M
The word changer is you, Mitspa, and the word which you're changing and wresting is the very Word of God and such ought to cause you to tremble before the Lord. Again, Paul taught that those who have been born of the Spirit ARE NOT IN THE FLESH whether you like it or not:
"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:8-9)
Tell me, Mitspa, does the Spirit of God dwell in you? Listening to your error, I have my doubts in that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth and not the spirit of error which John wrote of in his first epistle and the spirit which is clearly currently leading you. Those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them ARE NOT IN THE FLESH. Now, what do you suppose that that means? Of course, contextually and in truth, it means that they are not under the law in that nobody can receive the Spirit of God via the law, but only via faith in Christ:
"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:1-3)
Christians not only receive the Spirit by the hearing of faith, but Paul used the words "law" and "flesh" interchangeably here as well as he often did throughout his epistles:
"by the works of the law"
"by the flesh"
Would you like some more examples of what I'm talking about? Sure, no problem:
"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." (Galatians 6:12-13)
Again, Paul is here using the words "flesh", "circumcised" and "law" interchangeably because, again, anybody who is under the law with merely an outward circumcision in the foreskin of their flesh is totally powerless in the face of a law which is spiritual and a God Who is Spirit and they will therefore be in bondage to sin.
"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:3-6)
Again, for those of us who actually understand Paul's epistles and don't wrest his words, Paul clearly equated "the flesh" with both "circumcision" and "the law" and you ought to do the same and stop teaching your dualistic heresy. Christians don't have two natures or some "flesh" which allegedly has some sort of mind of its own and which constantly combats Christians. Go to a wake or funeral, Mitspa, and see how much someone's "flesh" sins when their spirit has already left their body. People willfully choose to yield their members to sin and their members aren't somehow overpowering them on their own.
"Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (I Corinthians 10:18)
Who is "Israel after the flesh"? Well, of course, it is the natural Jew who is seeking justification under the law with only an outward circumcision in the foreskin of his flesh who is joined here with the Old Testament sacrifices which were made upon the altar. Paul spent considerable time in Galatians chapter 4 and elsewhere with the allegorical teaching of Ishmael, who was born of the flesh, and Isaac, who was born of the Spirit, and how their relationships with their mothers, one a bondwoman (Hagar) and one a freewoman (Sarah), equate to the two covenants:
1. The Old Testament law given at Mt. Sinai which genders to bondage and which represents natural Israel or "Israel after the flesh" who is seeking justification via the law.
2. The New Testament in Christ which genders to freedom from sin and which represents spiritual Israel of "the Israel of God" who has been justified via faith in Christ.
Again, in your mixed up theology, there's really no difference between the two in that Christians are allegedly still slaves to sin in that their "flesh" constantly combats them and forces them to do things that they don't want to do even though Paul clearly stated that Christians ARE NOT IN THE FLESH and even though he clearly spoke of the time in the past when Christians WERE IN THE FLESH prior to finding salvation in Christ.
You don't know what my point is?
My point is that you're wresting Paul's words to your own potential destruction and to the potential destruction of those foolish enough to listen to you. Jesus came to save us FROM OUR SINS, which is what His very name means, but you preach an alleged gospel which still enslaves people to sin by creating some dualistic nature in Christians which neither Paul nor anybody else actually spoke of. In essence, you're denying the atonement of Christ in that you're denying that Jesus' sacrifice was effective enough to undo all of the damage which was brought into this world via the first Adam. You need to reread your Bible prayerfully, Mitspa, and to repent and forsake your error. If that's too plain for you, then too bad. You're misrepresenting the gospel of Christ and somebody needs to stand you to the face and tell you so.
"So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." (Romans 8:8-9)
Tell me, Mitspa, does the Spirit of God dwell in you? Listening to your error, I have my doubts in that the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth and not the spirit of error which John wrote of in his first epistle and the spirit which is clearly currently leading you. Those who have the Spirit of God dwelling in them ARE NOT IN THE FLESH. Now, what do you suppose that that means? Of course, contextually and in truth, it means that they are not under the law in that nobody can receive the Spirit of God via the law, but only via faith in Christ:
"O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" (Galatians 3:1-3)
Christians not only receive the Spirit by the hearing of faith, but Paul used the words "law" and "flesh" interchangeably here as well as he often did throughout his epistles:
"by the works of the law"
"by the flesh"
Would you like some more examples of what I'm talking about? Sure, no problem:
"As many as desire to make a fair shew in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh." (Galatians 6:12-13)
Again, Paul is here using the words "flesh", "circumcised" and "law" interchangeably because, again, anybody who is under the law with merely an outward circumcision in the foreskin of their flesh is totally powerless in the face of a law which is spiritual and a God Who is Spirit and they will therefore be in bondage to sin.
"For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." (Philippians 3:3-6)
Again, for those of us who actually understand Paul's epistles and don't wrest his words, Paul clearly equated "the flesh" with both "circumcision" and "the law" and you ought to do the same and stop teaching your dualistic heresy. Christians don't have two natures or some "flesh" which allegedly has some sort of mind of its own and which constantly combats Christians. Go to a wake or funeral, Mitspa, and see how much someone's "flesh" sins when their spirit has already left their body. People willfully choose to yield their members to sin and their members aren't somehow overpowering them on their own.
"Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?" (I Corinthians 10:18)
Who is "Israel after the flesh"? Well, of course, it is the natural Jew who is seeking justification under the law with only an outward circumcision in the foreskin of his flesh who is joined here with the Old Testament sacrifices which were made upon the altar. Paul spent considerable time in Galatians chapter 4 and elsewhere with the allegorical teaching of Ishmael, who was born of the flesh, and Isaac, who was born of the Spirit, and how their relationships with their mothers, one a bondwoman (Hagar) and one a freewoman (Sarah), equate to the two covenants:
1. The Old Testament law given at Mt. Sinai which genders to bondage and which represents natural Israel or "Israel after the flesh" who is seeking justification via the law.
2. The New Testament in Christ which genders to freedom from sin and which represents spiritual Israel of "the Israel of God" who has been justified via faith in Christ.
Again, in your mixed up theology, there's really no difference between the two in that Christians are allegedly still slaves to sin in that their "flesh" constantly combats them and forces them to do things that they don't want to do even though Paul clearly stated that Christians ARE NOT IN THE FLESH and even though he clearly spoke of the time in the past when Christians WERE IN THE FLESH prior to finding salvation in Christ.
You don't know what my point is?
My point is that you're wresting Paul's words to your own potential destruction and to the potential destruction of those foolish enough to listen to you. Jesus came to save us FROM OUR SINS, which is what His very name means, but you preach an alleged gospel which still enslaves people to sin by creating some dualistic nature in Christians which neither Paul nor anybody else actually spoke of. In essence, you're denying the atonement of Christ in that you're denying that Jesus' sacrifice was effective enough to undo all of the damage which was brought into this world via the first Adam. You need to reread your Bible prayerfully, Mitspa, and to repent and forsake your error. If that's too plain for you, then too bad. You're misrepresenting the gospel of Christ and somebody needs to stand you to the face and tell you so.
