absolutely no need for you to regurgitate the fact that Jesus "broke no law or did not inherit the sinful nature from Adam" because nobody has said so on this thread. I have continued to maintain that Jesus was very much like the people he came to represent only that he didn't have a sin-stained spirit (sinful nature) and blood (just like Adam) even as he didn't commit sin (unlike Adam). This is why he became the perfect sacrifice for mankind.

In face of glaring 1 John 3:5, it is beggar belief how you are unable to reconcile or accept Jesus had no sin in Him nor sin in His flesh

And you know that Jesus came to take away our sins, and there is no sin in him.
- 1 John 3:5 NLT

I don't understand why you lot cannot humble yourselves to see that when John said Jesus had no sin IN HIM he meant it in reference to his SPIRIT that is IN HIM 1 Corinthians 2:11. Again, I never said Jesus had sin in his flesh (because his Spirit living in his flesh had no sin even as he didn't sin). I said Jesus had sinful flesh/ flesh of sin/ flesh subject to sin/ flesh that sinners have/ mortal/ corruptible flesh and I explained it further to mean that his flesh could have sinned or suffered sin if he let it. I said it by not only studying Paul's construction but by making reference to other simpler translations like the CEB and NLT amongst others for example:

Romans 8:3Expanded Bible (EXB)
3 The law [C of Moses] was without power, because the law was made weak by our ·sinful selves [sinful nature; T flesh]. But God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son to earth ·with the same human life that others use for sin [or in a body like ours, prone to sin; L in the likeness of sinful flesh]. By sending his Son ·to be an offering for sin [L concerning sin], God ·used a human life to destroy sin [L condemned sin in the flesh].

Romans 8:3Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
3 The law was without power because it was made weak by our sinful selves. But God did what the law could not do: He sent his own Son to earth with the same human life that everyone else uses for sin. God sent him to be an offering to pay for sin. So God used a human life to destroy sin.

Romans 8:3J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)
3-4 The Law never succeeded in producing righteousness—the failure was always the weakness of human nature. But God has met this by sending his own Son Jesus Christ to live in that human nature which causes the trouble. And, while Christ was actually taking upon himself the sins of men, God condemned that sinful nature.


It would have been amiss for God to send his son in "another flesh" that was impervious or not subject to sin (the quotes are there because there is no other human flesh) and different from ours that was, and then expect us to walk the same way he did 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Peter 2:21-23 which says - "For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin", When He knows that we can't seeing that we do not have the same "equipment" that made Jesus to achieve that. It would have equally been a fake test for God to allow Jesus be tempted by the devil when it was already clear he could not "fail" unlike Adam.

The fact and replete of scriptures show without any doubts that Jesus had the same flesh with the men he was representing but Jesus lived above sin because of the Holy Spirit within and he has given to us the same precious Holy spirit to live the same life he lived- the one above sin and its consequences. Any other teaching contrary to this is false, created in the quarters of the misinformed and endorsed by the devil.

vooks:
Mbaemeko
You are God and I know your ways and thinking is very different from vooks' a mere mortal
Now you are subtly cursing me
Some of the unscientific and unscriptural assertions you have made so far;
1. Jesus needs your permission BEFORE taking you home, meaning your immortality is in your hands
2. Jesus blood came from God but his flesh came from Mary because blood of an infant comes from the Father according to CE Science
[s]3. Jesus flesh was badly blemished but his blood was not and as such his flesh was NEVER fit for our redemption[/s]
4. Men will stand before the throne and LIE about miracles they NEVER did
[s]5. Anybody who has ever cast out devils or healed in Jesus name will NEVER perish[/s]
5. Pastor Chris is a Dignitary and you don't speak evil of dignitaries. Vooks ain't dignitary and you wish him death
[s]6. You can and actually do ALL Jesus did except I haven't seen you create another sun nor raise yourself up from dead [/s]

3. You would only garner a few likes here and there by the same brethren of the confused with this statement.
4. No christian will perish I said so. The one about anybody who has ever cast out devils in Jesus name will never perish is your derided and deluded imagination at work. Maybe you should list the many people that are performing miracles in Jesus' name that he would deny. I am sure you know what "MANY" means.
6. If you can show me how Jesus raised himself from the dead I will concede.
5. Oh don't get all maudlin on me, you are certain you can die anyhow and any time. I only mentioned one of the means for you. Another one would be you committing suicide by guzzling arsenic but then you would not get to see me receive a crown of righteousness in heaven.
1. Since I am in one of those show-ignoramuses-scriptures-to-shut-them-up-again moods. Maybe you can explain these verses to me.

Genesis 15:15King James Version (KJV)
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.

Genesis 25:8King James Version (KJV)
8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

Luke 2:25-26King James Version (KJV)
25 And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him.
26 And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ.

I am sure the Holy Spirit that spoke to Abraham and Simeon is a different one in you. Well, sucks to be you as I have the same Holy spirit living in me. That same one teaches me all truth and gives me all things to enjoy. So don't expect me to leave this world like all of you (you know the "you" ) and don't be offended that God's word is not newspaper to me. When I read it, I do so conscious of the fact that I am taking life into me and being metamorphosed into the same glory of the word. So every now and then you will hear me say things that will be too big for the poorly stuffed religious mind.

I have not seen a bigger bunch of dishonest fellows in my life. The funny thing is how they all swept in to aid the damage control without saying anything new. So we are dealing with the NET bible now as the paragon for right interpretations while we neglect the surfeit of at least 10 other translations that I posted all giving the same interpretations with me. We are to overlook the obvious contradiction in the fact that Adam who didn't have sinful anything was still able to sin yet God sent Jesus in whatever flesh it was that was impervious to sin yet suffered the very same consequences that Adam's fallen flesh suffered. Let me humor myself a bit:

What Jesus had was a flesh, that had the outward appearance of sinful flesh and looked like the flesh of man's
(i.e. it was not sinful flesh, as it was flesh, similar to Adam's flesh or state, before the fall)

This post got endorsed by Trust, Winx and Voo... so the logic is Jesus' flesh was like Adam's flesh before the fall but Jesus' was known to grow in wisdom, stature et al, had to eat to derive strength, got weak, got tired, got tempted to sin, badly beaten, killed and buried- all the attributes of Adam's fallen flesh. mbaemeka said Jesus had the same flesh with fallen men and pseudo-theologians said otherwise because of the word translated "like" or "likeness". So when John said he saw one that was "like" unto the son of man in Revelations 1, he was obviously referring to one whose outward appearance only looked like the Son of man- He wasn't. New revelation!!!
Here is another risible post bordering on illogicality:

Would it be right then to call a flesh that has not sinned a flesh that has sin in the first place i.e. by calling it sinful flesh?

This question is coming to someone who had already said the definition of "sinful flesh" as constructed by Paul only meant the flesh that sinners have: a flesh that can sin if yielded; a flesh subject to temptation; a flesh subject to the consequences of sin. Yet you obdurately insist it means flesh containing sin and then use it to question me. How pseudo-intellectual of you.

Again if like you said “according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have” why do you think the Bible would refer to the flesh sinners have as ‘sinful flesh’?

As explained above namely: a flesh that can sin if yielded; a flesh subject to temptation; a flesh subject to the consequences of sin. Meaning even if a man is born today and left secluded in a room for 100 years without talking or acting or thinking in a sinful way his flesh will still be as I described above. That was the same flesh Jesus had.

If as you said: “ ‘sinners’ flesh i.e. the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned” does it not equally follow that a righteous man’s flesh can then be said to be a ‘righteous flesh’?

No sir, it does not follow. The sinner and righteous man have the same flesh. Paul only qualified it as "sinful" to explain its characteristics. That's why he added the latter part of Romans 8:3 to say Jesus had the semblance of that flesh but he condemned sin while in it (i.e he defeated by refusing to yield to it in any form until death). If it were not so then it would have been redundant for scriptures to say Jesus knew and did no sin given that he could never have been able to sin or succumb to it's consequences- an attribute only reserved for the immortal/spiritual/incorruptible flesh (That goes to those raising not properly studied 1 Corinthians 15 references )

If a righteous man is housed in a flesh are you saying that even though his spirit is free from sin (no sin nature; not sin-stained, recalling your emphasis on 'spirit' as against 'body') he can still be said to have a 'sinful flesh'?

Yes, that's why some Christians still fall sick, lie, fornicate, die etc. A Christian/Righteous man will still be subject to the acts and consequences of sin if he lets his flesh yield to it. That's what carnality is and this is why Paul said many Christians in Corinth were sick and some died. That's why God promised to redeem that flesh same way he did Jesus'.

If like you are claiming ‘sinful flesh’ DOES NOT mean a flesh of sin SINCE the term can equally be applied to a righteous man like Jesus, how do you then derive the ‘Biblical’ meaning of the word ‘sinful’?

This is how I could tell what Paul meant by his construction.

Romans 8:3New Living Translation (NLT)
3 The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature.[a] So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.

Romans 8:3Common English Bible (CEB)
3 God has done what was impossible for the Law, since it was weak because of selfishness. God condemned sin in the body by sending his own Son to deal with sin in the same body as humans, who are controlled by sin.

The human body is controlled by sin i.e dominated and ruled by sin and it's consequence. That human body, the same one the law could not fix, God sent his own son to be housed in- so he could show us it was possible to live a life devoid of sin (and its consequences) in that body by the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is why Jesus is our template:he lived in the same flesh we have and defeated sin. Now we are to walk in the same manner and it is possible because we have the same Holy Spirit that he had. But nepioses don't know this, carnal christians don't know this and religious people don't know this either. Therefore, the same way that Hagar and Ismael (signifying Children of the flesh) kept jeering at Sarah and Isaac (children of the spirit) because of their belief in the fulfillment of the promise in Abraham's day, so it is even now.

trustman:
Ok then. Can I now have the answer to my question?

Sorry sir, but according to the same bible, sinful flesh is the flesh that sinners had/have. In otherwords, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh. Notice I said a 'sinners' flesh i.e the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned. A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

^^^

Epic fail. I didn't ask you for vine's exposition or Strong's concordance. They are still anglicised versions of greek or hebrew renderings of words found in the bible. They do not express the words AS USED in the bible. For example, Hebrews 11: 1 defined faith and we know that the definition provided there had nothing to do with what a dictionary or any concordance had to say. Same with the word Meditate as used in say Joshua 1:8 or in any other aspects of scripture. The word like Faith had little or nothing to do with a dictionary's definition. In the same token, the construction Paul made in Romans 8:3 cannot be yanked out of its context to be defined by a dictionary. It makes no sense. Hope you understand now.

^^^^
Keep looking for my attention like the philosophers stone or better still get yourself killed in a car crash or something and leave those of us who have refused to be subject to the whims of the devil- the same one you seek to support (albeit unbeknownst to you).

^^^^

What is the definition of the word Faith or meditate as used in the bible and how does it compare with the definitions as offered by sense-ruled men who compiled a dictionary?

You don't seem to get do you? There is nothing like a flesh stained with sin except the spirit living within the flesh has been stained with sin i.e born with sin. So I don't know what sort of cockery about being impaired or well-functioning Jesus' flesh was than say, Peters. Any man that was born into this world had the same flesh that Adam had and that flesh would sin and suffer the consequences of sin if it was subjected to such conditions. Jesus was no different in that very regard. Period.

You didn't just paste my statement. You pasted it and gave your distorted interpretation of it. You said "You said that the Heart doesn't matter" and I NEVER SAID SO. I said the HEART of a man and his WORDS must go together when you said the heart is more important than the words. In other words, I said the heart is not "more important" per se. Now tell me how that means "the heart doesn't matter" which is the prevarication you made.

I can give any interpretations that I choose to give based on the construction Paul made in greek in Romans 8:3. If that were not the case then explain why not all the translations given said the same things with most of them even agreeing with my own interpretation. So if there is any one with a problem, it is solely you. You cannot be the judge and jury in the same case. If someone says ABC means All Boys Catch you cannot say no you are wrong ABC means Apple Books Cap. You are therefore implored to deal with the verse and stop telling me about dictionaries or what not.

If all you have been saying is that Jesus didn't have the old man then why are we having this conversation except that your definition of "Old man" has nothing to do with the bible or can you prove me wrong by telling us what you always referred to as the old man? It will be interesting to add up what you would have to say with all you have been saying since.

You think you have anything to teach me about positional references and you keep ceasing not to amaze me. So you think that when Ephesians 2 says we are seated with Christ in heavenly places it means we are not currently there? Lol. Because 'heavenly places' to you in that verse means Heaven abi? Hahahaha. No wonder there is so much confusion and conflation of the scriptures.

Romans 7 is too easy to understand if only we just take the word of God for what it says without trying to dilute it. The "I" Paul described all through the Chapter 7 was Under the Law; A slave to sin; sold to sin; Evil and Carnal. Please relate it to the born again man that he repeatedly described in other books and let's see how your interpretation adds up. That's all I expect you to do. But you won't, instead you would repost isolated instances that seem to confuse you further. For example, vv 22-23 Paul said For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. But we would get confused if we do not realize that in vv 17 he already said "it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me". He is explaining how that sin that dwells in his BODY or FLESH is what causes him to sin. And I told you that the man in the body is his spirit- the inner man. That's why he said even when the inner man knows what is right to do meaning his spirit knows the law of God. His members aren't tamed and so they still disobey the same law (recall a christian is already dead to the law so there's no need to obey it thus proving he was referring to someone who is still UNDER the law).

Why do his members disobey the law? Because they are controlled by the spirit that is unregenerate- the old man; the one cannot obey God.

You said I should not add to what Paul said? I should be telling you that. Paul started Chapter 7 by saying I AM WRITING TO YOU WHO KNOW THE LAW AND ARE UNDER IT. Abeg who is this person if not a Jew- a practicing one? You guys just speed-read vital aspects of the scriptures thereby missing them to your own peril.

Then the parts you wrote about realm of soul totally flew over me. It seems you don't understand me so I would repeat some point again for the last time. Spirit's give birth to spirits and flesh gives birth to flesh. So if Jesus had an earthly father he would have been of the same Spirit with his father and he would have shared the same flesh with his mother. That's what science says. Jesus was a pure spirit because he had no earthly father but Jesus' flesh was THE EXACT SAME FLESH with that of all men. That's what the bible says repeatedly. Being uniquely born means he didn't have a dad and he was born of a virgin plus he wasn't born out of the will of man. He didn't also float from heaven neither did he stay in the womb for less than the normal time.

Of course, you don't know what I am asking you to respond to because the verses I posted to you are at variance with what you thought you were showing to me in that John on one hand says if we say we have no sin we lie and yet in another verse he says one who is born of God has no sin in him and cannot even sin. So it is either one of John's statements was wrong or that the interpretation you are giving to any of them is wrong if the two statements were written to the same people (which they weren't).

Trustman,

You are still struggling with moot points and really it is getting boring. Many times I have to filter through the irrelevancies to arrive at where I know you are heading at. If you could clearly read and understand my points then some of your questions would be unnecessary. For example, you cannot be asking me about a flesh that has a disease and one that doesn't when trying to make a disparity of fleshes. It makes absolutely no sense in logical and even medical terms let alone spiritual. Whether a flesh has diseases or not IT IS THE SAME FLESH.

As per my rebuttal of your statement "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" if you want to prove that you misunderstood me then please bring all my posts on that thread where I explained myself more than 3 times. How it was able to fly over you only shows how gravely dishonest you lot are. How can my statement that "God considers our heart and words to go together" now be interpreted to mean that I said "the heart doesn't matter"? What sort of wicked distortion is that? This is the same way I clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH that men had MEANING that his flesh was subject to the temptations of sin like other men and now you are trying to claim I said Jesus had a sinful nature. Even when I repeatedly told you that sinful nature is not the flesh regardless of what you or a few translations think. When Paul said he was made in likeness of sinful flesh Paul meant Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners had- and that's what I said.

I am responsible for what I say but not how you choose to interpret it. So get it right ok?

Concerning Adam and what you said, the only people you would deceive with your "you didn't say sin passed through the flesh or what not" are those who are going to support you no matter how many verses have been put against what you believe. You and at least 2 of your brethren here have maintained that the flesh of a man is sinful (meaning born with sin) to which I have told you its all bogus nonsense. That even Jesus had the same flesh but his spirit and the way he subjected the flesh made him holy and unreprovable in God's sight. That's why I told you repeatedly that all your references to the flesh make absolutely no sense but I know you would not see it because understanding hasn't been granted you.

You claim you want to know how I arrived at my understanding of Romans 7 but you know how I did only that you want me to keep repeating myself. Paul wrote Romans 6 before he wrote Romans 7 abi? How can he who is dead to sin in Romans 6 now wrestle with the same sin in Romans 7? How can he who is dead to the law in Romans 6 now be wrestling to obey it in Romans 7? How can Paul say a born again man is sold under sin, under the law and evil? Ok if he is claiming he is Carnal in verse 14 of Romans 7 then why was he correcting the Corinthian church about being carnal years before and why does he say that the carnal mind is enmity against God when he himself is Carnal? In fact, what moral or spiritual right did he have to correct another given that he too was subject to the same carnality?

No, No a thousand times No. Paul (the new man) was not carnal, sold under sin or what not. Paul was describing himself when he was practicing Judaism. He was proving to the Jews that even they who had the law were still sinners because the law (righteous as it is) could not make any man righteous. Instead the law made one sin more because the problem was in the spirit of men and that spirit controlled the flesh negatively I.e to disobey God even though they know what is right by the law.

lol @ first I talk about the flesh then I moved to the spirit. You guys are impossible. I have NEVER and I will NEVER need to change what I have said because I am 100% sure I am right. If you can find any of my entire post's on NL that seems to suggest I have had a contrary belief then please bring it all out. I dare you! The only people who have continued to change their positions are you and your ilk. You need to see the embarrassment they are facing on the thread about trinity all because they want to maintain 2 conflicting teachings side by side even if it flies in the face of logic or God's word. Another of such conflicting teachings is the nonsense you are trying to veer off to with your 1 John 1:8 reference. Please help us out and relate what you are trying to say with 1 John 3 especially verses 6,8 and 9 and let us see how it adds up. Then you would know the importance of understanding who some things are written to and why they were ever written at all.

I will wait.

trustman:
[size=7pt][/size]

1) Paul is simply stating here that the flesh, which is an ally of the sin nature, has subjected him to a state where he is unable to keep the law he truly wants to keep.

He shows the tension that exists between the sin nature and a self (inner being) that wants to do what is good. [Many today can identify with this: they really want to live a sin-free life but continually find themselves wanting to or yielding to sin]. Adam’s sin resulted in this state for all men. Man therefore has to see that on his own he cannot keep the law which is holy (v. 7) because there is a nature in him that has a propensity toward disobedience to God. This condition continues to be there for the Christian. That is why he still commits sin – he would go against Philippians 2: 3, 4 for example without blinking an eye lid; without thinking it is an act of disobedience to divine mandate: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others”.

How did Adam's sin result in that state for all men? Did Adam have such propensity before he sinned? If his flesh was "not tainted" by sin why did he still sin? After all, he had "SINLESS" flesh, sinless soul and sinless spirit yet he still SINNED. The aspect in emboldened blue fonts is absolute hogwash. It is this incoherent gibberish that some are fed with that continues to confuse their walk with God. Do you agree that Paul wrote to the Corinthians before he wrote to the Romans? So why is he saying A to the Romans and B to the Corinthians? I am even going too far by referring to his writings to the Corinthians. Let us see what he said in the Chapter 6 of the book of Romans before he even got to the Chapter 7.

2. . .How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 6 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. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin.

Now tell me how this same Paul that has just finished saying the above will then have this to say: "sin that dwelleth in me", "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing", "I am carnal, a slave to sin" etc. If he was not referring to his old spirit- the one that was crucified with Christ? Or what do you think he meant in Galatians 2:20?

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

The "I" that was crucified is the old man- the old spirit that was born bearing the sin-nature. Paul is saying that man is dead- non-existent. So Paul had no conflicts whatsoever.

You however never answered most of mine. For instance, when I asked: “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield it to sin, was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer that: “It was the exact same flesh sinners had” did not answer the question. The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether on its own it was a sin-stained body.
A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer will do for a start.

What is a sin stained flesh if not a flesh that has been stained by sin? and what does it mean for the flesh to be stained by sin except that the owner of the flesh stained it with sin? I told you ad nauseam that what Paul referred to as SINFUL flesh in Romans 8:3 referred to the flesh that all men have- the flesh that is susceptible to sin and can yield to it; mortal flesh; corruptible flesh etc AND THIS WAS THE SAME FLESH JESUS HAD.

If you claim 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit, on what basis? Why spirit alone? Why not spirit, soul and body? How does 2 Corinthians 2: 11 “So that we would not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” confirm your position? Even if you meant 1 Corinthians 2:11 “For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God” how does this confirm your explanation that 1 John 3:5 was referring to Jesus’ spirit ALONE?

Because when the bible says IN HIM it means just like 1 Corinthians 2:11-the spirit of that person, which is in him. In other words, when Paul or John made reference to IN HIM they referred to the INNER MAN- the one that lives INSIDE the flesh. Kindly tell us who that INNER MAN is?

You remember you had said that the inside (mind) does not matter but the spoken words.

Thrash and misappropriated. If you want to quote me better quote me well or just forget it if it is over you. This is what I said:

As per "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" there could be no greater lie than that. Surely, what is to be spoken must first be believed in the heart but (you will not experience the reality of it) until you speak it forth.

So I never said the HEART (SPIRIT) and not MIND does not matter. I said it works hand in hand with the speaking forth and Paul corroborated such a notion in Roman 10:9-10. Maybe if you read my post's well you would not bother with alot of things that you say but alas the same thing you accuse me of repeatedly, you are ever so culpable of.

However we are even talking here about what God looks at to tell a sinner or not. We are looking at whether Jesus’ body (flesh) had the sin nature that the rest of mankind has. And it is evident from scripture that he did not. That is PART of what qualified him in his humanity to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

I have said it on many occasions that Jesus didn't have the unrighteous/sin-tainted spirit/ sin-nature that other men had. BUT He had the same flesh that they had. That has been my position since. I even told you that his flesh wasn't impervious to sin like you were trying to insinuate. If he let it sin it would have sinned. But he had a righteous spirit that wasn't subject to the prince of the air- the one that works in all men until they receive christ.

Recall that you said:
Jesus had a sinful flesh

NO again. This is what I said:

but his FLESH was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin.

I explained what I meant by SINFUL flesh as used in Romans 8:3 (before I showed it to you) so that you would not misconstrue my words to mean that Jesus SINNED. But the very thing I sought to correct- you accused me of. How mischievous.

In scripture the word flesh is used not just for the physical body but encompassing the influence of sin on the body as a result of the imputation of Adam’s original sin on every single person born. So, beyond the physical issues of the human body there is the power sin exerts on the human soul/body in a way that shows its close affinity with the body, hence the use of the word ‘flesh’ for it in many places.
Psalm 51:5 “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me”

I can write a page on the meaning of sarx as used by the writers to refer to flesh. That word means exactly flesh/body and nothing else BUT by synecdoche it can be stretched to mean different things based on the context. I have explained this before to another poster not too long ago. It does not mean spirit, soul and body in all contexts. For instance when Paul said the life I live in the "flesh" in Galatians 2 the word sarx only meant BODY or FLESH there and not spirit because the spirit was the I. The same way Paul said I bring my "Sarx" under subjection in Corinthians he was referring to only the Body and not the "totality of humanity". That is the same way the sarx as used in Romans 8:3 ONLY referred to Jesus' flesh and not his spirit or soul regardless of the confusion of translations that a few versions gave.

I then showed you that his (Jesus’) birth was unique.
If God wanted him to have what you called the ‘EXACT’ body like every other human being he would have allowed a man to be involved in Jesus’ conception. But this was not the case: God bypassed man in bringing about the conception/birth of Jesus.

The father of a baby is responsible for the babies blood (and in spiritual terms spirit) while the mother is responsible for the body/flesh. Jesus had to be a Jew; from David's lineage; totally human and to have a human body that was why he needed a mother or else God would have simply spoke him into being without having any earthly parents. That would have been the only way he would have come in another flesh and in that case he NEVER would have died.

If man were involved in Jesus’ conception (note conception – the process of Mary becoming pregnant) the JUSTICE of God would have had to IMPUTE Adam’s sin on the baby Jesus. If that had happened, Jesus’ body would not have been sin-free to start with. Even if he were then able (or God helped him) to live a sin-free life, the fact of that initial imputation of Adam’s sin at his birth would still have made him a sinner. What we would then have would be a sinner going to the cross for the sins of other sinners. That would not be the perfect sacrifice required to propitiate God.

Nonsense. Adam's flesh made no one a sinner because Adam sinned before his flesh was corrupted or stained with sin- he didn't sin as a result of a fallen flesh (Oh I hope you catch this!). The spirit of a man is what makes him a sinner like Adam. Paul said sin and death passed through to all men including those WHO DIDN'T SIN IN THE SIMILITUDE OF ADAM'S SIN. This means without even having a flesh to sin like Adam did sin and death was already accredited to one's account. So there's nothing unscriptural about Jesus having the exact flesh with Adam et al. The issue would have been if I have claimed that he sinned and I didn't!

When I mentioned the case of a body with Ebola and one without it you shrugged it off. But what I was getting at was that a human body that is diseased CANNOT FUNCTION the same way as one that is free from disease. In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature.

A Caucasian and a Negroid both have the same flesh even though they might "appear" different in color. Jesus had the same flesh. A flesh contaminated by sin would mean that the inner man within the flesh was born with sin. Jesus wasn't born with sin in his inner man.

I gave you Romans 6:6 to let you know how the scripture links the sin nature to our body and the solution: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin”

Hahaha, this verse proves what I have been saying only you didn't see it. Both sin-nature and righteous-nature are linked to the flesh. For the latter we are asked to use the righteous spirit to subdue the flesh while when we had the sin-nature we yielded our flesh to do the desires of our sin-stained spirit. Paul said our Old man WAS CRUCIFIED meaning the sin-stained spirit is dead so that it is now possible for us to walk without committing sin in our mortal body like. . .Jesus!

Romans 7:14 “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin.” is telling us that there is nothing wrong with the law on its own but our enslavement or if you prefer marriage to the sin nature is the problem. This is why Paul used the illustration of marriage to drive home his point on this.

lol, Paul is saying: [When I was a sinner] I was a slave to sin (My spirit was unrighteous) and as such was disobedient to the law even though I knew that the law was good.(Ephesians 2). I used my flesh to work sin as against working righteousness which I knew was the right thing to do.

Hebrews 7:26 “For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.” shows us how distinct this our High Priest is from the rest of us. Look at the adjectives used to describe him.

He was separated in what sense? He was Holy in what sense? He was innocent in what sense? He had a righteous spirit (righteous nature) and he didn't sin. It says nothing about him having a different flesh from sinners. Absolutely nothing. If in doubt see this in Hebrews 2:

10 For it was an act worthy [of God] and fitting [to the divine nature] that He, for Whose sake and by Whom all things have their existence, in bringing many sons into glory, should make the Pioneer of their salvation perfect [should bring to maturity the human experience necessary to be perfectly equipped for His office as High Priest] through suffering.

17 So it is evident that it was essential that He be made like His brethren in every respect, in order that He might become a merciful (sympathetic) and faithful High Priest in the things related to God, to make atonement and propitiation for the people’s sins

He was made like us in every respect only that he had the divine/righteous nature/ righteous spirit; a spotless blood; and he didn't sin.

Jesus knew he was this distinct from others before the cross and did not say “Any man can be the Saviour” or anything to that effect rather what he said was:
“I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.” (John 5:51).

What a struggle of a point. Nobody has said any man can save us the way Jesus saved us. But now that we are saved we can do the same miracles he performed because he told us so and we have the same holy spirit that he had. Period.

Jesus body (his flesh) did not have the sin nature residing in it which is unlike the rest of us who do. It was only if he had committed an act of sin that this would have changed just as Adam knew a change had taken in him when he sinned. But he (Jesus) never sinned. So his sin-free body (the container God chose to have man in rather than a spiritual body like that of angels) because he was UNIQUELY BORN, not having inherited the ‘old man’ from Adam and his sinless life qualified him to be mankind’s sin-bearer.
There was no “SIN” in his ‘FLESH’ to make him have a sinful flesh.

Another struggle. I have never said Jesus had a sin nature- unrighteous spirit. His body was not housed by such a spirit like it was for other men before his birth. The "old man" he didn't inherit from Adam was the "sin-stained spirit". But he inherited the same body like Adam- no difference and as such it was a body subject to sin like every other man's and that is what I have consistently said all through.

^^^

I was cautious about saying some things directly to you because I didn't want 'some fellows' to misconstrue it. I clearly told you that I am not a proponent of "touch not" but I am still aware about order in God's house.

Years ago I had a leader of mine ask me to write an exam for her because she was 'in the spirit' or something like that. Of course, I respectfully declined her request because it didn't sit well with my understanding of God's word. I also know enough to know that she didn't get any of such teachings from her 'Pastor'.

I said that to say this: that not everyone listens or hears at the same level while some others just come in to cause disunity even if they are already leaders. It is important to identify them early enough and keep away from them so as not be drawn in by their sins. Afterall, it is not all that are of Israel that are Israel.

During my foundation class I sat close to 2 girls that didn't seem interested in what the teacher was saying. They took particular objection to the aspect of speaking in tongues. They argued vehemently with the foundation school teacher, contradicting everything he said till they got up and left the place in anger. Shortly after they left, a friend of mine that had just recently given his heart to Christ pulled me to the side and told me some things about the 2 girls that caused no little ruckus on that day. Most of what he said are not printable or edifiable. I kept thinking to myself what name the church would have had if those girls remained there. It was either they got truly saved or they would have done more harm to Jesus' name. And every now and then such people will always come in and a few of them will conceal their intentions for a while before being found out. It does nothing to the teaching of their 'Pastor'. It is a regular occurrence in all good churches world wide. If you are in doubt, you can take some time off and spend it investigating. You would find a lot of things out many of which would do your soul no good.

That's why I took the option of only celebrating the good I see in the word and in others while eschewing fractious topics and people. Pulling down is easy but to build up, it takes a whole lot and I would rather be a builder than a plunderer.

Let me help you out again. In the same Chapter Paul said I AM EVIL, SOLD UNDER SIN, UNDER THE LAW. Please can you show me how a Christian can be all 3 and if so why did bother condemning the Corinthian church? (Please bear it in mind that he wrote the book of Corinthians before he wrote the book of Romans)

Also, when a Man gets born again what changes (becomes new instantly) about him:is it his flesh, soul or his Spirit?

There's not a single question you have asked me on this thread that I didn't respond to. What you can say is that I didn't give you the answer you wanted. But you on the other hand are yet to answer any questions of mine. Besides, we didn't get her to discuss whether Jesus' flesh was SINFUL or not (no matter how you try to captionalize it). We came here because you tried to claim Jesus' had a different flesh from the rest of us and as a result could be used by the Holy Spirit to perform the miracles he performed. This is even a shift from your earliest stance in which you maintained he did so with inherent power (such that a deity would have) even when I showed you clear scriptures stating that Jesus functioned as a man.

At least, now you have agreed he needed the Holy Spirit. But when I said any other man born of the human flesh can do same if he had the Holy Spirit, you objected to it and claimed Jesus' flesh was different- to which I said that is a blatant lie. And I have shown you more than 15 scriptures to effect it but you could not show a single one. Instead, you were showing me 1 John 3:5 that says "there was no sin IN HIM" and I recall I kept telling you that the verse was referring to his spirit but you refused to concede even in the face of staggering evidence one of which is 2 Cor 2:11 that tells us expressly that.

I have told you and every other person on this thread that the real man is the spirit. That the flesh of man has no part to play in kingdom of God because the flesh is physical and the kingdom is spiritual.I told you how Paul kept saying the life 'I' live in the flesh and how that 'I' was his spirit. I told you how that when a man dies the bible says it is his Spirit that left the body (James 2:26) and also that it is people's spirits that go to heaven or hell. If you cannot see that the spirit of a man is what God looks at to tell if he is a sinner or not (Pro 20:27). Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.

trustman: You end up making a lot of inferences apparently in a bid to make the scripture you quote line up with your perceived position.

You must know that you really did not directly answer a number of my questions. Rather you ‘READ’ your assumed position into your answers. In other words, instead of answering the questions what you did was to just give ‘answers’ from your assumed position. I had said that I will appreciate your simple clear answers.

For example:
I asked – “Can you show me the scripture that says Adam’s sin is received through other men’s spirit?”
Your answer – you went at length to talk about man being a spirit, that has a soul and lives in a body. How does this answer the question of providing the scripture.
Again I asked – “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield to sin was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer was – “It was the exact same flesh sinners had”
The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was not a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether ON ITS OWN it was a sin-stained body.

So it is clear that you are either trying to evade the question or you are trying to be ‘SMART’ in answering in such a way that you can later on DECIDE to interpret your answer however you want.

I also asked – “Is a flesh that can sin but has no sin the same as a flesh that has sin?”
Your answer – “Yes sir, they are the same flesh. One just used his to obey God while the other disobeyed God with his.”
I am sure a good English language secondary school student would do better. If I were to ask you ‘Is a rich man in the same category as a poor man?’ maybe your answer will be ‘Yes, only that one is rich and the other is poor’. What an answer that would be.
So to you a flesh that has NO sin is the same as a flesh that has sin. Interesting!

When Paul addressed the Corinthian Christians and told them they were carnal, people of the flesh, etc were they regenerate? Yes. So when you say works of the flesh is of unregenerate man, how does that line up with this? Again one sees an attempt to make scripture align with your held position.

Like I’ve pointed out in the past, words have meaning. You are therefore not at liberty to make words mean what you want them to mean. For example, it would appear that your definition of sinful (given your answer to my question on ‘sinful flesh’) is ‘corruptible’ or ‘mortal’, ‘susceptible to dents, defects, diseases and death’. So these are what the word ‘sinful’ means to you. When you quote Hebrew and Greek words do you do so to make your readers know that those words have specific meaning? Now, who gave the meaning to them? Mbaemeka or the people of those languages? When the phrase ‘sinful flesh’ is therefore to be looked at, how should it be understood? Is it in the way it is conveyed in simple English or the way Mbaemeka WANTS it to be seen?

Mbaemeka, what every single progeny of Adam gets at physical birth is CONDEMNATION from God as a result of Adam’s sin. That is really what ‘in Adam all die’ means. Did Jesus at his physical birth get the same verdict? NO!
Just as Adam didn’t die physically immediately after he sin yet ‘died’ that same ‘death’ is now the lot of every single member of the human race. This ‘death’ resides in the human body. Note that if Adam and Eve did not sin their ‘flesh’ would have continued to live indefinitely. But their sin and condemnation by God reversed this. In Jesus no such imputation took place.

There's no need to repeat myself. I believe I made my points very clear which is something I cannot say for you. You never answered any of my questions and you repeated all the verses you had started with without giving any biblical supported interpretation to it.

The only thing worth responding to in your post is why Paul called some Corinthian Chrisians carnal and the reason is clear. They had the Holy Spirit of God within, they had the new man within, they came behind in none of the gifts of the spirit etc. BUT they hadn't renewed their minds by the word of God. That's why some of them drank the wine during the communion till they were drunk, some had immoral sex acts, some others took themselves to court, while others kept visiting the temples of idols etc.

Paul told them how can you be so carnal? How can you know God and still be conscious of idols and demons? How can you defile the body and blood of Jesus by taking it in an unworthy manner while not discerning what the real body is? Why do you listen to those who say I am deceiving you? Why do you let the old way of thinking dominate you now that you are in Christ?

These things haven't changed much from what obtains today. In fact, it is worse off. The carnal ones now frown upon anything that has to do with the supernatural. They get irked when they see the gifts of the spirit in demonstration. They water-down the word of God to believable levels. They insult dignitaries with reckless abandon. They side with naysayers and mockers of the faith to disparage the body of Christ. Bringing God's people to the public scorn.

Come out and be separated from them because the time is short. God is doing a quick work and very soon they would be a shaking that all those involved in this will feel the wrath even though some to more pronounced levels than others.

If I see anything else interesting and worthy of my response I might reply. Other than that I rest my case.

vooks: Has Jesus made a written request to take you home yet?

Jokes on you. Since Jesus didn't take his blood to heaven neither did he ascend to offer his 'human blood'. Good thing you ran away from that thread. Trolling fits you better than biblical debates.

Keep trolling away, the only people that would envy you on your trolling expendition are the broke bloggers who share the same MPD with you.

Interesting how a post directed at Vooks is being replied by BabaGnoni the proponent of sexing serpents. Hope you and your multiple personality disorder can see Boss13, your very spiritual cheerleader. I don't even want to talk about the other failed blogger that won't get my attention for a billion dollars.

When you guys get your high-falutin ignorance exposed I start receiving mentions from all angles pretending to be call-outs from deflated egos when in actual sense what it really is is a covert cry for help: "I am lost and in unbelief. Please help my unbelief!"

You think a word is enough for the wise? I might need to belabor some things before you get them. Shows you how far away from wisdom you are and I recommend (free of charge) that the wisest thing you would do all year is to keep my monicker of your posts henceforth.

SirJohn: @Gombs, I see my posts are too impeccable for you to handle.
Since you can't explain how a HIV negative mother gave birth to a HIV positive baby, then by all means please keep quiet.
As for her husband, hes been HIV negative and still is, you can ask mbaemeka to explain that to you, I already schooled him on that.

I don't know why I am being robed into this. Are you referring to the same husband that you said she dated for 8years till she attended the healing school yet she concealed her HIV positive status from him and even lied to him about her trip to SA or are you referring to the same lady who was in perfect health and had undetectable viral loads but kept going from church to church, crusade to crusade yet she got no miracle? I wonder why she needed one when she was already in tiptop shape even before going to the HS.

I also wonder why she consented to lying that she was (or wasn't) healed or why she faked falling under the anointing when she actually went there to get healed? Why didn't she just insist she was already healed and object to lying or why did she stay on if her faith had already healed her before she met Pastor Chris?

The fact is- if she could lie to her husband for 8 years thereby putting him at risk. If she could agree to lie that she wasn't healed so they could claim she was healed after meeting Pastor Chris. If she could pretend that she fell under the anointing. If she could lie to us all in 2010-2012 consistently (and unsolicitedly) that she was healed and in perfect health. Then she could very much be telling another lie now which only means that those who choose to believe her are doing so not minding how duplicitous (and initiated by bile) her newfangled stories are. But I am not surprised because when a man has made up his mind to hang his dog, even a thread used for sewing would be more than sufficient for him.

vooks: Will you clock 3000 years regurgitating Oyakhilome heresies, or will you conveniently consent to Christ taking you home at 80( if you are lucky) Peter Pan?
Nobody said that sickness negates Truth. Disease-free nonsense is what does because the truth is NOBODY is disease-free. Not Paul, nor Timothy nor Epaphroditus and most certainly not Sycophant-in-Chief mbaemeke. God heals when,where and whomever He will, not whatever tickles these mortal 'gods'-wannabes' fantasies
It don't matter the circumstances under which they died. Couldn't they have been much more helpful alive? Imagine Paul shooing off death and still preaching in Lagos in 2014. Poor Jesus, He can't but OBEY Paul's will to clock 2000 years
https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/20

The difference between me and you is that I would easily take you on what I believe and when I provide incontrovertible evidences from scripture you would scamper like a scared dog with your tail behind your legs or better still create a new moniker to save face from the disgrace that the previous one suffered.

There was a Simeon in the bible who said the Holy Spirit told him he would not leave this world until he saw the Messiah. Was he also regurgitating heresies?

Let me tell you who a heretic is. A heretic is that person that attributes God's dunamis to present day improvements in medical science. When the same medical science is responsible for more deaths than all the 'fake' MOG that have ever existed put together.

Let me not even go to the issue of Eve sleeping with serpents or Jesus' double ascension being a pentecostal heresy. I am sure you must have repented from that foolishness by now.