Replace every occurrence of "flesh" with "the law" in the passage of Galatians above. Paul uses "The flesh" to refer to all human traditions in general and the jewish tradition, all established and derived from the law of Moses. Thus: the spirit desires what is against the law and the law desires what is against the spirit...
Which Jesus do you follow?
- Thread starter okeyxyz
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Replace every occurrence of "flesh" with "the law" in the passage of Galatians above. Paul uses "The flesh" to refer to all human traditions in general and the jewish tradition, all established and derived from the law of Moses. Thus: the spirit desires what is against the law and the law desires what is against the spirit...
Paul says: All things are lawful, in other words: there is nothing sinful in all that God has created
But all things are not expedient: Therefore use all things wisely so that you control and profit from them, instead of using to your own detriment/failures.
And you(most people) misunderstand the verse: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound??" (Romans 6:1)
Paul answers this by explaining that we are already dead to sin(the law) by believing that we died with christ, therefore sin has no inflluence over us because through the death of christ, we left the sin-domain, we left the sin-country and now living in the grace-country, therefore we have no requirement of the law and no conscience of sin and the law should not continue to define our rights and wrongs (Romans 6:1-4).
It's like a man who used to live in America and a citizen, then renounced his American citizenship to take up a european citizenship and residency, you cannot continue to require him to keep american laws and pay American taxes. He is now under contract with Europe, therefore America cannot define his contract terms and conditions.
But all things are not expedient: Therefore use all things wisely so that you control and profit from them, instead of using to your own detriment/failures.
And you(most people) misunderstand the verse: "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound??" (Romans 6:1)
Paul answers this by explaining that we are already dead to sin(the law) by believing that we died with christ, therefore sin has no inflluence over us because through the death of christ, we left the sin-domain, we left the sin-country and now living in the grace-country, therefore we have no requirement of the law and no conscience of sin and the law should not continue to define our rights and wrongs (Romans 6:1-4).
It's like a man who used to live in America and a citizen, then renounced his American citizenship to take up a european citizenship and residency, you cannot continue to require him to keep american laws and pay American taxes. He is now under contract with Europe, therefore America cannot define his contract terms and conditions.
We die to the law by our union with Christ to bring forth fruit unto God.
In order to believe a lot of what is given as truth here, you would have to believe that God is not eternal. God would be giving one message at one time, then change the message completely and give another message.
The truth is that God is eternal and gives the very same message in all 66 books. The only change made was when Christ fulfilled and completed salvation for mankind. It was always Christ's blood, before only a symbol of that blood. It is always the temple, before it was the Jerusalem temple. Before it was only the written law, after it was both the written and the law in spirit and truth. It wasn't changed it was added to. Jesus was specific about that, Jesus said "you have been told" as he repeated the law of Moses, then he said "but I tell you" as he explained how the spirit and truth of the law added to it.
Christ is the very same, Christ was there at creation, and the very same Christ is here in 2013.
The truth is that God is eternal and gives the very same message in all 66 books. The only change made was when Christ fulfilled and completed salvation for mankind. It was always Christ's blood, before only a symbol of that blood. It is always the temple, before it was the Jerusalem temple. Before it was only the written law, after it was both the written and the law in spirit and truth. It wasn't changed it was added to. Jesus was specific about that, Jesus said "you have been told" as he repeated the law of Moses, then he said "but I tell you" as he explained how the spirit and truth of the law added to it.
Christ is the very same, Christ was there at creation, and the very same Christ is here in 2013.
D
Hey Okeyxyz ! I think there's some misunderstanding in what you stated here.
First, there's no such thing as an " old Christ " and a " second Christ ", as Jesus is not a man,
but Jesus is God, and He is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow !
Second, Jesus being the " end of the law " as stated by Paul does not mean in any way that Jesus abolished the law,
but in the total opposite, it means Jesus is the ultimate accomplishment of the law !
As He told himself :
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. " Matthew 5:17 ( KJV )
First, there's no such thing as an " old Christ " and a " second Christ ", as Jesus is not a man,
but Jesus is God, and He is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow !
Second, Jesus being the " end of the law " as stated by Paul does not mean in any way that Jesus abolished the law,
but in the total opposite, it means Jesus is the ultimate accomplishment of the law !
As He told himself :
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. " Matthew 5:17 ( KJV )
Are you saying that God did not recognize any human that was not a Hebrew? It wasn't until Abraham that there even was a Hebrew and a gentile as different races. Scripture says that God used the Hebrew race to tell us about Him. I think God considers us important, too.
In Romans it says that even if we aren't born into this race, we are adopted in through our faith. We are adopted Israel.
I think your idea that God was only for the Hebrew in BC is not right.
In Romans it says that even if we aren't born into this race, we are adopted in through our faith. We are adopted Israel.
I think your idea that God was only for the Hebrew in BC is not right.
I'm sorry, but you can't just redefine what words mean to service your argument. The law and the flesh are not the same thing.
I Think Galatians 5 is clear enough (clearly sins like sexual immorality or idolatry are not works of the law whichpreclude entrance to the kingdom, because the law condemns those things), but I suggest going over Romans 7 and 8, where Paul not only clearly distinguishes between the flesh and the law as separate things, but explicitly says the law is not sin. This would causE problems for virtually everywhere else in the Pauline corpus where Paul links the sinful nature/flesh with commission of sin. The reality is that the word sarx(flesh) has never had an association with the word for law (nomos) Paul will often use both words in the same sentence to mean different things, and if you did ignore that and conflate them, you make Paul and Jesus contradict themselves anyway. Its a unique interpretation, but one you will find has little exegetical support.
I Think Galatians 5 is clear enough (clearly sins like sexual immorality or idolatry are not works of the law whichpreclude entrance to the kingdom, because the law condemns those things), but I suggest going over Romans 7 and 8, where Paul not only clearly distinguishes between the flesh and the law as separate things, but explicitly says the law is not sin. This would causE problems for virtually everywhere else in the Pauline corpus where Paul links the sinful nature/flesh with commission of sin. The reality is that the word sarx(flesh) has never had an association with the word for law (nomos) Paul will often use both words in the same sentence to mean different things, and if you did ignore that and conflate them, you make Paul and Jesus contradict themselves anyway. Its a unique interpretation, but one you will find has little exegetical support.
T
Sin was sin before the law of Moses. Because of sin, death reigned from Adam until Moses - without the law. The law points out sin. It is still in effect today - the Holy Spirit convicts of sin. Not one letter or stroke has passed away. The purpose of the law is that we should be born again. When we are born again, we are no longer CONDEMNED by the law; in that sense we are not under it. In that sense, we die to the law. The law still exists, pointing out sin and leading men to repent and believe in the savior - it does not pass away because we believe.
Are there two Jesuses, as the OP assumes????? UTTER NONSENSE!
Jesus is God. God the Son.
You say that Jesus personified the law of Moses, and the law passed away?
The OP warns us not to follow the pre-resurrection Jesus - where is the biblical mandate to reject the pre-resurrection Jesus? Where are we warned that Jesus, incarnate as God in the flesh is the personification of the law, so that we should reject following him, not be subject to Him, and wait, instead, for the Jesus to come?
The next to profess being "Christ", after the incarnation of Jesus in Bethlehem is the "anti-Christ". Reject the incarnate Christ in favor of the next one? Hardly scriptural. Immanuel, born of a virgin, He is our King. Wise men worship Him still.
Moses preached Jesus. Jesus is at the center of the tabernacle, exalting Jesus is the purpose of ceremonial law. The prophets preached Jesus. David sung of Jesus. Did any of them warn us not to follow the babe? Did any of them say, "wait for the resurrection, don't follow Him before?" You are preaching UTTER NONSENSE.
Jesus called for men to follow Him. Were those who obeyed thus under the curse of following the personification of the law of Moses? Were the disciples students of an accursed teacher? Did Jesus warn men not to follow Him until after the resurrection? Where in the gospels is this UTTER NONSENSE?
Where do the apostles warn us not to follow the pre-resurrected Jesus? Where does the scripture ask us which Jesus we are following?
Jesus fulfilled the Law. He put to death the enmity between God and man that comes from the law, without altering the law by a jot or tittle. Jesus' works were finished from the foundation of the world. The book of life has been written from the foundation of the world. More than the Son of God, Jesus is God, the Son. There is no variation nor shifting of shadow in Him. The incarnation, in time, was necessary to show in time the dual human-divine nature that was, is, and will be eternally true of Jesus. God changes not.
Folloiwing Jesus, at any point of time and/or eternity is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Waiting for the next Jesus, at any point in time or eternity IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. Expecting Jesus to change in time or in eternity IS A FALSE EXPECTATION.
Are there two Jesuses, as the OP assumes????? UTTER NONSENSE!
Jesus is God. God the Son.
You say that Jesus personified the law of Moses, and the law passed away?
The OP warns us not to follow the pre-resurrection Jesus - where is the biblical mandate to reject the pre-resurrection Jesus? Where are we warned that Jesus, incarnate as God in the flesh is the personification of the law, so that we should reject following him, not be subject to Him, and wait, instead, for the Jesus to come?
The next to profess being "Christ", after the incarnation of Jesus in Bethlehem is the "anti-Christ". Reject the incarnate Christ in favor of the next one? Hardly scriptural. Immanuel, born of a virgin, He is our King. Wise men worship Him still.
Moses preached Jesus. Jesus is at the center of the tabernacle, exalting Jesus is the purpose of ceremonial law. The prophets preached Jesus. David sung of Jesus. Did any of them warn us not to follow the babe? Did any of them say, "wait for the resurrection, don't follow Him before?" You are preaching UTTER NONSENSE.
Jesus called for men to follow Him. Were those who obeyed thus under the curse of following the personification of the law of Moses? Were the disciples students of an accursed teacher? Did Jesus warn men not to follow Him until after the resurrection? Where in the gospels is this UTTER NONSENSE?
Where do the apostles warn us not to follow the pre-resurrected Jesus? Where does the scripture ask us which Jesus we are following?
Jesus fulfilled the Law. He put to death the enmity between God and man that comes from the law, without altering the law by a jot or tittle. Jesus' works were finished from the foundation of the world. The book of life has been written from the foundation of the world. More than the Son of God, Jesus is God, the Son. There is no variation nor shifting of shadow in Him. The incarnation, in time, was necessary to show in time the dual human-divine nature that was, is, and will be eternally true of Jesus. God changes not.
Folloiwing Jesus, at any point of time and/or eternity is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Waiting for the next Jesus, at any point in time or eternity IS THE WRONG THING TO DO. Expecting Jesus to change in time or in eternity IS A FALSE EXPECTATION.
I never said that. I said that the Mosaic Law was God’s directive for the nation of Israel because of the covenant He made with them, which set them apart from the heathen nations. This does not mean that non-Israelites were unable to enter into the covenant; Rahab did by faith. The new covenant in Christ has superseded the Mosaic covenant.
No. There is only one Christ. There is no LAWLESS new Christ. That would be to argue that God denies Himself in His very OWN Existence. Cause Christ Jesus was the Word of God, so denying everything or contradicting it in any way in itself would be devastating. Plus the fact that Christ specifically said that He has not come to take away the law but to fulfil it.
You misunderstand my point. Of course God is eternal and his words are eternal, but the problem is our understanding of the words and the principles on which these words were commanded. The Apostles revealed that the law, in the understanding we had of it was just a shadow of God's eternal laws, but now that the true meanings of the law is revealed after the resurrection of christ, shall we continue to eternalize the shadow and ignore the new revelation, the real substance? This is precisely what you guys are doing by holding on to the old interpretation of the law. So in this line of reasoning, Jesus came in the old interpretation of the law, lived and died as this old interpretation, hence nullifying it.
So while christ has always been the same, has he always been revealed and understood? I'm guessing No!! Why would the Apostles refer to the gospel as "The mystery" that God has hidden since the foundation of the world?? If there was a mystery that is now revealed and supercedes what we thought was the truth, why do you still want to eternalize the false ideas and misconceptions or old dispensations of God??
Last edited:
I ask you a question: If you had other belief systems or other false christian doctrines before you became born-again, would that not be referred as the old you?? Did Paul not say "If you are in Christ, old things are passed away and bohold new things have come..." Paul himself made explicit that the Christ we used to know is the old. The one who preached and lived under the law of Moses. Paul says "We henceforth refuse to see christ the way we used to measure him when he lived according to the law(flesh)". Bottomline, if you still continue to use the lifestyle of that christ (of the law) as a model to aspire to, then you are still under the law because your role model is the ultimate law keeper. You are not of Grace. The christ to follow is the risen one, who is above the law, who does not follow the old interpretation(according to the flesh) of the law.
This is a spiritual principle: Two are joined to become one. The law may be good and holy as Paul declared, but we were not given the law with the understanding to go with it, so we interpreted the law according to the flawed understanding and traditions (ie: the Flesh) we had. So the law taking upportunity of the flesh has caused us to sin. The law has become one with the flesh because the law was given to people who walked according to the flesh, instead of people who had spiritual understanding. Separate the law from the flesh and there'd be no offence and no sin. The law is the legalization of the sin-nature(Flesh) through the nation of Israel. This is Paul uses them interchangeably. Where he speaks of flesh, he refers to the law and vice versa.
and what Scripture do you base that Yahweh's Law is not His word?
Malakyah 4:4, "Remember the Law of Mosheh My servant, which I commanded through him in Horeb for all Israyl, with the statutes and judgments."
Also according to the Messiah:
Luke 16:17, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one yodh of the Law to fail."
Mattithyah 24:35, "Heaven and earth may pass away, but My words will not pass away."
Malakyah 4:4, "Remember the Law of Mosheh My servant, which I commanded through him in Horeb for all Israyl, with the statutes and judgments."
Also according to the Messiah:
Luke 16:17, "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one yodh of the Law to fail."
Mattithyah 24:35, "Heaven and earth may pass away, but My words will not pass away."
You have proved nothing. The reality is that Paul does not use them interchangeably. He cannot if he uses them in the same sentence to refer to different things. You have to prove from the text that he uses them interchangeably. Simply substituting words where you like is not proof.
Again, the flesh is not tradition. Paul is perfectly capable of referring to tradtition as tradition or the Law. When he says flesh, he is referring to the human sinful nature, which is much more fundemental and not the same thing.
The Law and the flesh have not become one. Paul is VERY careful to distinguish between the two. For them to become one, you would have to say that the law is sin, which not only contradicts yourself, but also contradicts Paul.
The flesh came before the Law, and the Law was given so that we would not sin in ignorance, but that we would no sin and turn away from it. Paul is pretty clear on this. If you take away the Law, you do not remove sin. You just have no way to be aware of it.
Again, you are simply asserting Paul uses the terms interchangeably, but you haven't given an iota of proof to substantiate your theory. Try again.
Again, the flesh is not tradition. Paul is perfectly capable of referring to tradtition as tradition or the Law. When he says flesh, he is referring to the human sinful nature, which is much more fundemental and not the same thing.
The Law and the flesh have not become one. Paul is VERY careful to distinguish between the two. For them to become one, you would have to say that the law is sin, which not only contradicts yourself, but also contradicts Paul.
The flesh came before the Law, and the Law was given so that we would not sin in ignorance, but that we would no sin and turn away from it. Paul is pretty clear on this. If you take away the Law, you do not remove sin. You just have no way to be aware of it.
Again, you are simply asserting Paul uses the terms interchangeably, but you haven't given an iota of proof to substantiate your theory. Try again.