• 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!

Is Romans 2:4 referring to Jesus?(Jesus believers only

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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 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
 

leov

Well-Known Member
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
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.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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.
You aren't verifying anything necessarily good.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

leov

Well-Known Member
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.
" 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.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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?

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
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
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
Not sure what you are trying to say. :confused:
I thought you wanted to know if the verse was referring to Jesus.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Not sure what you are trying to say. :confused:
I thought you wanted to know if the verse was referring to Jesus.
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.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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
John has nothing to do with Romans. John cannot inform Romans since Romans was written first.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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]
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
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.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
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.


I might not have a problem with your interpretation, aside from that that can mean more than one thing. For me, saying God instead of Jesus, might contextually just be 'noting something'. About the manifestation, so a specific name or word is more descriptive. However

Romans 2:16

We do get a reference to who is judging. Thusly, since we know that Jesus is God, a 'singular nature', reference to Jesus, as God, Romans 2:3, makes sense for that verse. Considering cross reference verses, also.

As I don't believe that Jesus in Spirit Form, is somehow separated from the overall aspect of God, that does not present a problem, for me.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I would personally go with a 'direct' statement, like John 5:22, which does correlate to the Epistles, it seems, instead of trying to somehow interpret the references as a whole, into something non direct, or obfuscatory.


Even in the context you are presenting.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
You 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?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
You 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?
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.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
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.
Still don't get it. The verse says God. What are you really saying?
 
Top