Trustman's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Trustman's Profile › Trustman's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 (of 20 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 11:19pm On Oct 02, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Romans 5:14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come.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. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 9:59am On Oct 01, 2014 |
mbaemeka Adam's sin that other men received was through their spirit-just like him and not the flesh. Jesus didn't have the same spirit with Adam. Besides, that verse of scripture you quoted is comparing Adam after his fall and Jesus after his resurrection.Can you show me the scripture that says Adam’s sin is received through other men’s spirit? I have not said otherwise. Jesus had a perfect Spirit but he shared flesh with other men.Which portion of scripture says sin nature is the spirit of man when he is unregenerate? Depends on your definition of sinful flesh as used in the bible. It simply means corruptible flesh- the same one all humans have while on earth.What is your definition of sinful? All meaning he had a perfect/righteous/sin-free spirit and that he did not commit sin- nothing else.Can you explain “but with my flesh I serve the law of sin”? I agree, because of the man's spirit. That's what I have been saying. Romans 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. Why should sin and death reign over those who didn't "commit" sin like Adam? because they already have the Spirit that is tainted with sin which Jesus did not have. Adam was a type of Jesus. How else except that Jesus had the same flesh with him even though they had different spirits given that Adam tainted his and Jesus maintained his till death.Is ‘a flesh that can sin but has no sin’ the same as ‘a flesh that has sin’? Man is not a flesh. Man is a spirit that lives in a flesh same way you live in your house but you are not your house. Get it right. Jesus had the same flesh that sinners had but he (his spirit was sin-free/righteous) and he did not commit sin. That's what made him perfect.Did Jesus have (1) a flesh of sin but lived a life free of sin or (2) did he have a flesh free of sin and lived a life free of sin. He was referring to the mortal flesh that he had- the same type that sinners had. He called it my flesh and not "me", for he is not a flesh- he is a spirit. That flesh qualified because he didn't yield it to sin.Before Jesus' flesh qualified because he didn’t yield it to sin was it a sin-stained flesh? The importance of the flesh is not in question (especially by those who believe that salvation includes healing) but the type of his flesh was clearly stated in scripture- He had the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners had.As far as the eternal SALVATION of man is concerned what is the importance of the body of Jesus in the Holy Communion? I will appreciate your simple clear answers. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 7:43pm On Sep 30, 2014 |
mbaemeka: So many empty words with nothing said. I have not said here or anywhere else that a child born today isn't as much a sinner as a grown man. The reason the child is a sinner is not because of his FLESH but because of his SPIRIT. Do you get it now?Jesus was born PERFECT at birth i.e. without the stain of Adam’s sin which the rest of the entire mankind carries – 1 Corinthians 15: 22 “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” Jesus had human flesh, yes. BUT it was a flesh free from the influence of Adam’s stain that pervades the rest of mankind. This is because the one who would be acceptable to God as mankind’s sin-bearer had to be holy through and through. He had to be perfect at birth (NO SIN) and also had to be perfect when he reached the cross. Adam had no sin at his ‘creation’. When he sinned, the sentence of God – “Dying, you will die …” became his portion. Did he die physically immediately? NO. But God had said “In the day that you eat of it …” So there was a first ‘dying’ before the physical death. And indeed when they ate of the fruit of the forbidden tree they KNEW something had gone wrong with them. They were no longer the same as they were before then. They knew they were DIFFERENT from how they were before the fall. But they were still physically alive. Jesus was born in a similar way that Adam was ‘created’ perfect. He was born free from sin and the influence of the sin nature that affected Adam after the fall and equally affected all his (Adam’s) progeny thereafter. Therefore to say Jesus had a sinful flesh would mean he was DISQUALIFIED ab initio from being the perfect sacrifice required by God for mankind’s salvation. Like the soul of man, this nature of sin resides in and influences the body. Hence the reference to it as ‘flesh’ and other similar terms. If Jesus had this ‘post Adam’s fall’ nature he would not have been an acceptable sacrifice. But like Hebrews 7: 26 says, he was ‘holy’, ‘unstained’ and ‘separated from sinners’. Like Hebrews 4: 15 says, he was ‘without sin’. 1 John 3:5 also says it: “… … in him there is no sin” Romans 7: 25 is clear about the influence of the ‘flesh’ on the individual. In the humanity of Christ this influence of the ‘flesh’ was not there because like I pointed out earlier 1 John 3: 5 says “… in him there is no sin”. If it were possible (but unfortunately an impossibility) for a man born through Adam (i.e. by man & woman’s involvement) to subdue the mortal flesh from day one till he dies, that man will still not be an acceptable sacrifice to God. Why? Because that man already has the strike of Adam’s sin from birth. So it needs repeating that your understanding and use of the words ‘sinful flesh’ in respect of Jesus is wrong. Sinful, again, is simple English. Sinful means tainted with, marked by or full of sin. So a sinful flesh has sin. Saying that of Jesus’ flesh would be blasphemous. If the Bible anywhere says that Jesus’ flesh was a sinful flesh show us clearly. What made Jesus DIFFERENT and the PERFECT SACRIFICE then were: 1. He was born perfect (sin-free). 2. He remained perfect till the cross. The two CANNOT be separated. He is not a sinful flesh who lived a life free of sin to qualify for the cross. He is a sin-free flesh who lived a life free of sin to qualify for the cross. So when Jesus said in John 5: 51 “… … and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh” he was talking about a perfect flesh which was the only thing that would satisfy the righteous requirement of God the Father. It was a flesh WITHOUT DEFECT – a flesh without the stain and influence of the old sin nature and lived throughout the incarnation free of sin. The importance of Jesus’ flesh is also shown in the observance of the Holy Communion. His body as well as his blood was given for us. If any of them was sinful will it be given this much prominence? Obviously not. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 6:45pm On Sep 30, 2014 |
mbaemeka: ^^^? ? ? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 9:56am On Sep 30, 2014 |
mbaemeka: lol, you guys crack me up that's why I kept replying. But since I have noticed your style is just to keep repeating the same chaff I will do well to let you deride yourself.You've shown yourself as again as a very itchy person. I only posted that to tell you I will reply to your post. Instead of waiting for my reply you immediately respond. You always feel you must respond to EVERY post whether your response is relevant or not. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 11:23pm On Sep 29, 2014 |
mbaemeka: So many empty words with nothing said. I have not said here or anywhere else that a child born today isn't as much a sinner as a grown man. The reason the child is a sinner is not because of his FLESH but because of his SPIRIT. Do you get it now?Just to let you know I've seen this your post to which your first sentence actually belongs. Others have made some remarks on your lack of basic understanding of Biblical doctrines. I will get back to it some other time and show you why you still need the basics of Christianity. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 2:03pm On Sep 29, 2014 |
mbaemeka: 1. Adam's flesh is the same flesh all men have and that is the same flesh Jesus had while on earth.You are not only stubborn, you are also arrogant and cunning. You are being mischievous and you end up placing that same label on others. If you claimed I made a statement then show it unless you are trying to pin on me what I did not say either to divert attention away from the real issues or put a label on me. I showed you yours didn't I? Even a simple illustration now appears difficult for you or what? If a man has Ebola that man's body is said to be - SICK or DISEASED. A body without it will be said to be - HEALTHY. The two have the same type of body - flesh - but are not quite FUNCTIONING the same. See these: "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." - Romans 6:6 "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions." - Romans 6:12 "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin." - Romans 7:14 "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" - Romans 7: 24 What do these tell you about the 'flesh' of man? It is a body of sin (Romans 6:6) that needed to be dealt with by the work of Jesus. Now, if you claim that that same Jesus had a body of sin then how does that qualify to deal with other people's sin? Mbaemeka, a baby who has never committed any act of sin is as much a sinner before God as the adult who has committed a million sins. Why is that so? If you don't know ask. If you do, it should make things clearer for you. Jesus' body first had to be PERFECT in other for it to be a PERFECT SACRIFICE. It had to be sin-free for it to qualify to be an offering acceptable to God. Anything less would not have been suitable. 3 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Truth About Christ Embassy Healing School by trustman: 1:16pm On Sep 29, 2014 |
Gombs: Sorry dear, it won't work that way, you response to one question might be the trigger for another, this is to check for consistency with your previous replies. But putting them all at once would not only defeat the purpose of the interview, but also will make it clumsy.What is the purpose of the interview - to get facts, find faults or prove a point? When a student prepares ALL his questions in a questionnaire for a project does the fact that all questions are stated at once invalidate the work? Can follow-up not be done on the answers? There is no clumsiness in having all questions in one presentation. After all the initial posts are already there for checks of consistency. If there is no 'hidden agenda' there should be no hesitation to this approach. 5 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 12:51am On Sep 29, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Don't be disingenuous you said "Precious and unblemished lamb" meant that Jesus had a different body and I said No that it meant Jesus blood was precious and unblemished as the lamb should be and that Jesus' didn't sin while he was in the same flesh with sinners. I then told you that if the unblemished the bible referred to while addressing the lamb was as used in OT that Jesus' body that had dents and defects would not have been good enough.One of your shortcomings is being too quick to respond. I have said this at different times. Instead of carefully looking to understand issue you rush to answer because you feel you must have the last say. Show me where i made this statement quoted by you: Don't be disingenuous you said "Precious and unblemished lamb" meant that Jesus had a different body and I said No that it meant Jesus blood was precious and unblemished as the lamb should be and that Jesus' didn't sin while he was in the same flesh with sinners.The following actually shows your little understanding of Christ's work and ministry: I cannot possibly say his body was not good enough as a sacrifice when I have been telling you all through that the salvation he wrought for us includes HEALING which is possible because of his bruises. You on the otherhand claim the only thing we are saved from is SIN- disrespecting the scourgings that the lord's body faced.On this your post: Stop exposing your ignorance. Sin nature refers to the spirit of the unsaved man and I told you that repeatedly. Jesus didn't have that spirit so he didn't have the nature of sin. BUT he had the SAME BODY that sinners have. Why is that important? because now that we are born again we have a recreated human spirit by the action of the intermingling of the Holy Spirit in our regular bodies making our spirit righteous and truly holy. This means we are fit to achieve the same miracles that Jesus had. So you reference to Ebola is a dud because Ebola affects the flesh and not the spirit same way nails affected the criminals by Jesus' side as it affected him too.Can you answer one question: 'Was Adam's flesh before the fall the same in its entirety as the flesh you have today, Mbaemeka? Answer directly and lets see who is ignorant. This again shows your flawed reasoning: Mr A is a sinner and he has a flesh called T. Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T. Both men have the EXACT SAME FLESH but they have different natures.The situation i presented was of one WITHOUT something. Therefore your presentation should have read: Mr B is a righteous man and he has a flesh called T minus old sin nature. And your conclusion would be: Therefore Both men DO NOT have the EXACT SAME FLESH as they have different natures. Is it clearer now? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Word Of Faith - The Movement's Doctrine And Proponents by trustman(op): 11:00pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
[size=16pt]MY SUBMISSION ON F15: Fee paying crusades or seminars[/size] “Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets … its priest teach for a price; its prophets practice divination for money; yet they lean on the LORD and say, “Is not the LORD in the midst of us?” - Micah 3: 5a, 11 Ever Heard of Simony? We go back in history to the late 14th century AD. The Roman Catholic Church held sway in Europe. The word of the Pope was supreme. He also had control of the political machinery of the day. Priests were well-fed, had plenty of money and lived a life of luxury, even by the standards of those days. Money was a major focus of the church of those days. Then comes a young man who, because of his attraction for respect and wealth of the priesthood, entered into the priesthood. His name is John Hus. Hus completed his masters degree and taught at the university when he came across the works of John Wycliffe, a reformer of previous years who had questioned the stand of the Catholic church on different issues. In the course of his study of these writings and the Word of God he came to realize that many things were wrong with the established church of the day. The priests charged money for a number of the ‘ministerial services’ they rendered to people. Hus reprimanded them for this because he believed the clergy owed it a spiritual duty of their pastoral office they held. He branded those who charged fees for these services as “unscriptural” pointing out that Jesus never did so. He rose up and spoke against them, and one of such things he stood against was the matter of SIMONY – being in the ministry for money, material acquisition and status. He was quoted to have said: “There is no estate in Christendom more liable to fall ….Therefore, everyone who runs after and strives for that dignity on account of material gain or wordly eminence is guilty of simony.” Simony, then, refers to the sin of paying for sacraments and holy offices or for influence or positions in the hierarchy of a church, or other forms of trafficking for money in “spiritual things”. The word was coined from the name of Simon the magician, who in the Acts of the Apostles 8:9-24, offered apostles Peter and John money so that anyone on whom he would place his hands upon would receive the power of the Holy Spirit. [b]“But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed. 14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me this power also, so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” 24 And Simon answered, “Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may come upon me.” [/b] Now, lets fast-forward into our time; the 21st century. The present day ‘ministers’ of the WoF’ extraction fall into the same category as these priests of the 14th century. In fact, does the Micah passage above look like something that happened in BC or a description of what is happening today? WoF leaders blaze the trail. They charge admission fee for services. Joel Osteen, for example, argues that the reason for charging money for people to hear God’s word (?) is “crowd control and convenience”. Of course what is very convenient is that not much money, if any at all, will leave the ministry’s bank account to pay for rented facilities for those services. Money from the entry fee will certainly take care of that. His image as a high-profile preacher attracts crowd and he definitely wants to capitalize on that to his advantage. One wonders how in the days of high-tech such a ministry can’t find better ways of reaching its audience for better “crowd control”. Here in Nigeria The ‘everyday Christian here in Nigeria’ cannot claim to be unaware of ‘MoG’ here who have bought into this same idea. The following is part of a report carried by PM News of one of such fee paying events by a church right here in Nigeria: Christ Embassy: Worshippers Pay N1,000 To Enter Oyakhilome’s Church Story by Simon Ateba - PM News. Christ Embassy Church in Lagos, South-West Nigeria, is being turned into show business as members were made to part with N1, 000 each as gate fee before they could enter their church to attend the New Year’s Eve service, P.M.NEWS can reveal. P.M.NEWS confirmed that only members who could afford the N1, 000 gate fee were allowed into the premises of Christ Embassy Headquarters at Oregun, Lagos, where self-styled cleric and business man, Pastor Chris Oyakhilome, preached on 31 December 2010. Indigent members who could not afford the N1, 000 tickets, were denied access and sent back by security men at the gate, it was learnt. The church, a source said, realised about N25 million from about 25, 000 members who bought the tickets. It was gathered that the church informed its members that it decided to impose a gate fee to control the huge crowd that always besiege the church on the New Year’s Eve church service. “Pastor said that to control the crowd and only allow genuine members who could do anything to be in church, it was good to pay a gate fee. Last year for instance, even senior pastors in the church could not secure a seat in the church on New Year’s Eve service,” our source said. The ticket, bought by our correspondent, was still on sale today, five days after the New Year’s church service took place. A copy of the ticket has the following information printed on it: “one service…different locations worldwide impact! Time: 7 pm, Venue: Loveworld Convocation Arena, N1,000, December 31st New Year’s Eve Service With Pastor Chris.” There is also a bold picture of Oyakhilome wearing one of his flashy suits. On the background there is a huge crowd in adulation of the man who once boasted that he will never be broke in life. *** End of Report *** So what has changed since the 14th century when men like Martin Luther literarily fought the established church over such things as these – charging money to deliver spiritual things to the people? Martin Luther is said to have said: “In Rome, they sell everything. They would sell the Father, and sell the Son, and sell the Holy Ghost.” Are we getting back to that era? Any money back guarantee? By the way, when people are made to pay for church services or seminars will they have the option of getting their money back if there expectations are not met? I wonder, I just wonder. I think though that if churches want to run like commercial enterprises then the ‘consumers’ of their services should be entitled to having their expectations met, failing which a refund is made. What is Christ’s view about the place of money in dissemination of the Gospel? The Gospel records Jesus Christ attitude toward materialism and his dealings with religious leaders who were fleecing people in the name of God. His encounter with money changers in the temple area is a classic example of how he views those who fleece the sheep in the name of religion. He was clear when he said in Matthew 10: 7-8: “And proclaim as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons. You received without paying; give without pay.” Churches and ministries ought to always strive to follow in the steps of the master. Conclusion God provided salvation and its attendant blessings free of charge to us. The apostles proclaimed the gospel for free and without charge. Expression of the grace of God should be evident in what any ministry does. Ministries should therefore work within their resources to ensure that their programs are not turned into fee-paying events that end up not reflecting God’s grace that has been richly poured out to the church. I REST MY CASE ON F15, FOR NOW 5 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 10:45pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
mbaemeka: lol, you guys are incredible and the more you keep evading the simple thing I asked of you the clearer it is becoming that you didn't even know that passage of scripture existed. You simply typed "Jesus didn't commit sin" on Google and began rearranging and regurgitating what some people said.Don't forget that this is where we started: ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.But you have been trying very hard to avoid responsibility for that your statement. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong in stating that Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH what you now doing is to attempt to reframe your position. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. Look again at what you said there; ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.I showed you that Jesus regarded his flesh as very IMPORTANT. Whereas you said not good enough. Maybe i should try to make it easy for you. Can you say a body (flesh) with ebola is the same as one without ebola? The same body, yes; but different in some way? In the same way can a body with sin nature be the same as one WITHOUT the sin nature? Can it be any easier? So when you say "Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH with other men" again what do you mean? If one has sin nature and the other DOES NOT HAVE sin nature can they be EXACT? Is that so hard to see? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 9:06pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
mbaemeka: I take it that like some other people that have been trolling on this thread, you get your own definitions of biblical truths from the dictionary. Because, I don't understand how SINFUL would mean full of sin when I am telling you that the construction Paul made in Greek means that Jesus wore the same flesh with SINFUL men. In other words, the flesh he had was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin, and to prove my point I gave more than 5 different translations of the same verse with all saying the same things together with other references in his writings but you cannot do same to establish your own point.Is the issue now the NUMBER of Bible passages given? You asked for my understanding of Romans 8:3 and I did, giving you portions of scripture to buttress my position. And now you come up with: “I take it that like some other people that have been trolling on this thread, you get your own definitions of biblical truths from the dictionary.” What language are you using in communicating with me? IGBO? Like I have said EARLIER words have meanings. No one therefore has the right to decide what a word means. The koine Greek used for the NT, for example, is a very exact language so when people say in that language ‘go forward’, it cannot mean something else. So when you say sinful means ‘susceptible to sin’ that is a TWISTING of the definition of the word SINFUL. Is there a dictionary for the English language? What do you use it for? HUMILITY makes for teachability. You do not seem to me to be humble enough to ADMIT your error. Instead you are making it your strong point to evade issues in whatever way you can. You may drop in another person’s name in someone else’s post hoping to bring in that person’s position into controversy and shift focus from you. You also deliberately engage in what I have described as underhand tactic. This way you cannot LEARN. Instead of just admitting that you were wrong in stating that Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH what you now doing is to attempt to reframe your position. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. When you made that initial statement did you talk about Paul’s construction of the sentence? What is the Greek construct of the sentence? Tell us clearly. For your information ‘the flesh he had was SUSCEPTIBLE to sin’ IS NOT the same as ‘SINFUL FLESH’. You cannot convince a good O level English student on this. Let me ask you this: ‘Was Adam’s flesh sinful flesh before the fall?’ Just the simple admission of ‘I’m wrong on this’ is taking you such a long time to do. Maybe it will be ‘negative confession’ and you must always be ‘positive’ even in the face of losing face. Like I’ve pointed before now also, you just think you must answer every post about you. In the process you don’t even take time to critically look at what your ‘opponents’ post. Your adrenalin just wants to rush into responding. Maybe you assume Mbaemeka MUST have the last say. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 4:51pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Trustman,If you did not bother to read the post why send me on a wild goose chase? 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 3:45pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
mbaemeka: My "trying to overemphasize the blood over other parts of his body"? This is me defending healing as part of Jesus' salvation for mankind. Hahahahaha.First did you say Jesus had a SINFUL FLESH? I need your straight answer. Romans 8:3 says: "For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh," First, notice where it started: God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. What does this mean? "For" is what is usually termed a purpose clause. It introduces the reason for what follows. God did something that mankind flesh given what had happened to it couldn't do. The flesh was tainted with sin. God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Note it did not say 'God sent his Son in the sinful flesh'. But in the 'likeness' of. Amplified Bible puts that portion like this - "Sending His own Son in the guise of sinful flesh as an offering for sin" Likeness is - akin, similar, etc. Guise is - manner, semblance, etc The context will then show us that if God has a reason for sending his Son - on account of sin - (and to deliver those who live according to the flesh) then the Son he sent cannot be an exact replica of sinful men in terms of being born with a body of sin. This is where Hebrews 7: 26 comes in: The Son took only the outward appearance of men BUT completely without sin - "Hebrews 7:26 tell us that: "For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens." Earlier Hebrews 4:15 had stated that : "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin." He is unstained by sin in any way and remained without sinning throughout his life. Jesus' unblemished body means then that first and foremost it did not have the stain of sin like every other person born through Adam and secondly remained so to completely qualify to bear mankind's sin on the cross. Not only then that he did not sin but he had a body without the sin nature. There is something in the flesh that works against God. Paul in Romans 7:25 says: " Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin." Do you notice the distinction - 'mind', 'flesh' - the immaterial then the material. So like I said Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. Trying to say sinful means "susceptible to sin" is an attempt to TWIST the meaning of the word. Jesus' body was not a sinful body. I am not saying Jesus didn't have flesh. He did. BUT I'm saying that unlike your position it was not a SINFUL FLESH. He told us he was offering it for the sin of the world. John 5:51 "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." When John says in him there is no sin that was it - spirit, soul and body no sin. 1 John 3:5: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” I've gone to some small length in giving you this. I hope it will clear the veil from your eyes. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 7:58am On Sep 28, 2014*. Modified: 1:23pm On Sep 28, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Trustman,Mbaemeka you trying to shift the focus from my position with you. That is deceitful to say the least. DO NOT place on me things I have not said. Ok? If need be paste my quote to be sure it's from me. Ok? You are answering a number of people at the same time and maybe you're getting confused as to who said what. My position is clear: You said Jesus had SINFUL FLESH but I've used scripture to show that that is impossible. He had flesh, yes but a sinful one, NO. He had no flesh of sin. Unlike our body (every other single human being) Adam's sin was not imputed to him. Therefore he was free of sin spirit, soul and body. Let me restate it again Jesus' body (I.e. His FLESH) was not a sinful flesh like you claim. He had no sin nature derived from Adam that would have tainted his flesh. I also stated that by the time he started his ministry Jesus was fully prepared for it. In other words he was SPIRITUALLY MATURED. The implications of this should be clear to anyone. DO NOT try to redefine the word SINFUL. Sinful is sinful. Sinful means has sin in one form or the other. Trying to say sinful means "susceptible to sin" is an attempt to TWIST the meaning of the word to conform to your changed position perhaps. When I mentioned integrity and you deridedly labeled me Mr. Integrity it again showed you for who you are. Instead of owning up to your wrong you are attempting to change the meaning of words. That is lack of integrity. That is deceit. That is falsehood. I am not saying Jesus didn't have flesh. He did. BUT I'm saying that unlike your position it was not a SINFUL FLESH. If it were it would not be an offering acceptable to God because it was God (not the devil as some WoF preachers claim) who required to be propitiated. And God required a PERFECT sacrifice which in the case of man's sin-bearer had to be sin-free. The major issue with man was SIN. If it is to be resolved why would anything with sin be the thing to resolve sin? Simple reasoning isn't it? Your trying to overemphasize blood over other parts of the body was again why I showed you from scripture that the flesh was equally stressed in scripture as part of the salvation work to the extent that the HOlY COMMUNION (The Lord's Supper, Eucharist, etc) the highest extant ritual(observance) in Christendom refers to the BODY of Jesus Christ. So to belittle the body is not a small matter before God. 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 10:22pm On Sep 27, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Trustman,Jesus would not offer a body of sin. That would mean offering something with defect to God. Deuteronomy 17:1 shows us that that would be unacceptable to God. Jesus’ sacrifice was accepted by God. Therefore, Jesus’ body could not be a body of sin. Flesh, yes. Susceptible to the environment, yes. BUT NOT TAINTED by the sin nature passed down to humanity by Adam. Not sinful flesh. Jesus flesh is NOT called the flesh of sin like you are stating. Also Mortal flesh; Corruption; Corruptible; Earthly ARE NOT THE SAME AS SIN. Mbaemeka, SINFUL is simple English. Sinful means: tainted with, marked by or full of sin. E.g. If you say sinful man you mean the man has and does sin. So, sinful flesh means a flesh that has sin. That would be blasphemous to say of the flesh of Jesus. Hebrews 7: 26 tell us that: “For it was indeed fitting that we should have a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens.” Notice in particular ‘unstained’ and ‘separated’. He was unaffected IN ANY WAY by sin in his Spirit, soul and body. Colossians 1: 22 tell us this: “he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him”. Again you can see what he did ‘IN HIS BODY OF FLESH’. Will you interpret this again to mean ‘not really the body but what is inside the body’? Thank God it did not just use one of the words ‘body’ or ‘flesh’ here but both. If the flesh was involved in the work of salvation why would Jesus present a ‘SINFUL BODY’ for so great our salvation? Note that, unlike the Word of Faith teaching about him being in hell and the involvement of the devil, IT WAS GOD, not the devil, that needed to be appeased for the sin of mankind. It was God that judged our sins on the cross. (The devil had nothing to do with it. He had already had his own sentence by the way – he is only fighting now to see if he can still escape the sentence). And God required a PERFECT SACRIFICE – spirit, soul and body to appease Him in respect of mankind’s sin problem. Borrowing from the error of Kenyon, WoF followers claim the Jesus had even the nature of Satan. What a blasphemy! When in the Holy Communion the Lord tells us ‘Take, eat; this is My body’ he couldn’t be offering us a sinful body (flesh) could he? And then he also went on to mention his blood. So we have BODY and BLOOD; the two, not one of them and not either or. [size=14pt]So we see in scripture a lot of emphasis on the body or flesh of Jesus. If it were ‘mere’ flesh like any one of us, why would this prominence be made of Jesus’ flesh? [/size] ON THE ISSUE OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION let me answer with this: Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding. 2 Corinthians 10:12 What is the point in comparing results; maybe I don’t understand? Is it by comparing results we would justify HEALING SCHOOLS? Lets use scripture to justify a thing rather than the other way round. 3 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 6:48pm On Sep 27, 2014*. Modified: 7:06pm On Sep 27, 2014 |
mbaemeka: I struck out the totally rubbish areas of the post as I promised. I don't know why you are telling me Jesus body was broken for the world. I never refuted that so you are spinning yourself. What does the bible mean as the defect that Jesus body was not to have?You are trying to be evasive again! Remember you were the one who said: ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. [size=14pt]He had the sinful flesh[/size] but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.And so i asked for a clear explanation of: John 5:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. [size=14pt]And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh[/size]." Answer me on this and we'll continue from there. You sure enjoy cancelling posts. Part of your tactic in attempt to do what? PS: In case you are lost let me help you with a question: Would Jesus offer a sinful flesh for the life of the world? Let me add another one: When the communion is celebrated what 2 things do the elements represent and will any of them be sinful? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 1:11pm On Sep 27, 2014*. Modified: 1:27pm On Sep 27, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Show me one that says a man is his body. Just one. Also explain the Healing gift because that is what led to Jesus' body or what not and explain why Jesus sent us to go the same way his father sent him. Also if Jesus flesh was not subject to sin then why will he be tempted like Adam. Behold, if any of us has the same body we would not sin and therefore Jesus dying on the cross was not necessary. He could have simply given us such a body. Don't you think?You Word of Faith devotees and promoters will always interpret scripture from your WoF theology. I quoted - 1 John 3:5: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” And you've been contesting it without any reasonable argument. Even in the face what others have tried to help you see, you still refuse to accept that you are wrong. Apparently you did not even bother to refer to the Romans passages I referred you to. Instead you make snide remarks. Why it is hard for you to see that Jesus had to be WITHOUT DEFECT spirit, soul and body (flesh) I do not know. Unless you may have seen it from our presentations here BUT you do not want to admit you were wrong. You are not to conform the written Word to your theology or 'revelation' of your Man of God. You should first seek a clear understanding of the Word. Please see the following portion of John and I ask for your clear explanation in line with your view of Jesus' flesh: John 5:51 "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever.[size=14pt] And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh."[/size] A person with the gift of healing should exercise the gift. Does he have to first teach others 'faith' before his GIFT becomes effective? After all it a 'gift' which he already has, isn't it ? Will a person with any other gift, like say, helps, first teach others what the gift is all about before he can use his gift? Show me where Jesus took people WHO NEEDED HEALING through a one week session before healing them. No inferences please. This will settle it for me and I'm sure many others on the authenticity of healing schools. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Word Of Faith - The Movement's Doctrine And Proponents by trustman(op): 11:02am On Sep 27, 2014 |
shdemidemi: Wow!!!I agree. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 1:13am On Sep 27, 2014 |
mbaemeka: TrustmanRead the entire Romans 7 and then go back and start from chapter 6 to eight then we'll see later. Hope you do. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 10:55pm On Sep 26, 2014 |
mbaemeka I can't believe what I am reading. This is coming from you with all the goofs so far?Like has been pointed out you just refuse to admit when you are wrong. You ask for scripture and I give you, only for you to either ignore them or switch to some other one. What do you understand by what Paul is saying here? - In Romans 7:17 & 18: “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. …” Please note his words carefully - ‘in me’ and he went to say ‘that is, in my flesh’ so that it will be clear what ‘in me’ is referring to. Maybe you will see how this relates to 1 John 3:5. Leviticus 17:14New King James Version (NKJV)I have refrained from responding to issues which will shift focus away from the emphasis of this thread but you just keep on bringing up unnecessary matters and argument like these: “The life of the Body is the BLOOD” – so what? Does the blood flow in the body to give it life? Will the blood give the kind of life it has to the body it flows in? Does the Bible say our flesh is sinful; that we have the body of sin? Does the same apply to Jesus’ body according to 1 John 3:5? Jesus’ body did not have the sin nature every other member of the human race has. Therefore his physical body was without sin. Trying to use ‘blood’ and ‘spirit’ to wriggle out of your predicament wouldn’t do it. Instead of retracting your error you want find a way round it. That is not integrity. So to you it is trash to say that Jesus’ miracles were part of what was to showcase him as the Messiah. So to you it is trash that accepting him as savior is more important than physical healing. So to you it is trash that whereas Jesus left no mandate for the establishment of HEALING SCHOOLS, mbaemeka and his Word of Faith devotees feel that they are at liberty to establish them because physical healing receives top billing in God’s scheme of things than the salvation of souls. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 2:28pm On Sep 26, 2014 |
Bidam: Was Jesus flesh subject to corruptionI responded to what you wrote. Why can't you people admit when you're wrong? Instead you come up with something to direct attention away from your error to something else. You said Mbaemeka did not say Jesus' body was sinful. I showed you his post. At the least say you are wrong then we can go on from there. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 2:17pm On Sep 26, 2014 |
Bidam: My intial post answered your queries, like your friend trustman you love going in a roundabout manner to say the same thing..Don't waste my time if you have nothing tangible to say. Mbaemeka: 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 1:59pm On Sep 26, 2014*. Modified: 2:23pm On Sep 26, 2014 |
mbaemeka: Let me prove to you that your interpretation of 1 John 3:5 to mean Jesus body had no sin or was different is not just blatantly wrong but also a lie. We can proceed to see that he said "whoever abides in him DOES NOT sin" vv.6 "whoever sins has neither seen him vv.6b (which means Peter didn't see the body of Jesus because Peter denied him). Whoever has been born of God DOES NOT sin vv.9 and he CANNOT sin because he has been born of God vv.9b (which means Peter wasn't born of God and Adam wasn't born of God either for they both sinned).You always feel you must be right and everyone else wrong. You hate to admit defeat. You hate to say you’re wrong instead you attempt to steer the discourse away from your position of error to something else. I like Olaadegbu’s post intending to sort out issues for you. But even Olaadegbu’s clear explanation was still contested by you. Paul dealt extensively with the issue of SIN in the book of Romans. In Romans 7:17 & 18 for instance we have: “So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. …” It is clear here about the depravity of the FLESH as a result of sin indwelling it. If Jesus therefore had a SINFUL FLESH, like you claim, he will be no different from any one of us – depraved and unqualified to be mankind’s sin bearer. Thank God he did not possess a sinful flesh. Have you ever noted Paul’s reference to the flesh with regards to sin indwelling it? What does this tell you? Now, look at your own interpretation of 1 John 3:5 – Your interpretation is wrong! When that verse said in him was no sin it was saying Jesus spirit had no sin (hence IN HIM), Jesus blood had no sin (IN HIM). That's why he went further to say he DID NOT sin too. And not that his flesh was any different.So to you ‘in him’ refer to only his spirit and blood. Where you got that from I cannot begin to imagine. How did you begin to single out ‘spirit’ and ‘blood’? What an interpreter! So to you it is nonsense to say that Jesus’ miracles were part of what was to showcase him as the Messiah. To you it is nonsense that accepting him as savior is more important than physical healing. To you it is nonsense that whereas Jesus left no mandate for the establishment of HEALING SCHOOLS, mbaemeka and his Word of Faith devotees feel that they are at liberty to establish them because physical healing receives top billing in God’s scheme of things than the salvation of souls. PS: Maybe you have no response to what i wrote. All you could have done was to admit defeat. 4 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 9:15am On Sep 26, 2014 |
mbaemekaSo you’ve turned into a trickster? Well done. And you keep making statements to cover up your deficiencies. If there is any question you asked me that I evaded please bring them to my knowledge so I can respond. I won't go back and forth with you to discuss very very clear scriptures that need no extra interpretation.The 1 Peter 2: 24 I quoted was to make you see that “he bore our sins in his body on the tree” because he qualified to do that as a result of (1) having no sinful flesh, and (2) living a life free of sin and fulfilling the Father’s plan. Do you get it now? As the true reality of the Old Testament animal sacrifices (Deut. 17:1) he had to be WITHOUT DEFECT. In his case (Jesus) sin in whatever form would be a defect. If his body was as you said: He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless bloodthat sinful flesh will be a defect. As per THE WORD that was made FLESH let me repeat myself again maybe by chance you would catch it this time. The scriptures didn't say JESUS was made FLESH. It said the WORD (GOD) was made FLESH. The WORD (GOD) was made a HUMAN BEING and the HUMAN BEING was called Jesus. Do you get it now?The Jews who heard his statements clearly understood what he was saying. Go back and look at their reactions and ask yourself why they reacted the way did. He was in effect telling them 'I that I'm standing before you I am GOD' Can anything be clearer than this passage I quoted? – 1 John 3:5 “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” Like I said if you are telling us that Jesus had sinful flesh you are contradicting scripture. Vooks went further to state that “Teaching that Jesus flesh was blemished BUT his blood wasn’t is heretical” Look again at the questions I posed: where does the blood flow? Out of the body or inside the body? Related to every cell of the body or separated from them? Let me add one more: what supplies replenished oxygen from the lungs to the cells? In simple terms correctly answering these questions will make you see that you cannot make the separation you are trying very hard to do between body and blood. Stop with your ridiculous claims that are bereft of scriptural backing. There are 2 types of flesh: a mortal one and an immortal one. The mortal is called Corruption or corruptible while the latter is called Incorruption or Incorruptible. So which did Jesus come in? Let us start from there. I expect you to evade this question and then tell me again that he was the lamb of God as if anyone is arguing that. What Jesus used to cleanse sin was his blood and that was what had no sin. Please give me 1 scripture- just 1 saying Jesus' flesh was any different from the corruptible flesh that all men have. I will wait. Besides, what SIN would a lamb have, to be disqualified as a means of atonement in the OT? Did Jesus body not get badly beaten and scourged? Is that not a defect? The defect that lambs were not to have were PHYSICAL for no lamb could have SIN defects (how would the lamb sin? Lol). And this was a SHADOW of the zero ACTS of PHYSICAL sin that Jesus would manifest in the FLESH so as to present his badly battered body worthy of a lamb to be used as the sin-offering.Jesus had a PERFECT sin free mortal body. A big difference his body had from the flesh all men have is that like you see from 1 John 3:5 his body had no sin. Mbaemeka don’t behave like a primary one pupil who still has to taught so much. The Old Testament was a SHADOW of the reality. The things there were REPRESENTATIVE ANALOGIES of what was to come. Why would you go on to ask ‘What SIN would a lamb have, to be disqualified as a means of atonement in the OT?’ As the animals were to be without defect in themselves so any man that would qualify to be the sin bearer of mankind had to be without sin through and through – no sin in his body plus no acts of sin. No offense, but that spin on taking his life and raising it according to John 10 is dumb even for someone like you. Jesus already said he had overcome the world in John 17 and he said a man could receive eternal life by believing in him in John 6 & 10. He was talking faith for none of these had happened or could occur until he died. Faith is the confidence that what you expect is real. (Keyword- what you EXPECT). So try again. What did Jesus mean by greater miracles? Raising Lazarus from the dead and raising himself which was greater?Any miracle was possible for Jesus, any miracle small or big, great, greater or greatest; any miracle was possible for Jesus from the start of his ministry to the end. He was FULLY PREPARED at the start of his ministry to do ALL that he had to do. He was not ‘improving’ as his ministry went on. It was the people who needed to see him for who he was. Miracles only served a veritable tool to make people see him as the Savior. Accepting him as that (Savior) was more important than physical healing. That is why he never organized nor gave directive for his disciples to organize so called HEALING SCHOOLS. 3 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 11:32pm On Sep 25, 2014 |
mbaemekaI hope you realize that I asked you a number of questions which you deliberately ignored. Then you quote scripture BUT end up reading your meaning into each and every portion you pick. In responding (because you think you have to make a point) you evade pertinent issues raised by me and instead bring up other things to perhaps shift focus away from things you cannot handle. You are asking for Bible passages, behaving like the Pharisees who were asking Jesus for signs before they would accept him as Messiah. I’m sure many of your friends have seen that you have goofed big time hence the advice to you by them to cut down on your writing. You WoF people deify man and reduce the humanity of Jesus Christ to your level so to claim equality with him. Here I am quoting scriptures while you are there giving me conjectures. Why not just quote the scriptures and let them interprete themselves as usual.Jesus Christ was sin free in his flesh. – John 1: 14: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth” - 1 John 3:5: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” - 1 Peter 2:24: “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.” Look again at your statement: Romans 8:3 says God sent his son in the verisimilitude of SINFUL FLESH. Simple English Mbaemaka, when something is ‘similar to’ does it necessarily make it EXACTLY LIKE? Secondly, where does the blood flow? Out of the body or inside the body? Related to every cell of the body or separated from them? I assure you that you do not want me to teach you the biology of Jesus’ conception because you will be lost. 2. John 20:23 answers you clearly on Man's ability to forgive sins committed against GOD. He told his disciples if they forgave any man's sins the man is forgiven and if they retained his sins he would not be forgiven. Simple and clear.- By what power can a man forgive the sins another man commits against God? 3. The word pre-existed Abraham of course. That same word was at the beginning in the bosom of the father 1 John 1:2. That same word became flesh and was born by a woman, Mary. That word made flesh was called Jesus.Do you now understand that that same Word in becoming flesh was something unique? The one who pre-existed Abraham is the one that became flesh and dwelt among us and his glory was seen; the glory as of THE ONLY SON from the Father. Do these words mean anything to you? 4. ANYONE born from God is a son of God. 1John 3:1. So any human being is as much a son of God as Jesus was but the Jews didn't know that.Two terms were used in talking about Jesus – Son of God and Son of Man. These two terms were not just thrown about in referring to anyone. When Jesus called himself Son of God the Jews who apparently understood him better than you KNEW what he was stating. John 5:8 – “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” They clearly understood what he was saying – claiming equality with God. If like you claim the Jews didn’t know anyone born of God can call himself a son of God why did the writer not say so? See again John 1:14. This Son of God was UNIQUE. 5. Being born again means to come from above. Genneth anothen in Greek. How did Jesus come from above? He was the word made flesh same way any man that is born again is born from the same word that lives and abides forever 1 Peter 1:23You again display your shallow understanding. Who gets ‘born again’? A person who was conceived in iniquity and has Adam’s sin imputed on him or the uniquely born one who has no sin in him? If you are claiming that Jesus was born again by coming from above does any man who is born again today come from above in the sense that Jesus did? 6. Stop making daft relations between the biblical statement that Jesus had a flesh subject to sin (sinful flesh) and one that says he didn't sin in his flesh. Jesus' flesh was a mortal/sinful one like any man's but Jesus didn't sin. Also he had spotless blood. That's why he is different from any other man bar Adam.Jesus had ‘flesh’, in other words the same physical body we have BUT the BIG difference is that his flesh did not have the sin nature that every other human inherited from Adam. There is a difference here which I hope you can see. Flesh, yes, but sin, no. If he had a sinful flesh he will not qualify to be the lamb without blemish. He was PERFECT HUMANITY. It was this flesh in which there is NO SIN that qualifies to represent mankind before God. The flesh – Jesus' flesh – had no sin. - 1 John 3:5: “You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.” Note 'in him there is no sin'. Deuteronomy 17:1 tells us that any animal that was to be sacrificed to God must not have any blemish or any defect whatever. For Jesus to qualify therefore he had to be without ANY DEFECT WHATEVER. Sinful flesh would be a defect. So if you are telling us that Jesus had sinful flesh you are contradicting scripture. 7. If you don't know the growth stages in the life of the born again man just ask politely and I will teach you. The grown man (fathers) in Christ doesn't sin and he cannot sin. I know they have not taught you that in wherever you worship but it is in scripture. What do you have to say about 1John 3:9 and then compare it with 1 John 1: 8-10 that you initially referred me to.Congrats on this your ‘revelation’! 9. Stop giving me chaff about the miracles he did and answer the question for once. Which miracle was greater between raising Lazarus from the dead and Jesus raising himself from the dead?On the irrelevant question on raising Lazarus look at this: John 10:17,18 – “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father” At what point in his ministry did he make this claim? After he raised Lazarus? So you can see that your question was dead on arrival. He could have raised himself from the dead (like I noted before other members of the Godhead were also involved) even before he raised anyone from the dead. He was not progressively improving in his miracle working abilities like you want to make us believe. If your pastor has sold you this to justify his own state, tell him it’s not in scripture. As per HS's you have no case. HS's teach about salvation and demonstrate it. The healing is part of the salvation (soteria).Jesus primary purpose of presenting his miracle-credentials was to point to himself as the saviour. He was not going about performing miracles for miracles sake. That is why he never organized people in any HEALING SCHOOL. It was MORE IMPORTANT to have them believe on him as the Messiah than to have physical healing. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 4:21am On Sep 24, 2014 |
[mbaemeka] The issue with you is that you are using your WoF ‘theology’ to interpret scriptures. As a result even when you contradict yourself and scripture you do not see it. ha ha ha ha. Go and ask a medical doctor: a baby receives his body (flesh) from his mother but receives his blood from his father. That was why Jesus got conceived by his father- God. He had the sinful flesh but he had sinless blood. The phrase "lamb without blemish" refers to the BLOOD of the lamb and not the flesh for if it were about the flesh then Jesus' badly blemished flesh wouldn't have been good enough.LOOK at what you said earlier: In typical Trustman style you keep recycling the same issues and giving your own interpretations of my statements then giving your purported "correct" interpretations regardless of how ridden with contradictions they are. For instance, I have maintained all through that Jesus (the man) was unique in that he had a SINLESS SPIRIT and SINLESS BLOOD but his FLESH was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin.You said: ‘His flesh was a sinful one’ When John the Baptist said ‘Behold the lamb of God’, he knew what he was saying. When the people heard ‘the lamb of God’ they understood what John meant. They knew from their various sacrifices what the lamb should be – without defect. When therefore John made that statement he knew EXACTLY what he meant. In order for a (ANY MAN) man to pay the price for sin's redemption, he or she must be sinless. If Jesus had sin IN ANY FORM he would have himself required a saviour. Why did God tell our first parents about “the seed of the woman”? BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY THAT WAY THAT HE (THE SEED) WILL BYPASS ADAM’S SIN. In talking about sin here it’s not about physical acts of sin but first and foremost the sin nature. Romans 5:12,13 – “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given …” Notice here, ALL SINNED. The little baby born this second is as much a sinner as the adult who has committed thousands of physical and mental acts of sin. So if you claim Jesus’ flesh was a sinful one where did that theology come from? If he is partaker of flesh and blood like we are from the portion you quoted how did you come to separate flesh as sinful and blood as sinless(?) ? Thrash. The nature (Spirit) of the born-again man is RIGHTEOUS. What we are told to subject is our flesh and mind as they are not born-again.Have you heard or come across the terms positional, experiential, imputed, etc as used in referring issues relating to our salvation? When God declares us righteous in Christ NO physical change happens to us. But God regards us as that in Christ. That is why we are to work at reflecting the new thing God has done for us. The ultimate CHANGE is still in the future. I ask you the question again: ‘how can a mere man forgive another of the sin he committed against God?’ Jesus did not say before Abraham I was- that would have meant Pre-existence. He said before Abraham "I AM". He was referring to the WORD when he was in the bosom of the father. The word is GOD, Jesus on earth didn't function as him. He FUNCTIONED as a Man even though he was God.Let me use your words, and ask : did the WORD pre-exist Abraham? John recorded somethings to show that Jesus is the Christos- the anointed one; the anointed one of God; the sent one; the messiah. He didn't say to show he was God. Besides, Jesus commissioned those who believe to do greater works and function the same way God sent him. Hear Nicodemus: "for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him"In John 20:31 – what does the term “the Son of God’ mean? What do you think the hearers understood by it? Jesus never FUNCTIONED as God even though he was legally. I am from above too; I am not of this world. Anyone who is born-again is born from above.Mbaemeka, being born from above does not equate to being ‘from above’; does it? Barnabas, Paul, Peter, Phillip etc. were full of the Spirit. Paul told us in Ephesians about being full and filled of the Spirit.Jesus had the Holy Spirit without measure in a flesh that was unstained by ‘sin’. Does any other person match this? There is no single example of a man who functioned like Jesus did. If you know of any show me. There is none because he was unique. He was different. So yes, we are sent by him into the world but we must not think we are by that appointment equal with him. It would be stupidity to equate ourselves with one who received the Holy Spirit without measure. ha ha ha ha! Who is John writing to? John was writing to babes- carnal/ sin-conscious Christians. Not Young men or Fathers. The fathers are those that are righteousness-conscious.So just as ‘man of god’ is different from ‘preacher’ babes, carnal and sin sin-conscious (whatever that means) Christians live by one aspect of the Bible while ‘fathers’ are in a class of their own, abi? Don’t let us go into areas that shift our focus on this discourse, please! Thrash! If you disbelieve the person you disbelieve the authority that he functions in. Jesus said "those who receive a Prophet would receive the reward of a Prophet". That is why those who didn't see him as a Prophet (E.g Nazareth) didn't have faith to receive mighty miracles from him.As usual you WoF devotees pick a word – faith – look for where it appears and then attempt to fix it together to make your point. It does not work that way. 1. officially sanctioned or recognized."a formal complaint" synonyms: official, legal, authorized, approved, validated, certified, endorsed, documented, sanctioned, licensed, recognized, authoritative, accepted, verified, legitimate, lawful, valid, bona fide, proper, prescribed, pro-formaGo and look at John 5:26. if you understand a little bit of Christology you’ll know that If Jesus had gone to the cross before raising Lazarus he could still raise himself. You must know that the other members of the Godhead were also involved. The issue of salvation was important to one of them as it was to all. You actually LIMIT Jesus when you say: “The ability of Jesus to heal anyone is embedded in the person's ability to believe Jesus”. They did not have faith in Jesus as the Messiah. He came to his own but his own DID NOT RECEIVE HIM. His primary purpose of presenting his miracle-credentials was to point to himself as the saviour. He was not going about performing miracles for miracles sake. That is why he never organized people in any HEALING SCHOOL. It was MORE IMPORTANT to have them believe on him as the Messiah than to have physical healing. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 8:11pm On Sep 23, 2014 |
mbaemeka In typical Trustman style you keep recycling the same issues and giving your own interpretations of my statements then giving your purported "correct" interpretations regardless of how ridden with contradictions they are. For instance, I have maintained all through that Jesus (the man) was unique in that he had a SINLESS SPIRIT and SINLESS BLOOD but his FLESH was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin.It has been said that repetition makes for better understanding. So bear with me. Maybe repetitions will make my points clearer to you . When you said about Jesus that “his flesh was a sinful one” you just directly claim that he was not qualified to be our sin-bearer. This is absolutely INCORRECT. The reason why he was born without the involvement of any male in the first place was to ENSURE that his flesh will have no sin. Adam’s sin, which is the basis of our sin nature or ‘flesh’ as some portions of scripture put it, had no place in the humanity of Jesus. He was born PERFECT just as Adam was created perfect and without sin. As a physical human being he would experience all that ‘flesh’ would experience and the things that will normally affect ‘flesh’. He was also subject to temptation. Quickly note here that even creatures without ‘flesh’ (angels) were also subject to temptation. If his flesh was a sinful one he could not be said to be the lamb without blemish. Recall that in the OT the animals for sacrifices had to be without any defect. I also told you repeatedly that the miracles he wrought were not as a result of his blood or spirit but they were as a result of the HOLY SPIRIT that was within him (his sinful/ mortal flesh). For this very fact any man that is born into this world with a mortal flesh like Jesus will be able to do the same miracles he did if he has the HOLY SPIRIT within like Jesus did. It doesn't matter how much you say SINFUL NATURE in relation to mankind or in contrast with Jesus. SINFUL NATURE refers to the SPIRIT of the unregenerate man and not his FLESH. When a man becomes Born again he receives a NEW NATURE that is now SINLESS like Jesus' and he receives the HOLY SPIRIT that enables the miracles to happen so men have as much claim to the miraculous and Jesus said so belaboredly.When a man is born again the divine ‘surgery’ takes place in his inside, not the flesh. If our new nature, like you said, is now sinless then there would be no need for the several instructions in the NT to stay away from sin, to confess sin, to put off the ‘old man’ and several others. Apostle Paul documents this in the book of Romans and elsewhere. Putting all that here will extend this presentation. That Jesus forgave sin isn't anything to behold his Deity from. I told you he made claims to his deity without FUNCTIONING as deity. Jesus said he forgave sins to show that the SON OF MAN could forgive sins and not that GOD could forgive sins (which everyone knows including Pharisees). Jesus also gave us the right to forgive any man's sins just like he did. It is not a big deal. Stop cherry-picking words in a style that doesn't show scriptural maturity. When Jesus died and resurrected he became the one to REMOVE sins and not just forgive sins which any christian can do. This clearly shows the world of class between the man and the GOD.On forgiveness of sin. Who did mankind offend? God. Who should man seek forgiveness from? God. Who then should forgive man? God. When therefore you have a Man claiming to forgive sin what can anyone make of that? The Pharisees clearly understood this when they made some of the statements they made about him blaspheming and the like. They knew what the man Jesus was DOING. So to them the issue was ‘how can a mere man forgive sin?’ Maybe I should ask you the same question: ‘how can a mere man forgive another of the sin he committed against God?’ Jesus didn't say before Abraham I was. He said before Abraham "I AM". If the Jews understood him to mean he was saying he pre-existed Abraham they would have laughed him off as a mad man seeing that they knew he was just 33. But for him to say I AM he was making a claim to his deity as the WORD of God that was in the bosom of the father when he appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Again this is Jesus making a claim to his deity and NOT FUNCTIONING as one.The Jews were too serious about their spiritual issues to laugh at things that come against what they believed. When Jesus said ‘I Am’ they knew he was saying that he is Yahweh. That is why you see their reaction of trying to stone him. Now did Yahweh pre-exist Abraham; even greater than Abraham? Again in John 1:10 like all the verses above it was John explaining Jesus' CLAIM to deity and not his FUNCTIONS because he never once functioned as GOD while on earth. He only made claims and I have said that so many times it is baffling that you continue to pretend that it is flying over you. Besides, John was describing the WORD in the beginning of his book because he was trying to set the precedence before stating that that WORD was what was made FLESH and dwelled amongst us. Again proving me right that JESUS was flesh and functioned as one because Jesus is the WORD that became FLESH and John wrote this AFTER Jesus had died and resurrected.Ask yourself one question: ‘Why did John record Jesus’ miracles – to show that other men (Christians now?) can do the same, or to establish his (Jesus’) deity?’ what do we find in John 20: 30 – 31. Colossians 2 or any of Paul's writings would not help your case so there's no need mentioning them. The books are very clear. Jesus is the first born from the dead; who died on the cross and brought us into oneness with God. If Jesus was functioning as God while on earth he would not have died or be referred to as the first born from the dead. If Jesus was functioning as God he would not be described as the first creation for GOD cannot be created. The word which was in God was released on earth to become a man named Jesus. That man died on the cross and was raised. He became the first born from the dead as a result and was elevated to a status that the WORD had at the beginning of the creation- God. His name was exalted too as a result and he was given ALL AUTHORITY IN HEAVEN AND ON EARTH AND EVEN UNDERNEATH THE EARTH and Jesus told his disciples when this happened- after the resurrection.What I’m getting at with you is that when the WORD became FLESH he DID NOT cease to exist as the second person of the Godhead. He did not also exist as a separate entity from the humanity of Jesus. The two did not come together AFTER the resurrection. The two coexisted in the humanity of Jesus Christ. John 8: 23 – “He said to them, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world” The man standing in front of them was telling them 'I am from above'! Jesus was as different as Adam and only just because both men had sinless spirits and blood at conception even though their flesh was subject to sin. While Adam failed by subjecting himself to sin, Jesus won by not doing so. Jesus had to be as much man as Adam was given that he was going to represent the same men that Adam initially represented. After Jesus resurrected he gave the new men (formed after him) the right to act in his authority and receive the same Spirit he received without measure just like him. In fact, it would be outright stupidity to reject the instructions he gave us "to go in his authority" saying that he was unique and only him could function that way. When he himself has already told you he is sending you the same way his father sent him.If you claim to have the Holy Spirit without measure like Jesus did, congratulation! Maybe you need to look at the issue of hamartiology A born again man doesn't have A SIN NATURE. For what makes a man's nature is the SPIRIT that he has and the born again man has been created in RIGHTEOUSNESS. But Just like Jesus we have a mortal flesh that can sin and Paul told us to bring it under subjection.Then you make 1 John 1: 8, 10 a LIE. “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” “If we say have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us” Or maybe it’s the other way round. Were the Corinthians born again? Did they exhibit carnality? As per progressively doing miracles you don't need to see it given that you may have not studied the scriptures well. I have put the verses showing Jesus saying exactly that- that the Holy spirit will show him GREATER miracles than the one's the Jews had already seen at the point, so that they would marvel. If you have a better interpretation of the verse please show us here.Mark 6: 5 clearly tells us that Jesus marveled because of their unbelief. Now unbelief how? Again like I repeatedly said, context is important. Looking at earlier discourse in that portion it is clear that it was about his person that the issue is, not about their ‘faith’ for miracles. I am not ADDING to anything in showing you the commission he gave to us. For whatever he said in Matthew 28 was the same thing Mark 16 was referring to. The gospel of Jesus is that he has saved mankind from SIN and the consequences of it. Sickness is one of the consequences of sin and healing schools help people receive the healing that Jesus salvation wrought for them. That's why Jesus told his disciples to wait in Jerusalem first before going about to preach the gospel. He knew the gospel required more than words- it also required the demonstration of the power. In Acts 1:8 Jesus said when they received the Holy Spirit they will now receive the POWER to be effective witnesses for him around the world. Paul who came into the scene much later taught the same things: that he didn't only preach with words he also demonstrated the power in the gospel. And even today (just like the early church) we are to preach the gospel with the same power and even more. That is what Healing Schools are meant for.I hope you what the meaning of ‘formal’ is. If you do then you will know that all you wrote here is chaff. Healing schools are not church services or crusades where salvation is majorly preached even though salvation messages are preached in healing schools. Healing schools are even held in periods at the leading of the spirit of God and are less frequent than normal church services. As for messages of the gospel they are taught regularly in church services to those who have already received it and are on course to grow. So those who didn't get sent by God should mind their businesses and leave those who actually were sent to do what God asked them to do.Like i said previously: There is a difference between him and us because we continue to have the sin nature which he never did. I still do not see anything in scripture that talks about doing miracles progressively. Maybe the WoF advocates use this to justify their inability to do certain things at any point in their ministry. Maybe you should show me clearly. Again because Jesus did not heal all DOES NOT mean he did not have the ABILITY to heal all. The two are different. You are ADDING to what Jesus stated in Matthew 28:18-20 when you include healing schools in it. Please show me where that is included in that passage. Jesus' miracles were not formally arranged. It did not take those healed days or weeks to be healed as a result of their needing to increase their faith to be healed. Healing schools are the OPPOSITE of this. To that extent they run in direct contrast to how Jesus FUNCTIONED. Because the soul is more important than the body the overemphasis on healing schools turns the priority upside down as it focuses more on the physical than on the soul. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 12:05am On Sep 23, 2014 |
mbaemeka: The key thing God wanted us to understand from there is that Jesus is the Christ and that is how unique the man, Jesus was. There's no need to argue the scriptures because it turns what you believed on it's head. That verse that said he descended from heaven didn't say Jesus descended from heaven for he didn't. Jesus was born by Mary. The word was what descended from heaven and made a form in Mary's womb and was born a human being (100%) .... ..... .......Note this again carefully, a man born WITHOUT the old sin nature CANNOT be the same as one born with the sin nature. That is the main reason why Jesus was not conceived with the involvement of any man (male species of the human race). So his humanity was different from that of any other person. As the 'lamb without blemish' he not only lived a sin-free life but was in the first place without the imputation of Adam's sin which each and every other human possesses. If you think that this does not make him unique then I wonder if you understand the issue of total depravity of man and that of sin and its effect on man and creation. By living a sin-free life Jesus in a sense overcame the world. By his work (note 'WORK') on the cross he won a strategic victory. Yes Jesus was a man yet he lived a life different from any other man because he had no sin nature, used his will to the maximum to please the Father and fulfilled ALL that was required if him. No man can truly claim all these. It appears to me that you choose to interpret Jesus' words the way you please. Jesus did things while on earth that only God can do. He forgave sin. Was he doing this as a mere man? When: "58 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.(John eight) was he saying that in the flesh he existed before Abraham or talking about his deity. If he only presented himself as a man would this statement make sense? When John 1: 10 tell us "He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him." was it the humanity of Jesus that was in the world that made the world? Is it not clear here that it was the creator of the world that was in the world? If it was just a mere human that was in the world wouldn't this statement be wrong? Colossians 2:9 states it as it is how you now interpret it to mean that it wasn't referring to Jesus while here on earth I don't know. Keep in mind again what I have been saying Jesus was the God-man, a union of true humanity and Undiminished deity in one person. He voluntarily RESTRICTED the independent use of his deity. But while in flesh everything about his deity remained. For example he was still holding the universe together. There is no single example of a man who functioned like Jesus did. If you know of any show me. There is none because he was unique. He was different. So yes, we are sent by him into the world but we must not think we are by that appointment equal with him. It would be stupidity to equate ourselves with one who received the Holy Spirit without measure. There is a difference between him and us because we continue to have the sin nature which he never did. I still do not see anything in scripture that talks about doing miracles progressively. Maybe the WoF advocates use this to justify their inability to do certain things at any point in their ministry. Maybe you should show me clearly. Again because Jesus did not heal all DOES NOT mean he did not have the ABILITY to heal all. The two are different. You are ADDING to what Jesus stated in Matthew 28:18-20 when you include healing schools in it. Please show me where that is included in that passage. Jesus' miracles were not formally arranged. It did not take those healed days or weeks to be healed as a result of their needing to increase their faith to be healed. Healing schools are the OPPOSITE of this. To that extent they run in direct contrast to how Jesus FUNCTIONED. Because the soul is more important than the body the overemphasis on healing schools turns the priority upside down as it focuses more on the physical than on the soul. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 7:34am On Sep 22, 2014 |
mbaemeka: I beseech you to study any verse(s) thoroughly before showing them to me as I may understand them better than you do. It is not a statement of pride. I am merely stating another fact. For example, In the Book of John 3 that you referenced in your post I want you to observe the verseI think you are the one not looking at the portions of scripture well. Since you are well versed in scripture you must KNOW that earlier manuscripts either have or omit some of words or phrases found in the King James version of the Bible. That said, the key issue I wanted you to see in those verses is that the man Jesus was both God and man in one person. There was no loss or mixture of separate identity, the union being UNIQUE. Who came from or descended from heaven? Was that person residing in the humanity of Christ? When you try to explain 'come from above' to mean 'born again' are you saying Jesus was 'born again'? What of the phrase 'he who descended from heaven'; is that clear enough? Like I've said before now, context is important. You can't just take a verse and then tell me you cross-reference it with what Paul said when he went to heaven. These are two ENTIRELY different persons. One was born WITHOUT the sin nature plus deity resided in him (For in Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form- Col. 2:9) the other only a man. The one is 'as the Father' (John 5:26) the other is as other men. The one - Jesus Christ - gives eternal life, Paul never laid claim to that. Was it the humanity of Christ that would lay claim to giving eternal life or his deity? Obviously his deity. Was this statement after his resurrection? What do you make of this:"28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."(John 10) So do away with thinking that Jesus was like any other man. Those who understood him knew what he meant when he made some of those exceptional statements. Now if I quote Hebrews 1 you will end up telling me the 'Son' there refers to Jesus NoW. Maybe you need to look at portion to see that 'the Son' had deity in him. Also we DO NOT have the same 'glory' like Jesus Christ. See 1 John 3:2 If you think that the ministry of the Holy Spirit in a PERFECT HUMANITY can be NO DIFFERENT from that in any other human then something is wrong. That we can see what appears to be progression in Jesus' miracles is not enough for you to claim that it was because he was 'growing' his faith to do greater miracles. I see no justification for that. If such were the case it would only be because it was for the benefit of the people and not because he was unable to do what may be termed a 'greater' miracle at any point in time in his ministry. The Holy Spirit's work in the ministry of Jesus was not a trial by error thing. John 14: 12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father." What does Jesus mean by "works"? Like I have emphasized, by the time Jesus started his ministry he was FULLY PREPARED. When you say: "The salvation message of God includes the truth that God has healed us and want's us well- and that is what healing schools are for besides, all those that have a healing school got their instructions from God himself. " Do you understand that salvation from sin is greater than physical healing? Do you know that Jesus could but did not heal all? Do you know Jesus in His mandate for believers was "Go and preach the GOSPEL" and not set up HEALING SCHOOLS? We should focus on that which was Jesus' focus. His major focus was to fulfill the plan for mankind's salvation. Healings were therefore a secondary part of his ministry. They were added to show or prove that he was who he said he was. So then, Healings should not be given the prominence over the salvation message as HEALING SCHOOLS have become. 2 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 7:20am On Sep 21, 2014 |
mbaemeka: The man Jesus was legally God but vitally man. The reality of his deity was only consummated at his resurrection prior to which he was only functioning as a man.Like I pointed before now I want to keep our discussion in focus, otherwise we would have to be treating so many issues. It may be difficult to persuade you that Jesus did not shut off his deity while here on earth short of quoting him directly say so. Nevertheless look at these: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man." John 3:13 "He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all." John 3: 31. John 17:10 All mine are yours, and yours are mine, and I am glorified in them. In all these we see that the man Jesus is above all mere mortals. In his humanity Jesus' deity was still fulfilling Col. 1: 17 and Col. 2: 9 Undiminished deity and true humanity were inseparably united in one person. When in John 3: 34 we read "For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure." it is clear that the impartation of the Holy Spirit to Jesus was complete. His power to perform miracles was at the FULLEST from day ONE. He did not need to 'exercise' his faith to cause it to grow and enable him perform miracles from one small degree to a greater degree as his faith grew. By the time he started his ministry he had all that was necessary to perform ANY kind of miracle. Collectively as his church we can do greater than he did, like for example reaching more people with the gospel than he did. As individuals ? That's another story. Recognize that to start with he had no old sin nature so the ministry of the Holy Spirit in his life and ministry was like in no other life. This fact alone, in this preceding sentence, means that no man today can function like Jesus did. That is why he is the only one in all the universe who qualified to be 'the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world'. His major focus was to fulfill the plan for mankind's salvation. Healings were therefore a secondary part of his ministry. They were added to show or prove that he was who he said he was. So then, Healings should not be given the prominence over the salvation message as HEALING SCHOOLS have become. 4 Likes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Truth Behind Christ Embassy Healing School By Sir John by trustman: 11:18pm On Sep 19, 2014 |
mbaemeka: The man Jesus was appointed heir of all things. He didn't always possess all things for he didn't exist as Jesus. He existed as the word.Attending to other issues has delayed my response which I really wanted to give before now. To bring issues into focus I will concentrate on key things pertaining to where we started from. Was the man Jesus the God-man or was he just like any one of us? I believe this is the core issue. Looked at from another perspective the question could be asked in another way - did the man Jesus become God only after the resurrection? What brings things into clarity is what I have brought out earlier - the Hypostatic union - God and true humanity IN ONE PERSON. When you said 'He died and resurrected but this time became GOD with a human body' I believe this summarizes your position. The implication of this your position then is that if he was a MERE man and as it were 'developed' himself (growing in knowledge, increasing in faith, etc) to the point of performing the miracles he did then ANY ONE of us who can do the same (develop himself) can equally perform the same miracles. I believe that is why you made such statements as: "Jesus could do no single miracle till he received the Holy Spirit at age 30. Until then any attributes of divinity like his prodigious wisdom at age 12 were purely coincidental." and "Jesus functioned 100 percent as a man. He did so to show that what he could do, other men could... ...." •••BTW, could Jesus have had a 'private' ministry before his public ministry? Why did Mary request Jesus to turn water into wine? Could it be that she had a prior knowledge that he could do it? ••• Yes, just as the humanity of Christ needed to grow physically from birth through childhood to adulthood he also needed to grow in knowledge of scripture such that, like Luke 2: 40 says, he grew in wisdom. However at the start of his public ministry at age 30 he was FULLY MATURED in EVERY RESPECT and DID NOT HAVE TO GROW IN FAITH or any other thing from that point. When he led by Spirit into his initial temptations the Spirit must be sure that he was prepared for them. A look at a small portion of scripture will show that the deity and humanity of Jesus coexisted in that ONE PERSON - Jesus Christ from birth going forward. Lets look at John chapter 1. Here we find that the true light who was the life that was the light of men, and made all things, and was the Word came into the world and that Word was God. He came into the world and specifically to his own but neither did the world recognize him nor did his own receive him. The Word BECAME flesh and made his dwelling among us. The Word that is God dwelt among us. Of him John (the Baptist) declares: "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because HE WAS BEFORE ME'." This is a declaration of the preexistence of the man they were seeing physically on the roads of Israel. V. 18 states that "No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, HE HAS MADE HIM KNOWN. " Here again we see a declaration that the one who made God the Father known to mankind - Jesus Christ - is the only God or as another translation puts it - God the one and only which talks essentially about the 'uniquely born one' who is the man Jesus. When John was asked if he was the Christ he said he wasn't but went on to tell the enquirers "but among you stands one you do not know" v. 26 Going further we have this: "29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, because he was before me.' v. 29-30 Note again he was referring to a man that he was seeing face to face as being 'before me'. Tying it to the preceding verses you can see that John understood the man Jesus he was physically seeing to be the Word even BEFORE the ascension. Jesus was the God-man. So he could speak as God or as man. He was God before the incarnation. He was the God-man at the incarnation and continues to be the God-man for eternity howbeit with a GLORIFIED humanity. He did not shut off his divinity. Neither was his divinity somewhere separate from the humanity of the man Jesus. It was the union of deity and true humanity in one person. Where necessary he exhibited his divinity. Consequently Jesus' ministry was unique. No other person could have or can be the kind of man Jesus was. Therefore his miracles too were unique; remember he had to use them (miracles) as 'sign' of his being the Messiah. So ANYONE who uses the name of Jesus for miracles can only use a DELEGATED AUTHORITY. Such a one cannot claim to be in the same class as Jesus. 1 Like |
