₦airaland Forum

Image123:
It don't stop me from standing before God. There you go again with your subtle threat of God's wrath or not being pleased that i tithe. The same you would condemn others for threatening folks that don't tithe. Abraham didn't get the stick, neither did Jacob, neither will i or others that tithe. Let this truth sink.

Why don't you always see what is being put forward?
Where do you find "subtle threat of God's wrath or not being pleased that i tithe"
in what he wrote?
He's simply asking you to think right.
Are you living out your spiritual life in line with the dictates of the New Covenant or is it that for you 'anything goes'?

Gombs:


Pray for the Church of God. Meanwhile, please, no names mentioning

Suddenly Gombs is not answering questions directly again and has resorted to prayers.

Image123:
But for YEARS, you've being unable to produce scriptures or even twist any that bars or discouraged tithes on gentile soil.

Your comment is as unintelligent as saying: "Show me in the Bible where it says the Atlantic Ocean is not a way to heaven"

asuustrike1:
Whether the tithe is only for Old Testament
or if it is also included in the New
Testament is probably the most debated
issue. The scripture most frequently
referenced regarding the tithe is indeed in
the Old Testament ( Malachi 3:10-12 ),
......................
God's grace gives us the power and ability to
tithe!

The Christian way of life is unique and different from what the JEWS had. It was a ‘mystery’ to believers of previous times including Israel – Rom.16:25, 1 Cor. 2:7, Eph. 1:9, 3:3, 3:6, 3:9, Col. 1:26, etc . Any [b]significant thing required of the Christian will be found in the New Testament epistles which constitute the blueprint for living the Christian life.

The prescription for the way of life for believers in other dispensations is unquestionably not the same for Christians under the dispensation of the church age. The same God, yes. Certain similar principles, yes. But quite a different system for living and administering the spiritual life. That a practice is in the Bible does not necessarily recommend it to be used or practiced by the Christian. The Christian must rightly divide whether such a practice is for him or not under the new Covenant. For example, the Bible, in the Old Testament has requirements for animal sacrifices and so on. Would anyone therefore justify animal sacrifice today simply on the basis that it is in the Bible?

asuustrike1:
what of Deuteronomy 22:5,Leviticus 19:28 Leviticus 27:30, etx are they not part of the old testament. don't satan use to mislead the saints. when he tempted Jesus, he quoted the Scriptures to justify his claims even when we all know that he Is wrong.
................
Why did God made mention of tithe. Tithing is for all believers be it pastor (Christians). Any preacher that preaches against tithe is anti Christ.

Also please provide Scripture that says how monetary tithe is to be done by an assembly of New Testament Believers on Gentile soil.
Note that no physical temple now exists.
Note too that the priesthood has changed.

pickabeau1:
And so it begins - the e fights

Gombs u need to act as a moderator and let us come to our own conclusions

Will he allow anyone to come to his own conclusion?
I think not. 
Remember, in his own words, He's thrilled, super excited, in epileptic laughter. 
He wants us to be brainwashed by the line of propaganda he intends to spew out.

Gombs:
Excuse me! I've got to be super excited. Wait for mba to come mop you as he frequently does.

Oya, park well. Let me post chapter 6

Alright 'BOY', I'm waiting.

Gombs:
Welcome
I don't need type a rebuttal...sit back and relax, while I finish this off

As for the coloured, me thinks you missed the latter part of the .... .... Quit the carpentry crap! He left carpentry when his ministry started, show me where he made a table or chair during hid ministry time, ... that embezzlement was easy!

Maybe you should quit being cynical yourself
and don't be overly excited.

nlMediator:
That has been the cornerstone of Hagin's and Kenyon's ministry - even before anybody on this thread was born! I can quote from several of his books - way before Midas Touch - where he says that our emphasis is on the NT. In fact, he and especially Kenyon are so Pauline you'd think some of our friends here are his disciples.

And when some of us show areas of the spiritual life under the New Covenant where Paul or the NT clearly INVALIDATE the OT what are we labelled?
When a person is SO 'PAULINE' in some respect and veers off in particularly key areas of our spiritual life, what do we make of that?

Nora544 and BabaGnoni thank you so much for these references you've provided. I hope skeptics of the evil of the 'Prosperity Gospel' will be objective enough to take time and go through these materials and take the right decisions.

PastorKun:
I don't entirely agree with you. Personally I have had a mystical experience before and I can assure you it was a 100% christian experience.

Can you share it and relate it with Scriptures?

Image123:
Indeed, " God wants believers to be materially wealthy. I see it in my bible". That is the point. Like every doctrine and teaching, there is an abuse, misuse and false teaching concerning that. But to insinuate or blatantly and ignorantly insist that God is not interested in providing for us materially, and then going behind to acquire and even pray for anything material is a delusion of the spirit, soul and body.

Bankruptcy of the prosperity gospel. 

True biblical prosperity does not necessarily include monetary/financial wealth. 

"13 No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money."
14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things, and they ridiculed him.
15 And he said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."
- Luke 16: 13-15

Many today who are lovers of money and are like the Pharisees behave like them - they ridicule others who insist on the same position that Jesus held. 

The WoF movement and devotees overemphasize the place of money in the life of the believer. However, as Luke 16:15b states:
"For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God."

The WoF teachings, (including the 'Prosperity gospel', whether that name is denied by their devotees on this thread or not), are built on faulty application of scripture and in many instances wrong view of what Christianity is all about. 

That is why scripture is usually twisted by them to suit what they want it to say. That is why also they can choose to interpret words the way they like, particularly to 'support' their stance at any point in time. 

One moment it can be 'God wants all to be rich financially!' the next moment that can turn to 'Riches can be in different dimensions!'. This minute they can say 'Jesus was very rich financially and even had to have a treasurer' and the next one it can be 'Jesus had to be poor to make us rich'. This way when a person queries one statement they quickly present the second as a proof that the questioner is wrong, pushing the fault always on others rather than themselves. When things are too 'hot' for them to handle they 'run for cover'. 

They claim to have, and are enamoured by, a 'revelation' knowledge on issues that even the Apostles who were given the blueprint for the church age did not have. They are the ones who have attained 'perfection' which the apostles and early church didn't achieve. 

It obviously takes a lot for a person to change a long-held view about a thing, particularly religion or spiritual things. 
But honesty demands that anyone who names the name of Christ will carefully examine whatever is presented to him in the light of the foundation already laid by the Apostles, rather than by a 'new' knowledge.

vest:
Good!
After Dis Child Comes Out You Must Do Sometin To Keep It Alive Nd For Him To Grow Or It Dies! Then If This Child Dies Due To Ur Bad Works U Ve Loss The Child.

Ur Good Works Kip Dis Child Aliv While Ur Bad Works Kil It

Secondly We Are Saved By Grace Alone Yes! We Can Nt Earn Our Salvation Yes! Bt What Is Our Respons To Dis Grace?

You:by Having Faith Alone.

Me:by Having Faith Yes Bt Nt Faith Oly Bt By Faith Working Through Love Nd Charity We Do Dis Work Nt because God Owe Us Any Tin Bt Simply Our Respons To Dis Grace.

We Must Cooperate With God's Grace To B Saved By Having Faith Working Through Love Nd Charity.

If man has something to add to God's work for him to be saved then he can have something to boast about.
If he can boast then Ephesians 2:8-9 can be faulted:
"8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast."

[quote author=nannymcphee post=27184298]herein lies the problem with this prosperity message!! What is wrong with being a TAXI DRIVER?

If all taxi driver's in the world is won over to Christ, who then will drive taxi's? Without them how can people move around

I guess you're in Nigeria that's why you said[quote]

You have brought it out beautifully.
Well done!
"21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. (But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.)
22 For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ."
- 1 Corinthians 7:21-22

Image123:
What is the point, you that has read carefully?

For starters:

Just over one hundred years ago, the renowned pastor and statesman Charles H. Spurgeon spoke these words to the then-largest congregation in all Christendom:

I believe that it is anti-Christian and unholy for any Christian to live with the object of accumulating wealth. You will say, “Are we not to strive all we can to get all the money we can?” You may do so. I cannot doubt but what, in so doing, you may do service to the cause of God. But what I said was that to live with the object of accumulating wealth is anti-Christian.1

Over the years, however, the message being preached in some of the largest churches in the world has changed. Due, in part, to the rise of several ungodly philosophies and movements,2 a new gospel is being taught today. This gospel has been ascribed many names, such as the “name it and claim it” gospel, the “blab it and grab it” gospel, the “health and wealth” gospel, the “word of faith” movement, the “gospel of success,” the “prosperity gospel,” and “positive confession theology.”3

No matter what name is used, though, the teaching is the same. Simply put, this egocentric gospel teaches that God wants believers to be materially wealthy. Listen to the words of Robert Tilton, one of the prosperity gospel’s most well-known spokesmen: “I believe that it is the will of God for all to prosper because I see it in the Word [of God], not because it has worked mightily for someone else. I do not put my eyes on men, but on God who gives me the power to get wealth.”4

Teachers of the prosperity gospel encourage their followers to pray, and even demand, of God “everything from modes of transportation (cars, vans, trucks, even two-seat planes), [to] homes, furniture, and large bank accounts.”5 By closely examining the faulty theology and errant biblical interpretation of the teachers of this movement, this study will prove that the prosperity gospel teachings regarding the acquisition and accumulation of wealth are ethically incorrect.

Then this:

nora544:
Conclusion

Through this study of the theology and the biblical interpretation of the prosperity gospel, one may discern five clear reasons why this movement’s teachings concerning wealth are incorrect:

1. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant.

2. The prosperity gospel is built upon a faulty understanding of the Atonement.

3. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical tachings on giving.

4. The prosperity gospel is based upon a faulty understanding of the biblical teachings on faith.

5. The prosperity gospel, in general, has been constructed upon faulty biblical interpretation.

Aside from these five specific theological and biblical arguments against the prosperity gospel, and without even considering the practical implications of this movement,41 there is perhaps one general, summary reason why the prosperity gospel is a wayward gospel: its faulty view of the relationship between God and man. Simply put, if the prosperity gospel is correct, grace becomes obsolete, God becomes irrelevant, and man is the measure of all things. Whether it is the Abrahamic covenant, the Atonement, giving, faith, or the biblical interpretation of any given verse, the prosperity teacher seeks to turn the relationship between God and man into a financial quid pro quo transaction. As scholar James R. Goff noted, God is “reduced to a kind of ‘cosmic bellhop’ attending to the needs and desires of his creation.”42 This is a wholly inadequate and unbiblical view of the relationship between God and man and the stewardship of wealth.

https://bible.org/article/bankruptcy-prosperity-gospel-exercise-biblical-and-theological-ethics

Image123:
What is the point?

You're missing the point of the OP.
Go back and read carefully.

Image123:
i continue to find it strange and near mysterious that people kick against God blessing people materially or financially, yet they themselves hope and pray for material and financial blessings. Abi provision no be blessing again? Folks are barking the wrong tree, seriously.

You're missing the point.

[size=16pt]MY SUBMISSION ON F16: Hyped up motivational hustling preaching[/size]

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
- 2 Timothy 4: 3,4

Is 2 Timothy 4: 3 &4 being fulfilled?
A highpoint in WoF proponents’ approach at spreading their messages is the blending of up-to-date marketing techniques with messages that will make people have a ‘good time’ in church. This is where Hyped up motivational hustling preaching comes in.

Motivational speaking seeks to motivate or inspire the hearers.
The appeal is more on the emotion to get hearers toe a certain line of action.
The speakers seek to do this through feel-good messages.
The emphasis is usually on what the individual can be or can achieve.
Consequently the focus is on man.

Many Christians today seek after and are deceived by captivating and dramatic preaching because it excites their ears and satisfies their desire to be entertained. Unfortunately what makes for true biblical teaching do not always entertain. Very many pulpits today are filled more by motivational speakers than by true Bible teachers. As a result the gospel of Christ is being replaced with ‘stories’ that appeal to hearers.

Messages Packaged as the Gospel
The diet being fed to the thousands of people listening to these pulpits and many more who watch on TV is anything but spiritual. The audiences think they are being fed the gospel message but in reality they are being fed with ‘another gospel’. Many are deceived by the few Bible verses sprinkled here and there in the messages. The true impact the rightly preached Word of God should have had on the individual lives of the ordinary Christian is therefore lacking. Correspondingly the effect Christians should have collectively on their spheres of influence and community is equally absent.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work”
- 2 Timothy 3: 16 & 17

Differences between a Motivational Preaching and Biblical Preaching
Motivational teachings are aimed at stirring up the emotions; superficial; largely avoids preaching against sin; are about self empowerment, feel good and focuses on what man can get and be: favor, blessing, victory, promotion, etc; mostly uses stories (including personal stories, particularly of the preachers) instead of the Bible. It is full of human solutions for issues. Their ministries are built around the personal charisma of the preachers.
Biblical preaching on the other hand largely uses the Bible and aims at the transformation of the inner man (Romans 12: 1-2, Ephesians 4: 11-14). It challenges the individual to focus more on God than self. The Word of God rightly divided is taught in-depth. Sin and the reality of heaven and hell are not ignored. It equips the hearer with divine solutions for facing problems.

Proponents
Leading the pack of motivational preachers today are Bishop T.D. Jakes of the Potter’s House, Dallas, Texas and Pastor Joel Osteen of the New Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas; two highly popular preachers in the global Christian circles.

Joel Osteen is said to have said: “I find today people are not looking for theology. There’s a place for it, (but) in your everyday life you need to know how to live” Do we assume here then that Osteen believes ‘theology’ doesn’t teach people how to live their everyday lives? Can we take it further to say that we can find no sound theology in Lakewood? So people are not looking for “the knowledge of God” (which is what theology simply means) but for something else?
These speakers’ messages are given so as not to offend or generate controversy. For instance, since the word “God” will appear to be less offensive to many than the name “Jesus” Osteen can ‘preach’ a whole ‘sermon’, almost not mentioning the name of Jesus, but God.
T.D. Jakes like most motivational preachers hardly use the Bible when giving his messages. What he aims at is to stir up people’s emotion expecting in return their applause.

Concerns
Unfortunately most congregations have been fed and entertained for so long with motivational preaching that true expository teaching will considered ‘dry’ and uninteresting by them.
How did biblical preachers preach? How did Jesus teach? To soothe their audiences ego making God a means to their end or making demands on their hearers to respond to God’s expectation of them? Did they appeal to their hearers to, like they say, get all they can, can all they get and sit on the can? Or did they tell them it was not about self but about God?
The key task of a pastor is to teach the Word of God’s, rightly divided. A pastor of the Word doesn’t just teach his flock always about what it can get from God. He teaches them also about their responsibility toward God, God’s Kingdom work on earth and to others.
“preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching”
- 2 Timothy 4: 2
Reprove, rebuke and exhort do not necessarily make hearer ‘feel good’. In fact the flesh is always antagonistic to many things that God’s word require of the Christian. The hearing of the Word of God will in many instances bring conviction and ‘godly sorrow’ (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Warning
The church needs to return to the teaching of the pure spiritual food of the Word of God rather than resorting to human philosophies and unscriptural approach to feeding Christians. Believers need to test what they hear with the word of God. They must know that they will ultimately be held accountable for how they lived their lives here on earth.
“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” 2 Corinthians 5:10
For those who may be unaware that what they hear are largely motivational preaching rather than the true gospel note that the Bible holds you responsible for what you take in and stand on:
Jesus said: “Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees” Matthew 16: 6
“Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Matthew 16: 12
Paul warned: “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.” Colossians 2:8

May God open believers’ eyes to see the huge difference between Motivational Preaching and Biblical Preaching and may He help these preachers rely on the enabling power of the Holy Spirit to do God's work in God's way.

I REST MY CASE ON F16, FOR NOW.

BabaGnoni:
The joke is on you bud and you're left high and dry.
You're out of your depth and don't even know you're in deep water LOL
You waded in water too deep to stand in.

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

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

You laid yourself open to ridicule with the above ignorance

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

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

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

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

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

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

I suppose the angels that visited Abram and Sarai or Lot had sinful flesh on too and not flesh the likeness of the children of man

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

The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life--only to take it up again
- John 10:17 NIV

The first Adam was tested in the garden, mind you in the midst of abundance (i.e. wasn't fasting etc) but failed
The second Adam was tested in the garden now turned to wilderness, and mind you in the midst of lack (i.e. was fasting etc) and passed

They both started out with sinless flesh, one fell at the first hurdle, the other did not (i.e. the other passed with flying colors)
So which same consequence are you claiming the second Adam suffered as the first Adam now?

-----------------------------------------------------------

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

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

BabaGnoni, that was a fantastic presentation.

We are beginning to see who the ignoramuses are and who true Bible scholars are. 

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

We know now those who can put scripture together rightly using good tools of hermeneutic and those who just look for 'similar' words to use in justifying their stand. 

We now know the true students of the Word and those who are the  pseudo-intellectuals. 

We can clearly see who the babies are and who the sons in Christ are. 

We can see those who are disturbed by the 'likes' others get and are confused by it and those who simply give God the glory and move on. 

We can see those who attempt to shift their maudlin sentimentality on others and those who are clear headed and pity the maudlin. 

May God continue to  give us "a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him,"(Ephesians 1:17) so that "having the eyes of (our) hearts enlightened, (we) may know what is the hope to which he has called (us), what are the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,(Ephesians 1:18)

I think I'll go by WinsomeX' suggestion. I agree that BabaGnoni has succinctly summarized the true biblical position on Jesus' flesh. 

I do hope that readers can from these posts see the depth of rot of the old sin nature playing out still in the 21 century on Nairaland right before their eyes (before their very before!) and how like BabaGnoni's accurate rendition of Isaiah 64:6 by Net Bible God has pictured the best that man can be or do apart from his (God's) intervention which he graciously did by providing himself a lamb without any defect through and through - the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Being 'smart' or 'clever' or 'using wisdom so called' in order to 'win' arguments is actually a foray or excursion into deceit which is an expression of the sin nature. 

The issue should always be:
"........., rightly handling the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15
And 
"Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil." Matthew 5:37

PS
I rest my case on this matter.

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

I actually asked for the plain English meaning of the word ‘sinful’.

You however decided to give what you termed the Bible position of ‘sinful flesh’ being the flesh that sinners have. So my question is still unanswered by you.

I asked for the meaning of a single word. You gave explanation of two words as what is attributed to sinners.

In all you were still trying to ‘prove’ that the statements (we can’t really call them definitions can we?) apply to sinners as well as a righteous man.

Let’s take 2 of your statements and see if they agree with one another or contradict each other.

In otherwords, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh.

Notice I said a 'sinners' flesh i.e the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned.

1. “In other words, a sinners flesh is sinful flesh.”
2. “Notice I said a ‘sinners’ flesh i.e. the flesh of a sinner and not the flesh that has sinned.”
From the above 2 statements of yours you claim a sinner’s flesh is a “sinful flesh” on the one hand BUT IS NOT “flesh that had sinned” on the other hand. Would it be right then to call a flesh that has not sinned a flesh that has sin in the first place i.e. by calling it sinful flesh?
The answer should be obvious even to you.

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

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

again this:

A righteous man can be housed in that flesh even though such a man will not sin. That was the case with Jesus.

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

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

mbaemeka:
^^^

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

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

mbaemeka:
^^^^

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

Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary defines FAITH as:
- primarily, “firm persuasion”
Used in the NT always of ‘faith in God or Christ, or things spiritual’. Trust, trust-worthiness.
What is believed, the contents of belief.

And MEDITATE as:
a) To attend to, practice
b) To ponder, imagine

Strong’s Concordance defines FAITH as:
Persuasion.
1) Conviction of the truth of anything, belief.
2) All of the religious beliefs of Christians
3) Belief with the predominate idea of trust
4) Fidelity, faithfulness
5) The character of one who is relied on.
And MEDITATE as:
To ponder.
To meditate, moan, growl, utter, speak.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines FAITH as:
1(a) allegiance to duty or a person
(b) fidelity to one’s promises
c) sincerity of intentions
2 (a) belief and trust in and loyalty to God.
Belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion.
(b) firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Complete trust
3 Something that is believed especially with strong conviction.

And MEDITATE as:
To engage in contemplation or reflection.
To engage in mental exercise… …
To focus one’s thoughts on: reflect on or ponder over
To plan or project in the mind

In all cases we see for FAITH an underlying issue of firm belief and trust. And for MEDITATE a CONCENTRATION on something; giving particular consideration for something.

Now that I have answered your interjected question I look forward to your response to mine.
Again it is:
What is the plain English meaning of the word 'sinful' ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe to make things clearer we shouldn't take too many things at the same time. Now let's start with this:
What is the plain English meaning of the word 'sinful' ?
We'll go into other areas thereafter.

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

The feeling is mutual.
If you think a very sick body will FUNCTION the same way (– be as strong, have good appetite, jump up and down easily, etc) as a very healthy body would then I don’t know what logic would think that way when experience itself teaches us that it is not so.
A basic difference is this: A diseased flesh (body) has its normal functioning IMPAIRED. Some damage has taken place. There is a diminishing of some sort in some material respect. There is blemish, some flaw, some spoilage. In short, the flesh can be said to be COMPROMISED. THEREFORE A DISEASED FLESH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS A HEALTHY ONE.

As per my rebuttal of your statement "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" if you want to prove that you misunderstood me then please bring all my posts on that thread where I explained myself more than 3 times. How it was able to fly over you only shows how gravely dishonest you lot are. How can my statement that "God considers our heart and words to go together" now be interpreted to mean that I said "the heart doesn't matter"? What sort of wicked distortion is that?

I clearly pasted your own statement. I didn’t even state it but lifted it just like you posted it. If however you retracted it in some other post then you may say so or point out such post. I NEVER referred to the statement “God considers our heart and words go together”. You are the one being dishonest in now claiming that that is what I interpreted. You are again shifting your fault on others. What I referred to was your statement that: “As per “God considers the heart more important than the words spoken” there could be no greater lie than that.”


You are the one distorting my presentations. It is easy to see through your subtlety.

This is the same way I clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH that men had MEANING that his flesh was subject to the temptations of sin like other men and now you are trying to claim I said Jesus had a sinful nature. Even when I repeatedly told you that sinful nature is not the flesh regardless of what you or a few translations think. When Paul said he was made in likeness of sinful flesh Paul meant Jesus had the EXACT SAME FLESH that sinners had- and that's what I said.

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

If you ‘clearly stated that Jesus had the same SINFUL FLESH’ but your meaning of the word SINFUL is different from what the English language says it is then there is a problem. And I don’t think the problem is with the English language. I think it is with the person using it – you! Sinful is sinful. You cannot come now and claim that you meant ‘so and so’ by that word. If you had simply said Jesus had the same flesh as other men no one will fault you. BUT when you QUALIFY his flesh by the word SINFUL, that, Mbaemeka, is something else!

When Jesus said in John 6: 63 “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all” was the flesh mentioned there a reference to the physical body of man or man’s ‘spirit’?
In the same way when the word ‘flesh’ is used in relation to the sin nature do you think it is referring to ‘sin-stained spirit’?

The passage I explained to you – Romans 7: 22, 23 clearly talked about ‘in my inner being’ and ‘in my members’. These are two distinct things. The use of the word ‘flesh’ to emphasize it should show that a specific issue is being brought to light. God’s decision to bypass the use of man in the conception of Jesus should equally tell us something. God imputes human life to biological life. If it was only in the realm of the soul that ‘no sin’ was required then any man could have fathered Jesus while God imputes the soul life. So when you now disregard these issues “regardless of what you (Trustman I guess) or a few (?) translations think” then I suppose there is nothing that can be done to make you accept it.

Every man born of a woman has a flesh that is DISEASED because of sin. Jesus’ flesh DID NOT have this same condition. How you can then say it is “EXACT SAME FLESH” is up to you to figure out.

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

Maybe you should go back and re-read what I said. What I have consistently said is that Jesus was “uniquely born” (monogenes in the Greek), and as a result DID NOT inherit the ‘old man’ from Adam and so DID NOT have a SINFUL FLESH. In other words, there was no ‘SIN’ in his ‘FLESH’ to make him have a sinful flesh.

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

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

I asked you to check up on some words sometime ago. I don’t think you did. One word – ‘Positional’ – answers your confusion here. It is not a matter of Paul writing Romans 6 before 7. It is in understanding a Christian’s position in Christ in relation to his experiential state. For example, in Ephesians we are said to seat with Christ in heavenly places. Are we physically there in heaven? NO. But, positionally? Yes.

So Paul in Romans was stating things regarding our positional status vis-à-vis our experiential status.
Please DO NOT add to what Paul did not say. He never said he was describing himself when was practicing Judaism. That is your own addition. Whenever he needed to talk about his time in Judaism he clearly did so. Even in the book of Romans he clearly differentiated between Jews, Greeks, Gentiles, etc.

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

I will wait.

I really don’t know what you are waiting for. So unless you are more specific I do not know what to respond to.

mbaemeka

You are moving off again.
You seem to love it too.

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

2. . .How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin. 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body 13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin.

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

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

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

Have you truly been able to obey Philippians 2: 3 & 4? Yes or No will be ok.

I can see you trying to run away from my question again. I asked for a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to make things clearer but you still went round in circles. You made a statement and I ask you a question on the statement and you can’t give a simple response to it. I take it then that you are not able to answer the question.

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

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

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

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

And you are also good at giving your own meaning even to your own clearly stated words. For goodness sake how is anyone to understand this your statement:
“As per “God considers the heart more important than the words spoken” there could be no greater lie than that.”
I guess our readers will be the judge here.
You chose to emphasize or highlight the second part of the statement you made about Jesus flesh. What does this part i quoted from you mean?

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

NO again. This is what I said:

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

Your saying ‘but his flesh was a sinful one and therefore subject to the temptations of sin’ when put in another way is just as if you are saying “His flesh is subject to the temptations of sin because it was a sinful one”. Like I’ve said repeatedly English words have meaning. There is no way, apart from being cunning and deceitful, that you can interpret this your statement differently. That was why I also said you can admit your error. But you are apparently too ‘big’ to do that. Another word for that is arrogance. You are the one being mischievous here, not me yet you are trying to put that tag right on me! Again I have mentioned this about you some time ago.
Paul did not make this statement, you did. But you are now attempting to ‘use’ Paul’s statement to justify your position. The words ‘in the likeness of sinful flesh’ of Romans 8:3 IS A COMPARISON and not EXACTNESS.

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

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

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

I don’t know what you are getting at here. First, I NEVER said Adam sinned because he had a fallen flesh. I was NOT even talking directly about Adam or his flesh here. I was talking about Jesus. So I don’t know what you are asking me to catch. You seem to get so excited when you think you ‘know’ some ‘secret things’ the other person does not know. Read that portion again very carefully. It will help you.

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

I talk about a diseased body and one without disease not functioning the same way and the next thing you bring up is Caucasian and Negroid. Ok, lets go by this your presentation. The body of a very sick Caucasian cannot be as fit as that of a healthy, disease-free Negroid. Right? In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature. Do you get it now?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am interested in knowing how you arrived at your comment that Paul was referring to when he was a sinner in Romans 7: 14.

You are the one actually struggling to make what you said mean something else. First you talk about ‘flesh’ then you shift to ‘spirit’. And then you claim the ‘old man’ is ‘the sin-stained spirit’. You sure have your way of making words mean what you want!

Let me close for now with this:
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” – 1 John 1: 8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any Christian who allows the control of his soul by the sin nature will behave like any unbeliever. That was the lot of the Corinthians.

When Paul said in 1 Timothy 1: 15 “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” he was speaking with the recognition of what he had been (no thanks to what the sin nature can do in and through man).

This understanding of the sin nature antagonism should make anyone see that the only solution to this perpetual conflict lies in the only one who neither had this sin nature nor commit any act of sin – Jesus Christ.

2) When a man is born again he is given a human spirit which enables him have a relationship with God. His flesh remains the same (no change). His mind (a part of the soul) needs to be renewed by the Word of God so that he can think the mind of Christ.

The above (1) & (2) are answers to your questions in case you missed out noting so. You however never answered most of mine. For instance, when I asked: “Before Jesus’ flesh qualified because he didn’t yield it to sin, was it a sin-stained flesh?”
Your answer that: “It was the exact same flesh sinners had” did not answer the question. The question was not whether Jesus’ body was the same flesh sinners had. It was a comparison between his body and those of sinners. The question was whether on its own it was a sin-stained body.
A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer will do for a start.

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

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

As per "God considers the heart more important than the words spoken" there could be no greater lie than that.

That was here: https://www.nairaland.com/1790500/word-faith-movements-doctrine-proponents/20#25851608
Now you are here telling us that the inside matters. Where do you stand?

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

Benny Hinn may teach that “Jesus became sin” and “became one with the nature of satan”.
Kenneth Hagin may say that he (Jesus) had ‘satan’s nature’.
Kenneth Copeland may say Jesus “accepted the sin nature of satan”.
Your MoG may have followed their thinking and teaching.
But the issue for every Christian (including you) should always be; ‘What does the word of God say?’ and ‘Whose report will you believe- God’s or man’s?’

Recall that you said:
Jesus had a sinful flesh

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.

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

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

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

When I mentioned the case of a body with Ebola and one without it you shrugged it off. But what I was getting at was that a human body that is diseased CANNOT FUNCTION the same way as one that is free from disease. In the same way the flesh contaminated by the sin nature CANNOT be said to be EXACTLY the same as one that is free from the influence/control of the sin nature.
I gave you Romans 6:6 to let you know how the scripture links the sin nature to our body and the solution: “We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin”

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

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

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

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

Image123:
i recall almost pleading at that time and the exhortations then.page 6 et al.

That advise is still very relevant.

Image123:
No i didn't, i lost interest and hardly skim through recent posts. So you changed your mind, point it out if you can.

If you lost interest why follow DrummaBoy's advise.
If you've resumed interest then it shouldn't be too much trouble getting back to where you went off.

DrummaBoy:
You honestly would have done better by keeping quiet. In this case, your silence would make more sense than what you have just said up there.

Did the guy see the examples we gave on Nigerian advocates of WoF?
Some just refuse the truth no matter how it is presented.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see that you are really not willing to let the scripture speak to you. 
First, as usual you shift your faults on the other person. Psychologists have a name for that. 
Then even where I clearly showed that you didn't answer my questions you now come up with this excuse of not "giving biblical supported interpretation to" the verses I quoted, whatever that means. 

Remember the core issue we've both been focussing on is whether Jesus had SINFUL FLESH.

You want biblical interpretation? Let's start with:
Romans7:22-23
" For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members."

What is Paul saying here? 
1. He delights to do the will of God in his inner being. He takes pleasure in the law of God. Not as an unbeliever because the unsaved cannot exhibit this extreme gratification to do God's will. Also the carnal Christian will not walk like this - see Romans 8: 6-8. 
2. His mind is involved in this delight in the will of God. V. 23
3. But 'in his members' i.e. his flesh (his body) he sees something working in opposition to what his mind wants to do i.e. to please God. 
4. The mind is 'inside' his body. This other law at war with his desire to please God is also in his body. They are two different things. 
5. This thing or 'flesh'(because of its close affinity with the human body) or 'old man' - Ephesians 4:22 (because of its old or ancient origin- via Adam: 1 Corinthians 25:22 " For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." is the sin nature we are talking about. 
6. This sin imputation each member of the human race receives at birth from Adam is the reason for the many conflicts we experience. 
7. This sin imputation automatically  makes every one born into this world a 'sinner' EVEN WITHOUT committing any single act of sin - mental, verbal or overt. 
8. IF Jesus had this same imputation he would have been 'like us" in this regards i.e. a 'sinner' from day one of his life. But he did not have this imputation. Jesus would NEVER have made that statement that Paul made. 
9. God bypassed the mode of transmission of this sin nature - man, and brought into the world another 'Adam' ( 1 Corinthians 15:45)
10. So from birth, not at or after the cross, Jesus was already this last Adam. He was already an acceptable sacrifice from birth as a result of the fact that he was the "uniquely born" one (monogenes in the Greek). The issue for him would be whether he would remain so throughout the incarnation. 
11. Jesus therefore, by virtue of the fact that he was uniquely born, and as a result DID NOT inherit the 'old man' from Adam did not have a SINFUL FLESH. There was no  'SIN' in his 'FLESH' to make him have a sinful flesh. 
12. ANY TEACHING THAT HE HAD IS NOT ONLY UNSCRIPTURAL BUT BLASPHEMOUS.