SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : did Jesus really die spiritually

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 )
PosterThread
clintstone
Member



Joined: 2008/4/20
Posts: 201
tulsa,ok.

 Re:

well said brother. all hail the power in the blood that was given through an eternal spirit that never died ,and that spirit was the one spirit of the Father Son and Holy Ghost


_________________
Clint Demoret

 2008/9/7 9:45Profile
clintstone
Member



Joined: 2008/4/20
Posts: 201
tulsa,ok.

 Re:

now , lets dig into what is fitting with our nature , which God is the author of. the proponents of Christs spiritual death take 3 scriptures out of context to come up with this. the main one is 2corinthians5:21 the other is isaiah 53:9 and phillipians 2:8...in phillipians 2;8 " Jesus became obedient unto death" the greek word used becomes important : it is the word makri or " until " or " up to the time of " His death, which was the act of ultimate obedience to the Father . However, word faith teaches that He was obedient to death and to the creator of death, which never happened. this meaning fits with abraham and his obedience in offering his son , which his son was spared. now isaiah 53:9 says "His grave was assigned with the wicked men Yet he was with arich man in His DEATH." e.w. kenyon exsplains that the word death is in the plural in the Hebrew , indicating that Jesus died twice on the cross,He died spiritually so that He could die physically. kenyon states this in his book ,, what happened from the crosss to the throne ,pp.44-45. In the hebrew, the word death is preceeded by an artical, "His" it is true that this article is in the plural in some manuscripts. However, the noun " death" is NOT in the plural in the hebrew text. if it were in the plural it would have a special ending indicating this. the earliest manuscripts do not even have the artical " His " in the plural. this has led scholars to assume that the plural article is merely a copyists error, since it is not followed as a plural noun as it should be.The word for death in the hebrew is "MAWET" it is used 150 times in the old testament .D.R. McConnell exsplains the hebrew pural in this text in relation to kenyons teachings: " pural nouns are extreemly common in the hebrew scriptures. they are not just used to denote numerical plurality, but also to emphasize a particular meaning of the noun. In Hebrew,plural nouns exspress majesty,rank, excellence, magnitude and intensity. in isa.53:9 " deaths " is a pural of intensity used by the writer to indicate that the death of Jesus was a particularly violent one. it no more means that the king of tyre died two deaths than that the Messiah died two deaths" [ d.r. mcconnell,p.128 ]. the translation could be,, "and He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His violent death.". from the [jamieson, fausset, and brown commentary ] they say that the Messiah died in both ways physically and spiritually.. Greek scholars agree that it was a violent death. another example of this is in ezek.28:8-10 which depicts the violent death of the king of tyre: " you will die the DEATH of those who are slain. " Keil and Delitzsch, in thier commentary on the old testament vol. 7, isaiah, inform us that both the is. and ezek. passages , the pural form for death is an example of pluralis exaggerativus: it is applied to a violent death, the very pain of which makes it like dying again and again." luke22:19,20 Jesus exsplains what His death meant, and also 1cor.11:24-26, mark 14:22-24 Jesus said take eat this is my body and it being unleavened bread meant sinless. Jesus spoke of laying down His physical life in John15:13, not His spirit.. john6:51 Jesus said this bread i give for the life of the world is My Flesh. Col.1:20." yet now has he reconciled you in His fleshy body through death". even if He did die spiritually , it is not the spiritual death that could have any importance but the atonementthrought the blood, the life of the man. the blood atones, not any suffering by itself before or after the cross. The whole old testament types and symbolic usage's of sacrifices show Christ as the fulfillment of the law. both Paul's epistles to different churches say the very same things.Col.1:14, eph. 1:7. ,heb.10:19-20, rev.1:5, these scripture al say by His blood or through His blood , which , by the way was given through an eternal spirit. Kenneth copeland has literally said that " when His blood poured out , it did not atone." [ kenneth Copeland : from a personal letter to D. R. McConnell, dated 12/3/79 . cited in a different gospel, p. 120 ] what hagin , kenyon, billhiemer, copeland teach is a diferent gospel, becuase the whole gospel is center in the atonement that is by the physical , fleshy body broken and and the ,life ressurection,Jesus, blood of Jesus . one name that we can all name Jesus with , that i hardly ever here Him called is Ressurection , Jesus is Ressurection . He told mary that at lazarus' grave. What actually happened to Jesus' spirit is seen in Luke 23:46: " Father, into Thy hands i commit My Spirit [ matthew 27:50 ,John 19:30].Jesus gave Himself to the fathers hand , not satan. He pronounced His time of departure, yielding His spirit to God the Father , and then breathed His last . He gave His body for us , and commited His spirit to God. His spirit did not die, or go to sleep, nor was it taken captive in hell.The cross was a place of victory not of defeat.kenneth hagin says the cross was a place of defeat though, yet He and Copeland are not scriptually sound. This brings me to the final of the 3 scriptures tha is taken way out of context and misinterpreted. That is 2 corinthians 5:21. In 2 cor. 5:19 it says that" God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself " 2 cor.5:21 word-faith promoters confuse the meaning of this passage, since it is important for thier doctrine of substitution and validates the idea of Jesus suffering in hell . Paul says: " for He made Him who knew no sin TO BE SIN FOR US that we might be the righteousness of God in Him. isa.53:5 tells us that the chastisement of our peace was laid " upon" Him. isa. 53:6 says that the Lord laid the iniquity of us all "on" Him , not "in" Him; there was nochange in nature. Our sin was laid to His account.He bore it as a penalty as a punishment, as our substitution; He carried it away [ fulfilling the typology of the scapegoat in leviticus. 16 ]not becomeing sin orcrushed by it.As it says in isa.53:10, it peased the Lord to bruise Him. How? By being a lamb led to the slaughter.vs12 tells us he made intercession for the transgressors, which would be hard to do if He became one of them. Since God does not hear the prayer of asinful man, especially the sin fullest man that ever lved [ the faith teachers claim He became worse than all having every sin imaginable]. i could wrie specifics on just how bad Hinn , copeland ,creflo dollar, hagin are so wrong but the bible is what i want to get across to those reading this . i do think that some things they say should be mentioned so here is one from , Creflo Dollar " He's got to look like a sinner. Or they're not going receive Him into hell, you've got to be a sinner. He's got to somehowlook like that serpent on that stick in moses' day. He's got to look like a serpent in order to be taken in . And Jesus who had never sinned , made an exchange with His covenant partner. He says " let me where your coat of sin. It'll make me look like a sinner. I've never sinned , but if i can put your coat of sin on , when i get back I'm going to give you my coat of righteousness. So the bible says that He who had not sinned was made to be sin [ Our Equaltiy with God Through Righteousness 1/21/2001 ] Jesus had to " accept the sin nature of satan." [ Kenneth Copeland, what happened fron the cross to the throne, side 2] thes are just a couple of many . Nowhere in scripture does it say , God made Him to be a sinner' but ' He had made Him to be sin'. This occured by taking our place as our substitution. contrary to kenyons theology, which went to emerson college to learn his theology from mary baker eddy , who founded christian science, and trine, and emerson, Nowhere does scripture say that satan became Jesus' master. God subject to satan is not the teaching of the bible in any shape or form. Benny Hinn says " ladies and gentlemen, the serpent is a symbol of satan. Jesus Christ knew the only way He could stop satan is by becoming one in nature with him. you say,' What did you say? What blasphemy is this ?' No, you hear this! He did not take my sin ; He became my sin. Sin is the nature of hell. Sin is what madesatan... It was sin that made satan. Jesus said," I'll besin ! I'll go to the lowest place! I'll go to the origin of it! I won't just tack part in it, I'll be the totality of it!''[ Benny Hinn program, TBN, 12/15/90 ] First we need to know that the origin of sin was not hell nor does hell have a nature. If Christ became sin He is ACCURSED, which is exactly what faith teachers are saying. this would be different than the curse of the law found in galations 3;13-14 " Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law , having become a curse for us[ for ti is written " cursed is everyone who hang on a tree " ] this shows He took away the law away that made one guilty when they did not keep it perfectly. it also shows it occured on the cross [ Col. 2: 14-15 ] 2 cor.5:21 In adam Clarkes commentary he states " He made him who knew no sin[ who was innocent ] , a sin offering for us. the word hamartia [ nt;266] occures here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said He knew NO sin, i.e. was innocent.. In the second place it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the chaTa'ah [ OT: 2401 ] and chaTa'at [ OT 2401 ] of the hebrew text; which signifies both sin and a sin-offering in a great variety of places in the petateuch. The Septuagint translates the Hebrew word by hamartia [ NT:266 ] in 94 places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our trans lators attended to thier own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here , they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; namely, that uor sins were imputed to Christ , and that He was a proper object of the indignation of devine justice, because He was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind , or of the elect, as they say , were imputed to Him, and reckoned as His own. One of these writers translates the passage thus;... God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ in our stead;died for us; bore our sins[ the punishment due them ] , in His own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon Him the iniquities fo us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making His soul-His life, an offering for sin; and healing us by His stripes. [ Adam Clarke's Commentary ] Jamieson, Fausset , and Browns Commentary on 2 cor.5:21'...the representative guilt-bearer of the aggregate sin of all men past , present,and future. The sin of the world is one; therefore the singular, not the plural is used; its manifestations are maniflod [ john1;29, rom. 8; 3-4; Gal. 3:13 ] [ For us ] - Greek ' in our behalf' [ john3;14 ] Christ was represented by the brazen serpent, the form, not the substance, of the old serpent. At this death on the cross the sin-bearing for us was consummated . [from jamieson, fausset, and brown commentary ] Albert Barnes notes on 2cor5:21 that hamartian does not mean that He was sin itself, or a sinner, or guilty , then it must mean that He was a sinoffering- an offering or sacrifice for sin; and this is the interpretation now genarally adopted by expositors; or it must be taken as an abstract for the concrete, and mean that God treated Him as if He were a sinner. The former interpretation , that it means that God made Him a sin-offering." Locke also agrees that God treated Him as if He had been a sinner ; that while He was in fact perfectly innocent, it pleased the Father to lay upon Him the punishment ,[ THAT GOD DEEMED needful to secure justice and show mercy, and extend pardon ] [ Certainly Christ's being made sin,is not to be explained of His being made sin in the abstract, nor of His having actually become a sinner; yet it does imply, that sin was charged on Christ, or that it was imputed to Him, and that He became answerable for it. Nor can this idea be excluded, even if we admit " sin-offering " is the proper rendering of hamartia in the passage. A.T. Robertson states that the words " to be " in 2cor. 5;21 or not in the greek. Sin here is in the substantive, not the verb. God " treated as sin" the one " who knew no sin." A.T. Robertson also staes that " we dare not probe to far into the mystery of Christ's sufferings on the Cross, ' meaning its depth is left to God alone . But this si exactly what the faith teachers do, and because of this they come to the wrong conclusions . By going beyond what Scripture states ! in 1 John 3:5 it says " in Him , THERE IS NO SIN , literally meaning He had no sin before , during, nor after the cross, ther are some who may not understand that they are saying that there is NO salvation in the cross! But Paul states that there is no salvation apart from the cross. i could go on a lot further how this does away with the atonement , when you believe hagin and copelands and hinns ideas of this spiritual death and jesus becoming sin and going to hell because of ti but i shall stop for now and let you all reason this post out first . God Bless you all , and there is POWER IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS 1


_________________
Clint Demoret

 2008/9/7 14:22Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy