He didn't list every sin individually. That would take years. Are you defending the doctrine that Jesus had to be 'born again'?
Upvote
0
JDS, What Does It Mean?
- Thread starter dollarsbill
- Start date
Simon Peter
14th Generation PROTESTant
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you correctly.
Are you saying that by interpreting Copeland's statement below, as saying that Jesus was raped, I am being demonic?
Please be aware that many many Christians have interpreted Copeland's statement as including rape. In fact your the first that I know of that's concluded otherwise!
Please read through the statement again, perhaps you somehow missed what Copeland is saying.
And please refrain from the personal attacks.
Thank you
Simon
"Let me tell you something folks. Anybody in here that's ever been sexually abused, listen to me right now. Listen to me very carefully. The bible's very careful about the way it says these things. But down there in that dungeon, Romans, ungodly men, ungodly men, put him (Jesus) to every kind of abuse that you can think of. There is no sin that Jesus didn't bare. There is no thing, there is no such thing as a sexual abuse on somebody that Jesus doesn't know firsthand what it's all about. He's been where you are, I don't care what you've been through, Jesus has been through it. And everything's done to him that we we couldn't even speak of."
Kenneth Copeland, The Resurrection Truth, audiotape
Upvote
0
Tallen
Newbie
I don't think you understand the theology of Copeland, if you say that. He is teaching the doctrine that Jesus is identifying Himself with the sinner. Whatsoever sin man has done, He has endured it being done to Him or placed upon Him so that He becomes the sin of the sinner.
It is a ridiculous and perverted assumption that he teaches.
Upvote
0
Simon Peter said:
Let me say it again HE NEVER SAID JESUS WAS RAPED. Now that I have said that in reading the statement using what I assume is your logic, I can say that Copeland said Jesus was a prostitute selling himself in the dungeon to be abused sexually by the ungodly roman solders or wait maybe I can say these ungodly men made Him do some child inappropriate content or wait maybe...
See the point is he did not say that at all, but he did imply that He can identify with any and all sin, sexual included. The Roman soldiers did abuse Him, in which manners? I don't know.
Now that you have taken a statement and have come to your conclusion, I would like to see the whole context of what Copeland was talking about. To me it seems like he was trying to let people that have been abused know that Jesus can identify with whatever they are going through. That if they put their trust in Jesus, He cares.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Tallen
Newbie
You simply don't understand KC's teaching if you think this. He teaches a twisted view of the doctrine of Identification. "For a murderer, He became a murderer. For a thief, He became a thief. etc." The idea is that Yehshua, the Messiah, endured all kinds of sin and abuse for the sake of the sinner. Therefore by experiencing all kinds of sin and actually becoming sin, He atoned for every kind of sinner and sin. It is in this teaching that Messiah is viewed as having to be raped in order for him to identify and heal the victims of rape.
KC has actually taught this in the past, as I have heard him teach it and insist on it. If he has repented of it and withdrawn himself from this idea, I would like to see where he has done that.
Blessings.
Upvote
0
Simon Peter said:
Great point, are you being demonic? I can't answer that, I don't know? I don't think so. As far as what was I taking about, any perverted interpretation of the Word is a doctrine of demons. Whether its from me, you, Copeland anyone. If Copeland is teaching Jesus was raped, then I would conclude that it was a doctrine of demons unless there was evidence in the Word to prove that point.
As far as what he said, I believe your interpretation is incorrect of what he was saying.
So there was no personal attack. If I were to attack personally, you would never have to ask if I was calling you demonic. I would just tell you that you are, it would be that clear. Your question shows that you were unclear because I never stated you were demonic. By reading what I wrote you can come to that conclusion. But now you have asked and I explained you can now see another conclusion. It's all in how you perceive what's being said. That's why I said I'll just ask Copeland. He would do better explaining to me what he was saying rather than you or anyone else.
Your Welcome
Rick
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Simon Peter said:
I NEVER did, it was your improper interpretation, which proves my original point that Copeland NEVER said Jesus was RAPED.
So you missed the whole point.
Upvote
0
importunity said:
But missing the point is easy when we have preconceived ideas. That's all of us.
Upvote
0
importunity said:
You have a preconceived idea that I am a word of faith pastor. If you go to the Iphc website to the Appalachian conference look up churches in east tn and there you'll find me.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Simon Peter
14th Generation PROTESTant
You are a pastor, you display the WoF shield (so you must agree with the WoF SoF) you constantly defend WoF doctrine on this forum, you attended Rhema Bible College; please explain to me how the fact that you are a WoF pastor is "preconceived".
peace,
Simon
Upvote
0
Simon Peter said:
I do not pastor a WoF church, i pastor a ph church. So I guess that would make me an Iphc pastor. I know many people that have attended Rhema, even a presbyterian pastor. I am a believer period. WoF tenets of faith are identical to the Assembly of Gods. Which line up with Iphc, four square and Church of God. Just because you sleep in the garage doesn't make you a car. And just because you went to Rhema and pastor a church doesn't make you a WoF pastor either.
Upvote
0
Simon Peter
14th Generation PROTESTant
LOL
The AoG have officially refuted 'positive confession', and the WoF approach to the Christian faith. How can you not know that.
I didn't say you did. I said you are a WoF pastor. ie. You believe and teach WoF principles.
peace,
Simon
Upvote
0
Simon Peter said:LOL
1) The AoG have officially refuted 'positive confession', and the WoF approach to the Christian faith. How can you not know that.
2) I didn't say you did. I said you are a WoF pastor. ie. You believe and teach WoF principles.
peace,
Simon
1) Go to the website of the AOG and the website for Rehma and look at the tenants of faith they are exactly the same. That's all I said.
2) You do too, you just don't believe all of them and either do I. You can have 10 people from any group in one room and they don't all agree on everything, that's just how it is.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So back to the topic, JDS? Spiritual death is a separation from God (The Father). When Jesus said my God, My God why has thou forsaken me. At that point is spiritual death (separation). All the rest is debatable from the cross to the throne. But spiritual death is not UNLESS you are a monotheistic believer. If you believe in the trinity then Jesus' statement on the cross settles it. UNLESS there is confusion of Him (Jesus) pouring Himself out and coming here as a man. If thats the case then the discussion should be about the humanity of Jesus. Jim B. sends pastors book recommendations and I believe the last recommendation dealt with this issue. We all know Jim is not WoF. As a matter of fact he despises it. BUT in the book he recommended, he brought that point out of Jesus leaving His divine powers completely to walk the earth as a man relying totally on the Father. Being a true sacrifice (second Adam). So when He makes the statement on the cross about the Father forsaking Him at that moment would be spiritual death (separation).
Upvote
0
dollarsbill said:
The Bible says he became sin. I have read the other translations you have posted and in the marginal notes of the NLT, it says to become sin itself. I checked out the ordinal language to see if there was any doubt to that being an accurate translation and the translation is completely accurate. What that exactly means as far as Jesus being a sinner or whatever people think is more a debatable issue. BUT it literally means He became Sin itself. The only way that could happen is by understanding my earlier statement about the humanity of Jesus and Him pouring Himself out completely. Because if he didn't the statement of Him becoming sin itself would make the divine nature tainted. That's why I said that what would need to be settled before this issue is the humanity of Jesus issue. Then if that is agreed upon, the next issue would be JDS.
Upvote
0
Sin is a moral issue. How could Jesus become a moral issue? A sin offering, a sacrifice is much more clear. And thus, 'the Lamb of God'.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
dollarsbill said:
Look man, if you want to reject what the bible says because you can't reason it out that's cool. Taking the literal translation says HE BECAME SIN. How? God put it on Him (it pleased Him to bruise Him). Do we understand it all? No one does. God said it and His thoughts and ways are more superior than ours.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
