sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
No. God.The theistic reference, there, is that referring to Jesus?
Romans 2:4
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. God.The theistic reference, there, is that referring to Jesus?
Romans 2:4
It isn't unusual, it is a very common mistake, and has nothing to do withe arbitrary 'spiritual' as opposed to 'psychic', concepts presented,I do not find it very unusual. What is your take.? I hope you understand Prodigal Son, which , I think, important to get understanding of Paul's Gnosticism.
it is not arbitrary, it is very intentional by Paul it is very masterfully structured and worded to blend well, Paul's letters written exclusively to spiritual element to be read to psychic element as per 1Cor 2 definition. Paul considered some spiritual element equal to himself and capable verifying his thoughts.It isn't unusual, it is a very common mistake, and has nothing to do withe arbitrary 'spiritual' as opposed to 'psychic', concepts presented,
[I am going to answer in the other conversation
You aren't verifying anything necessarily good.it is not arbitrary, it is very intentional by Paul it is very masterfully structured and worded to blend well, Paul's letters written exclusively to spiritual element to be read to psychic element as per 1Cor 2 definition. Paul considered some spiritual element equal to himself and capable verifying his thoughts.
why?You aren't verifying anything necessarily good.
There are different entities, a theory could be mistaken for something else, this is your interpretation of the Epistles, and there isn't an indication that you would know those variables.why?
i spent years checking this out, related book Pagels "Gnostic Paul" , i started reading NT from that point of view, it changed my understanding and makes sense.There are different entities, a theory could be mistaken for something else, this is your interpretation of the Epistles, and there isn't an indication that you would know those variables.
" 44It is sown a natural body*; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body**. 45Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. " * in Greek psychic ** in Greek pneumatic, same words as in 1 Cor 2. Living Spirit is soul , neshamah vs pneuma if spiritual being, soul type being evolves into spirit type being.i spent years checking this out, related book Pagels "Gnostic Paul" , i started reading NT from that point of view, it changed my understanding and makes sense.
4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, because you do not know that God in his kindness is trying to lead you to repentance?
Not sure what you are trying to say.The 'kindness and forbearance', isn't referring to god, it is the 'second part', of Romans 2:3. Romans 2:4 follows Romans 2:3, the same configuration is used.
Romans 2:3, referring to a person, then god
First part of Romans 2:4, referring to a person, the 'despise because of kindness and forbearance' part, the second part of
Romans 2:4,
Referring to god.
So,
Romans 2:3, (person, god
Romans 2:4 ( person, god
Both verses are in regard to to how one treats another, both verses explain 'why', not to do those, ie god judges, Romans 2:3, and god makes one righteous, Romans 2:4
That is part of the question, yes.Not sure what you are trying to say.
I thought you wanted to know if the verse was referring to Jesus.
It might be interesting to note how you derived that interpretation, sinceNo. God.
John has nothing to do with Romans. John cannot inform Romans since Romans was written first.It might be interesting to note how you derived that interpretation, since
John 5:22
[the father judges no man,
Thusly who else would be judging, according to you?(besides Jesus
See above. John and Romans weren’t written with each other in mind. Generally, one book does not inform another. John doesn’t speak for Romans. John is one account with one intent by one author for one audience. Romans is a completely different account with a different intent for a different audience. The books are not cohesive in many concepts. In Romans, Paul is referring to God.John 5:22
For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the son.
[KJV]
Romans 2:3
And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shall escape the judgement of God?
[KJV]
See above. John and Romans weren’t written with each other in mind. Generally, one book does not inform another. John doesn’t speak for Romans. John is one account with one intent by one author for one audience. Romans is a completely different account with a different intent for a different audience. The books are not cohesive in many concepts. In Romans, Paul is referring to God.
You only seem to be confusing me more. The verses are clearly saying whom they refer to.That is part of the question, yes.
That would be the second part of either verse, is that referring to Jesus. However there doesn't seem to be an interpretation presented, that it is.
One thing to note, the 'judgement', later in the verses, it is Jesus who is judging, [parallel to the Gospels.
Romans 2:16You only seem to be confusing me more. The verses are clearly saying whom they refer to.
What is your argument? I don't get it.
Are you saying the verse is referring to Jesus, not God? Why please?
Still don't get it. The verse says God. What are you really saying?Romans 2:16
[Jesus judging
John 5:22
[the Father judges no man
So, in Romans 2:3, 'God judging', if you are correlating verses, should mean, Jesus. Should be referring to Jesus.