• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Reconciling Paul

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi KB, I very well understand and believe those scriptures. What is confusing is YOUR interpretation. Your posts indicate that """"" He did not die in anyone's stead/place. """"" and that isn't the message of any of those verses.

How was the penalty of Death paid/satisfied/removed which was placed upon all of mankind???
What does it mean to "Die with" or be "Crucified with" Jesus Christ???
What is the significance of that act???
What was the purpose of all those animal sacrifices/those shadows???
Are you saying that Christ's death freed "ALL" sinners from death??
Didn't Jesus say that most of mankind was on the broad way to destruction???


Hi sincerly, the death penalty was paid by EVERYONE dying, but only those who are called to bury their dead bodies can see it. Paul says that when Yeshua died "for" us, ALL DIED. It appears your interpretation of that verse is that Yeshua died in the stead or place of everyone, when He died "for" them. I am not in agreement with that interpretation. Yeshua died "for" us to deliver us OUT from our sinful lives, so that we would be blessed in TURNING from our iniquity. The first stage in doing so is to realize that when Yeshua died, you also were put to death IN His crucifixion. All of mankind was DRAWN into His death, and everyone died.

Hi KB, Paul said, I die daily to self. It is the dying to the "lusts" that lead to sinning which stops the sinning. One is a slave to sin as long as one entertains and acts upon that "lust".(It may be the last in the lists of thou shall nots, but it is the one by which all the rest are initiated and committed.)
Jesus had no reason to be put to death---HE was sinless. His life freed mankind of the penalty of death imposed because of their "Guilt".

KB, ALL die the first death, but that doesn't pay the debt/penalty for sin. Jesus said to Nicodemus that one must be "born again". It is that second death which which the Scriptures are referring to as "all are dead in trespasses and sins" and "Ye shall surely die", and therefore, in need of being "Born again". That is the message of Paul's epistles. One is raised in newness of life by the acceptance of the life HE(Jesus) lay down in/as a sacrifice to give the one's sinful life sentenced guilty to die a righteous covering to live therein.

This understanding of the Gospel and how Yeshua allowed us to JOIN Him in death, reconciles Elohim, because all sinners died, it wasn't a sinless One in the stead or place of sinners. What atones for sin? Isn't is doing what is right. In His death, we die, and Believers are brought to a conviction to where they now no longer want to be dead. So a burial takes place (baptism), and a raising up to a New Life IN Messiah atones for sin. You don't atone for sin by continuing in it, there is no atonement for those who give lip service to someone dying in their stead and then deliberately continue in sin. In the death of Yeshua, Elohim is reconciled, because all died, but what really saves us is Yeshua's LIFE, and our conforming to His LIFE, and this atones for the sin we were created under.

KB, you write it, but in the next sentence you contradict the truth.
GOD doesn't need to be reconciled to mankind---It is that mankind needs to be reconciled to GOD.
You asked,
What atones for sin? Isn't is doing what is right.
GOD answered that in Lev.17:11, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul."
Remember, ALL are under the penalty of Death.(Not the first death---all die) Therefore, whose Blood is to set one free from that second death?? Dust/Ashes has NO LIFE. AND one is already pronounced "dead in trespasses and sins".
Doing that which is right should take place BEFORE one sins/disobeys and is placed under the sentence of death. Paul states one is directed to the to only solution---the Redeemer of mankind who willing lay down HIS LIFE so that the Repentant Sinner could live in HIS stead.

Sincerly, you need to consider the Harvests. Paul says that Yeshua IS the Firstfruits of those who have died, and then come back to life. He also says that Believers are a kind of "firstfruits." Please consider that Elohim is working in stages, like a farmer. An Elect was chosen to be the first to "chose" to bury their dead bodies, and rise up to a New Life. The majority of mankind will ALSO "chose" to bury their dead bodies also, but that will not occur until the Harvest on the 8th Great Day. Until a sinner is "chosen" to no longer be a "slave" to sin, they are surely on the road or path to destruction. It is only by Elohim's Spirit that a sinner can be freed from that slavery to sin, and IF someone is proving by their actions in life that they are contolled by the Spirit, then they have come INTO the Liberty found within Messiah, and they have been set free from being a sinner.

I know it's not easy to give up on the gospel of substitutionalism, but the One True Gospel is a Gospel based upon a sinner being TRANSFORMED into a Saint, through the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Messiah, just as Moses wrote about. KB

Again, I have considered the Harvest(which definitely appears to be very close at hand), but more so the fact of Jesus saying, (John 3:16), "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And Jesus said, "For this cause came I into the world." "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. "(Matt.20:28)

The Scriptures do not agree with your "one True Gospel". I sounds more like it came out of the beguilings as was given to Eve.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Hers a good link for Pappillion and Oldbadger

The Bible and Interpretation - Why is the Hypothesis that Jesus Was an Anti-Roman Rebel Alive and Well?

This deals with placing the gospel authors different views of Jesus into a context that is understandable. And the one I've been following for years.

An interesting article!! For many years I have thought the original Jesus was a zealot rebel whose life was later redacted to be that of a pacifist. The Jesus of the extant gospels has been edited as a means of lampooning the life and actions of the original Jesus figure. Joe Atwill documents this in his book, Caesar's Messiah.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
The best and only reliable link to understanding the Bible and the Gospel therein is THE BIBLE. It is the one that I have been following for years, also.
It was Adam's and Eve's listening to an outside source which got us into this place of separation from a right relationship with GOD.



false

Most people go to church and have someone educated in the bible [preacher/priest] to teach them the bible.

So what your really saying is a shallow understanding of scripture is the best?

Hi outhouse, No! what I wrote is true.
Most persons who claim to/profess to have knowledge of the GOD of the Bible go to "church" for some other reason than to really understand GOD and have a meaningful relationship to HIM. Therefore, the many conflicting teachings/churches.
Where did those contradicting "doctrines" come from----NOT the BIBLE, but from those [preacher/priest] who didn't understand the Biblical messages in the first place.(They were called false teachers and prophets in the OT and stated would occur in today's era as well.(To the end of time)).

The True seeker will not be disappointed in receiving the Truth which is searched for earnestly.
One will know which "teachers/expounders of the Bible are truthful by doing as the Bereans did----Searching the scriptures daily to see if what is taught is TRUTH.

Eve forgot to believe GOD---instead, she listened to another and believed that which "pleased her hearing and seeing."
 

outhouse

Atheistically
An interesting article!! For many years I have thought the original Jesus was a zealot rebel whose life was later redacted to be that of a pacifist. The Jesus of the extant gospels has been edited as a means of lampooning the life and actions of the original Jesus figure. Joe Atwill documents this in his book, Caesar's Messiah.

Theres another article by another scholar that makes almost the same claim.

Jesus as a zealot has always made sense to me and its the one ive held since becoming a believer of a historical Jesus.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Originally Posted by sincerly
The best and only reliable link to understanding the Bible and the Gospel therein is THE BIBLE. It is the one that I have been following for years, also.
It was Adam's and Eve's listening to an outside source which got us into this place of separation from a right relationship with GOD.




Hi outhouse, No! what I wrote is true.
Most persons who claim to/profess to have knowledge of the GOD of the Bible go to "church" for some other reason than to really understand GOD and have a meaningful relationship to HIM. Therefore, the many conflicting teachings/churches.
Where did those contradicting "doctrines" come from----NOT the BIBLE, but from those [preacher/priest] who didn't understand the Biblical messages in the first place.(They were called false teachers and prophets in the OT and stated would occur in today's era as well.(To the end of time)).

The True seeker will not be disappointed in receiving the Truth which is searched for earnestly.
One will know which "teachers/expounders of the Bible are truthful by doing as the Bereans did----Searching the scriptures daily to see if what is taught is TRUTH.

Eve forgot to believe GOD---instead, she listened to another and believed that which "pleased her hearing and seeing."



The sermon on the mount, whos book do you believe? Gmatthew or Gluke? they both have different legends.

One goes up the hill, the other on a plain. The verses decribed are also different, which one is wrong?

So by reading the book without a education on it, you can only have a shallow understanding at best if not just plain confused at best.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
The sermon on the mount, whos book do you believe? Gmatthew or Gluke? they both have different legends.

One goes up the hill, the other on a plain. The verses decribed are also different, which one is wrong?

So by reading the book without a education on it, you can only have a shallow understanding at best if not just plain confused at best.

Hi outhouse, and just whose of man's "educated opinions does one believe"??
I see a multitude of "beliefs"/churches as a result of those "scholars".
They are both correct in what they have written.
Luke had this to say concerning the recordings. (1:1-4), "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. "
There wasn't to be a comparing of/or an agreement of what was written by another.
Therefore, those things which were recorded by others reinforced that "belief"; and those things which were written by one just recorded another fact of HIS Teachings/ beliefs.

So, one records a site and the other records a different site. As I read both accounts what I see/understand is Jesus has been gathering Disciples and preaching to the people.(about the sea of Galilee) . A crowd gathers on the level of the coast and Jesus leads them up a hill to better/acoustically preach to them.
Jesus did the same thing by getting into a boat to preach.

"A shallow understanding" is what one gets by believing another's opinion AND NOT SEARCHING the Scriptures to make sure one isn't listening to "a wolf in sheep clothing." Even the events of Eve with the serpent, should be warning enough to that fallacy---whether one takes it for the Truth it is---or as "myth".
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Your not addressing these two verse, both authors are clearly speaking about the same event.

Why didn't GMatthew talk about a second performance? Why didn't Gluke talk about a second performance?

Because they were both describing a single event differently. Neither was a eye witness to the events, and both were writing about 50-60 years after the event is said to have happened.




Matthew 5

5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:


Luke 6

6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
 
Hi Pappi, It does matter because what was symbolic ----those "shadows finally come to the reality of "Body"". Yes, one still Confesses and Repents.

I sort of have a problem with this idea of there being so much symbolism in the OT pointing towards future events. Just to be clear I am not including prophecy. What would be the purpose of God giving inspiration to someone to write verses that pertain to current events and ambiguously to future events, but no one knows they pertain to future events and there is really know why to establish if the future event is the one that is actually thought to be described.

What if the real Messiah came during the Dark Ages and because it was thought to be Jesus he was killed and everything about him disregarded?

Why would God provide such poor evidence when his hot button is to believe through faith? Either he wants everyone to believe and gives evidence that is credible or he makes the claim and nothing else wanting faith to cause the choice.

It is incredibly easy to find some vague passage and attribute it to something you have already decided will have such references.

The symbolism, if that is what it is, though does not address the point. God says it is sufficient and does so that there can be no reasonable doubt. To be right leaves us to question does God mean what he says? Can you know that God's word holds true?

From the very Beginning, GOD said, "Ye shall surely die"---for your transgression. Yet in clothing the guilty pair it was a sacrificed animal which provided the "clothing" which allowed the "sinners" to be in GOD'S presence. (Even for that brief time before being expelled from the Garden.)

But they did not. We are forced to make this symbolic because it is the only way for it to have any meaning the way we want it to. We ignore that God made no mention of the suffering that would be imposed in addition to not death but the withholding of immortality. The difference is subtle, but at the same time dramatically different.

Why they were ejected from Eden.

22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

AN Animal is not the "YE" shall die". However, one does see an unfolding of that Plan of redemption so that mankind could understand the process.

A simple explanation would not have sufficed?

The "Scape goat" (Day of Atonement) is what that "festival" was portraying---the finally cleansing of all sins from heaven and earth.
AN earthly animal cannot cleanse the Heavenly Sanctuary... but symbolically, did the earthly sanctuary.(And the scriptures state that Jesus is/was the "Lamb slain from before the foundation" for the purpose of Redemption.)


Again, man made concepts trying to understand and control a world he has little grasp of. These are the acts of ignorant men not an all knowing God and certainly not one whose primary attributes include mercy and compassion.

Heb.10:4 states that the blood of bulls and goats can not take away any sins.

God says they can in Lev, Num, Deu and other places. Hebrews is not the Lord speaking. In the face of what appears to be a contradiction which carries more weight?



That was "only for the time then present". (Heb.9:1, 9+) GOD isn't humanity, but was willing, John3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. "

Bad day to be Jesus. Why could he not fix this life? What is this life then? Is it just a meaningless period of time? When one accepts Jesus why does he remain trapped in this life. Early Christians and Jews did not view salvation as coming after death. The expectation was that it was to happen in this life. It is not until it became obvious that everyone who believed was living and then dieing without the promised new life that it changed.

That was a corruption of the Animal sacrifices which GOD did at Eden and Noah upon exiting the ARK----by those who scattered from the Tower of Babel. Human sacrifices were never condoned.

What was Jesus?

But keep in mind that Jesus was Fathered by the Holy Spirit and "came into the world "for this purpose"-----to "seek and save that which was lost".

But still human and still sacrificed as such. You are twisting things to fit your wants it either is or it is not. He is either a human and sacrificed or he is not. Nothing can go forward until that question is answered and once it it cannot be changed to fit a later need.

No One is required to eat or drink the Blood of Jesus Christ; that is symbolic in ingesting Jesus as spiritually the food and drink that sustains and vitalizes one's life. In HIM, one lives moves and has one's being.

Earlier symbolism is important and now it is just that with no real meaning. Why would God through such effort to portray the act as an abomination only to later make it the sign of his new covenant. Drinking the blood of Christ is now the equivalent of circumcision and for many it is more than symbolic. The actually think it is real blood and necessary to be included in the covenant.
 

Jonathan Hoffman

Active Member
Theres another article by another scholar that makes almost the same claim.

Jesus as a zealot has always made sense to me and its the one ive held since becoming a believer of a historical Jesus.

May I ask who is the other scholar that makes the same claim. . . . and have you read Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill or Judas the Galilean by Dan Unterbrink?
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by sincerly
Hi KB, I very well understand and believe those scriptures. What is confusing is YOUR interpretation. Your posts indicate that """"" He did not die in anyone's stead/place. """"" and that isn't the message of any of those verses.

How was the penalty of Death paid/satisfied/removed which was placed upon all of mankind???
What does it mean to "Die with" or be "Crucified with" Jesus Christ???
What is the significance of that act???
What was the purpose of all those animal sacrifices/those shadows???
Are you saying that Christ's death freed "ALL" sinners from death??
Didn't Jesus say that most of mankind was on the broad way to destruction???


Hi KB, Paul said, I die daily to self. It is the dying to the "lusts" that lead to sinning which stops the sinning. One is a slave to sin as long as one entertains and acts upon that "lust".(It may be the last in the lists of thou shall nots, but it is the one by which all the rest are initiated and committed.)
Jesus had no reason to be put to death---HE was sinless. His life freed mankind of the penalty of death imposed because of their "Guilt".

KB, ALL die the first death, but that doesn't pay the debt/penalty for sin. Jesus said to Nicodemus that one must be "born again". It is that second death which which the Scriptures are referring to as "all are dead in trespasses and sins" and "Ye shall surely die", and therefore, in need of being "Born again". That is the message of Paul's epistles. One is raised in newness of life by the acceptance of the life HE(Jesus) lay down in/as a sacrifice to give the one's sinful life sentenced guilty to die a righteous covering to live therein.

KB, you write it, but in the next sentence you contradict the truth.
GOD doesn't need to be reconciled to mankind---It is that mankind needs to be reconciled to GOD.
You asked,
What atones for sin? Isn't is doing what is right.
GOD answered that in Lev.17:11, "For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul."
Remember, ALL are under the penalty of Death.(Not the first death---all die) Therefore, whose Blood is to set one free from that second death?? Dust/Ashes has NO LIFE. AND one is already pronounced "dead in trespasses and sins".
Doing that which is right should take place BEFORE one sins/disobeys and is placed under the sentence of death. Paul states one is directed to the to only solution---the Redeemer of mankind who willing lay down HIS LIFE so that the Repentant Sinner could live in HIS stead.

Again, I have considered the Harvest(which definitely appears to be very close at hand), but more so the fact of Jesus saying, (John 3:16), "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." And Jesus said, "For this cause came I into the world." "Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. "(Matt.20:28)

The Scriptures do not agree with your "one True Gospel". I sounds more like it came out of the beguilings as was given to Eve.

Hi sincerly, it appears you did not closely look at this previous post-http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3294711-post130.html. You should pay careful attention to 2 Cor 5:14 and answer how all were dead. This is not speaking about Paul dying daily, or about dying a first death, this is speaking about how ALL were drawn INTO the crucifixion of Yeshua and were put to death. You need to answer how all were dead. KB
 
Hello! Just one tiny reply to your large post!

Healing on the Sabbath! Very interesting! I don't think Jesus broke a rule here!

I recently read that for a 'doctor' to treat a toothache by rubbing vinegar into it would be breaching the Sabbath 'rule'. However, serving food on the Sabbath was lawful, so that same doctor could give a small plate of vegetable, heavily laden with vinegar, and ask the patient to chew it well!!! :)

With that in mind, when I now read the reports of Jesus's (Sabbath) healings, I cannot actually see that he 'did' anything...... it just 'happened'.!!! No rule broken!

What do you think?

Luke 13

10On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. She was bent over and could not straighten up at all. 12When Jesus saw her, he called her forward and said to her, “Woman, you are set free from your infirmity.” 13Then he put his hands on her, and immediately she straightened up and praised God.
14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”


John 5


16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.


John 7


23Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”


Matt 12


1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
3He answered, “Haven’t you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven’t you read in the Law that the priests on Sabbath duty in the temple desecrate the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’a you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

No Jesus did so purposefully. This goes hand in hand with his claim that too much emphasis was being placed on the letter of the law. This put additional burdens on the poor so that religious leaders could feel more pious and was contrary to what was intended. God did not make the Sabbath a holy day and one of rest so that his people may go hungry or suffer.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by oldbadger
Hello! Just one tiny reply to your large post!

Healing on the Sabbath! Very interesting! I don't think Jesus broke a rule here!

With that in mind, when I now read the reports of Jesus's (Sabbath) healings, I cannot actually see that he 'did' anything...... it just 'happened'.!!! No rule broken!

What do you think?


Luke 13

10On a Sabbath Jesus was teaching in one of the synagogues, 11and a woman was there who had been crippled by a spirit for eighteen years. ....14Indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, the synagogue leader said to the people, “There are six days for work. So come and be healed on those days, not on the Sabbath.”


John 5:16So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.


John 7:23Now if a boy can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing a man’s whole body on the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.”


Matt 12:1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”
...... 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to bring charges against Jesus, they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?”
11He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a person than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.”
13Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.

No Jesus did so purposefully. This goes hand in hand with his claim that too much emphasis was being placed on the letter of the law. This put additional burdens on the poor so that religious leaders could feel more pious and was contrary to what was intended. God did not make the Sabbath a holy day and one of rest so that his people may go hungry or suffer.

Hi pappi, you touched on it , but Mark 71:13 made it much plainer It was NOT the Decalogue which Jesus was accused of "BREAKING", but those "traditions ans commandments which had been given/made by the "fathers/leaders and placed upon the people.'"
vs,5, "Why walk not thy disciples according to the traditions of the elders..."
vss6-9, "He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with [their] lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, [as] the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

No! Those "leaders" were the ones who had overly stretched their authority and made a "burden of GOD'S Sanctified and Blessed Sabbath which was to rest from the days of labor and "Convocating"/(assembling together) with their Creator GOD on that holy purposely set aside day(The seventh day of the week).
Jesus was true to the intent and the "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
:guitar1:Oh where oh where has my little thread gone?

It is still there/here.
There is no contradiction in Paul's explanation.
One isn't/can't be justified before GOD with any SIN in one's life.
The Law(Sacrificial/Ceremonial) is Holy, and the Commandment Holy and just and good----also, spiritual. Rom.(7:12-14).

"...The just shall live by faith." Romans 1:17b KJV
""For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.""

GOD is to judge the world(Sinners) by the Decalogue/Law. GOD is Righteous and JUST. Those who Believe(have Faith in the Creator GOD) and Obey GOD are Just before GOD.

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Romans 2:13

Therefore, those who do NOT that which is specified in the Law have not Obeyed and are unjust in the sight of GOD.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:38 KJV
Rom.3:20, Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. "

You meant Rom:3:28. Since all(Jew and Gentile) have been seen as guilty/condemned by the law, none can stand before GOD Justified. Those are Justified in GOD's sight ARE by Faith in the provisions specified by GOD---A Blood Sacrifice---which Paul goes further in detailing.
 
It is still there/here.
There is no contradiction in Paul's explanation.
One isn't/can't be justified before GOD with any SIN in one's life.
The Law(Sacrificial/Ceremonial) is Holy, and the Commandment Holy and just and good----also, spiritual. Rom.(7:12-14).

Your actions do not cease to have happened. If you killed someone, that person remains dead. So your sin does not go away. God just doesn't give out the punishment that you should have received,

""For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.""

That could be understood to mean that you have put your life not in God's commandments, but in the belief that he will not punish you. Do you hear the difference between them?

GOD is to judge the world(Sinners) by the Decalogue/Law. GOD is Righteous and JUST. Those who Believe(have Faith in the Creator GOD) and Obey GOD are Just before GOD.

A little misleading as you are the exact same sinner. Your actions are not undone, God chooses not to act on them. This creates a problem for the idea that God is both righteous and just. If certain behavior is deemed to warrant punishment then is it just to withhold that punishment based on a relationship?

There are 3 people in a room. One kills another. Is it just that the victim will go to hell having died without knowing Jesus? Is it just that the murderer repents at the end of his long succesful life and would enjoy Heaven? What values or lessons has the 3rd person learned having watched the outcomes?

Paul's position just doesn't support the development of a stable society. Which is the only conclusion that makes sense as to God's purpose. Everything pertains to the interactions of people with one another.

Therefore, those who do NOT that which is specified in the Law have not Obeyed and are unjust in the sight of GOD.


Rom.3:20, Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin. "

What did we get from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? How does the perfect and just commandments of God get twisted to become the opposite? We already had the knowledge of sin and based on results we firmly understood it.

You meant Rom:3:28. Since all(Jew and Gentile) have been seen as guilty/condemned by the law, none can stand before GOD Justified.

The Law is not a yardstick that one measures some concept of proper conduct. The Law, any set of laws established by a group of people serves to promote the survival and well being of that group. When a person knows their neighbor will not steal from them they will not commit their time to protecting their goods or killing them as a preventive measure. Laws create a stable environment, having the laws come from God accomplishes several things. They can not be questioned, it implies a sense of authoritative origin, as well being leveled equally to each person. It places them beyond any form of retribution or influence from others. There are other reasons, but this should get my point across.

God does not expect that we could, we are after all not God

Those are Justified in GOD's sight ARE by Faith in the provisions specified by GOD---A Blood Sacrifice---which Paul goes further in detailing.

Honestly does it make sense that an entity that is the cause of everything created seen and unseen is offended that you acted contrary to commandments he gave you for your benefit. Furthermore that any one of several hundred others being violated countless times each hour causes him anguish to the point he has no choice but to demand that some birds, a goat, some bread maybe even a lamb or cow must be killed before he will pretend like you never did what you did and nor that you will probably do it again. If your transgression was so bad he could simply erase that you ever existed or tell you not to do something before it was done. This was obviously not for the benefit of God.
 

sincerly

Well-Known Member
What did we get from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? How does the perfect and just commandments of God get twisted to become the opposite? We already had the knowledge of sin and based on results we firmly understood it.

Hi Pappi, Disobedience! by way of "Lust of the eyes, Lust of the flesh and the pride of life".
No, They only experienced the "Evil" with the disobedience,----Pain, thorns/thistles, tilling of the ground, death, separation from GOD, etc.

sincerly said:
You meant Rom:3:28. Since all(Jew and Gentile) have been seen as guilty/condemned by the law, none can stand before GOD Justified.

The Law is not a yardstick that one measures some concept of proper conduct. The Law, any set of laws established by a group of people serves to promote the survival and well being of that group. When a person knows their neighbor will not steal from them they will not commit their time to protecting their goods or killing them as a preventive measure. Laws create a stable environment, having the laws come from God accomplishes several things. They can not be questioned, it implies a sense of authoritative origin, as well being leveled equally to each person. It places them beyond any form of retribution or influence from others. There are other reasons, but this should get my point across.

Pappi, Your "point" is exactly the principle and role of the Decalogue it does measure one's conduct as being in harmony with GOD'S WILL or in disobedience to HIS Will.


God does not expect that we could, we are after all not God

That idea is not Biblical. GOD made mankind in HIS Image--- Be ye holy, perfect, righteous, as HE IS. Therefore, GOD made Mankind to live forever. The Tree of Life was in the Garden. (And the Creator communicated with mankind face to face.)

Honestly does it make sense that an entity that is the cause of everything created seen and unseen is offended that you acted contrary to commandments he gave you for your benefit. Furthermore that any one of several hundred others being violated countless times each hour causes him anguish to the point he has no choice but to demand that some birds, a goat, some bread maybe even a lamb or cow must be killed before he will pretend like you never did what you did and nor that you will probably do it again. If your transgression was so bad he could simply erase that you ever existed or tell you not to do something before it was done. This was obviously not for the benefit of God.

Answered at the top of page.
What is it about the "Freedom of choice" that says one doesn't have to obey the declared forbidden acts??
Yes, those you shall notwere for the benefit of the Human beings who were given Dominion over HIS Creation and were to be good stewards in obedience to the Creator's wishes.
However, Rev.4:11, states, "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. "

Human wisdom and opinions say "erase it all", but HE saw worth and Loved that which HE made to the point of dying to "Redeem the rebellious".
 

Ken Brown

Well-Known Member
:guitar1:Oh where oh where has my little thread gone?

Hi Sandy, I haven't gone anywhere. I still waiting to hear back from you about how Adam is a type or figure of the coming One:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3288326-post89.html

And from Outhouse on how he can explain that someone centuries AFTER Yeshua would conjure up the Sign of Jonah:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3288833-post102.html

And from Shermana about Bruce's and Stein's view of Paul's trips to Jerusalem, and on Bruce's commentary of Romans 5:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3293348-post123.html

So Sandy, I haven't gone anywhere from your thread, but it appears you have. KB
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Hi Sandy, I haven't gone anywhere. I still waiting to hear back from you about how Adam is a type or figure of the coming One:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3288326-post89.html

And from Outhouse on how he can explain that someone centuries AFTER Yeshua would conjure up the Sign of Jonah:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3288833-post102.html

And from Shermana about Bruce's and Stein's view of Paul's trips to Jerusalem, and on Bruce's commentary of Romans 5:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3293348-post123.html

So Sandy, I haven't gone anywhere from your thread, but it appears you have. KB


Usually when someone points a finger at everyone else, its in a mirror where the problem is identified.
 
Top