The idea of receiving Jesus - John 1:12

[Shermana]

Apparently Ephesians clashes with James. And Ephesians is most widely considered a forgery. I think we can tell which one trumps the other.

 

[sincerly]

Apparently Ephesians clashes with James. And Ephesians is most widely considered a forgery. I think we can tell which one trumps the other.

There is no "apparently" except in the minds of those who seek to discredit the truths seen in the writings of the epistles. James and Paul are in agreement. (Rom.2:13-15)

 

[Shermana]

If "faith without works does not save", then Ephesians clashes with James.

 

[sincerly]

If "faith without works does not save", then Ephesians clashes with James.

Not at all! Eph.2:10,"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.".

Remember, Cain tried to substitute the works(best of his labors from his vegetables) for the Blood sacrifice required by GOD for the Atonement of Sins.

 

[Shermana]

Not at all! Eph.2:10,"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.".

Remember, Cain tried to substitute the works(best of his labors from his vegetables) for the Blood sacrifice required by GOD for the Atonement of Sins.

What's there to remember? That's your interpretation of the situation with Cain. Most Rabbis have traditionally said it was because Cain did not produce the finest of his vegetables like Abel had presented the finest of his flock, it had nothing to do with his choice of produce. Are you aware that there are grain sacrifices too?

Regardless, your quote does not get around the fact that Ephesians says that Salvation does not come from works, while James says salvation apart from works is not possible.

 

[sincerly]

What's there to remember? That's your interpretation of the situation with Cain. Most Rabbis have traditionally said it was because Cain did not produce the finest of his vegetables like Abel had presented the finest of his flock, it had nothing to do with his choice of produce. Are you aware that there are grain sacrifices too?

AH Yes, "traditionally!!, but not scripturally. There is indication that both offered the firstlings of their labors. But the context of the sacrificing started with that shown by GOD to the parents. A death of an animal to clothe their nakedness as a result of Sin---that Atoning blood. None was found in the "fruit of the ground". God said, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Cain knew he was in rebellion. Like so many today, they had rather separate from GOD than Repent. (And that to the point of murder of those who Obey GOD.)

Yes, I aware of "grain sacrifices", but those do not Atone for Sins. Are you claiming such are acceptable as SIN Atoning Sacrifices?? By what Scripture??

Regardless, your quote does not get around the fact that Ephesians says that Salvation does not come from works, while James says salvation apart from works is not possible.

(2:9), "Not of works, lest any man should boast."
Gal.2:16, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."
The keeping of the Decalogue cannot reverse the penalty of SIN.---Its function is to reveal transgressors---which results in death.
The only means of "blotting out"/erasing sins is in the Shed Blood of the Promised "Lamb"--JESUS.
Titus 3:5, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; "
Look again at Eph.1:4, "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: "
The works of LOVE--To GOD and fellow beings is what James and Paul are preaching.
Matt.7:21-23, tells of those who think their "Works" commends them entrance into the new earth----But, Jesus says, "Depart, I know ye not".

 

[Shermana]

Parsha: An Essay on, G-d Does NOT Require A Blood Sacrifice

[SIZE=+3]G-d Does NOT
Require A Blood Sacrifice[/SIZE] © [SIZE=-1]By Dr. Akiva Belk[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]This study of the weekly parsha is dedicated in the loving memory of Ms. Fredriqua Ann Brown, may she rest in peace.

But if his means are insufficient for two turtle doves or for two young doves, then he shall bring, as his guilt-offering for that which he sinned a tenth-ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall not place oil on it nor shall he put frankincense on it, for it is a sin offering. He shall bring it to the Kohen, and the Kohen shall scoop his three fingers full as its memorial portion and cause it to go up in smoke on the Altar, on the fires of Hashem; it is a sin-offering. The Kohen shall provide him atonement for the sin that he committed regarding any of these, and it will be forgiven him; and it shall belong to the Kohen, like the meal-offering.[/SIZE]

Matt.7:21-23, tells of those who think their "Works" commends them entrance into the new earth----But, Jesus says, "Depart, I know ye not".

It says "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness". It applies to people who have done miracles in Jesus's name (i.e. magicians) but are not followers of the Mosaic Law. Lawlessness = against/denying/failing to comply with Jewish Law when Jesus speaks of the Law. So "Lawlessness" means those who are against the Law of Moses or lax. The point of the passage is that those who do "Miracles" (a different concept than the "works" in question which are works of good deeds, not "miracles") are not as "Christian" as those who merely obey the Law. Being a doer of Lawlessness means you will be rejected. You may have a different definition of what he means by "Law" perhaps.

Your other verses prove my point that Paul's alleged epistles do in fact collide with what James says.

 

[sincerly]

Parsha: An Essay on, G-d Does NOT Require A Blood Sacrifice

Shermana, GOD is merciful notice: "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering."

Lev.5:11 is the most destitute of persons----but the requirement was not relaxed for those who could "bring" the full required sacrifice. AND THAT WAS A BLOOD SACRIFICE.
Today, the sacrifice has been made and is Free for the BELIEVING.

First the passage of scripture: MATT. 7:21-23 and then your comment.(Jesus was speaking to a Jewsish audience). "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

It says "Away from me ye doers of Lawlessness". It applies to people who have done miracles in Jesus's name (i.e. magicians) but are not followers of the Mosaic Law. Lawlessness = against/denying/failing to comply with Jewish Law when Jesus speaks of the Law. So "Lawlessness" means those who are against the Law of Moses or lax. The point of the passage is that those who do "Miracles" (a different concept than the "works" in question which are works of good deeds, not "miracles") are not as "Christian" as those who merely obey the Law. Being a doer of Lawlessness means you will be rejected. You may have a different definition of what he means by "Law" perhaps.

Jesus was ending HIS sermom on the mount and had explained many of the things in the Decalogue and other laws for harmoniously with others. Ending with distinguishing good and bad characteristics in people. Even false prophets(spokes persons for GOD)
Therefore, many of those who were claiming Jesus as Lord at his coming will not be "doing the WILL of the Father" even while professing with their mouths HIS Lordship. The same situation as Isaiah prophesied. "acknowledged with lips but heart far from GOD".
Jesus didn't deny any of their claims----"prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?".
What were they claiming GOD had said? Was the casting out of devils just a farce? Were the "wonderful works"(social and humane activities) for self glory?
Satan has counterfeited many of GOD'S commanded activites.
Is one doing the Righteous "works" GOD ordained to be done OR those "which seemeth right, but lead to destruction?

Your other verses prove my point that Paul's alleged epistles do in fact collide with what James says.

To the contrary. However, they do collide with your beliefs.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, GOD is merciful notice: "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering."

If a non-blood sacrifice is allowed for the destitute, blood is not "required" for them nonetheless.

Lev.5:11 is the most destitute of persons----but the requirement was not relaxed for those who could "bring" the full required sacrifice. AND THAT WAS A BLOOD SACRIFICE.

I agree that Blood is what redeems. However, even if the destitute can substitute something for blood, it shows that its more about the concept than the blood itself, though I am not necessarily sure on how it works.

Today, the sacrifice has been made and is Free for the BELIEVING.

And for those who actually obey. There remains no more sacrifice for those who continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth.

First the passage of scripture: MATT. 7:21-23 and then your comment.(Jesus was speaking to a Jewsish audience). "

Are you saying Jesus had a different message for Jews? Do we get the "Greater Gospel" and you gentiles get the "Diluted Gospel"? Why does it matter if Jesus is talking to Jews or non Jews? The words are the same. Doers of Lawlessness will be cast out.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Note: Ye that work iniquity is a bad translation of "Doers of lawlessness", anomian, those against Mosaic Law.

Jesus was ending HIS sermom on the mount and had explained many of the things in the Decalogue and other laws for harmoniously with others.

Exactly, that's why "Doers of Lawlessness" refers to those against Mosaic Law.

Ending with distinguishing good and bad characteristics in people. Even false prophets(spokes persons for GOD)

Yes, and they would be not obeying Mosaic Law, that's how you tell the false ones. Or rather, how you tell the .001% who aren't false.

Therefore, many of those who were claiming Jesus as Lord at his coming will not be "doing the WILL of the Father" even while professing with their mouths HIS Lordship. The same situation as Isaiah prophesied. "acknowledged with lips but heart far from GOD".

That's fine, there have been countless "orthodox" Christians who claim to have exorcised demons and supernatural events in history who were all "doers of Lawlessness", I see no problem here with this. But I don't think you're willing to understand what "doers of Lawlessness" implies since you have a radically different interpretation of that term.

Jesus didn't deny any of their claims----"prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?".
What were they claiming GOD had said? Was the casting out of devils just a farce? Were the "wonderful works"(social and humane activities) for self glory?
Satan has counterfeited many of GOD'S commanded activites.
Is one doing the Righteous "works" GOD ordained to be done OR those "which seemeth right, but lead to destruction?

Exactly. So in the end, there will be countless false prophets and miracle workers and supernatural spouters who are all anti-Mosaic Law. They will be cast out and burn in the fire.

To the contrary. However, they do collide with your beliefs.

Really? How is it to the contrary? I agree Paul's epistles collide with my beliefs, but you have in no way shown that they don't collide with James. All you've done is shown that they do and then say "to the contrary".

 

[sincerly]

Shermana, GOD is merciful notice: "But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put [any] frankincense thereon: for it [is] a sin offering."

Lev.5:11 is the most destitute of persons----but the requirement was not relaxed for those who could "bring" the full required sacrifice. AND THAT WAS A BLOOD SACRIFICE.
Today, the sacrifice has been made and is Free for the BELIEVING.

If a non-blood sacrifice is allowed for the destitute, blood is not "required" for them nonetheless.
I agree that Blood is what redeems. However, even if the destitute can substitute something for blood, it shows that its more about the concept than the blood itself, though I am not necessarily sure on how it works.

The Writings(Scriptures) by GOD on Stone and those instructions given to Moses to write for the edification/obedience of all peoples by GOD----show how it works.
That "animal" killed by GOD himself to Clothe Adam and Eve---thus giving the life instead of instant death---was symbolic of the the only means of securing salvation for ALL peoples(Deut.31:12) who would Believe in the redeeming Blood of the Sacrifice which was promised from "before the foundation of the world."----Christ Jesus.(1Pet.1:18-20)
Right, GOD doesn't accept human sacrifices(ALL humans have to die for their own sins.(Ezek.18)), but that wasn't GOD's plan. God sent HIS SON to preform that scarifice in LOVE/REDEMPTION for HIS Creation. And that Redemption ends in the end of this cursed world and the "earth made new".(Isa.66:22-23)

And for those who actually obey. There remains no more sacrifice for those who continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth.

Shermana, how many times did GOD "heal" the back-slidings of sins of HIS PEOPLE? Wasn't there always a "Remnant" who remained faithful(Obedient)?
Once the sacrifice is made for PRESENT SINS, those do not need another sacrifice, but each NEW SIN places one in the Guilty of transgression and the death penalty. (The soul{person} that sinneth it shall die.)

Are you saying Jesus had a different message for Jews? Do we get the "Greater Gospel" and you gentiles get the "Diluted Gospel"? Why does it matter if Jesus is talking to Jews or non Jews? The words are the same. Doers of Lawlessness will be cast out.

NO! NO! Actually, it doesn't. There is only one message from Genesis to Revelations. There are only Believers and non-believers. The Disobedient are Lawlessness ones and will be cast out in the day of Judgment.

Note: Ye that work iniquity is a bad translation of "Doers of lawlessness", anomian, those against Mosaic Law.

Shermana, Both " 'avon and 'evel " are translated into English as "iniquity". Also as perversity and meaning sin.
'evel has the meaning of Wickedness as well. But wickedness is SIN when it is perverse to the "Thus saith the Lord"/writings which explain GOD'S WILL.

Exactly, that's why "Doers of Lawlessness" refers to those against Mosaic Law.

OR just as SIN.

That's fine, there have been countless "orthodox" Christians who claim to have exorcised demons and supernatural events in history who were all "doers of Lawlessness", I see no problem here with this. But I don't think you're willing to understand what "doers of Lawlessness" implies since you have a radically different interpretation of that term.

What's radical about the truths given in the Scriptures? In Context and according to word usage?

Really? How is it to the contrary? I agree Paul's epistles collide with my beliefs, but you have in no way shown that they don't collide with James. All you've done is shown that they do and then say "to the contrary".

Yes, really. and "to the contrary" of what you "believe".

 

[Shermana]

The Writings(Scriptures) by GOD on Stone and those instructions given to Moses to write for the edification/obedience of all peoples by GOD----show how it works.
That "animal" killed by GOD himself to Clothe Adam and Eve---thus giving the life instead of instant death---was symbolic of the the only means of securing salvation for ALL peoples(Deut.31:12) who would Believe in the redeeming Blood of the Sacrifice which was promised from "before the foundation of the world."----Christ Jesus.(1Pet.1:18-20)

That in no way disproves what I said about how poor people can substitute blood for grain.

Right, GOD doesn't accept human sacrifices(ALL humans have to die for their own sins.(Ezek.18)), but that wasn't GOD's plan. God sent HIS SON to preform that scarifice in LOVE/REDEMPTION for HIS Creation. And that Redemption ends in the end of this cursed world and the "earth made new".(Isa.66:22-23)

Ah, the world is no longer cursed and is now made anew? What planet are you on? Earth here is still pretty corrupt and not really "made anew" as its defined. Do they have intergalactic internet connections where you live? Apparently so.

Shermana, how many times did GOD "heal" the back-slidings of sins of HIS PEOPLE?

After he mangled and punished the offenders, each time.

Wasn't there always a "Remnant" who remained faithful(Obedient)?

Yes, what's your point?

Once the sacrifice is made for PRESENT SINS, those do not need another sacrifice, but each NEW SIN places one in the Guilty of transgression and the death penalty. (The soul{person} that sinneth it shall die.)

Same concept for Christianity, "if you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins." Thus, the person who continues to sin will die. Jesus does not give you the ability to get away with sin anymore so than any other sacrifice. Therefore, you must obey the Law.

NO! NO! Actually, it doesn't. There is only one message from Genesis to Revelations. There are only Believers and non-believers. The Disobedient are Lawlessness ones and will be cast out in the day of Judgment.

Well then you need to rethink another reply other than "Jesus was talking to the Jews".

Shermana, Both " 'avon and 'evel " are translated into English as "iniquity". Also as perversity and meaning sin.

The word is Anomian Strong's Greek: 458. ?????? (anomia) -- lawlessness so I can only wonder why you're trying to shift discussion away from the actual word being used, either you're deliberately doing so or you're too lazy to check to see which word is being used, hopefully just the latter.

'evel has the meaning of Wickedness as well. But wickedness is SIN when it is perverse to the "Thus saith the Lord"/writings which explain GOD'S WILL.

Okay, so what does that have to do with the word Anomian in Matthew 7:22-23?

OR just as SIN.

1 John 3:4 "Sin is Lawlessness". Those who continue to sin will be rejected by Jesus, and that includes those who willfully deny the Mosaic Law.

What's radical about the truths given in the Scriptures? In Context and according to word usage?

You mean your interpretation of the truths? Your interpretation of context and word usage? You didn't even address the right word! Obviously the word usage was a problem with your interpretation or you would have discussed the actual word in question instead of changing it, right? This is not the first time you've basically replied "nuh uh" to what I provide as clear word studies.

Yes, really. and "to the contrary" of what you "believe".

Is there a reason you continually do what I accuse you of doing in not actually backing your claim on this regard?

 

[Muffled]

1. What is the modern definition of "receiving Jesus?" I have heard the modern definition means 'received him as savior'. Am I right?
2. What was the original intent when John wrote "To all who received Him..."?

3. Do the two match?

The greek for the word receive in John 1:12 is

λαμβνω,v \{lam-ban'-o}
1) to take 1a) to take with the hand, lay hold of, any person or thing in order to use it 1a1) to take up a thing to be carried 1a2) to take upon one's self 1b) to take in order to carry away 1b1) without the notion of violence, i,e to remove, take away 1c) to take what is one's own, to take to one's self, to make one's own 1c1) to claim, procure, for one's self 1c1a) to associate with one's self as companion, attendant 1c2) of that which when taken is not let go, to seize, to lay hold of, apprehend 1c3) to take by craft (our catch, used of hunters, fisherman, etc.), to circumvent one by fraud 1c4) to take to one's self, lay hold upon, take possession of, i.e. to appropriat to one's self 1c5) catch at, reach after, strive to obtain 1c6) to take a thing due, to collect, gather (tribute) 1d) to take 1d1) to admit, receive 1d2) to receive what is offered 1d3) not to refuse or reject 1d4) to receive a person, givehim access to one's self, 1d41) to regard any one's power, rank, external circumstances, and on that account to do some injustice or neglect something 1e) to take, to choose, select 1f) to take beginning, to prove anything, to make a trial of, to experience 2) to receive (what is given), to gain, get, obtain, to get back

Personally, I don't believe John 1:12 reads

Yet to all who received him 'as savior', to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God---

Because:
1. If John had meant received 'as savior', as is a popular notion today, then they would not need the right/power to become children of God, as they would already be children of God, by virtue of having received Him as savior.

2. Chronologically, it makes more sense that, as the ones who gave Jesus a deserving reception, as opposed to those who rejected him, that they would be the ones granted the right to become His children.

3. It says that to all who received him, believed in His name, He gave the right/power/authority to become children of God. That's different than already being there.

4. It simply does not say, -Yet to all who received him 'As savior'...

My guess is that it varies from one group to another.

My understanding is receive Jesus as Lord and Savior.

I believe the intent corresponds with the above definition.

The definition not including receiveing Jesus as Lord does not match but the one I gave does.

Obviously a person isn't receiving the body of Jesus, since that body is no longer with us, so the meaning must be receiving the Paraclete who is the Spirit of God in Jesus and in us. Like receiving a letter, there remains the question of what we do with Him once we have Him. However just as receiving a letter immediately affects our concoiusness so also does the reception of Jesus. So the answer is that just receiving Jesus does not save a person. No doubt the power is there to become a child of God but that power has to be accessed. For instance my computer has the power tobecome an alter ego for me but it will not become that unless I access its power to do so.

I do not see this verse as a good foundation for receiving Jesus as Lord and Savior other than the presentation of the concept that we have the power to do so.

 

[sincerly]

That in no way disproves what I said about how poor people can substitute blood for grain.

Nor does it(Lev.11:5) excuse or negate the required Blood sacrifice by those who were not "poor"/destitute.

Ah, the world is no longer cursed and is now made anew? What planet are you on? Earth here is still pretty corrupt and not really "made anew" as its defined. Do they have intergalactic internet connections where you live? Apparently so.

Apparently, you do not believe Isaiah's prophecy in (66:22-23)

After he mangled and punished the offenders, each time.

Yes, GOD did forgive them when they had confessed and repented from their back-slidings.
However, the punishment was by Famines, wild beast, and those Nations about them.

Yes, what's your point?

A rebellious attitude towards GOD and HIS instructions doesn't have to be the normal attitude. A remnant of those who claimed GOD as their GOD continued to be obedient---through-out the history of the world and even to today. That's the message of the Bible.

Same concept for Christianity, "if you continue to sin after receiving knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for your sins." Thus, the person who continues to sin will die. Jesus does not give you the ability to get away with sin anymore so than any other sacrifice. Therefore, you must obey the Law.

When one obeys the Law, there is no violation---therefore, no need for a redeeming act. However, one has to have that Redeemer to first be made sin free. That was done by a blood sacrifice as stated in the scriptures.

Well then you need to rethink another reply other than "Jesus was talking to the Jews".

However, that was HIS audience in that Scripture. And Yes, Paul wrote that all things were written for our(Jew and Gentile---Believers and non-believers) admonition.
Notice: Gal.3:26-29, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. "

Okay, so what does that have to do with the word Anomian in Matthew 7:22-23?

Shermana, the evilness/wickedness/iniquity/lawlessness of those who were told to depart wasn't in what they had professed/acknowledged, but in what they had not Confessed in regards to Obeying the WILL of the Father.
Their "tree/being" wasn't in accordance the "Fruit" Jesus saw in them.

The word "Lawlessness" doesn't exist in the KJV. I searched for " and "iniquity" and founf those two "words" I posted. The one had the usage of "Wickedness" which you used.
Right,I should have used the verse in which "iniquity" was found.

1 John 3:4 "Sin is Lawlessness". Those who continue to sin will be rejected by Jesus, and that includes those who willfully deny the Mosaic Law.

Sin is the transgression of the Law. A disregard for the LAW. The Decalogue was placed inside the Ark of the Covenant and those of Moses were placed outside the Ark.
Heb.9, "The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which [was] a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; [Which stood] only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed [on them] until the time of reformation."

Christ is now our High Priest and was our Sacrifice.