₦airaland Forum

An2elect2:
Cc: iamjane.
Cc: Expressions.

Matth 1:21, "And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" pls take note of the significance of the expression "his people".
Here it is important for us to know that Christ's coming to this world and his meritorious work on the cross was for "his people", a distinct people.

Galatians 1:4, "Who gave himself for our sins that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father."
"our sins" cannot be said to be referring to the sins of every man cos Paul's letter and all his letters was/were for those in the church. The evil world is not cosmos but real people who are evil, all what they stand for,their lusts et al. Just saying...

Ephesians 5:25, " Husbands love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it."

Acts 20:28, " Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Why take heed? it is obvious that some people who are not part of the flock are wolves who peddle lies to deceive the flock. The passage talks about purchase of the flock with blood. The price here is the blood. If he did not purchase all men with his blood (as we have seen here), he definitely didn't die for all.

I'll be right back to continue.

iamjane:
Ok, I'm following. ...

I remember: Matthew26:28

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
@Expressions this was uttered by Christ

Expressions:
Yes that's how it was reported in the Bible. But you know we've to be careful with our thoughts lest we imply He either didn't know what He had been saying when He was against the plot of having Him killed, or He was afraid and yielding to the flesh. The Son of God was above such.

Note however that the statement you just quoted was said at the Last Supper. That moment when it had become clear that those scheming religious bigots weren't going to heed His words/warnings against killing Him.

He declared thereby that He was even willing to
accept death on the cross, just to have the opportunity to bring the Truth to erring mankind through His teaching, which alone shows the way to the forgiveness of sins.

He says expressly: “Forgiveness for many” not “forgiveness for all!” Thus only for those who take His teachings to heart and make vital use of them.

ayoku777:
The death of Christ is not an after-thought. He didn't die because He couldn't escape being killed by the Jews. Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood because it was part of what He came to do.

Jesus came for many reasons. But He needed to shed His blood and die for two major reasons.

1: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Contrary to what you said that forgiveness comes from heeding the teachings of Christ, the scriptures disagree with you.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without SHEDDING OF BLOOD is no remission of sin

There was no way around it, the lamb of God had to die and shed His blood for there to remission of sins for those who put their faith in Him. His death was a sacrificial offering for sin. He didn't just die because of our sins; He died for our sin -as a sacrificial offering to bring remission for the sin.

Hebrews 10v12 -But this man, after He had OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER sat down on the right hand of God.

His death was a sacrificial offering for sin. He needed to die otherwise there would be no remission

2: The second reason Jesus needed to die was because a testator (owner of a will or testament) needs to die for the testament to become active.

A will and testament can't come alive until the death of the testator. So if Jesus didn't die, there won't be such a thing as a new covenant -because Jesus is the testator and mediator of the new covenant.

Hebrews 9v16 -For where a testament is, there must also of NECESSITY be the death of the testator

For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strenght AT ALL while the testator liveth.

You see this scriptures?

The death of Jesus was compulsory, because the new covenant was in His blood. Without Jesus shedding His blood there can't be a new covenant. Because for there to be a covenant there must of NECESSITY be the death of the testator.

It is the death of the testator that gives life to the testament. There is no other way about it. If Jesus didn't die, the new covenant will remain locked and without force.

So his death was necessary for there to be a new covenant, and His blood needed to be shed for there to be remission.

channelz:
Nice one there, but have you been following?
We know all these words that were said after the death of Christ which have been inconsistent with the Words of Christ Himself.

ayoku777:
Expressions

So you don't believe the bible is a complete book? Or that not all the books in the bible are correct and true? That is a fundamental flaw in your faith or lack of faith. One that gives you the unholy right to cherry-pick what doctrine you accept as true and not true -relative to your opinion.

I can go on and on to rationalize the questions you asked me with scriptures; but it won't help. Because you will just say the writings of Paul cannot be trusted.

The question is what makes you trust the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that you've been quoting since?

What yardstick did you use to define them as true as opposed to saying those of Paul are not true? What truth-premise makes you think Matthew or John are right and Acts and Ephesians are wrong or false?

I believe the bible is the word of God, and that God never lost control of preserving the truth of His sacred word; even when bishops and all, sat to deliberate over it. God is still sovereign and He rules in the affairs of men, much more in the affairs of preserving His word.

I believe that God never lost control of the preservation of the truth of His word. And that the books that are or are not in the bible are part of His sovereign will to preserve its truth.

If you don't believe that God was still in control of the preservation of the truth of His word, not matter the people who deliberated over it; I can't help you much. Because you have given yourself the right to define truth relative to your opinion. Implying that Matthew is correct, Ephesians is wrong. John is right, 1John is false etc.

How do you come about those standards of defining truth? Your opinion now defines truth?

If scriptures seem inconsistent to you, ask the author. The one who inspired the writers -The Holy Spirit. And He will show you that the entire scripture is one and true.

You don't have the authority to define truth relative to you. Its either you believe the bible is the word of God -OR YOU DON'T.

This is the first hurdle you need to cross; before we can now move to using scriptures to establish doctrine. But as long you keep implying some portions of scripture are correct and some portions are not correct -i can't help much now.

How did you arrive at such self-definition of what is true and what is not true in the bible? What yard-stick did you use to know that Paul's writings are false and that of John or Luke is correct?

ayoku777:
The death of Christ is not an after-thought. He didn't die because He couldn't escape being killed by the Jews. Jesus died on the cross and shed His blood because it was part of what He came to do.

Jesus came for many reasons. But He needed to shed His blood and die for two major reasons.

1: Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.

Contrary to what you said that forgiveness comes from heeding the teachings of Christ, the scriptures disagree with you.

Hebrews 9v22 -And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without SHEDDING OF BLOOD is no remission of sin

There was no way around it, the lamb of God had to die and shed His blood for there to remission of sins for those who put their faith in Him. His death was a sacrificial offering for sin. He didn't just die because of our sins; He died for our sin -as a sacrificial offering to bring remission for the sin.

Hebrews 10v12 -But this man, after He had OFFERED ONE SACRIFICE FOR SINS FOR EVER sat down on the right hand of God.

His death was a sacrificial offering for sin. He needed to die otherwise there would be no remission

2: The second reason Jesus needed to die was because a testator (owner of a will or testament) needs to die for the testament to become active.

A will and testament can't come alive until the death of the testator. So if Jesus didn't die, there won't be such a thing as a new covenant -because Jesus is the testator and mediator of the new covenant.

Hebrews 9v16 -For where a testament is, there must also of NECESSITY be the death of the testator

For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strenght AT ALL while the testator liveth.

You see this scriptures?

The death of Jesus was compulsory, because the new covenant was in His blood. Without Jesus shedding His blood there can't be a new covenant. Because for there to be a covenant there must of NECESSITY be the death of the testator.

It is the death of the testator that gives life to the testament. There is no other way about it. If Jesus didn't die, the new covenant will remain locked and without force.

So his death was necessary for there to be a new covenant, and His blood needed to be shed for there to be remission.

Expressions:
1 Corinthians 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

13:10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. -Paul

bsjay:
#SMH. Congratulations. Am sure and wish that the writers of the scriptures be held not responsible for this lack of knowledge, ignorance and indolence. Paul tried to exonerate himself by telling the people thus: "for we know in part but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away with". This was letting them know that a more better and perfect teaching that will lead man to all truth was coming. And that they should bestir themselves for proper understanding and acceptance when they come across it because what they wrote could only prepare them for that which is perfect.

Expressions:
This distinct people you speak of, I suppose are only members of the church? In other words He gave Himself for the Christians only? Members of other religions and sects are automatically cut off and can only access salvation when they become Christians?

I like your definition of the evil World.

I'm still waiting for you to land, I'm sure you still have more to expatiate.

Expressions:
This distinct people you speak of, I suppose are only members of the church? In other words He gave Himself for the Christians only? Members of other religions and sects are automatically cut off and can only access salvation when they become Christians?

I like your definition of the evil World.

I'm still waiting for you to land, I'm sure you still have more to expatiate.

bsjay:
No! U absolutely have no part to play ok. In fact, Christ lied when He said "what you sow is what you reap". Just believe in the name of Jesus and forget every other thing ok. No wonder He said "My people perish for lack of knowledge". Congratulations to important Christians that Christ washed away their sins on the cross. SHM!

Well well you thought i was only pulling your legs? hehehe that's like playing with fire to me. i meant all the ques i asked and am glad you realised that on time. Apology accepted

Okay, this post is really long but i still managed to pull through by God's grace but am afraid once more that you are putting the cart before the horse.

You are giving too much credit to man and his supposed "free will". I understand the place of works Expressions but what i can't accept is that man works for and sustains his salvation. Its like accepting that a house can be built without foundation and can stand on its own with nothing holding it beneath... oh wait a minute, that's not what you are saying? you recognise the place of grace but it can't be effective without man's will?

According to you, God has no right to save a man without his permission! neither does HE have the right to cause a man to work according to HIS precepts except man does something first such as "obedience" . If man can obey God without the power to obey which is in Christ, then all things that we need for life and godliness would not be in Christ. You see...

You imply that grace is available but only if we draw near. If there is a condition to fulfil before obtaining salvation and it rests upon man then salvation would not be by grace through faith. Salvation wouldn't be a gift but a reward for our obedience. Which is it? a reward or a gift? Ephesians 2:8,9 says salvation is by grace through faith. It is not of works so none can boast. The faith is that of the Lord Jesus and comes with the hearing of the word: not what originates from us.

Wait, did i miss something?

Hi Expressions am sorry for being away from this thread...

Okay. The distinct people are those chosen by God himself to believe and be saved. Am going to cite scriptures but before that there is nothing like being a christian before accessing salvation. The moment the gospel comes to us in word and in power and in much assurance by the holy ghost 1Thess 1:5. we become Christians. Christians are saved people in Christ.

The bible is so clear about this. Its not something to debate over...

Ephesians 1:5 "Blessed be the God and father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world that we should be holy and without blame before him in love."

2Timothy 1:9 " Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

verse 10 is crucial! look how our calling was made to come to pass,

10 "But is now made manifest by the appearing of our saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.

Those who eventually believe when the gospel is preached do not choose by themselves to believe but rather they believe because they have been chosen by God from the beginning!

Acts13:48 "And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed

Expressions:
I feel like applauding your efforts thus far especially in the fascinating way you came up with the explanation for the words- face to face. I read other translations to see their translation of the phrase face to face or even 'looking through a mirror' and I saw entirely different interpretations from yours. The same Bible. But I won't post my discovery.

All I have asked is, just the same way you were able to expatiate on 'face to face' can you expatiate on those direct statements of Christ as was reported in the Bible... not by me? Don't shy away from directly elucidating them. Remember, I'm not asking for help, I mean if you have to engage in a discussion, then be as fair and explicable as possible. Unless you are implying I take the words of Paul more seriously than the direct words of Christ, meaning Christ may have spoken out of fear? That's not the Christ I know! The Christ I read about in the Bible was an embodiment of fearlessness, Courage and all manly virtues you could ever conceive!

Regards.

Expressions:
According to the view generally held
Christ is supposed, through His alleged expiatory death, to have vicariously taken upon Himself the burden of sins for men, to bring about a reconciliation thereby between God and men.

It is striking that in the Revelation of John, which after all came into being and was proclaimed only after the death of Christ, and which contains all the important spiritual events, not a word is said about this taking over of sins. On the contrary, it is clearly stated that it is men who have washed their robes clean, and not Christ, which means that men had to wash off their sins themselves with the help of the Word, Whose Truth Christ sealed with His blood (Rev. 7, 14).

Indeed the Lamb of God Which was
"slain" is accusingly spoken of several times in the Revelation. And even from the promised judgment of God alone, with the pouring out of the vials of Wrath, anything but a reconciliation between the Godhead and mankind is to be inferred.

But if Christ had taken upon Himself or taken away the evil works of men, what works are then referred to in God's judgment, which Christ Himself
proclaimed? "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man (whether Christians or non Christians) according to his works" (Matthew 16, 27); and in the Revelation of John the Son of Man promised: "I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be" (Rev. 22, 12).

mamsong9:
You see you people are always confuse about this topic, NOBODY crucify Jesus. NOBODY kill him and he did not die for our sins.

Expressions: "That judgment was pronounced on the people and nation that delivered Him doesn't mean it wasn't part of God's plan."

This is the best answer you've given in
relation to the question I asked concerning the direct statements of Christ because it addresses the main point not the talk about "...as it was written". (If TB. Joshua for instance sees that, due to man-made fault, a plane is going to crash, and he announces it and even puts it in writing as an admonition, and even calls on the persons responsible to fix the problem before take off {just as John the Baptist did, crying REPENT!}. If they fail to
heed TB Joshua's prophecy and eventually the plane crashes, would you say that was God's plan or man's failure?)

Now can you see why I chose this as the best answer:

"That judgment was pronounced on the people and nation that delivered Him doesn't mean it wasn't part of God's plan."

Here you have said it all. You really
constructed the concept well... and this my friend is the reason I had to search deeper because, giving God the Honour of Perfection comes first and serves as my guiding principle to understanding scriptures.

Brother, to be honest with you, I do not want to be guilty of this:

Romans 2:24 For the name of God is
blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.

For how can judgement (Divine Punishment/ Woe) be pronounced on the individual, people and nation that fulfilled what pleased the Lord?

That is a rhetorical question though; not meant to be answered.

I appreciate your answers and contributions thus far.

Now on a personal note my friend, I'd like to know one thing from you, be honest, strictly personal:

If you had a very good, justifiable reason, would you... kill me?

Expressions:
Can I ask you a question An2elect2? Though it's enough to know you're a Christian but I would like to know your denomination if you don't mind.

ayoku777:
Don't be dishonest with the scriptures. Quote the verses in full and let's look at the interpretation in context.

1Cor 13v9-12 -For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.

But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Is Paul saying the perfect is a new teaching coming? NO! The perfect is not a new teaching or doctrine that will come after the apostles or sometimes in the future.

The perfect is what will come when we see Jesus face to face. When we move from beholding His glory to beholding His face; and from seeking His manifest presence to seeing His bodily presence.

That is when the perfect will come, and that is when we will know Him even as He knows us. That is when we will stop knowing in part.

But until then we know in part and speak or prophesy in part. And we see through a glass darkly as it were. And that will remain the same until we receive our glorified bodies and minds that can know Him fully.

The perfect knowledge will not come until we see Jesus face to face; and that will not happen until the age to come. That verse is not talking about a new set of teaching or doctrine that will come after the apostles or in their future.

Paul is not trying to exonerate or excuse any wrong teaching by saying we see darkly through a glass. The church sees darkly through a glass now because we are still tabernacled in our corruptible bodies and we are yet to see Jesus face to face and receive our glorified minds and bodies.

Statements like yours that there are new teachings coming is what people use to justify new man-made doctrines that are clearly inconsistent with the truths of God's word in scripture.

There is no new doctrine or teaching outside the bounderies of what the apostles preached and taught through their writings.

Please interprete scripture with sincerety and quote the verses completely to get the context of interpretation.

There is no new teaching. That mentality is a recipe for heresis.