Bible Study Stop the Spin....I'm gettin dizzy.....

[Georges]

What's your spin?

John says...

1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1Jo 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

and,

2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.


Gnosticism says....

In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians.

This belief is most commonly attributed to the Gnostics, who believed that matter was evil, and hence that God would not take on a material body. This statement is rooted in the idea that a divine spark is imprisoned within the material body, and that the material body is in itself an obstacle, deliberately created by an evil lesser god (the demiurge) to prevent man from seeing his divine origin. Humanity is, in essence, asleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

Paul says...

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:


Red flags...Danger Will Robinson....Danger....

Anyone else see the Docetic "type" statements here?......Let's have a roll call answer of spin...

A....?
F.....?
G....?
J.....?
O.....?
S....?

Where am I wrong in the association between the verses and the definition?

I sure would have felt better about it if Paul said "as a man" instead of "likeness of men"....then there would have been no problem...it must have been a little sliparoo.....

 

[cyberjosh]

Consider the following commentary before you fall over:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

You should know that flesh most often refers to an immaterial nature of depraved man and not the physical flesh of a man. The word has been used for both but in context of "sinful flesh" (which Paul makes clear in Romans that the physical body can be used for righteousness - thus in essence neutral) it refers to the depraved nature of a man that comes with being human. But Jesus was a unique human, being sinless, so the inherent fallen nature that almost exclusively came with the physical body was divorced from the person of Jesus. Human but without sin.

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

If God made man in his image then obviously God's nature surpasses that of a human's, the human's nature being but a glimpse of God, so Jesus in nature was different on the inside being God and being perfect, though physically a human being. His transfiguration revealed a glimpse of his true nature. I doubt at the transfiguration (which I don't think Gnostic gospels even mention) that Gnostics would have claimed that Jesus for a short period of time shed his physical body to reveal his glory. Such a notion is rediculous.

 

[Georges]

That is pretty good spin Cyber.....even though your initial wasn't on the list...actually, I was going to put it in but didn't..

It almost sounds good enough to be considered. But....as I said the only way to deny the docetism is to put a good spin on it.

Now...I did say "docetic type" speech....which may not include true docetism, but similar in thought, as the verse puts forth. Although he doesn't dwell on the topic...enough to be really considered, he still got his point across. Paul is from Tarsus in a country that is a hotbed of Gnostic Christianity. Paul is also a Hellenized Jew and a part of the extended Herodian family. Being well educated through his connections, he would be clever enough to make his point without having to delve further into it...

The proof? Your post Cyber....you provided it. You use the same docetic type words....but it is a clever spin...

 

[cyberjosh]

That is pretty good spin Cyber.....even though your initial wasn't on the list...actually, I was going to put it in but didn't..

It almost sounds good enough to be considered. But....as I said the only way to deny the docetism is to put a good spin on it.

Now...I did say "docetic type" speech....which may not include true docetism, but similar in thought, as the verse puts forth. Although he doesn't dwell on the topic...enough to be really considered, he still got his point across. Paul is from Tarsus in a country that is a hotbed of Gnostic Christianity. Paul is also a Hellenized Jew and a part of the extended Herodian family. Being well educated through his connections, he would be clever enough to make his point without having to delve further into it...

The proof? Your post Cyber....you provided it. You use the same docetic type words....but it is a clever spin...

Really, your evasion skills are quite proficient. Your extrabiblical assumptions give you fallacious presuppositions. You failed to address my points. I gave you the definition of the flesh, do you disagree? And Genesis uses the terminology of making man in God's "image". Jesus (the Word) became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory (at the transfiguration). Jesus did not have sinful flesh (the Bible says Jesus was without sin), thus "likeness". Once you properly address my post then I will consider any counter-arguement that you present. Otherwise you are seemingly just making a spin of your own.

 

[Georges]

Really, your evasion skills are quite proficient.

Bob and weave my friend....bob and weave.

Your extrabiblical assumptions give you fallacious presuppositions. You failed to address my points.

No...I addressed them...en masse. You tried to spin the "docetic inferrence" plain and simple by saying "Paul really meant this when he wrote that .

I gave you the definition of the flesh, do you disagree?

I agree that you defined "your" interpretation of it, however, I absolutely disagree with your definition. Unless I mis-read it, you are stating that Jesus came in Human flesh, but it wasn't sinful because he is God...(in so many words). That is a type of Docetism....

John is saying that Jesus did come in the flesh....meaning "meat, blood, and bones" and he came as "a man".

Paul says "Likeness" which means...."appearing to be".

Did Jesus come in the flesh, or did he come in the appearence of flesh?

Please...no talk like flesh really means sinful desire etc.....flesh means flesh...sinful or not. Likeness means likeness....

Did Jesus sin? According to Torah Law...no, he is righteous. Was he flesh and blood man...? Yes. Was he flesh and blood "likeness" of man? No.



And Genesis uses the terminology of making man in God's "image". Jesus (the Word) became flesh and dwelt among us and we have seen his glory (at the transfiguration).

Good reference and nice point. It sounds like a coup but consider this:

God making man in his image is very much different than God making God (Jesus) in man's image.....

Jesus did not have sinful flesh (the Bible says Jesus was without sin), thus "likeness".

And thus the docetism of the Gnostics....as I said in the previous post, you proved my point. Gnostics couldn't concieve that God could come down in "sinful flesh". Jesus physically proved that he had a body affected by sin, by the very fact that it deteriorates (ages). Not to mention that Mary (sorry Catholics) as all people are, was sinful. Jesus, was born of Mary, in a body that inherited the sinful acts of the World (If Jesus wasn't crucified, would he have lived forever in the same (unglorified) flesh?). The Gnostics didn't like that idea so they dreamed up that he must be in the "likenesss of sinful flesh" that way they could claim he (God) wasn't really in sinful flesh. Even though Jesus may not have sinned, he still was in a body (flesh suit) that was affected by sin.

Because I can't recall off the top of my head which verses claim that Jesus was without sin please list "a couple"...I know that there are many of them, but I'm pressed for time on this one...I was always told that he was and took it to be true, but I can't recall the verses. Just a couple will do....please, no Paul verses..anyone else will do.

When doing a quick search, I did come up with this curiosity...


Hbr 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation

Does "without sin the second time" mean that he was "with sin" the first time. Is it possible that Jesus "in sinful flesh" was able to sin (possibly did, but was made righteous by Torah standards), and upon recieving his glorified body was then made sinless? or, does that mean that he being sinless, became sinful (taking on the sins of the world) and at his second coming, he won't have to do that again.

Verses that make you go HMMMMMM....

Once you properly address my post then I will consider any counter-arguement that you present.

Proper enough?

Otherwise you are seemingly just making a spin of your own.

Rinse and spin....just looking for the truth.

Hope I did better this time....

 

[cyberjosh]

I will find your verse later. First I will deal with the biggest hinderance in our discussion:

Did Jesus come in the flesh, or did he come in the appearence of flesh?

Please...no talk like flesh really means sinful desire etc.....flesh means flesh...sinful or not. Likeness means likeness....

C'mon, there are obvious verses that speak of the flesh as something non-physical.

Read definitions 5 & 6 and see the contrast on this page here. 5 is the physical use of flesh and 6 is the "fallen nature" use of flesh.

And this link shows the subtle differences in the greek words.

Tell me if you see the distinction I have referenced now. And the punch line/conclusion of that last (2nd) link was:

"In conclusion it can be stated that the overwhelming use of sarx, or flesh, in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline epistles, is to indicate the fallen, sinful, deteriorated human nature, which all human beings have inherited from Adam. "

 

[Georges]

I will find your verse later. First I will deal with the biggest hinderance in our discussion:



C'mon, there are obvious verses that speak of the flesh as something non-physical.

Read definitions 5 & 6 and see the contrast on this page here. 5 is the physical use of flesh and 6 is the "fallen nature" use of flesh.

And this link shows the subtle differences in the greek words.

Tell me if you see the distinction I have referenced now. And the punch line/conclusion of that last (2nd) link was:

"In conclusion it can be stated that the overwhelming use of sarx, or flesh, in the New Testament, especially in the Pauline epistles, is to indicate the fallen, sinful, deteriorated human nature, which all human beings have inherited from Adam. "

Cyber, consider these....

(Disclaimer for the mods....the material below is presented only to show the gnostic view of Christ as coming in the likeness of human flesh).

From the Gnostic book "The Apocalypse of Peter":

In this text, Peter and Jesus are speaking....


When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

This is docetic type statements....notice "likeness"....

Another Gnostic writting supporting the "Likeness of human flesh" is from the "Acts of John":

John's narrative....

...Also there was in him another marvel: when I sat at meat he would take me upon his own breast; and sometimes his breast was felt of me to be smooth and tender, and sometimes hard like unto stones, so that I was perplexed in myself and said: Wherefore is this so unto me? And as I considered this, he . .

and,

...93 Another glory also will I tell you, brethren: Sometimes when I would lay hold on him, I met with a material and solid body, and at other times, again, when I felt him, the substance was immaterial and as if it existed not at all.

and,

...Yet unto me there then appeared this yet more wonderful thing: for I would try to see him privily, and I never at any time saw his eyes closing (winking), but only open.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... sjohn.html

Farther down the passage, the crucifixion scene is witnessed to by both Jesus and John from a cave in the Mt. of Olives.....

The point being, these Gnostic works show that they considered Jesus appearing as not really in human flesh....


Of course the writter of the "Acts of John" has nothing to do with the legitimate Apostle John....

The Apostle John says that those who deny (ie. the author of the Acts of John) that Christ came in the flesh (flesh and blood, including sinful flesh) is of the spirit of antichrist.

The reason why I included the Gnostic references is to show the gnostic docetism....

Paul claims likeness.....that echoes the above.....that isn't the only
Gnostic type language used in the epistles...

 

[Georges]

There is only one possible explanation that can be offered as an excuse for the "seemingly docetic" statements made in the epistles. That is 1 Cor 9:22.

First, a reminder:

Phl 2:7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

The same language is used by the Lycaonians in regard to Paul....

Act 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

Can this be the possible reason that Paul used "docetic type" language in his epistles?

1Cr 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;
1Cr 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.
1Cr 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save some.

Speculative questions....

Could he have added, "To the Gnostic's I became as a gnostic" under the pretense of verse 22 to bring Gnostics to Christ?

How about to the Mithratics who belonged to the Mystery Religions around Tarsus in Asia...."To those of the Mystery Religions I became as a mithratic" under the pretense of verse 22...to bring them to Christ?


This is important stuff here......and no joke.....

Paul and Mithraism....is there a connection?

What is Mithraism?

Mithras was the central god of Mithraism, a syncretic Hellenistic mystery religion of male initiates that developed in the Eastern Mediterranean in the 2nd and 1st centuries BC and was practiced in the Roman Empire from the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD. Parthian coins and documents bear a double date with a 64 year interval that represents Mithras' ascension to heaven, traditionally given as the equivalent of 208 BC, 64 years after his birth. The Romanized Greek Plutarch says that in 67 BC a large band of pirates in Ciliciaâ€â€on the southeast coast of Anatolia were practicing "secret rites" of Mithras.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

Mithraism was practiced to some extent in Cilicia.....Tarsus is in Cilicia. Paul is from Tarsus....

The name Mithras is the Greek masculine form of Mithra, the Persian god who was the mediator between Ahura Mazda and the earth, the guarantor of human contracts, although in Mithraism much was added to the original elements of Mitra.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras

1Ti 2:5 For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Paul from Tarsus in Cilicia uses the same terminology found in the mystery religion of Mithraism. Paul uses "mystery type (secret knowledge)" in his epistles. Was this to win Mithratic's to Christ as well? Could be.

Is it subversive to the message that the Apostles preached in Jerusalem?



Am I twisting verse meanings here or is there really something more to it?

 

[cyberjosh]

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

I've read this before. First point, Paul doesn't make a distinction (as the Gnostics do here), or ever, of Jesus being two persons. And this says "his likeness" and not the opposite, like what Paul said of Jesus becoming in the likeness of a man. Paul is emphasizing the divinity of Jesus in the human body.

Now as for my last post, you didn't respond to my points of there being a clear use of two different types of flesh used in the NT. This is critical for you to understand why Paul said Jesus was only in the likeness of the sinful flesh (the non-physical meaning of flesh) to help you understand that he is in no way promoting a Gnostic view (and infact it refutes the Gnostic view) but was emphasising Jesus' sinless perfection in human form.

Also did it escape you that Paul also said, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9)? A clear contradiction to the Gnostic view of Body = evil Spirit = good, especially when refering to Jesus.

Also you isolating certain verses to create your own interpretation is Bible Fallacy #1, and it is how we get entire denominations that have conflicting theological views because they take a verse out of context and have no developed system of theology at all. All of Paul's writings must be viewed in light of his own writings. You can't pick one verse out a hundred and claim this is what Paul really meant. Context, context, context.

 

[Georges]

I've read this before. First point, Paul doesn't make a distinction (as the Gnostics do here), or ever, of Jesus being two persons. And this says "his likeness" and not the opposite, like what Paul said of Jesus becoming in the likeness of a man. Paul is emphasizing the divinity of Jesus in the human body.

The only reason this book is in the NT...is Paul doesn't come right out and say it...Of course Paul doesn't come right out and say it...he has to contend with the Jewish elements in the congregation who would never accept a spiritual and physical Messiah. Again, Cyber, you are referring to Docetic Gnosticism in your last sentence.

Trouble is, the Nazarene element of the Jewish believers in Ephesus did finally figure him out and abandoned him. See Rev 2....


Now as for my last post, you didn't respond to my points of there being a clear use of two different types of flesh used in the NT. This is critical for you to understand why Paul said Jesus was only in the likeness of the sinful flesh (the non-physical meaning of flesh) to help you understand that he is in no way promoting a Gnostic view (and infact it refutes the Gnostic view) but was emphasising Jesus' sinless perfection in human form.

And the debate is sharp regarding the meaning of Sarx....It's used to mean "flesh" in at least 140 times in the NT and, as "Carnal mind" 3 times. This does not negate the fact that the 2 meanings are intertwined and can't be separated. No matter how you try and dance around it...Anyway you look at it it is a Gnostic view (body and carnal mind).

Besides, if Jesus had the "likeness of a carnal mind" meaning he had a "pure mind that "appeared to be" carnal, but wasn't"....how could he have been tempted in the wilderness and still be considered legit....that would have been cheating...

Also did it escape you that Paul also said, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Colossians 2:9)? A clear contradiction to the Gnostic view of Body = evil Spirit = good, especially when refering to Jesus.

No...and this is not inconsistant...Jesus as God's agent in Judaism, can be viewed as God in the flesh (power of attorney if you will). He also was endowed with the complete HS of God (Isa 11:2). So Col 2:9 isn't inconsitent with the Jewish view of Messiah as the Agent of God. That being said, this fulfills the requirement of Jesus in the flesh being energized by the HS of God (Isa 11:2) as being sinless. That is different than God coming down to earth in the "likeness of sinful flesh".

Also you isolating certain verses to create your own interpretation is Bible Fallacy #1,

Done by everyone all the time....including yourself. Fallacy? If you want to justify your argument using that, fine. To me your statement is like someone using it as the last defense of a losing debate.

and it is how we get entire denominations that have conflicting theological views because they take a verse out of context and have no developed system of theology at all.

Couldn't agree with you more...how about hoping on my bandwagon and shutting down at least one out of context system of theology...again the rope a dope of a losing debate.

All of Paul's writings must be viewed in light of his own writings.

Really?...LOL...Paul should be compared to the Tanach, Gospels, and the Legitemat Apostles writings. Compare Paul to himself...? Surely this isn't what you really meant.

You can't pick one verse out a hundred and claim this is what Paul really meant. Context, context, context.

Yes, you can...and besides, it was 2 verses that have language exactly as the Gnostic's used, and that John warned about....

John's message written afters Paul's. John was warning of Paul's error.

Cyber....come on....if this were the only thing...I could agree with you...however he has other things that are very Gnostic....

Marcion.....hello?

 

[cyberjosh]

And the debate is sharp regarding the meaning of Sarx....It's used to mean "flesh" in at least 140 times in the NT and, as "Carnal mind" 3 times. This does not negate the fact that the 2 meanings are intertwined and can't be separated. No matter how you try and dance around it...Anyway you look at it it is a Gnostic view (body and carnal mind).

Really, then how do we explain the verse that says, "And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:24)? This does not include any sense of physical flesh in the meaning of flesh.

Besides, if Jesus had the "likeness of a carnal mind" meaning he had a "pure mind that "appeared to be" carnal, but wasn't"....how could he have been tempted in the wilderness and still be considered legit....that would have been cheating...

What do you mean by carnal? He had a frail human mind in the physical flesh just like all humans and was subject to temptation but was perfect because he did not give in to what would have been "sinful flesh" (the depraved human nature - Jesus broke Adam's chain of sin, read Romans). My point Jesus' nature was sinless and he rejected sin, never having sinned.

No...and this is not inconsistant...Jesus as God's agent in Judaism, can be viewed as God in the flesh (power of attorney if you will). He also was endowed with the complete HS of God (Isa 11:2). So Col 2:9 isn't inconsitent with the Jewish view of Messiah as the Agent of God. That being said, this fulfills the requirement of Jesus in the flesh being energized by the HS of God (Isa 11:2) as being sinless. That is different than God coming down to earth in the "likeness of sinful flesh".

Really, well that excludes the Gnostic view as being correct right there, because they saw a physical Jesus and a "living/spiritual Jesus", not a physical Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwelling fully in him. And what's interesting is though the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, Jesus had freewill and was not a "puppet" of God like we would be if God dwelt in us 100%. How do we get around this problem? Easy, Jesus is God and thus he merely was in full communion of the Trinity.

Done by everyone all the time....including yourself. Fallacy? If you want to justify your argument using that, fine. To me your statement is like someone using it as the last defense of a losing debate.

Really, we must talk some time of these instances where I use one or two verses to develop a doctrine out of context instead of considering verses and doctrine from all over the Bible. I would like to correct such a "fallacy".

Really?...LOL...Paul should be compared to the Tanach, Gospels, and the Legitemat Apostles writings. Compare Paul to himself...? Surely this isn't what you really meant.

What I meant is Paul wouldn't (I also say can't, because I believe Paul is inspired) contradict himself so when Paul affirms something say 100s of times in his works and then seems to say something that is non-affirmative of what he has previously said that it must be interpreted in context of what he has said. Same with Jesus, Peter, John, etc. etc.

Yes, you can...and besides, it was 2 verses that have language exactly as the Gnostic's used, and that John warned about....

John's message written afters Paul's. John was warning of Paul's error.

Assumptions and conjecture. We have no hard evidence for those claims. Be careful when examiing extra-biblical "evidence".

 

[TanNinety]

John's message written afters Paul's. John was warning of Paul's error.

Assumptions and conjecture. We have no hard evidence for those claims. Be careful when examiing extra-biblical "evidence".

Read the following passages for yourself cyber.

Romans 4:1 Abraham was, humanly speaking, the founder of our Jewish nation. What were his experiences concerning this question of being saved by faith? 2 Was it because of his good deeds that God accepted him? If so, he would have had something to boast about. But from God's point of view Abraham had no basis at all for pride. 3 For the Scriptures tell us, "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous."
4 When people work, their wages are not a gift. Workers earn what they receive. 5 But people are declared righteous because of their faith, not because of their work.

James 2:21 Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was declared right with God because of what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see, he was trusting God so much that he was willing to do whatever God told him to do. His faith was made complete by what he did-by his actions. 23 And so it happened just as the Scriptures say: "Abraham believed God, so God declared him to be righteous." He was even called "the friend of God." 24 So you see, we are made right with God by what we do, not by faith alone.

Did you pay attention to the bolded parts? James took the same example of “Abraham believed God†as Paul did but corrected Paul’s error of “faith only†conclusion to “not just faith only but by worksâ€Â.

So when George says John and James and the rest were correcting and warning of Paul’s message it just isn’t “assumption and conjecture†but there is a lot of truth in it as shown above. But when you try not to let go of Paul for a second he will be more than happy to cover your eyes over the truth in the scripture and you will not see it. To me scripture is pretty self correcting. Yeshua’s words alone should pretty much correct Paul’s words out of the bible.

Now you can’t tell me that both conclusions of Paul and James are valid. You can’t say “faith only†and “not faith only but also worksâ€Â. They are mutually exclusive conclusions. They both cant be true. That makes one a very false apostle in my book. If you can save Paul from the above scenario, I would definitely like to see you try.

 

[lovely]

George,

I didn't see my initial there, but I really see that you are not comparing the same things here with 1 John, and Romans...I am surprised that you don't see that you have pulled them out of context.

In Romans 8, Paul is addressing the believer, and exhorting us not to walk in the flesh, but to walk in the Spirit. This sets the tone/context right from the start. We know that we are not condemned if we walk in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and that He has made us free from the law of sin and death...basically the blood has made atonement for us, even though we are sinners in the flesh. The law couldn't do this for us, because of our weak, and sinful, flesh, but Christ could, George, because He was only in the likeness of flesh, in that He was not weak, and sinful, but without sin, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, and able to resist sin...pretty simple, I think. The context here is clear, if one does not spin it. No wonder your dizzy, George! :wink:

As far as Philippians 2:7, I still see no problem. The context again, is Paul's exhortation to believers to be united in their humility, esteeming others above themselves. Then, he turns to Christ's example in His incarnation...being made in the likeness of men, is followed by this...

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

He was made a man, but not sinful because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and was given the Holy Spirit without measure, and humbled Himself to pay the penalty for our sin, though He was not like us because He was sinless. I think you may be complicating, George. The Lord bless you.

 

[cyberjosh]

Did you pay attention to the bolded parts? James took the same example of “Abraham believed God†as Paul did but corrected Paul’s error of “faith only†conclusion to “not just faith only but by worksâ€Â.

First off I want to say that I do not want to highjack this thread, because this issue is not what Geroges was refering to. But I will attempt to give an answer:

James treats works as an extension and demonstration of faith, and Paul is saying that faith and not works (to gain salvation) justifies a man. Paul is looking at pre-salvation works. James is looking a post-salvation works as a natural fruit of faith. You have to remember that Paul is preaching against Judaizers who seek to gain salvation by obeying the law. James is dealing with believers who already have faith.

 

[Georges]

George,

I didn't see my initial there, but I really see that you are not comparing the same things here with 1 John, and Romans...I am surprised that you don't see that you have pulled them out of context.

I haven't pulled them out of context...I just view the context from an unorthodox point of veiw. I'm not tied to Paul, therefore I can be critical of him. Tan 90 has broken that taboo barrier and is able to see that Paul has some splainin to do as well...Paul uses gnostic terminology, period...does he not? The words are in black and white "likeness". Pauline apologist scramble to make an attempt at explaining what he "really meant", but in the end, it doesn't wash.

In Romans 8, Paul is addressing the believer, and exhorting us not to walk in the flesh, but to walk in the Spirit.

That is borderline gnosticism...the body is evil, the spirit is good. Paul should be exorting us to follow Torah as a guide to righteous living...

This sets the tone/context right from the start.

Agreed...Yourself and others view Paul as a non Gnostic. This and other Pauline passages show Paul to have semi gnostic tendenies...Hey...I didn't write his epistiles and I didn't define the terms of gnosticism....I just do the research....

We know that we are not condemned if we walk in the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and that He has made us free from the law of sin and death...basically the blood has made atonement for us, even though we are sinners in the flesh.

The Law of Sin and Death is the biggest deception taught. A lie Satan caused to work well....and to great effect being subversive to what the Apostles in Jerusalem taught.
If you are walking in the Spirit of Life, you are obviously observing Torah. That is all God requires...see EZE 18, one of the most important chapters in the Bible. A point that can't be argued (if you believe God's word). Jesus taught against the man-made law, not Torah law.

The law couldn't do this for us, because of our weak, and sinful, flesh, but Christ could, George, because He was only in the likeness of flesh, in that He was not weak, and sinful, but without sin, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, and able to resist sin...pretty simple, I think. The context here is clear, if one does not spin it. No wonder your dizzy, George! :wink:

Eze 18 just about shoots down any "Law of Death" talk (again, if you believe Paul's words above God's you are braver than I).

As far as Philippians 2:7, I still see no problem. The context again, is Paul's exhortation to believers to be united in their humility, esteeming others above themselves. Then, he turns to Christ's example in His incarnation...being made in the likeness of men, is followed by this...

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

He was made a man, but not sinful because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit

Born of a sinful woman....

and was given the Holy Spirit without measure,

Upon his baptism....30 years old.....

and humbled Himself to pay the penalty for our sin, though He was not like us because He was sinless. I think you may be complicating, George. The Lord bless you.

You as well....I may be complicating, but I also have 80 pages dedicated to proving my point in a commentary on the Letters of Revelation indicating that it may be Paul whom Jesus references to in Rev 2:2. Using Moses, Ezekiel, Jesus, James, Peter, John, Jude, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Pseudo-Clementine Liturature to prove it out. Some may say it's specualtion...but how much circumstantial evidence to you need before it makes you think? My OP is just the tip of the iceberg on Paul. Once all these things come to light....you would see why I pick on him as I do. Once that is done, you can get back to what James required in Acts 15.

 

[Georges]

Quote:
And the debate is sharp regarding the meaning of Sarx....It's used to mean "flesh" in at least 140 times in the NT and, as "Carnal mind" 3 times. This does not negate the fact that the 2 meanings are intertwined and can't be separated. No matter how you try and dance around it...Anyway you look at it it is a Gnostic view (body and carnal mind).


Really, then how do we explain the verse that says, "And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires." (Galatians 5:24)? This does not include any sense of physical flesh in the meaning of flesh.

Of course people don't crucify themselves literally (I think). But no other verse besides the 2 I posted suggests "likeness". I don't explain Paul's gnostic tendencies, I just pointed 2 gnostic langauage verses....those who are Christ's follow the Torah...that means abstaining from sin as you can. Paul throws in the gnostic "Sinful mind" and "sinful body" in an attempt to explain passion (lust). Mind and body are interactive...and not mutually exclusive. You can't have a sinless mind and a sinful body. You can't have a sinful mind and sinless body. You can have a sinful mind and body, and still fulfill the requirments for righteousness according to Torah standards...Eze 18.
Quote:
Besides, if Jesus had the "likeness of a carnal mind" meaning he had a "pure mind that "appeared to be" carnal, but wasn't"....how could he have been tempted in the wilderness and still be considered legit....that would have been cheating...


What do you mean by carnal?

That is what you were getting at I believe...sorry if I misread you...one of the def's of sarx is "carnal mind"....is it not?

He had a frail human mind in the physical flesh just like all humans and was subject to temptation but was perfect because he did not give in to what would have been "sinful flesh" (the depraved human nature - Jesus broke Adam's chain of sin, read Romans). My point Jesus' nature was sinless and he rejected sin, never having sinned.

Paul said "Likeness"......he didn't say "Jesus had sinful flesh, but due to his sinless nature, that made his flesh in the likeness of sinful flesh". Paul said he came in the likeness of sinful flesh.

Quote:
No...and this is not inconsistant...Jesus as God's agent in Judaism, can be viewed as God in the flesh (power of attorney if you will). He also was endowed with the complete HS of God (Isa 11:2). So Col 2:9 isn't inconsitent with the Jewish view of Messiah as the Agent of God. That being said, this fulfills the requirement of Jesus in the flesh being energized by the HS of God (Isa 11:2) as being sinless. That is different than God coming down to earth in the "likeness of sinful flesh".


Really, well that excludes the Gnostic view as being correct right there, because they saw a physical Jesus and a "living/spiritual Jesus", not a physical Jesus and the Holy Spirit dwelling fully in him.

Not so....They were witness to the complete HS landing on the Messiah...at that point Jesus is "without a doubt" sinless. With the power of God's HS, Jesus would have been human with God's power as given to him.

And what's interesting is though the fullness of the Godhead dwells in him bodily, Jesus had freewill and was not a "puppet" of God like we would be if God dwelt in us 100%.

How many times did Jesus claim to be sent by God and not acted on his own will.....Cyber, go to http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com and do a search on the Law of Agency....read it...don't scan it and you will see (hopefully) the tie in with Jesus as the agent of God.

How do we get around this problem? Easy, Jesus is God and thus he merely was in full communion of the Trinity.

That's how Paulinist's explain what is in fact unsupported.

Quote:
Done by everyone all the time....including yourself. Fallacy? If you want to justify your argument using that, fine. To me your statement is like someone using it as the last defense of a losing debate.


Really, we must talk some time of these instances where I use one or two verses to develop a doctrine out of context instead of considering verses and doctrine from all over the Bible. I would like to correct such a "fallacy".

Nah...not really interest...got bigger fish to fry... :D

Quote:
Really?...LOL...Paul should be compared to the Tanach, Gospels, and the Legitemat Apostles writings. Compare Paul to himself...? Surely this isn't what you really meant.


What I meant is Paul wouldn't (I also say can't, because I believe Paul is inspired) contradict himself so when Paul affirms something say 100s of times in his works and then seems to say something that is non-affirmative of what he has previously said that it must be interpreted in context of what he has said. Same with Jesus, Peter, John, etc. etc.

Well when you get by Paul being inspired then you can get back to what Jesus intended.....obey God by observing his commandments...Paul taught Torah anomia....

Quote:
Yes, you can...and besides, it was 2 verses that have language exactly as the Gnostic's used, and that John warned about....

John's message written afters Paul's. John was warning of Paul's error.


Assumptions and conjecture. We have no hard evidence for those claims. Be careful when examiing extra-biblical "evidence".

Agreed....but there is so much....it can't be ignored...

 

[lovely]

Hi George,


Paul was teaching us to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh...Jesus said...

John 3:3-21
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

I don't believe that these statements of Christ are borderline Gnosticism.

I believe Paul was teaching that the Holy Spirit is good, not the spirit of men. Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. This is not Gnosticism, but rather belief in the work of the Holy Spirit, who teaches us, and leads us in paths of righteousness of His name's sake.

Jesus also said...

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:1-15
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

The Lord bless you, George.

 

[Georges]

Hi George,


Paul was teaching us to walk in the Spirit, not in the flesh...Jesus said...

They are mutually inclusive, the spirit drives the flesh....the Essenes strived to be both spiritually and physically pure....that is why they lived the Spartan life in the wilderness.

John 3:3-21
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Jesus is reiterating Eze 18 in that by obeying Torah you will be living in the Spirit of God. As part of that, Baptism (a Jewish practice) is essential. Don't forget, in Judaism, a gentile was required to be Baptised before he could proselyte.

6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Again, a commitment to keep the commandments of God is shown by the believer's Baptism. A signal that shows that he wants to live a Godly and not fleshly life.

7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

How many times can a person be reborn? Several.

8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Jesus reprimands Nic for not knowing these very Jewish principles.

11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?

I don't believe that these statements of Christ are borderline Gnosticism.

Niether do I. It is Paul, not Christ who I meant...The above are Jewish principles.

I believe Paul was teaching that the Holy Spirit is good, not the spirit of men.

I agree...

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

This statement is true....however, only in the context of obeying Torah...which Paul negates in the next verse. Eze 18 verifies the verse above. If we follow Christ's example of following Torah, we walk after the Spirit.

2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

And here is where Paul is in err....The Law is not made to condemn anyone and is not a Law of sin and death. It was presented as a guide for righteous living. To the gnostic, all flesh (physical and spiritual) is evil. Therefore, the Law can only be seen as showing one's sin. To the Jew, especially those Nazarene Jews in the Church in Jerusalem, those who did not view the flesh as evil, the Torah is a guideline to righteous living...and the way to life in the Messianic Kingdom.

Paul echoes that gnostic belief that all flesh (physical and spiritual) is evil. You find this in no other writings (as far as I know) than Paul's epistles.

This is not Gnosticism, but rather belief in the work of the Holy Spirit, who teaches us, and leads us in paths of righteousness of His name's sake.

We are talking 2 different things here....and deviating from the OP....You can't compare Jesus' words with Paul's teaching. They are not the same.

Jesus also said...

John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

What does glorified mean? Does it mean that Jesus was in fact made in sinful flesh, but perhaps was sinless (or righteous?)?

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
John 16:1-15
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.
4 But these things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them. And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you.
5 But now I go my way to him that sent me; and none of you asketh me, Whither goest thou?
6 But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Again, another subject unto itself in a trinity type debate...different than the OP objective. It all boils down to Paul's gnostic type view that the body (phyiscal and spiritual) are sinful. The Jews view that the body is not inherently evil, but is affected by sin (learns sin). Paul views the law as a guideline for condemnation. The Jews, as a guideline for righteousness....(Eze 18).

Still John claims those who say Christ did not appear in the flesh are of the spirit of antichrist. Paul, supposing that God cannot appear in sinful flesh, uses the term "Likeness" to satisify possible gnostic tendencies.



The Lord bless you, George.

He has, more than I deserve....back atcha....

 

[lovely]

George,

Are you saying that you believe that the Essenes were correct in their beliefs? I am only recently more familiar with them.

Do you believe that we are all sinful? I don't want to get into the debate of spirit or body, or whatever, I mean wholly sinful?

And George, for the record, I know we disagree on Trinity, which I believe is clear in Scripture, and I was trying to not bring it up because it is another topic, but I do believe that it affects our perspectives on this topic. I think you were indicating that as well in the last part of your post.

What do you make of these verses by Paul as we go a little further down in Philippians?

Philippians 2:12-16
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

What do you believe the significance of the fruits of the Spirit have for the believer, and how does God's grace relate to our obedience to God? What is the purpose of our obedience, for salvation, or something else?

Is Jesus the only Way to the Father?

Anyway, sometimes I feel as if I know a little about where you are coming from, especially in the obedience area (which I think we still have root differences about), and then other times It seems as if you feel we can earn our access to the Father by righteousness within ourselves by keeping Torah only, rather than walk worthy, in faith, in the righteousness of Christ through the Holy Spirit. A walk that is more than Torah.

And I wonder, does your problem with Paul stem from the teaching that we can be saved by faith, but there never has to be obedience? People who teach this, twist Paul's teachings. Even Luther, who believed that we are saved by faith alone, believed in obedience. Faith, and obedience are the same, but when we fail, God's grace is abounding.

In conclusion, George, I believe that Paul taught we were sinful, body and soul, wholly sinful, and unable to keep the law on our own in a completely perfect manner. And, that the Gentiles were saved by grace, through faith, not by obedience to the Torah...though they were discipling these people to obedience to God in a willing manner...this willingness stemming from faith. It is only by God's grace, through the blood of the Lamb, and by walking in the Holy Spirit that we are able to be spotless before Him. In this manner, we are able to obey, do good works, and grow in faith, worship in Spirit and in Truth, put on the whole armor of God, walk worthy, and produce fruits of the Spirit. This is the life of a true believer, this is walking in the Spirit, and I believe it consists of far more than Torah, and that it's living in communion with the Father, access through the blood of His Son, and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who teaches us, and guides us, in the ways of the Father. I believe that Paul, John, James, etc were all showing us that Torah isn't enough, as Christ taught in the sermon on the mount, but that we must deny ourselves. Israel has been extended, and God calls us to greater obedience to Him under a new covenant. This may include Torah, but it is much more, it's a walk in faith, believing, trusting, and acting on those things to be a light, and to be used by the Father to further His Kingdom. Just as Paul, and others, were always correcting false teaching that sprung up out of culture, so must we today. If the Jew, or the Essenes, had it right (because they were always guilty of adultery, or errors), then why did God need to send His Son? We must shed that, and allow the Spirit to teach us the Word, the whole Word...this is how we will live. Just my thoughts.

Anyway, I am sorry we do not agree in this area. Back atchooo too :-D

 

[Georges]

George,

Are you saying that you believe that the Essenes were correct in their beliefs? I am only recently more familiar with them.

I believe that Christian Essenes were very well tied in and identified with James and the Church in Jerusalem.

Do you believe that we are all sinful?

Yes....I believe we all learn to sin at a very early age...after all, we are very good mimickers.

I don't want to get into the debate of spirit or body, or whatever, I mean wholly sinful?

Yes.

And George, for the record, I know we disagree on Trinity, which I believe is clear in Scripture, and I was trying to not bring it up because it is another topic, but I do believe that it affects our perspectives on this topic. I think you were indicating that as well in the last part of your post.

I does have a big effect on one's perception... matter of fact, I'm currently working on a paper on the etymology of the name God and how it was developed.

What do you make of these verses by Paul as we go a little further down in Philippians?

What do the Philipino's have to do with it? :-D

Philippians 2:12-16
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without murmurings and disputings:
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
16 Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

I think that Paul is shifting the focus of Israel's job (of being an example to the world of a righteous nation) to making it the job of the religion thats became his creation's focus.

What do you believe the significance of the fruits of the Spirit have for the believer, and how does God's grace relate to our obedience to God?

The fruits of the Spirit (Isa 11:2) are meted out to men as God chooses. To my knowledge the only one to have the complete Spirit poured on him was Jesus. God's grace is shown that he gave us both his Guide to righteous living and the perfect instructor to show us how to live it.


What is the purpose of our obedience, for salvation, or something else?

I would say yes, and dog gone it...it's just a better way of living...who can argue that Torah law isn't a great set of rules for a nation to govern by? I'm trying to see where this is leading...

Is Jesus the only Way to the Father?

Eze 18 .....I don't see Jesus' name mentioned there.....None of the OT characters knew who Jesus was. Jesus' statement is in the mood of "through me"...follow my example.

Anyway, sometimes I feel as if I know a little about where you are coming from, especially in the obedience area (which I think we still have root differences about), and then other times It seems as if you feel we can earn our access to the Father by righteousness within ourselves by keeping Torah only, rather than walk worthy, in faith, in the righteousness of Christ through the Holy Spirit. A walk that is more than Torah.

The Torah is only a guideline to clean living....repentance and return are all that are required above that....basically, by following Christ as an example, the above is accomplished. In a sense you are earning it in that you are doing God's will by obeying his commandment. It's not easy not sinning...it takes work to over come the temptation, does it not?

And I wonder, does your problem with Paul stem from the teaching that we can be saved by faith, but there never has to be obedience? People who teach this, twist Paul's teachings. Even Luther, who believed that we are saved by faith alone, believed in obedience. Faith, and obedience are the same, but when we fail, God's grace is abounding.

No...it goes deeper than that....if you like I'll email you what I've worked on in regard to Paul...

In conclusion, George, I believe that Paul taught we were sinful, body and soul, wholly sinful, and unable to keep the law on our own in a completely perfect manner.

and, that is gnosticism in it's basic form....the world is evil and all in it. I've been taught that all my life...almost. I was also taught that we are unable to keep the law completely and in a perfect manner...we can't.....

But, the big lie is that we are expected to 100% 24/7. That is a fallacy that has everyone looking the wrong way. God knows we can't keep his Law completely 100% of the time, and he made provision's for atonement in the Torah. It is the intent to keep God's law that makes one righteous. Abraham was counted on as a friend of God because he was "Constantly" faithful...That mean's Abraham was constantly obeying God's law. That includes pre Mosaic Torah and Noahide Law.

And, that the Gentiles were saved by grace, through faith, not by obedience to the Torah...though they were discipling these people to obedience to God in a willing manner...this willingness stemming from faith.

In Paul's doctrine towards the Gentiles, yes. In the other Apostles doctrine toward the Gentiles, that would be a big fat no....James in Acts 15 gives the commandment to observe Torah lite and develope into Torah complete. Peter in the Pseudo-Clementines expounds on it...with the principle that obeying by 3 laws, that will lead to 10, then to 30, 60 and eventually 100 as the new Gentile converts grow in thier belief practices.

It is only by God's grace, through the blood of the Lamb, and by walking in the Holy Spirit that we are able to be spotless before Him.

only if it were that easy....everyone could join he club...instead few are choosen. What did Christ mean by that?

In this manner, we are able to obey, do good works, and grow in faith, worship in Spirit and in Truth, put on the whole armor of God, walk worthy, and produce fruits of the Spirit. This is the life of a true believer, this is walking in the Spirit, and I believe it consists of far more than Torah, and that it's living in communion with the Father, access through the blood of His Son, and by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who teaches us, and guides us, in the ways of the Father.


I believe that Paul, John, James, etc were all showing us that Torah isn't enough, as Christ taught in the sermon on the mount, but that we must deny ourselves.

On the contrary....they taught that it is essential....Paul taught that it was negated, the others did not.

Israel has been extended, and God calls us to greater obedience to Him under a new covenant.

Did you know that the Christian Essenes that that they were the ones in the New Covenant? They were not Paul friendly....

This may include Torah, but it is much more, it's a walk in faith, believing, trusting, and acting on those things to be a light, and to be used by the Father to further His Kingdom. Just as Paul, and others, were always correcting false teaching that sprung up out of culture, so must we today.

mucho...agreeo......

If the Jew, or the Essenes, had it right (because they were always guilty of adultery, or errors), then why did God need to send His Son?

Because they needed him the most...They were to be the examples...they screwed it up. God empowered Jesus to show us the way to righteousness.

We must shed that, and allow the Spirit to teach us the Word, the whole Word...this is how we will live. Just my thoughts.

I appreciate that as well...

Anyway, I am sorry we do not agree in this area. Back atchooo too :-D

If we agreed...I wouldn't be on the forum....it wouldn't be any fun... :D

If you have a mind to...check out any of Eisenman's books. He has a lot of good research on the Essenes, Dead Sea Scroll business...I've picked up a lot of his material at the half price bookstores. Also, he has material on the internet as well. His book on James the Bro of Jesus is superb...Trouble is it's twice as thick (in pages) as any Steven King book I've ever seen... :-D :-D