Thief on the cross

Brother Bob as is often the case I'm left wondering what your point is?

 

Here is the start;

Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

There are lots of references so I really need to know where you're going. You want me to just post the OT?

Isaiah 9:1 Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.
2 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
4 For thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the staff of his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, as in the day of Midian.
5 For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise, and garments rolled in blood; but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire.
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Isaiah 55:1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.
2 Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which satisfieth not? hearken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.
3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
4 Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people.
5 Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the LORD thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel; for he hath glorified thee.

 

LeBuick there is nothing in that passage that says OT folks had to believe in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. There's nothing even in that text about substitutionary death and shed blood.

Again wonderful passage of Scripture, but nowhere in there does it say that someone has to believe in the death and substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ to be saved.

See response to your first and second passages posted.

This is why I asked the question. We have to get onto the same page before we are able to move on to the next step. If we can't get past this then there really is no reason to move forward.

I don't see any Scriptural evidence that folks in the OT were asked to believe in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ as their Substitute in order to be saved.

So if you still hold that OT folks where saved by faith in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus then you are going to have to give me Scriptural evidence or we are going to have to determine how it was they were saved.

 

They believed in the atoning blood sacrifice and that one would come that would be the end all of this system.

All of their sacrificial system, temple (tabernacle) and laws pointed to the coming messiah - the "Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world".

Now that statement by John (who was sent to bare witness) would be absolute nonsense if they did not understand and look toward that ultimate blood sacrifice.


Another thing:
The disciples didn't understand the prophetic (therefore atoning) purpose of His death. Everyone (Jewish) knew to look to the messiah for redemption but they did not understand His first work and therefore did not comprehend the truth until it was revealed by Jesus Himself, and after pentacost via the Holy Spirit.


The OT saints were saved because they LOOKED forward to that SACRIFICE but they did not know it was specifically Jesus by name. The book of Hebrews (specifically 11) shows this quite discriptly.

 

I'm starting to see ya now, the believed the Messiah would come. What role or capacity this messiah would play varied I will agree but didn't Job not say, "I know my redeemer lives?" They did know they would be redeemed. From what? In what form? By what action? Faith...

 

LeBuick,

Exactly they were saved just like we are by grace through faith. But what God revealed to them was different than what has been revealed to us. God told them that the blood of the animals would suffice as Allan said, because it pointed to the coming Lamb of God.

So we move from the OT and into the NT where nothing had changed in the way people were saved. It was still based on their faith in what God had told them regarding the blood that pointed to The Blood.

Therefore we see that those being dealt with in the NT are saved individuals. When Jesus said I come to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, He wasn't saying He came for unsaved folks, but lost folks.

Unfortunately Christendom has equated lostness with unsaved. The House of Israel wasn't on it's way to eternal damnation when Christ came. When Christ came He came to saved individuals that if they would repent of their sins and turn to Him as their Messiah then He would establish His kingdom right then and there.

Unfortunately not all of Israel repented and turned to Him as Messiah. You have the leaders of the day that turned the people away from the kingdom message (much like you do today as can be seen on this very board) and then you had folks that wanted Him to be their King, but they tried to slide by without the repentance part. They wanted Him to be King, but they wanted everything else to stay the same.

Then you had a remenant that believed the message and followed according to what they were instructed to do.

Now since the offer of the kingdom was not accepted by the nation of Israel a "new" nation had to be formed, because the promise of spiritual blessings had been promised to flow from the seed of Abraham and it had to come through the correct line. So with Israel now out of the picture as far as the spiritual kindgom was concerned (not the earthly kindgom, because that was already promised to the nation and can not be taken away) the message now turns to the one new man in Christ.

Those that are now "in Christ" are a new nation that is in the same position that Israel found itself in during the gospel accounts. We are a nation that can accept or reject the message of the kingdom just as Israel did.

And even if the message is rejected we are still sheep.

The difference between Israel in the NT gospels and people today is that people today have to be made spiritually alive before they can be in a position to accept or reject the message that was given to Israel. Israel was not spiritually dead, but spiritually blind.

Gentiles (and Jews today) are spiritually dead and must be saved by grace through faith before the message of the kingdom can be entertained.

Once a person is saved they become a child of God and He starts to deal with them in relation to the kingdom, no longer in relation to spiritual salvation.

Someone in another thread talked about the verse in Hebrews that talks about a child that doesn't accept discipline is considered a bastard and not a true son. We are still children eventhough we are rebellious, unfaithful, disobedient and non-overcoming, but we are just not dealt with as sons, becuase sons allow the Father to discipline them to grow in grace and to walk in the Spirit.

And just as Israel there will be leaders that try to lead the lay people away from the message for various reasons. There will be some that want Christ to be their King, but on their terms instead of His and then there will be a remnant that will believe in the Kingdom message and will do what is necessary to make that inheritance become a reality instead of a missed opportunity such as Esau and Rueben.

 

Yep. Last time I checked, a bastard is still a child of the person; he's just not accepted (adopted).

 

One thing we must remember...

Although the saved are called 'sons of God', we are only sons by adoption.

Thereby, we are not 'bastards'.

 

Talk about mixing metaphors!

Yes, we are sons by adoption. (Being placed into a family by "adoption" is a fairly modern common usage.)

But, that's position within the family. The word translated as "adoption" is son placing.

We are born into the family of God when we are born from above.

There are many children in families who are bastards.

If someone is a bastard, whose child is he?

 

I thought the term originally meant the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents. When I was growing up we used this term to mean your Daddy was not at the house (nor dead) or your Mom had you out of wedlock.

 

Or, they couldn't figure out who your daddy was.

 

He's a child of the angels. Or so was the tradition at one time. Hence names like "Michaelangelo". It was what they called people whose father was unknown.

This useless trivia was brought to you by the letter "P".

 

HIJACKED!

What were we talking about anyway!

 

Who knows, something about a thief but I think someone stole his booty...

Remember, the doctorine of adoption goes back to Israel. That is how they became God's chosen people, they were adopted.

 

unfortunately for the kingdom exclusivism group who hold to multiple salvations, and most specifically the seperate salvation of the spirit and soul, do have a small problem.

Since both soul and spirit are used interchangable through the whole of scripture it would be inconsistant with scripture to say each individually must be redeemed or saved. If they are so similar as to be used interchangably without loosing context therefore you have something that is to be considered unified.

The salvation of one would inherently save the other since they share the same essence

 

Mind showing a place where they are used interchangeably? AFAIK, the KJV translators even got that one right. Although, they did translate "spirit" as "ghost" in several places, I don't think they ever interchanged "spirit" and "soul".

Now, Hebrew is a bit more ambiguous. "Soul" means "soul". But, "spirit" can be "wind", "breath", "mind", or "spirit".

But, in neither Greek nor Hebrew are they interchangeable.

It's the teaching of natural evolution that says they are interchangeable. "Man has a body and a soul or spirit." The Bible says man is body, soul, and spirit. The spirit and soul can be cleaved. When Jesus died, his body went in the grave, his spirit went to be with the father, and his soul went to hell.

 

I will, but I have one HUGE-O question I would like answered first.

Are you asying that Jesus (who is apart of the Trinity) had a body, soul, and spirit.

and If so then when He raised from the dead He went back to Heaven with a body, soul, and spirit that had been glorified.

I'm serious here and for this reason:
That would mean that God the Father is a Tri-une being, and the Son (as you state) IS a tri-une being, and the Holy Spirit would also be a tri-une being as indivuals seperate from the Trinity.

Why, because they are all the same in essence and being and if Jesus is such then the rest are also. IF the fact that Jesus took on flesh to become man is simply an addition for our part, you still have the Godhood being spirit and soul to each one. This would make for One God, in three persons, and six parts (not including the flesh taken on by Jesus.

NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY BUT -I have an excert where Benny Hinn recieved a new revelation from God during a TBN broadcast and he proclaims God told Him They (Godhead) are three person but are a triune being indivually. God the Father is body, soul, and spirit just as Jesus is the same, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Do you see why I said I was being serious. Jesus did not have a body, soul and spirit, like man for He was man in flesh not being.

 

Well, I'm certainly no particular fan of Benny Hinn, nor do I know what he said, but I seem to recall quoting, in the past someone who made the statement, that shall follow shortly. I heard it many years ago on a tape, actually, do not know who it was, had never before heard of the individual, and could not find it if my life was "on the line". It did however, make an impression, and I memorized the quote. Here it is.:

As to who said what, I will now try and answer that "HUGE-O question", since you wanted it answered first.

1.) Jesus (who is God, the Son) 'had' (or 'was') a body, for He, Himself, says 'the woman in pouring "this fragrant oil on My body...did it for My burial."' (Matt.26:12 - NKJV) Compare such other scriptures as "This is my bodythe body of Jesus which is given...", and where' they took down from the cross'. The Greek word here is "σωμα", and means, and is the usual word for a physical body in the NT. It is the word from which, for example, the English "somatic" is derived.
2.) Jesus 'had' (or 'was') a soul, for again, He , Himself, says " Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ... (John 12:27a -NKJV)' " and " Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch.” " (Mk. 14:34 - NKJV) The Greek word, in both these verses here is "ψυχη", and means, and is the usual word for soul in the NT. It is the word from which, for example, the English "psyche" is derived.
3.) Jesus 'had' or 'was' a spirit.
Again, He, Himself, (incidentally, His very last words spoken before his death are "το πνευμα μου" or "My Spirit", in English) says: "And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, “Father, ‘into Your hands I commit My spirit.’”[a] Having said this, He breathed His last." (Lk. 23:46 - NKJV) [His last words are quoted from Ps. 31:5, BTW.] The Greek word, here, is again, "", and although with an additional application of 'breath' or 'wind', is the usual word in the NT for Spirit. It is the word from which, for example, the English words pneumonia and pneumatic are derived.

So, did Jesus have or was Jesus a tri-une being of body, soul, and spirit? Yes, definitely, according to both His own words, and other Scripture written, as well .

And now as to something else you mentioned:
Is God, the Father, also a triune being, in that sense? I would say that Scripture seems to say this, as well.

The LORD is here expressly said to 'have' (or 'be') a Soul and Spirit, and said in the quoted verse to have two characteristics of a body. Other characteristics of a body the LORD is said or implied to have include hands, eyes, a "smeller", feet, and hair, among others. I duuno' about any of the rest of you, but that sure sounds like a body, to me!

Ed

 

I have a question for everyone who supports the "Two Salvations" theory. Why is it more difficult to enter the Millenial Kingdom than it is to enter Heaven. Won't Heaven be infinitely better and last infinitely longer. Scriptural support?