Rukkus

All this to say you believe in the doctrine of sinless perfection Be blessed, Tim Well . . . I'm not sure what that doctrine all entails. But if it means that in Christ there is no sin, then yes, I do believe that. But that's not why I'm here. I'm here to make sure the article is biblically sound.

Gentle Giant said . . . We are tri-fold beings... Spirit, Soul (mind,will,emotions) and Body. When we are born-again/saved/converted (i don't care what terminology you use), it is our spirit that becomes a New Creation. The old sin nature of the human spirit no longer exists and in place is our re-generated human spirit that is filled with the Nature of God. That is where the "Old has passed away, all things have become New" would fit into this. The Soul has NOT been changed, and still has it's sinful 'programming'. The Body has NOT been changed, and still has it's sinful, lustful desires. Well first, 2Cor 5:17 doesn't say it was just our spirit that became new. Second, it says "old things have passed away, all things have become new" it's a long jump to go from "all things become new" to just one thing becoming new, our spirit. We now as new-born babes in Christ, must begin the process of transforming our soul by the renewing of our minds. (Romans 12:1,2 -- 1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God

Trust and Obey said . . . Because God is in us, that's why. Being in us means that we are still here. And, we are utterly unrighteous in and of ourselves. Well that's the thing. We arn't in ourselves. We're in Christ (2Cor 5:17). And in Him there is no sin(1Jn 3:5) Our righteousness is as filthy rags before God. That's why we have been given His righteousness (Rom 5) There is nothing in our flesh that can please God (Romans 8). And, our flesh was crucified, symbolically, per Gal 2, What do you mean symbolically? but we do struggle with it in a practical way (Romans 7). Where does it say that we have to still struggle with the flesh in Romans 7?

Leo said Rukkus: Thank you for your recent book! If someone can't keep it short, then it is obvious they do not have a clear idea of what they are talking about. Winston Churchill ran WWII on memos which would fit on 3X5 cards. Once you clarify your thought, you can do the same, and it will be much to your readers' relief. Yes, I really don't like writing long things. But sometimes it's necessary in order to cover the whole subject. I read the first few paragraphs and largely agree with you, although you seem--to me--to come across arrogant, and with an attitude of self-superiority, rather than pedagogic. Well, that's why I say that I'm not being arrogant. Even if that's how it seems. PS: Jesus did say to 'take up your cross daily;' the cross is clearly a 'crucifixion device.' So the idea of crucifying your flesh daily is certainly there. Can I have a $100? Yeah, I'll send it to you in the mail. What's your addy? J/K . . . no, the reason I won't send you any money is that although the cross is a device that brings death, we assume from that that it means we must crucify the flesh everyday. Whereas I could take the same verse and say "it symbolizes that we should be reminded that we died to self on that cross 2000 years ago . . ." Now, I'm not saying it really means that, but just making a point that there could be alot of assumptions drawn from that verse, but if you want to stay with just scripture . . . It doesn't say what people say it does.

Shiloh said . . . 1John 3:6-10 is talking about living in habitual sin. The one who is born of God does not continue to live a lifestyle of sin. Well, I've looked up this verse in Greek, let me quote it so we know what it says . . . 9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Two things . . . First, when it says "commit sin" it does indeed mean "practice". Which is a little different than a "lifestyle" the only thing with this is that just by going with the first part of the verse, Christians still don't keep it. Cause if you sin everyday, you wouldn't consider that practice? If I played the piano 3 times a week someone would say I practiced piano. If I played it everyday someone would say I'm really devoted to it. So what's it mean when we sin everyday? Second, if you look at the latter part of that verse in Greek where it says "cannot sin" that word doesn't have the "practice" with it. It means sinning period. That you cannot sin. It's Strong's # 264 If you disagree, I'd like to see your references. 3:9 tells us that he who is born of God cannot keep on sinning. At least that is how it reads from the Greek. Really? What are your references on this? It does not mean that we do not have a sin nature, nor the capacity for sin. Actually, if you look up the word "cannot" in Greek, it means . . . to be able, have power whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favourable circumstances, or by permission of law or custom to be able to do something to be capable, strong and powerful (Strong's 1410) So that sounds like it contradicts what you said about not having the capacity to do it. In fact, to deny the capacity for sin, amounts to lying. according to 1John 1:8. We would not be admonished in v. 9 to confess our sin, if there were no way for us to sin. Unless after confessing our sin, or acknowledging sin, we receive the truth, and the truth sets us free, so that we are in the position talked about in 1Jn 3. John tells us that when we confess our sin, Jesus is faithful to forgive us. Amen. Alot of Christians think they have to keep confessing all the time. But if after you have acknowledged your sin and get saved, then you get God's seed in you, and you sin not (of course, this is the Legal Side. And it's another subject altogether)

Ovedya said . . . If we no longer have the sin nature, why do we still think about sin and commit acts of sin? Well, this deals with the Legal and Vital Sides of Redemption. It's another subject that pertains to the fact that a Covenant involves two sides. I will say this much though, the Bible says we should awake to righteousness and stop sinning. Alot of Christians have yet to awaken to the fact that they're righteous, and so they continue to sin (1Cor 15:34) And why did John write, "He who says that he has no sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him'? (rough paraphrase)? Well John said this because it's true. But he wasn't done talking. He went on in the very next verse and says "But if we confess our sins, He's faithful and just to forgive us out sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." So God is faithful to cleanse us from those sins . . . At that point, after I have confessed my sins, I'd actually be decieving myself by still saying I had sin. I would be claiming that I didn't get cleansed. (1Jn 1:8-9) I would be making an open confession that God wasn't faithful and that I still had sin.

Jar said I started to read your post and I find it intriguing. I need to study it more, but I noticed you skipped something... Paul said that which I will not to do that I do and that which I not will I do... oh what a wretched man..... Yeah, Paul did say that in Romans 7. But he also revealed in Romans 7 that it was the law the gave sin the avenue to produce in him all manner of evil desire (Rom 7:8) and without the law, sin becomes lifeless. Also, 1Cor 15:56, the power of sin is the law. So if sin loses it's power without the law, what influence could it have over you, other than if you yield to it (Rom 6:13)? And where would the desire to yield to sin be, if it was sin, through the law, that brought about those desires (Rom 7:8, Jms 1:1)? Yes, Paul described a present tense struggle, but ended on a good note in Romans 8:2. If you stop at the end of Romans 7 the situation is that you will always sin. But if you read through, you see Paul made the plain declaration that he had been set free from that law of sin. So I think you posted that Sripture out of context. What scripture? And people are already saying it was too long of an article. You can always read it in the Bible for the entire context. I would summarily say that if this be the case, then why did Jesus sweat blood and desire not to go to the cross if lust, (desire to) did not exist in the Garden of Gesthemany? Well, you're talking about Jesus, before His Redemptive Work. But the verses I speak of in the article are verses that speak about the result of that work ( see article above) In other words, we don't have a sinful nature because it was crucified with Christ. Yet Gethsemene was before that crucifixion. The proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit is the struggle against sin. Those who do not have it run to sin.. those who do struggle in the power of the Spirit. I would have to disagree. There is no scripture that says this (to my knowledge).

This is an article that is soon to be released on our website. I wanted to know if there is anything in it that is unbiblical . . . Most Christians believe they still posses a fallen nature that is constantly warring against the nature of God in them. I am continually amazed at how adamant and forceful the Church is when it comes to this subject. I can hardly tune into the Christian radio station where I live without hearing this doctrine constantly being pounded over and over and over again. Christians say things like,

...

Larry Said . . . Most important to any discussion of death is a definition of death. PLEASE DEFINE "DEATH" AS SUCCINTLY AS YOU CAN SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY. LT Well, I guess we can use the Strong's defintion given . . . qavnato

Larry said . . .

Let's talk about the next chapter . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Dominion of Death So you may be wondering what was going on for those three days and three nights that Jesus spent in the earth. For whatever reason, the Bible does not speak too specifically on this. But I can tell you one thing I found about it. . . One day I was reading through Romans 6 and happened to read verse 9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dies no more; death has no more dominion over him. And it was like someone turned the lights on. I saw the last part of that verse, death has no more dominion over Him. The Amplified says

Halifax said . . . And I agree with Shiloh...I have a feeling that you have an agenda... Well, I do have an agenda . . . I want to know if what I believe is biblically accurate. and you feel you have too much at stake to change what you already believe... I'll be honest with you, I have felt that way before. A fear that I may be wrong about what I believe. But then I stop and think about it and ask, "Well, all that can come from being corrected is becoming more right. So why fear? If I'm wrong, I want to know so that I can change." But enough about me . . . goodness knows that you went to all those lengths to make a whole book about Jesus' sinfulness. No I didn't . . . There's alot more to the book than this . . . In fact I'll release some more of it . . . I do think it's time to move on anyway. Which comes first...your own labours...or the truths of God's Word???? The Truths of God's Word of course. God didn't send you here as a fluke...you need to repent of this wrong theology and know the true Saviour. I certainly will when someone can show me how it's wrong biblically. But most all I've seen so far is people clinging to the first part of 2Cor 5:21, and trying to change the second part. The first part, "Him who knew no sin" and everyone in here is crying out, "Jesus had no sin! He was sinless! It's blasphemous to say otherwise!" then, instead of accepting the latter part as they did the first, they want to change the latter and say, "no, He didn't become sin . . . He became . . . " and then it becomes a game of fill in the blank. Who wants to insert what they think Jesus became . . . Sin offering? Sin in body? and the guesses keep rolling in . . . But I'll believe the whole verse. Jesus who knew no sin was made to be sin for me . . . hallelujah! I am NOT here to judge you...and sorry if that's what this appears to be. I am merely trying to do my job as a believer...proclaiming the Gospel. Well, I respect that . . . But I'm just looking for scripture on this matter, not commentary.

HalifaxChristian said . . . Rukkus...what you don't understand is that the flesh profits NOTHING. The flesh is not what constitutes us sinners or separated from God. The flesh is merely a RESULT of this spiritual condition. Well, I'm not sure if this is true or not you don't give any scripture . . . God, Who is perfect, became sinful flesh to condemn sin in the flesh. God did not become a sinner by becoming sin in the flesh...because that isn't what makes us sinners in the first place...it is the RESULT of sin. What? I don't understand this statement. God bore the penalty that we all deserve...death...and bore that death for us on the cross...even though He remained sinless, and perfect...and did not deserve it. He wasn't sinless though. He commited no sin, but He bore in Him, the sins of us all. He became sin. The Bible says so . . . That is why He is the ultimate sacrifice for sin. If Jesus became sin in Spirit...and was constituted an actual sinful entity...that sacrifice meant didilly squat...honestly. What would that sacrifice have meant??? NOTHING. But He did become sin, because the Bible says so. Jesus was offered a spotless lamb, but God Him sin on the cross. But praise God we have a sufficient, never-changing Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the RIGHTEOUS....not Jesus Christ the once-upon-a-time-sinner. Well, I've got to stay loyal to what the scriptures say.

Yashaw said If Yeshua was actually "made sin" instead of bearing "our sins" then He would not have been a holy, rightous offerring before God. It would have been a stench in Gods nostrils so to speak. But Yeshua was a sweet savor before Yahweh God. He who knew no sin (was sinless) died for us who are sinners. You cannot make something or someone "sinful, full of sin" and offer it before the Lord. It would be rejected by Him. Is.53 says it all. Shalom Well, you have the word "if" in whether or not Jesus was made sin, yet the Bible clearly says He was (2Cor 5:21) I don't know how much more clear God could have said it. But your objections are noted. As I've been pointing out, as the Bible says, Jesus was righteous, holy and without spot. But God made Him sin. Look at 2Cor 5:21 closely. It openly declares that Jesus had known no sin, and then it says God made Him sin. So both statements are correct. And I believe both. Thank you for your input.

Attention Everyone Just want to say, before anyone gets the idea that I feel like I'm being ganged up on, I don't. I don't mind this at all. This is exactly why I came and I'm glad so many are participating . . . Now, Shilo Said . . . The line of thought, the context tells us how a word is being used. For example, how do you know if you only go by EXACTLY what you read that when Jesus said, "if your right hand offends you cut it off?" If some used YOUR way of interpreting Scripture and only went by the literal meaning of the Greek text, there would be no room for understanding what he truly meant. Well, let me stop you there . . .I don't always use a literal meaning of text. If you want to see more specifically how I read my bible, you can log onto our site and read our book "An End To All Strife" So I did want to correct you there. I don't believe in a purely literal interpretation . . . I believe the Bible itself . . . And there is a difference. You are making the same grievous error in your treatment of this issue. You cannot ignore context. When Paul said that Jesus was made sin, he was thinking and writing like a Jew who was familiar with the sin offerings. It was Jesus as a sin offering that Paul had in mind. Again, I appreciate your input, but if you're going to use context as an excuse to add whatever you want into the scriptures, that's between you and God. I just want to stay with what God's Word says alone. This way I know I'll be justified in my sayings and I'll overcome when I'm judged (Rom 3:4) He was claiming that Jesus became sinful. That Jesus was a sin offering, is upheld by the entire book of Hebrews, especially chapter 10. A sin offering cannot be sinful. It cannot be like the ones upon whose behalf it is being offered. The only way it is can a sin offering is to be blameless, without blemish itself. I agree. A sin offering can't be sinful. Jesus was offered as a lamb without spot or blemish (1Pt 1:19). But the Bible goes onto say He was made sin, and He was filled with our sins (1Pt 2:24, 2Cor 5:21). Jesus had to become abhored by God. He had to have evil pronounced upon Him by the Father, in order to redeem us (Gal 3:13) If Jesus were literally made "sin" on the cross, and not simply a sin offering then there would have been no way to save us. This isn't what the Bible says. In fact, the Bible almost says the exact opposite of what you just said. It says that it was because Jesus was made sin, that we could be made the righteousness of God in Christ (2Cor 5:21). That verse shows both sides of what we're talking about. It says Jesus knew no sin. That's what you keep saying, isn't it? That Jesus knew no sin. So I agree . . . Jesus knew no sin. But we must keep reading . . . He was made sin for us. And that's what I'm talking about. The problem is that you don' even know what the verses you are quoting actually say. I know exactly what they say . . . It's plainly written. Jesus was made sin. You don't know how to exegete Scripture, What's that mean? and you are ignoring other parts of the Bible that add further illumination to the issue. What other parts am I ignoring? Because I definitley want further illumination. You want to only focus on a few pet verses, and and you lack the skill to handle those properly. Well again, you're only making a statement. I want to be shown specifically . . . Otherwise how will I know what skill I'm lacking? You are attempting a face value interpretative approach which is one of the most unreliable methods of biblical interpretation. Well . . . I'm just going to stay with the Bible. . . .You can make comments like that all day, but I'm interested in what the Bible says. You need to be specific about where exactly I'm wrong, then support that with scripture. Not make general statements about methods of study. If you really believe that your method is correct, then the next time you look at a woman innappropriately, you should cut your eye out of it's socket. Well, this is another subject which we can talk about later. Or, better yet, go to our site and our guys will be glad to address you on the matter. We are very open to any correction. We only ask one thing . . . That you support what you say with God's Word. Well there are plenty of commentator and scholars who are advanced in Greek who seem to get the point that it was a sin offering that Paul was alluding to. Well, I mentioned earlier that a commentary is a commentary. Someone who knows Greek could offer their own personal opinion just as much as someone who doesn't . . . But if you could reference some of them, and where they make these statements so I could read them for myself, I'd love to see it. Although, let me ask you something. . . . If the Greek seems to imply a sin offering, why do most of our translations, even the newer ones, not show this? In fact, do you know of any translation into english that does read the way you claim? You have some kind of agenda, and you prefer to ignore scholarship and prefer to force your preconceived notions on to the Scriptures, instead actually learning what words mean. Well, again, the first part of your comments are just slinging mud. As far as not wanting to learn words . . . I'm all for that. What word(s) do you think I should learn? [quote]And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14) It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross. Hmmm . . . Interesting comment. But it still says He was made sin. Yes, it still says that, and Colossians 2:14 demonstrates in what sense he was made sin. What part of Col 2:14 demonstrate what sense Jesus was made sin? It demonstrates that your understanding of what was meant in 2 Cor. 5:21 is faulty since it demonstrates that Jesus did not become sinful, but rather served as the sin bearer for mankind. Well, how does Col 2:14 demonstrate that Jesus did not become sinful? And how could it do that since we have a scripture that plainly says He did? (1Pt 2:24) This is further demonstrated in Hebrews 10. How?

larry said . . Hi Rukkus, Just read you thread and I have some comments.

I never said the "original Greek says." Well let's look at what you said . . . [COLOR=purple]The phrase "made to be sin" is hamartian epoiēsen in Greek and the words "to be" do not appear in the original text. The way it should more properly be understood from the Greek text is, "He was treated as sin, who knew no sin." To claim that Christ actually became sin is not supported by any properly exegeted biblical passage, but relies a tragic mishandling of the word of God. This sure sounds like you're trying to make a claim about the original Greek if you ask me . . . But if I was wrong for assuming that, I accept it, and apologize. My point is that the context indicates word usuage. It is the sense that we should be trying to get at. It indicates what? What do you mean when you say "word usage"? The sense of the passage as the words are used is that Jesus made to be sin only in the sense that sin was imputed to him. Well . . . I don't know if you read my original post or not . . . But I was looking for someone to show me I was wrong from the Bible only. As far as how you feel the passage should be read or understood is between you and the Lord. I believe Jesus was made sin because this is what it says. And I want to stay with what the Bible says . . . If Jesus became sinful, then He could have been a sin sacrifice, as it had to blameless. Well, as I told halifax, Jesus was sinless . . . The Bible says He knew no sin. But at the same time, at some point God actually made Jesus sin. This is what the Bible says. Now, he didn't stay sin, in fact the Bible says when Jesus appears the second time, it will be without sin (Heb 9:28) So I'm going to stay with the whole counsel of God's Word. It was for our transgressions that He died. You need to read your Bible a little better. A nice stab at my character Paul's point is that Jesus was made a sin offering for us, and this is especially true when you look at the Hebrew equivalent for the Greek in this verse. It is the word Chatat which is a reference to the sin sacrifice, which vicariously bore the sins of the people. It did not "become sin" but rather it was the sin bearer which bore away the sins of the people. Likewise Christ is our sin bearer. Hmmm. Interesting . . . But 2Cor 5:21 doesn't have the word "sacrifice" in it, so how will looking up that word clarify anything in this verse? Unless you're saying that I should assume it's talking about sacrifice in that verse. [COLOR=blue]Your approach makes Christ a sinner is blasphemous in the highest regard.[/COLOR] . . . Well . . . You can call it what you want. It means nothing to me until you can prove it biblically. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; (Colossians 2:13-14) It was our transgressions that were applied to Jesus. In those days it was customary for the sins of the accused to be nailed on the cross along with the accused. Paul is saying that it was our sins, our list of transgressions that were nailed to Christ's cross. It was our transgressions that were being payed for by a sinless sacrifice. Had Jesus been made sinful in the abosolute sense, it would have nullified the entire reason for going to the cross. Hmmm . . . Interesting comment. But it still says He was made sin. It is heretical ideas like yours that are the product of a sloppy and unskilled handling of God's Word. You obviously don't much about the Greek or you would not come to the false conclusions that you have. You are not teaching biblical Christianity. Rather it is a false teaching that should be rejected by every Christian reading this thread. Well . . . All you have to do now is prove what you just said from a biblical stand point and I might believe it . . . Look guys . . . You're wasting your time if you want to attack me personally. I'm just the messenger that happens to believe the message. I'm unmoved by any remarks. Let's stay on task here . . . I know, it's tempting to tear people down that don't believe the way you do . . . But that's not what this discussion is for.

Rukkus...you are devising a WHOLE DOCTRINE that Jesus was SPIRITUALLY DEAD because of TWO SINGLE VERSES. That is very dangerous. A whole doctrine? All I'm doing is believing that Jesus was forsaken by God because the Bible says so. If you want to call that a WHOLE DOCTRINE . . . That's fine . . . It's kinda weird . . . But it's fine. The first verse you use is the one that says Jesus was forsaken by the Father. He was...but NOT SPIRITUALLY. Well, I appreciate your input, but I'm going to stay with what the Bible says. He was forsaken UNTO DEATH ON THE CROSS for our sins. Even Jesus said that His disciples would forsake Him but that the Father would not. No He didn't. He said the disciples would leave Him and that He would not be alone because His Father was with Him. But on the cross, God forsook Him, just like it says. You are reading your own interpretation onto that text I have shown you. What part of the text am I reading my own interpretation? . . . I want to remind you, I came to this discussion board to get something done . . . That was to see if someone could biblically challenge what I've said. Now, if you're going to make a claim, you need to be specific so I know what you're talking about. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever...and He cannot change. A spiritual separation from the Father would make that void. Hmmm. I agree that God cannot change, but at the same time we must take the whole counsel of God's Word, and God said that He forsook Jesus. Your point about Jesus not changing would still be a contradiction to your belief that God forsook Jesus bodily. Because someone could say "Jesus and God were always in the same body, and they cannot change, therefore, God could not have forsaken Jesus bodily." See what I mean? You could make the arguement about God never changing for a whole host of biblical doctrines. The very fact that Jesus became flesh could be said to be a contradiction to the fact that God never changes. Someone could say, "Jesus couldn't have been God, because God never changes, and God didn't have a physical body before, so if He's not going to change, then he won't take on flesh." And the list goes on and on . . . So if you're going to attempt to prove me wrong, you'll have to give me a different angle than the "God never changes" concept. That one could be used on dozens of scriptures. And it will leave you with a theological headache. Jesus is God and cannot die. God is Spirit. Jesus is ETERNAL and separation from the Father would make this void. Well . . . I almost agree with you. But at the Resurrection, things changed. And I'll talk more about that later. Jesus was the SPOTLESS LAMB and if He was sin in SPIRIT He would not have been SPOTLESS. The list goes on and on. Well God made Him sin so that we could be made the righteousness of God. Jesus was spotless, but again, we have to take the whole counsel of God's Word, that even though Jesus was spotless, on the cross was when He was made sin. Why? Why did Jesus have to be made sin? So that we could be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is what the Bible says. The second verse you use is the one that says Jesus became sin. He did...in HIS BODY...by becoming a human being in the flesh. He bore our sins in His own BODY on the tree. Jesus became sin alright...no question about it...in BODY...but certainly NOT IN SPIRIT. Period. I'm going to be honest with you . . . Some of the things you say don't line up when you look at them under closer scrutiny . . . Let me show you one example . . . You have gone to great lengths to show that it was Jesus flesh that was made the sacrifice for our sin. And the sacrifice was spotless and perfect. And that it was His body that died only, right? . . . . Yet right here in your above post you say that Jesus' body had always been sin from the moment he became human. Therefore, according to you, Jesus had a body of sin, and this body is what was supposed to be a perfect sacrifice for us? How's that supposed to work? Here's another example of something you said that is confusing . . . When I said that Jesus became a sinner because the Bible says His body was filled with our sins and the definition of a sinner is someone who has sin, you came back and said, "No, that verse says it was His body that became filled with our sins" And you're right, the Bible does say more specifically that it was Jesus' body (1Pt 2:24) And you tried to correct me for saying that part of Jesus is His body so that if His body was filled with sin, you could say He was. Remember that? If not I can cut and paste it. So I was following you so far . . . Then all of a sudden you come out with what you're saying now . . . That even though the Bible says Jesus was forsaken, it was actually HIs body. So you're doing the very same thing you said was wrong . . . You took the verse that said Jesus had been forsaken, and you evidently think it's alright now to believe that when the Bible talks about Jesus, it's actually talking about His body. Then when I tried saying Jesus was filled with sin, you said "No, it says it was His body." See what I'm saying? In other words, one moment you said it was wrong to say that Jesus is flesh. Now, you're taking a verse that says Jesus was forsaken, and saying it was talking about his flesh. What's going on here?

Now we come to the end of the cross, and the beginning of the 3 days and 3 nights that Christ was dead. I want you to notice the words of Jesus just before His death . . . And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into your hands I commit my spirit: and having said this, he gave up the Ghost (Lk 23:46) One time I was reading a commentary on this verse by a minister and he said something to the effect of,

Jesus was not made sin in the absolute sense. Our sin was imputed to Christ. He did not become sinful on the cross. Lets look at one of the chief verses you use to support this nonsense. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21) The phrase "made to be sin" is hamartian epoiēsen in Greek and the words "to be" do not appear in the original text. The way it should more properly be understood from the Greek text is, "He was treated as sin, who knew no sin." To claim that Christ actually became sin is not supported by any properly exegeted biblical passage, but relies a tragic mishandling of the word of God. Properly understood, our sin was imputed (credited) to Christ, just as His righteousness is imputed to us. I am sorry that you have chosen to believe a doctrine of the devil and have given into radical heresy instead of just believing the Bible. You are tragically deceived. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rukkus: If this verse does not speak to you...I am afraid you have blinders on from the enemy... "Christ...being PUT TO DEATH in the FLESH (body), but QUICKENED by the Spirit."-1 Peter 3:18 Oh, it speaks to me. That's a good verse. The Bible makes ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to Jesus dying in Spirit. I agree. If you find one, let me know . . . Or, if you find a verse that makes reference to ANYONE dying in spirit, let me know. You have attempted over and over to make void our points using your opinionated, shallow replies...no offense intended...but that is what they are. Well, I'm just looking for scripture that contradicts something I've said . . . And specifics, so I know what you're referring to. I have yet to see you show any verses that prove that Christ died anything more than physically. I would agree with that . . . the subject of "dying spiritually" is a concept that just isn't clearly defined in scripture . . . So it depends on how you define it, as to whether I can show you scripture for it. As I said to Gypc . . . If you define it as Jesus' Spirit dying . . . Well . . . I don't think I could show you scripture on that. But then again, I don't think there is scripture for anyone's spirit dying. Do you have scripture that says someone's spirit died in the Bible? If you do, I'd like to see it. I don't think the Bible talks about such a thing as a Spirit dying. I know Jesus' Spirit didn't die, cause it was in the heart of the earth for 3 days and 3 nights (Matt 12:30, Acts 2:31). It went to the place of the dead . . . But I don't know of scripture that says it died. You say that the Bible doesn't even say "spiritual death"...it does not...but surely you agree that this principal is clearly laid out in the Word. You have even said this earlier on in this conversation here. Well, I agree, depending on how you define it. So let's lay this dog to rest . . . Right now, define for me what spiritual death is . . . . In your opinion . . . And we can use this definition for the remainder of the conversation, that way I'm not un certain of what you're talking about. How can you use such a hypocritical approach to this debate? First, you start by saying that we are wrong...because "spiritual death" isn't even mentioned in the Bible. And then you proceed to believe that Jesus died spiritually. I never said Jesus died spiritually. Cut and paste it . . . Let's take a look. Make up your mind...either the premise is true or not. This word game should not continue...and I agree that we must use Scripture to base our theology. Me too Me and gypc...have shown you clearly that Jesus died physically...the BLOOD of Jesus cleanses of all sin...He bore our sins in His own BODY...He was put to death in the FLESH....He would raise again the TEMPLE of His body...eat and drink His flesh and blood which was SHED FOR US...all these things are physical. I would agree with this. Where does the Bible say that Jesus died in Spirit...please show me. Don't attack us if you can't even provide Scriptures yourself...and be not deceived...you have NOT. I don't know what you mean when you say "died in Spirit" so . . . I'd have to say there is no scripture that says this. And Jesus' perfect sacrifice was finished on the cross...I don't know if you are a Seventh-Day Adventist or not...but I don't know how you can say that redemption was not finished on the tree. It clearly was. Redemption was finished on the cross? Well, then why does Paul say that wihthout a resurrection, faith is vain (1Cor 15)? If redemption was finished while Jesus was on the cross, why does the Bible say in Hebrews 9 that Christ had to enter the heavenly holy of holies with His own blood to obtain this redemption (Heb 9)? Your comments don't seem to be biblically accurate. Without a resurrection, and Jesus entering the Holy of Holies with His own blood, the Bible says faith is vain, and there is no eternal redemption (Heb 9:12, 1Cor 15:14) . . . .So I've proved you wrong in your statement that redemption was finished on the cross. Were there other things to be done after the sacrifice that were a part of God's council? Certainly. God never sleeps. But to say that all that was needed for salvation was not done and over when Christ commited His Spirit to the Father...is plain blasphemy. Brother . . . You need to read your Bible. Our faith amounts to nothing without a resurrection. You have nothing without a risen Saviour. There was no justification without a Resurrection (Rom 4:25). And there is no way to be saved without a resurrection, because in order to be saved, you have to believe Jesus rose from the dead (Rom 10-9-10). This is also shown in Romans 5:10 we were reconciled by the death, but we are saved, by the life of the Son of God. You're going to need to start backing up what you say with scripture

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> What is your point? I didn't say "depending on the definition, I've proven Christ died in spirit" no . . . I said "depending on the definition, Christ died spiritually" See, here it appears that you define "dying spiritually" as your spirit dying . . . Something I've not seen in all the Bible. So according to your definition of "dying spiritually" (that is, if you're claiming dying spiritually means your spirit dying) I would have to say . . . .No, I don't have any specific scripture that says this is what happened to Jesus . . . .or anyone else for that matter.

John 19:28After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. 29Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. 30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. That's it........it's done......... Well, it's always been done. Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the earth (Rev 13:8). Yet if you look at it in the order that is given in the New Testament you see there was more to the Work Christ did. For instance, He was raised because of, or for, our justification (Rom 4:25). He also needed to go into the Heavenly Holy of Holies to present His blood in order to obtain eternal redemption (Heb 9:12). So, I do agree with you that it was finished when Jesus said it was finished. In fact, it had been finished from the foundation of the earth. However, as Halifax said, we should take all the counsel of God's Word. And the rest of God's Word reveals to us details of the Redemptive Work of Christ, which I show in the opening statement of this discussion. he didn't go and suffer in hell. Well, I don't think I ever said Jesus suffered in hell. His Blood was the prfect sacrifice. I agree. But there was more to it than just His blood. If Jesus would not have ever raised we would have a dead religion like the rest of the world. . . . Even if you had the shed blood of a Saviour, without a Resurrection of a Saviour, it would be vain (1Cor 15:14) 1st Cor 11:24And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. Body and Blood........no mention of Spirit. If his Spirit died then he would have said this is my spirit that dies for you. Well . . . Are you arguing something I said? I'm not sure what you mean by this comment. Or is this your definition of spiritual death? did I ever claim Jesus' Spirit died?