"It is finished." What is the "it?"

[eternally-gratefull]

Hehe. Not being single minded would be no problem. The problem is that the view which you have expressed has in it theological problems, some of which you seem not yet to have discovered.

But you are saying that He died spiritually and as such had to be born again, which you believe also occurred at the cross. How can you say this without also saying that Jesus became a sinner or that He literally became sin? How can that work together?

What is so hard about it?

Again, If my debt is 1000 dollars because I committed a crime, and my dad who is innocent paid that thousand dollar fine and purchased my freedom from that debt, It is still 1000 dollars. It did not make my father guilty of that crime. To be honest, I feel your being unreasonable here. and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Yes, there was a separation in the sense that God for that while must "treat" Him as a sinner. It does not mean that He was literally separated from the Father as sinners are separated from God due to their sin (Isa.59:2, Jer.5:25). Again, the sin sacrifices did not literally become what they atoned for. They had to be pure and without blemish all the time, else the sacrifice was invalid. Do you see this difference and distinction to be made?

The one giving the sacrifice had to be pure and without blemish. Jesus was. or our sin could not be placed on his body. The separation is because God can not look on sin, If my sin was placed on his body, God had to turn his back. For God is holy and can not look on sin. That was the penalty that paid for my sin.

Think about it, If jesus did not suffer the penalty imposed to me because of my sin (ie the thousand dollars) I am still dead in my sin, my freedom has not been purchased.

To talk about my calvinism is pie throwing. We are clearly taught what sin is and what our sins are and how they separate us from God. Ty. As for Calvin he taught nothing murky regarding the moments of Christ on the cross. Actually, it was Calvin who pioneered in the field of the biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement, something also you would believe in, I assume. Me think it's your flat, literalistic reading of the text which veils your eyes to see the problems it creates, when not having a consistent interpretation of same. You are in effect saying that Jesus became a sinner, but since you know that other texts, flatly and literally, are not saying that, you come up with a half-way or a left-fielder to go around the problem. That's why you end up stuck with the notion "the penalty for sin is spiritual death" (even no flat, literal text says that) and that "Jesus died spiritually" (even no flat, literal text says that) and that "Jesus was born again" (even no flat, literal text says that). And that's where we are at.

Your thinking too narrowly.

I was born dead, Yet I was alive, and even my spirit had life. Yet the bible calls me dead.

So you either give that type of death a name, Than name is spiritual death (literally a spiritual separation)

Being born again is nothing more than our fellowship being restored with God. or being made spiritual alive.

Again, it is not rocket science, And not something you would try to teach a babe in Christ, for they could not understand it.

There is no problem in what I am teaching, it is clear. and explains more deeply what my situation against God was. And why I need to be born again, And also to show what great pain Christ went for in my behalf. (ie, man did not punish him for my sin, God did)

 

[Elin]

False claims as always, as I do because of love for our Lord, not to keep salvation.
The difference between us is that you like a couple others on here do not want to accept the many scriptures that shows
one can fall/walk away from the faith and not end up with eternal life.

Keeping in mind two things:

1) believers have eternal life now (Jn 6:54), which they cannot lose, and do not just "end up" with it in eternity,
2) those who fall away were not true believers, their faith was counterfeit (1Jn 2:19; Lk 8:13) because they did not have the root of rebirth, which their falling away showed (1Jn 2:19).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I am less sure about your dualistic(?) view of what the penalty for sin is. The penalty of sin is not only spiritual death. And which ever way you want to put it, even if the penalty, or the consequence, of sin is spiritual death, then Jesus must not pay back the debt of that penalty by literally meeting the identical fate of Adam.

So your saying if I commit a crime, and the penalty imposed is 1000 dollars. Someone can pay far less that that 1000 dollars. and perfectly righteous judge would accept it as payment in full?

I do not want to believe you would actually think that, I know you are smarter than that.

The first paragraph of yours above is faulty logic. Secondly, I don't agree with the view that the penalty for sin was solely physical death alone.

The wage of sin is death, the gift of God is life.

Anything else is the natural result of death.

If there was any other penalty imposed by sin, then when we are born again, that penalty would be removed also. What other than being made ALIVE in Christ do we lose which was a penalty of sin?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Exactly. Jesus did not have the need of being born again as do we. Not at any time. He had no sin at any time.

Then you must still be dead in your sin, Because by your comment, Your sin was never imputed to Christ.

 

[popeye]

Where do you find these Temple Passover regulations in Scripture?

Most all of leviticus has the ordinances.

Example;
Why were none of jesus' bones broken?

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

The ordinances. They HAD to be patterned after.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Eph 2:8, We are saved through faith (This is not our faith, but the faithfulness of Jesus). Read Gal 2:16.

Faith is a trust in someone, an assurance that someone will do what they promise.

So your saying that I can be saved, yet never trust God to keep his promise?

wow, talk about confusion.

Gal 2: [SUP]16 [/SUP]knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Hmm.. Does not look like this is talking about Gods faith in himself. looks like it says our faith in Christ.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Keeping in mind two things:

1) believers have eternal life now (Jn 6:54), which they cannot lose, and do not just "end up" with it in eternity,
2) those who fall away were not true believers, their faith was counterfeit (1Jn 2:19; Lk 8:13) because they did not have the root of rebirth, which their falling away showed (1Jn 2:19).

The works I do are not works of my own as they are from the Holy Spirit who guides me, that the bible says is proof of true faith. Lord Jesus says if the branch/tree produces no fruit than they are gathered and burned, showing that fruits(works) of the Spirit go hand and hand with faith in Christ unto salvation.
Love is the greatest fruit of the Spirit in which our faith hangs on even though some deny it, but 1 John clearly says the one who does not love does not know God. For love is proof of Christ abiding in them, and hatred is proof He does not.

[/QUOTE]


First I have been through this discussion with others before, and John 6:54 is referring about taking communion.
And Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29 says that anybody that takes communion in a unworthy manner eats condemnation to themselves.
Second the usage of the Greek wording/context in scriptures such as this one is about assurance of having it, and not an actual physical possession of it. Such Greek words as pisteuo and echo are misused in translation, as some even want to only use the short definition of those words, and not take the whole definition into context and how it is applied. As Greek words have multiple different ways they can be used in context. If eternal life is an actual physical possession, then I can show you 15+ scriptures from Apostle Paul that contradict that.....

 

[Elin]

Where do you find these Temple Passover regulations in Scripture?

Most all of leviticus has the ordinances.

Example;
Why were none of jesus' bones broken?

You didn't answer my question.

Please give specific Scriptures.

 

[Elin]

John 6:54 is referring about taking communion.

Agreed. . .and he who does so has (present tense) eternal life (Holy Spirit life in his spirit).

the usage of the Greek wording/context in scriptures such as this one is about assurance of having it, and not an actual physical possession of it. Such Greek words as pisteuo and echo are misused in translation, as some even want to only use the short definition of those words, and not take the whole definition into context and how it is applied.

Not so. . .

If eternal life is an actual physical possession,

It's not a physical possesses, it is a spiritual possession.

You don't know the Biblical meaning of "eternal life."
It's meaning has nothing to do with duration, although it is forever, and cannot be lost.

It means the life of God, Holy Spirit life in one's spirit.
We receive that life in our spirits when they are raised from spiritual death (no Holy Spirit life) in the new birth.

Your understanding of "eternal life" is not a Biblical one, which is why you find so many
"contradictory" Scriptures regarding it.

 

[yaright]

Most all of leviticus has the ordinances.

Example;
Why were none of jesus' bones broken?

17 Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous,19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,20 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

The ordinances. They HAD to be patterned after.

Thank you for revealing the purpose of Jesus through the Old Testament, who Himself was the fire of God's truth given to His Son. That Truth itself is a spiritual fire that consumes things that are not ever lasting; as we build on the foundation of faith, so that it can be said that we are saved as if by the fire of our Lord Jesus, who is the Christ, Son of the Living God.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, I will deny the fact that you did not post all of Thayer's interpretations of the word "world". All scriptures must harmonize before you have the truth. You believe that Christ died for the sins of all mankind, but in fact he died only for those that God gave him which is clearly pointed out in John 6:39. You believe that the natural man, void of the Holy Spirit, can discern spiritual things when 1 Cor 2:14 clearly points out that the natural man can not discern anything of a spiritual nature. You believe that man can override Gods will by refusing to accept his offer, which was not an offering to man, but to God. Dan 4:35 - God has his way in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, and none can stay his hand. These are inspired writings and not from Thayer.

lol. How can you still say that, when John 6 does not support your theory. Your as bad as the catholics saying that John 6 says we must literally eat the flesh and blood of jesus , by picking and chosing one small part of the whole conversation between Jesus and these people. and rejecting the rest of the conversation.

If John 6: 39 is all you have, you have very little to stand on.

As for the greek. Nothing in culture or language at the time those words were written would have allowed people to believe what your claiming, We do not read it from a religious point of view. we read it like they would have, and understand it like they would. There is no literature, or documents which would support such a view. Not to mention. the word cosmos when used in scripture is representative of satans kingdom. And all that is in it. We are told to go into that enemy territory and spread the gospel. to help God rescue people out of that kingdom. So scripture does not support your theory.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You stated in a previous post, if I am remembering right, that God does not quicken a person unless that person is cleansed and washed first. Eph 2:5 refutes that idea. As you said, "You use the word to interpret the word and make all scriptures harmonize. I have explained the verses that you gave me following the 5th verse of Ephesians, so, let's make all of those verses harmonize with your statement that a person will have to be cleansed first before God will quicken him.

no eph 2: 5 does not refute the idea. Eph 2: 5 ends with the fact we are saved by grace. Thus you MUST use eph 2: 8-9 to get proper context. since it explains how we are saved by grace (through faith)

Not to mention. as I already said, Eph 1: 13 and 14 totally refutes the idea, as it shows how and why were are born and sealed with the spirit.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, [SUP]14 [/SUP]who[SUP][a][/SUP] is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

The bible was not written in chapter verse format. Men broke in down in chapters and verses, you read the whole of the conversation or subject matter to interpret it. You do not pick one sentence out and make your own doctrine.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Agreed. . .and he who does so has (present tense) eternal life (Holy Spirit life in his spirit).


Not so.


It's not a physical possesses, it is a spiritual possession.

You don't know the Biblical meaning of "eternal life."
It's meaning has nothing to do with duration, although it is forever, and cannot be lost.

It means the life of God, Holy Spirit life in one's spirit.
We receive that life in our spirits when they are raised from spiritual death (no Holy Spirit life) in the new birth.

Your understanding of "eternal life" is not a Biblical one, which is why you find so many
"contradictory" Scriptures regarding it.

No I do know the many of the biblical eternal life, but what some do is confuse the meanings of spiritual life with eternal life. Spiritual life can mean either what receive when the Lord returns to gather us to Him, or it can mean a person who is walking properly in the faith by the fruits of the Spirit. Eternal life is what we receive when we are transformed in a blink of an eye into our spiritual eternal bodies at the gathering/rapture.
Once again the bible shows that we have eternal life in hand as a mental possession, assurance of receiving it, or like Apostle Paul says multiple times hope of receiving. Here is a few of them;


1 Thessalonians 5:8
But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation.

Titus 1:2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

Titus 3:7
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Originally Posted by kennethcadwell

First I have been through this discussion with others before, and John 6:54 is referring about taking communion.
And Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29 says that anybody that takes communion in a unworthy manner eats condemnation to themselves.

No it is not. John 6 is about eating the word of God. and making a decision to place your faith in it. Whoever does it (believes in the one God sent) will never hunger, never thirst, live forever, never die. has eternal life, and will be risen on the last day.

It has nothing to do with communion. again this is a catholic belief, when are you going to deny your catholicism and stop following their lies.

John 6 refutes that salvation can be lost.

 

[michael56]

No it is not. John 6 is about eating the word of God. and making a decision to place your faith in it. Whoever does it (believes in the one God sent) will never hunger, never thirst, live forever, never die. has eternal life, and will be risen on the last day.

It has nothing to do with communion. again this is a catholic belief, when are you going to deny your catholicism and stop following their lies.

John 6 refutes that salvation can be lost.

Amen, what is the true bread that if eaten gives eternal life?

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24

 

[yaright]

lol. How can you still say that, when John 6 does not support your theory. Your as bad as the catholics saying that John 6 says we must literally eat the flesh and blood of jesus , by picking and chosing one small part of the whole conversation between Jesus and these people. and rejecting the rest of the conversation.

If John 6: 39 is all you have, you have very little to stand on.

As for the greek. Nothing in culture or language at the time those words were written would have allowed people to believe what your claiming, We do not read it from a religious point of view. we read it like they would have, and understand it like they would. There is no literature, or documents which would support such a view. Not to mention. the word cosmos when used in scripture is representative of satans kingdom. And all that is in it. We are told to go into that enemy territory and spread the gospel. to help God rescue people out of that kingdom. So scripture does not support your theory.

You are both right without usurping regulations of the Bible; God so loved the (whole) world He gave His only begotten Son (It is this part that you (eternally-gratefull) correctly give testimony of; but to finish reveals forsha is also correct. That who so ever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. This reveals that even though God desired that none should perish, many will choose not to hear Him. A definite thumbs up to both of you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Amen, what is the true bread that if eaten gives eternal life?

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. John 5:24

amen. And as Jesus himself said in John 6.

[SUP]40 [/SUP]And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

[SUP]45 [/SUP]It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’[SUP][e][/SUP] Therefore everyone who has heard and learned[SUP][f][/SUP] from the Father comes to Me. [SUP]46 [/SUP]Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. [SUP]47 [/SUP]Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me[SUP][g][/SUP] has everlasting life.

[SUP]63 [/SUP]It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. [SUP]64 [/SUP]But there are some of you who do not believe.

The context is hearing the words. And who has faith and who does not believe.

Not some communion service.

 

[Elin]

Eternal life is not a physical possesses, it is a spiritual possession.

You don't know the Biblical meaning of "eternal life."
It's meaning has nothing to do with duration, although it is forever, and cannot be lost.

It means the life of God, Holy Spirit life in one's spirit.
We receive that life in our spirits when they are raised from spiritual death (no Holy Spirit life) in the new birth.

Your understanding of "eternal life" is not a Biblical one, which is why you find so many "contradictory" Scriptures regarding it.

No I do know the many of the biblical eternal life, but what some do is confuse the meanings of spiritual life with eternal life. Spiritual life can mean either what receive when the Lord returns to gather us to Him, or it can mean a person who is walking properly in the faith by the fruits of the Spirit.
Eternal life is what we receive when we are transformed in a blink of an eye into our spiritual eternal bodies
at the gathering/rapture.

Jesus said otherwise in Jn 5:24, 6:54, that we have it now.

Your notion of eternal life remains a human and unbiblical one.

 

[popeye]

You didn't answer my question.

Please give specific Scriptures.

You have no interest in it anywy..
you post it.

Oh,thats right,Jesus didn't care about the priesthood. nevrmind. Get back in that loop,ok?

 

[Elin]

Where do you find these Temple Passover regulations in Scripture?

You did not answer my question.

You have no interest in it anywy..
you post it.

Oh,thats right,Jesus didn't care about the priesthood. nevrmind. Get back in that loop,ok?

There are no Scriptures giving Temple Passover regulations.

You made up that whole false scenario.