PDA

View Full Version : Derail from the Christ the Conqueror of Hell



37818
12-11-2015, 12:18 PM
I think the idea that Jesus himself was in paradise while atoning for the sins of the whole world is a little ridiculous.It is ridiculous. Since His death for sins was completed before He physically died on the cross (John 19:28-30). To teacher He had to go to Hell to pay for sins is a heresy of the WoF movement.

apostoli
12-17-2015, 06:06 AM
It is ridiculous. Since His death for sins was completed before He physically died on the cross (John 19:28-30).
Read the text again. Jesus in his last gasp was being prophetic as any person of minor literacy can easily comprehend.


To teacher He had to go to Hell to pay for sins is a heresy of the WoF movement.It is the common teaching of all of Christianity since the resurrection of the Son of God, and fulfills OT prophesy!!! You are being 100% heretical in your aberrant denial of scripture, apostolic teaching and Christian belief!!!

Of course he didn't go to Gehenna (the eternal fire) but all the NT witness is that he spent three days in Hades which in your resolute ignorance you would understand as "Hell". There is a huge difference between the two!!!

In any case, that Jesus died and his Father (God) raised him from the dead is the foundation of Christian belief.

If Jesus did not physically die, then he could not be physically resurrected by his Father!

Thus you deny in your 100% heretical premise all of Christian belief!!! As A.Paul says "if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen [from the dead], then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ [from the dead], whom He did not raise up [from the dead] — if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile..." ! Corinthians 15:13-17.

Jesus is not auotheos (God of himself), in his pre-incarnate state he was the only prodigy (offspring) of his Father who is autotheos. In his incarnate state, in which he was sent to us by his Father to end aberrant religion (cp. John 4:21-24), he remained theotēs ('https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2320&t=NKJV'). Thus, in both his natures, theotēs and man, he had to die in his entirety (his hypostasis=person), else he did not die!!!

Your stupidity denies Christ, the teaching of the apostles, the scriptures, prophesy and the entire foundation of the Christian religion.

Jesus is not "ho theos" himself (the Father = John 17:3), he is distinctly the Son of God, homoousious (consubstantial) with the Father as the Creeds declare...

arnoldo
12-20-2015, 08:19 PM
The following quote is from a powerful Man of God from Lagos, Nigeria (the other one).


It is because of this that Jesus had to go into the lower parts of the earth. Ephesians 4: 8 –9 says, “Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.” Why did He have to go there? He had to go there because a lot of good things had been buried there. Jesus had to go and set the captives free. He preached to the spirits that were in prison under the earth. That is why one of my favorite passages in the Bible is Revelation 1: 8. It says, “I am he that liveth and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” He has given us that same authority. Only the resurrection power of the Lord Jesus Christ can command the materials seized by the spirits in the grave to come forth like Lazarus and they shall come walking out.
http://www.mfmhouston.com/MESSAGES/DETAINED%20BY%20THE%20GRAVE.htm

theophilus
12-21-2015, 08:57 AM
all the NT witness is that he spent three days in Hades
It is likely he had to go into Hades to bring out the souls of the righteous people who were there but that wouldn't require spending three days there. Don't forget he told the repentant criminal that the two would be together in Paradise that same day.

37818
12-21-2015, 08:25 PM
apostoli is an accuser. A false accuser.

Pentecost
12-22-2015, 01:26 PM
37818 you started this thread by saying that a very common Christian belief that has existed for millennia is a by product of the WoF movement which is wrong. And that it's heresy, a false accusation.

37818
12-22-2015, 05:47 PM
37818 you started this thread by saying that a very common Christian belief that has existed for millennia is a by product of the WoF movement which is wrong. And that it's heresy, a false accusation.

http://www.equip.org/PDF/DP060.pdf

So am I to understand you actually believe Jesus had to go down to hell in order to pay for mankind's sins?

Christ finished payment for sins on the cross before His physical death (John 19:28-30).
http://www.cslovettbooks.com/April-2015.html

Pentecost
12-24-2015, 12:46 AM
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DP060.pdf Jesus descending to hell is part of the Apostle's Creed. It literally was not invented by Word of Faith preachers from the 20th century. This is fact.


So am I to understand you actually believe Jesus had to go down to hell in order to pay for mankind's sins? I did not say that. I said that WoF did not invent the doctrine, and that it is not heresy, and it is a false accusation for you to call it heresy.

37818
12-25-2015, 06:08 PM
Jesus descending to hell is part of the Apostle's Creed. It literally was not invented by Word of Faith preachers from the 20th century. This is fact.Yes, Jesus descended into hell, I believe that (Acts 2:31. 1 Peter 3:19; 1 Peter 4:6).



I did not say that. I said that WoF did not invent the doctrine, and that it is not heresy, and it is a false accusation for you to call it heresy.Then WoF deny that the redemption was completed on the cross. that is the heresy. And claiming that Christ was to make payment in hell is further heresy. (John 19:28; 1 Peter 3:18 KJV; 1 Peter 4:1).

Pentecost
12-31-2015, 02:07 AM
I have heard some Reformed teachers explain that the debt was paid at the Cross but at the Resurrection "the check cleared" the work was finished but the redemption had not yet come, would you call this heresy? It says that the Cross was important, but the descent and Resurrection played their parts as well. Is the gospel being proclaimed to those in Sheol not part of redeeming them? I do not support the aberrant doctrines of the WoF movement that transforms faith into magic and God from Lord into our servant, but I'm not sure that it should dogmatically be stated that the complete work of unifying God and Man was at the Cross, I certainly identify it as Jesus, from birth, to perfect life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, to judgement, He is the atonement, and certainly the Cross was His chosen tool for salvation, and certainly He did say "It is finished." But what is meant by that is uncertain as far as I know, it could have meant his life, or the drink he received, or a third thing not recorded.

Notably I do not believe "Jesus had to go to hell to pay for mankind's sins." The atonement is more than payment for our sins in my view, me forgiving a debt does not mean I intend to offer another loan to that person, but Christ not only say we no longer owe, but we become co-heirs with Him, not only is there an absence of harm, but the presence of blessings, it is late where I am and I only just remembered to come back to TWeb so I could respond, I hope I correctly explained myself, God bless.

37818
12-31-2015, 11:31 AM
I have heard some Reformed teachers explain that the debt was paid at the Cross but at the Resurrection "the check cleared" the work was finished but the redemption had not yet come, would you call this heresy?As I understand, the resurrection is a key part of the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). It is by the resurrection we are justified (Romans 4:25) in believing in the redemption which was completed on the cross (John 19:28, 30). The resurrection was the declaration of the Son of God's Sonship (Acts 13:33; Romans 1:4). And the resurrection was given as an evidence that the redemption was completed on the cross (1 Corinthians 15:17). Now the idea that the resurrection was "the check cleared" is a good analogy. But that the redemption had not yet come until the "check cleared" is a matter of interpretation of the importance of the resurrection. In the fact that if there was no resurrection, there be no redemption. I would not agree, that the resurrection should be interpreted to be the instrument of the payment like a paper check is for money. Though I agree with the analogy. The error would be to assert the resurrection was some how to make the payment of redemption.



It says that the Cross was important, but the descent and Resurrection played their parts as well. Is the gospel being proclaimed to those in Sheol not part of redeeming them? In Genesis [6:4] we read about "sons of God" who would perish in the flood that was to come. Which Peter wrote that Christ, "preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, . . ." (1 Peter 3:19-20) and then wrote saying, "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit" (1 Peter 4:6). They were "sons of God" who died in the flood because of their disobedience.





I do not support the aberrant doctrines of the WoF movement that transforms faith into magic and God from Lord into our servant, but I'm not sure that it should dogmatically be stated that the complete work of unifying God and Man was at the Cross, I certainly identify it as Jesus, from birth, to perfect life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, to judgement, He is the atonement, and certainly the Cross was His chosen tool for salvation, and certainly He did say "It is finished." But what is meant by that is uncertain as far as I know, it could have meant his life, or the drink he received, or a third thing not recorded.

Notably I do not believe "Jesus had to go to hell to pay for mankind's sins." The atonement is more than payment for our sins in my view, me forgiving a debt does not mean I intend to offer another loan to that person, but Christ not only say we no longer owe, but we become co-heirs with Him, not only is there an absence of harm, but the presence of blessings, it is late where I am and I only just remembered to come back to TWeb so I could respond, I hope I correctly explained myself, God bless.

Pentecost
12-31-2015, 03:52 PM
Reading your response it doesn't at all seem like you understand what I was trying to say. God bless.

37818
12-31-2015, 08:17 PM
Reading your response it doesn't at all seem like you understand what I was trying to say. God bless.My response was a reply to your two questions. Then I simply repeated the rest you were saying - without further comment. I thought what you said was self explanatory as to what you thought on the matter.