Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:11:49 GMT -6
I'm going to post some things in follow-on posts that are the results of discussions, studies and what I've found in the Bible. Some things to think about at least. These were written as individual posts and responses, so they're going to vary in subject and context. But I think they are important to get out in the open ASAP.
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:12:39 GMT -6
my personal study notes on the Law in the New Testament (with some OT context):
* All the commandments must be kept [26:14-15; see also Numbers 15:39-40, Deut. 5:29-30]
* The Law cannot be added to or broken up (4:2 and 12:32) [meaning there is no "moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law", there is only "the Law" which is made up of 613 Commandments: www.jewfaq.org/613.htm ]
* Under the Law, hatred or reviling is murder and lust is adultery (5:21-28)
* “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” is part of the Law (22:36-37, Luke 10:26-27, Deuteronomy 6:5)
* The Jews did not keep the Law (7:51-53)
* The Law is a yoke that the Jews couldn’t carry. (Acts 15:10)
* The Law brings knowledge of sin but cannot justify. (3:20)
* The promise to Abraham was by faith, not the Law. (4:13-14)
* The Law brings wrath. (4:15)
* Sin is not counted when there is no Law (5:13)
* The Law increases sin. (5:20)
* Faith places one under grace, not under the Law. (6:14)
* Christians have become dead to the Law by the body of Christ. (7:1-4)
* When the Jews were seeking to be justified by the law, the sin aroused by it produced death (7:5).
* We have been delivered from the Law (7:6)
* The Law is holy but cannot make you holy. (7:7-12)
* The Law is not sin; but it shows is what sin is and arouses it in us (7:7)
* Apart from the Law sin was dead; but under the Law, sinful desire is produced (7:8)
* When there is no Law, there is life; when there is Law, sin revives and results in death [i.e., misery, “lack of real life…the power of doing right, of confidence in God and the hope of future blessedness” according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon] (7:9)
* The Law is appointed for life but only brings death due to our sin. (7:10)
* The Law produces death, making one exceedingly sinful. (7:13)
* Attempting to be righteous by Law is equated with the flesh and the carnal mind; and is contrasted with the Spirit which is of faith in Christ’s imputed righteousness, which is received by that faith (8:1-13)
* The Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made us free from the law of sin and death (8:2)
* The Law is weak through the flesh. (8:3)
* The Law is not fulfilled through the flesh; but through the Spirit (8:4)
* Those in the flesh [unbelievers] focus on the flesh [and by implication, attempt to be righteous by their own efforts] those in the Spirit [believers] focus on the Spirit [and are righteous through faith] (8:5)
* The flesh [and by implication, the attempt to be made righteous by the Law] is carnally minded, and results in death [i.e. misery]; but life and peace comes through faith [i.e. trusting in Christ] (8:6)
* The carnal mind is opposed to God, and cannot meet the high standards of the Law (8:7)
* Christians are not indebted to live according to the flesh [i.e. by the works of the Law] (8:12)
* Living according to the flesh’s work results in death (8:13)
[The concept illustrated in verses 1-13 is that an attempt to be righteous by the Law is an attempt to be made righteous by one’s own performance, is motivated by a mind centered on the flesh (1st birth, born from Adam) and it’s works in this world, doomed to fail, and only by the Spirit, given at the moment of faith in Christ’s finished work (2nd birth born of the Spirit), is one righteous; having joy and peace. See this article: bible.org/seriespage/16-perf...l-romans-77-25 ]
*Israel attempted to establish their own righteousness through the Law; faith in Christ is the end of the Law for righteousness (10:1-4)
* The strength of sin is the Law (15:56)
* The Law written on stones (10 Commandments, i.e. “the moral law”) is a ministry of death. (3:7)
* Those commandments are a ministry of condemnation. (3:9)
* The Law has no glory at all in comparison with the New Covenant. (3:10)
* The Law is passing away. (3:11)
* Attempting to be righteous by the Law produced a veil over the hearts of the Jews that is taken away in Christ. (3:13-15)
* Placing the burden of the Law onto people turns you away from God, and perverts the genuine Gospel into a false one; and Paul wishes that those who preach a perversion of the Gospel be accursed [disliked, scorned, spurned] (1:6-9)
* The Law does not justify (make one innocent). (2:16)
* Christians are dead to the Law (2:19)
* If righteousness came through the Law Christ died for no reason. (2:21)
* Going back to the Law is not believing the truth (3:1)
* Living according to the Law is attempting to be perfected through the flesh (3:2-3)
* The Law curses all who practice it and fail to do it perfectly. (3:10)
* The Law is not of faith (3:12) [see also Romans 14:23, “that which is not of faith is sin”; these verses imply that attempting to be righteous by works of the Law is sin]
* Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law (3:13)
* The Law had nothing to do with the promise of God to Abraham to be a father of the Seed of many people, i.e. Christ (3:18) [see Genesis 15:5]
* The Law functioned in God’s purpose as an Instructor from Moses to John the Baptist in order to preserve the Jews until Christ (3:16-23)
* The Law is not against the promise of the Savior; because if a law could give [eternal] life - which it can't - then the Law could make someone righteous before God [and Christ would be unnecessary]. (3:21)
* The Law was an instructor, to bring us to Christ, but after Christ, there is no longer an instructor (3:24-25)
* The Law (first covenant) gave birth to bondage. (4:24)
* We are not children of the Law (4:31)
* Do not be yoked by the bondage that is the Law (5:1)
* Following one part of the Law puts you in debt to follow the entire Law (5:3)
* Christ is of no effect to those who try to be saved by the Law (5:4)
[in 5:9, " A little leaven leavens the entire lump” – leaven represents the sin of pride, which infects the entire lump of dough when introduced - the implication of this analogy in this context is that inserting a requirement the Law to be justified is an act of pride which taints the Gospel]
* Christ has abolished the Law, making peace with God for us (2:15)
* Paul associates the law to the flesh and considers what it gained him as “skybalon” which is a vulgar Greek word equivalent to “crap”. (3:4-8)
* The Law was against us, and was erased at the Cross (2:14)
* The Law is good if used correctly – but it's correct use is not for the righteous [believers] but for the unrighteous [nonbelievers] (1:8-9) [see also Matthew 5:21-28]
* The Law and Commandments were “fleshy” (7:16)
* The Law was weak and made nothing perfect. (7:18-19)
* The Law was faulty and needed a better Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-8)
* The Law is obsolete, old, and ready to vanish. (Hebrews 8:13)
* The rituals by the OT priests were done because the way into the holy place [i.e. Christ] wasn’t opened yet (9:8)
* The OT sacrifices could not help the conscience of the worshipper (9:9)
* The OT sacrifices were only imposed “until the time of reformation” [I.e., the Cross] (9:10)
* The Law is only a shadow of Christ and could never make someone perfect. (10:1)
* If you try to be righteous by the Law, and fail at one part, you are guilty of all of it (2:10) [see also Ezekiel 33:13]
* Sin is transgression of the Law (3:4) [Note: it thus stands to reason from this verse is that the phrase “turn from sin” used in a Gospel presentation as a perquisite tprerequisiter as a necessary result of, is a phrase that carries the implication that living according to the Law must be done for salvation – note also that this phrase is not the literal definition of the Greek word for “repent”, which is “metanoia”, and literally means “change of opinion”. God “repents” (metanoia) several times in older translations of the English Old Testament in Exo 32:12, Deu 32:36, Psa 90:13, Psa 110:4, Psa 135:14, Jer 4:28, Jer 18:8, Jer 26:3, Jer 26:13, Jer 42:10, and Eze 24:14., thus the English meaning of “repent” has likely changed]
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:14:20 GMT -6
Thoughts on John 8:1-11
8:1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 8:2 Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them. 8:3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, 8:4 they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. 8:5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" 8:6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear them. 8:7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." 8:8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 8:9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 8:10 When Jesus had lifted Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."
Now a lot of people like to quote part of the last verse very inconsistently with the rest of the New Testament, but we’ll get into that later.
Was Jesus telling her to follow the Law perfectly (since sin is transgression of the Law according to 1 John 3:4), and never sin again? This is what most people who have quoted this verse to me are implying without saying it.
Let's examine the situation here. Those who considered themselves experts among the Jews on the Law brought this woman to be judged by Jesus in accordance to the Law. Of course, adultery was a capital offense according to the Mosaic Law, the trap was that according to Roman Law, the Jews couldn't enact capital punishment, and the Romans had no law against adultery.
Now the first thing Jesus did when confronted by the Law is profound. He wrote on the ground. People have wondered what He wrote, but if it were important to John's point, it would have been written. What is important is that He wrote with His finger. Being that He was in the temple at the time, the ground was stone. There is a previous event involving the Law, stone, and a finger:
Exodus 31:18 "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God"
So Jesus, by writing on the ground in the Temple with His finger when confronted by a ruling on the Law, is indicating subtly that He is the Giver of the Law to Moses. He is doing this because of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32:
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."
Keep in mind that the Mosaic Law is ONE Law. It is not 613 laws, or three sets of laws. It is a package deal; as is mentioned in these passages:
Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is [d]justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Galatians 5:2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is [a debtor to keep the whole law.
James 2:10 For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. 11 For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
So by being the giver of the Law to Moses, God - in the flesh of Jesus Christ - is the only One that can do away with it.
By telling them "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first", He's revealing that they are transgressing the Mosaic Law by not following what it said about how she was to be tried. One of the things about their attempt to trap Jesus with the Law was that they weren't following the Law themselves. First, the man was to be brought as well (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), and there are to be at least two witnesses (Deut. 19:15, 17:5-6), and if pronounced guilty, those witnesses were to throw the first stones (Deut. 17:7). So even the men who represented the Law were guilty of violating it themselves and thus disqualifying themselves from being judges of the Law! As such they've transgressed the Law and are sinners themselves. Realizing this, they left.
Now verses 10-11 is where it gets interesting. Jesus, having vanquished the accusation of the Law, asks the woman where her accusers have gone, and what is there to condemn her. She replies that there is nothing. And this is the most profound, the Giver of the Law, the only One qualified to judge the sins of man, says, "Neither do I condemn you"!
So let's break this down:
1. The Law, represented by the Scribes and Pharisees in this passage, tried to condemn a lawbreaker, but couldn't, because they were imperfect themselves. Just as the Law was imperfect and could only condemn (Hebrews 7:18-19). It could make no one righteous. 2. Jesus reveals Himself as the One who gave Moses the Law on Mt. Sinai. Meaning that Jesus is truly God in the flesh; thus, only He is qualified to judge the Law and condemn others. 3. Yet Jesus vanquished the Law due to its imperfection. 4. When the woman realized that the Law had been vanquished and she no longer stood condemned, the Giver of the Law did not condemn her, and said an incredibly profound thing, "Go and sin no more".
So, was Jesus telling her to go back to the Law after He had removed it, essentially reversing what He had just done? May it never be! He was telling her that, with the Law removed, the offense was gone as well!
Sin in the New Testament is not about the letter, it is about our conscience. Again, Paul makes interesting statements about the Law in his epistles. It increases sin (Romans 5:20), it is the strength of sin (1 Cor 15:56), the 10 Commandments were a "ministry of death" (2 Cor 3:7) and is passing away (2 Cor 3:11) it is not made for Christians (1 Tim. 1:8-9), who are dead to it (Gal. 2:19; Romans 7:1-4), it was abolished in Christ (Eph. 2:15) and it was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). Paul also states that anything not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23), and the Law is not of faith (Gal. 3:12).
If the Law was perfect, we would no longer have a conscience of sin (Hebrews 10:2), yet Christ made us perfect by faith (Hebrews 10:10-14), and thus we can have no more consciousness of sins, we are even to impute ourselves dead to sin (Romans 6:11, 7:1-4).
Last Edit: Jun 21, 2021 7:54:31 GMT -6 by socalexile
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:21:13 GMT -6
The Nature of Sin:
Sin existed in the world before the Law but is not imputed where there is no Law (Romans 5:13), yet the strength of sin is the Law (1 Cor. 15:56), but the Law is still good and holy (Romans 7:7). How does that work? I think we then have to consider what "sin" is. In both Greek and Hebrew, the word means "miss the mark".
Take the Garden for instance: A&E were naked, but without shame. Nowadays running around naked is a huge sin (especially in a church, lol). But did God consider it wrong? Obviously not. It wasn't a problem until they came into the knowledge of what good and evil was. This begs some questions: was it the nakedness that was the sin? Or how they felt about it after their "eyes were opened"?
Now what about the animals? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that animals do what they do to each other because of what Adam did in the Garden. Animals are unaware of the morality of their actions. Do animals then sin when they eat each other? Did God create animals with sin? Or is sin an internal thing to man because his eyes are opened due to trying to be as right as God?
Some things people do inherently have bad consequences and should be avoided. The prohibitions against sin in the New Testament, especially in Romans 14 and 1 Cor 8 and 10, revolve mostly around the idea of avoiding inherently unprofitable things, and that one should not do around another believer that which would cause someone's faith (in Christ) to fail or to present a bad example so that someone would not come into faith in Christ. In Christ, our eyes are still open to sin, and we should avoid that which brings shame to ourselves or others. However, in perfect faith, we are under "the Law of liberty" and "all things are permissible, but not all things edify".
Sin in the NT is very much tied to conscience - read Romans 14, 1 Cor 8 and 10, Hebrews 3:12-13 with 4:3,6, 10-11, and 1 John can be understood in this way. This is very much tied to the Garden, where the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was NOT to be eaten and stood in contrast to the Tree of Life. Otherwise, how does the Law, which shows us the righteousness of God, increase sin? Because sin is a matter of conscience - I see that I fall short through the Law, therefore, I stand condemned in my heart. However, in Christ, who paid for my sin and imputed His righteousness, I no longer worry about falling short because He's met the standard on my behalf - which is exactly what Paul means by "walking in faith" in Romans 8 - and now I have life, peace joy, etc. because there is nothing the world can throw at me that can actually override the free gift of grace nor does it offer anything that compares.
The world is very much obsessed with finding sin and seeking self-righteousness. Being fat or not looking good is a sin, so there are billions of dollars invested in seeking to be righteous there. Not earning enough money is a sin, so people seek ways to be richer (which is entirely a matter of economic status relative to other people), or in material things or in identifying with this or that. Yet, there are people who seek their righteousness in NOT having material wealth or being fit, which is fundamentally the same thing, only in a different direction. The list of ways the world seeks to be righteous is endless, and it even extends to the concept of moralism itself. The world has really gone mad with their obsession of self-righteousness - they even fight in the streets seeking to be more righteous than the other (like in Portland last week).
But real righteousness comes via Christ, as God is the objective standard of righteousness and He has judged that He will credit it by faith.
1:18 Because, the preaching of the cross is foolishness to those who perish, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. 1:19 Because it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 1:21 Because since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. 1:22 Because, Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1:26 Because, you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 1:27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, yes and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 1:29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who, from God, became for us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 1:31 that, according to as it is written, "He who glories, let him glory in the Lord."
As such a man of faith could be naked in the woods and not even care (other than feeling the draft) - in that sense, life in Christ is greater than life in the Garden, since in Christ we have a greater demonstration of the love of God.
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2018 19:21:54 GMT -6 by socalexile
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:24:02 GMT -6
If I may, I’d like to share something I think I was shown.
One of the things people "insert" into scripture, is the idea of "genuine/saving/true" faith, when in the Bible there is only "faith". What the Bible emphasizes isn't some special kind of faith that the saved have that the unsaved world doesn't, like TULIP implies. After all, is the person who tries to meet John MacArthur's "distinctives" , i.e. works, really showing any greater kind of faith than the Muslim who blows himself up in jihad, believing that doing so gains him paradise? What of the Buddhist monks who light themselves on fire for a political cause, thinking they'll be reincarnated? That takes A LOT of faith to bet your life on your beliefs like that.
The core question of the Bible isn't what one does that shows they have the super-faith that the reprobate don't; it's the question of "what is your faith in?". One of my favorite parables to bring up in this debate that shows this plainly is Luke 18:9-14:
9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed to himself like this, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; because, everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
To me, this Pharisee sounds like many in the church, who think they're a special chosen class of genuine Christians. He did works of faith, he tried to follow the law...he even gave credit to God; but, ultimately, his faith was in himself and his own righteousness. He looked down on other sinners with greater sins than himself. Yet, in the modern church, this man would be looked upon as a great man of God who had "genuine faith", and the Tax Collector would be looked down upon as simply looking for "cheap grace" or "easy believeism". Yet Jesus portrayed this as just the opposite - because it's about what our faith is in.
(BTW, to anyone reading, don't ever call it "cheap grace" - God came down in human flesh, was rejected, tortured, and hung on a cross; paying the highest price for our redemption, just so he can give that redemption away for free. I do not want to be the man held accountable at the Judgement for calling it cheap, as if it was worth less than their works).
And this gets into something else that I think the Lord is showing in scripture - that of what "lukewarm" really is referring to in Revelation 3:16. Aside from the passage in Luke above, there is another humble, yet VERY profound passage in Luke 7, which I find many pastors ignore:
36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and began to wash His feet with tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke within himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, because she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus responded and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” So he said, “Teacher, say it.” 41 “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them shall love him most?” 43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.” 44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered into your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 THEREFORE I SAY TO YOU, HER SINS, WHICH ARE MANY, ARE FORGIVEN, BECAUSE SHE LOVED MUCH. BUT TO WHOM LITTLE IS FORGIVEN, THE SAME LOVES LITTLE.” 48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who also forgives sins?” 50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
Now what her sins were isn't important (many, including me, have speculated), and I think Luke is being gracious in not telling us, because she is forgiven. Needless to say, Simon the Pharisee either knew of her sin or recognized what kind of sin she may have displayed.
What I find profound here in relation to Revelation 3 and Luke 18, is the part emphasized in v.47; when examined in the context of these verses:
Galatians 3: 10 Because, as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, because “the just will live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them will live in them.”
Galatians 5: 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the entire law. 4 Christ has become of no effect to you, those of you who are justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
James 2: 10 Because, whoever shall keep the entire law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.
Romans 3: 23 because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
John 7: 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?”
The core problem is that no one has kept the Law, and in not keeping the Law, WE ARE ALL GUILTY OF IT ALL. Meaning, that whether the woman in Luke 7 was a prostitute, a lesbian, a sorceress, a drug-user, a murderer, or whatever. WE are ALL bearing the same guilt, as NONE of us has met the standard, that is, the righteous perfection of God. We are all homosexuals, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, extortioners etc., and all those things that people say you have to stop doing in order to be forgiven of doing them in the first place (when they themselves are just as guilty).
Ergo, the core problem with Simon the Pharisee (and modern Pharisees), in light of verse 47, wasn't that he was any less a sinner than the woman, but that he was blind to his own sin.
I say again, THE CORE PROBLEM WITH SIMON THE PHARISEE WASN'T THAT HE WASN'T ANY LESS A SINNER THAN THE WOMAN, BUT THAT HE WAS BLIND TO HIS OWN SIN.
Thus we have Laodicea, who was "lukewarm" (I wonder the actual etymology of that word) in that they thought their riches (products of their works) were evidence of their lack of need from God. In essence, their problem was that they were self-righteous, as blind to their own sin as Simon was. That's why Jesus tells them to go buy salve for their eyes.
And that's why the men who tried to convince Jesus on the basis of their works in Matthew 7:21-23 were "workers of lawlessness", because they weren't wearing the only righteousness that ever met the Law: Christ's, which is attained by faith in Him; their faith was really in themselves and their works.
Just something I have been given, that I want to shout from the rooftops.
(One more thing, I don't think the woman's tears in Luke 7 were "tears of repentance" ie. "turning from sin" in the modern vernacular...I think they were tears of joy. She gave him a gift of very expensive perfume as evidenced by the alabaster flask. Perhaps it was a gift, or type of gift, given to her by a lover, that she gave as a token of her love because she put her faith in Christ as the Messiah who WILL redeem her).
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:27:03 GMT -6
Traffic and Jesus:
Let's take traffic laws, no one ever follows all of them. We all speed, fail to come to a complete stop, use our turn signals etc. If traffic Laws were an absolute pass or fail standard, like righteousness is, then we're all breakers of the Law.
Now suppose someone came that said, "since none of you follow the law and essentially make it ineffective in making anyone innocent, I will pay so great a price, that ALL your fines and fees, and punishments will be paid, and forgiven, that ALL of your transgressions of the Law will be put on MY account". What would that do? Essentially remove the burden of the Law. If I fail to stop, the penalty is put on the account of the one who already paid for my sin. The Law, in practice, has been put away with all of its commands and ordinances (Ephesians 2:15).
Does that automatically mean I want to go out and start doing 105mph down Main Street? No. That's a silly conclusion (but one you guys are making - maybe it's those that say we do that want to race down the street). That would cause harm to myself and others; which in of itself is an act of chastening (see Hebrews 12:3-11).
But what many are saying is that a violation, even for a good reason (like not completely stopping at an intersection at night is a dangerous thing in some areas), is NOT put on the account of the man and that the Law can still punish us. Now that assertion is born of the premise that the man (in this case Jesus) didn't really pay for every sin - and that you are still bound by the law. In essence, it’s the denial that He really paid for it all in the first place.
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:32:04 GMT -6
Jesus is the Matrix (Explaining Jesus to gamers):
Imagine a supercomputer that is self-aware, and has given itself the task of creating a virtual world within its logical system, a self-contained MMORPG if you will. In this world, the computer creates other software artificial intelligence, who live and die in the simulated world. To them, it is 100% reality. In the middle of it, the Supercomputer decides to enter into the 'game' itself and live as one of the AIs, is 'born' into the world, and 'dies' in the world (they still exist as data). In fact, all of the manifestations before and after this are also using the very same code, or logic, that was made into an AI in the game and was used to generate the world in the first place. In a way, the manifestation is very much like computer firmware, or software, that is integral to the Supercomputer itself. Is it then an AI, or is it the SC? It's 100% both. This is what Christ essentially is according to the Bible. Jesus is how the SC created and interacts with its creation. Much like how firmware interacts with software on behalf of the hardware - yet the hardware and the firmware are still one and the same, only one is an expression within the system (in this case the universe) and one is outside of it, yet one is integral to the other from the view of the software.
The SC’s ‘Representative AI’ is still, in fact, the SC in AI form. That is what John 1:1-3 and 14 are saying. The Word, i.e. "Logos" or 'Code' that was with God and is God and created all that was made became flesh. Much like a foam cup being set within a foam cup.
The difference is that in our reality, this Supercomputer isn't a material object generating virtual reality, it's a non-material mind that generates the material reality (as quantum physics suggests) that allows us to generate virtual realities using logical data. We call it God.
When we place our faith in Jesus, He writes Himself in us per Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 1:13-14. We've been encapsulated and moved to his VLAN.
Last Edit: Sept 11, 2018 19:45:07 GMT -6 by socalexile
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:38:38 GMT -6
God's Mercy to the Unknowing World:
Question: "So why doesn't he reveal themselves to Muslims or Hindus? Why did he chose just a select group 6000, or in Jesus case, 2000 years ago to make his case to? Does he like white people more?"
Because, as Galatians 2-4, and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 logically suggest, along with many, many other passages in the OT and NT, God gave the 10 Commandments (and the 603 other commandments) to Moses and that small group of people to show the entire world how man cannot hope to be as good as God. Because in having those 613 Laws, it only increased "sin" (which is 'missing the mark') per Romans 5:20, including the guilt and shame and the Jews ended up doing some pretty heinous stuff.
To sum it up, those laws were not meant to show everyone how to be good, they were given to a very small group of people to show the world how we are not when compared to God. And Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say that where there is no law, sin is not credited. In giving that Law to that small group (who willingly took it upon themselves) He was showing mercy to the world while at the same time saving them from their own guilt and shame by being His own sacrifice for those sins per the logic revealed in the ritual sacrifices presented in that law. Yes, that means that if someone thinks they can keep all the OT laws, they must die for the sins of the entire human race and fulfill all the symbolism of the Temple sacrifices.
At the end, when those who die really see how they compare to real goodness and righteousness, they will condemn themselves in their shame. Those who trust in Christ to have absolved all their failures will not have consciousness of those sins nor shame as they've been taken care of by Him.
In Biblical typology, "fire" is representative of judgment, and God is the standard by which all things are judged. The idea of punishment by the torment of physically being burned comes more from Dante and other medieval writings than from the Bible.
Follow-up Question: "Still doesn't explain why god played favorites in choosing one group over another. Why not the chinese or the incas or the ancient greeks?"
The fact is that He did it that way, and as a result, those groups are not held to the standards of the 613 Commandments that no one has kept per Romans 4:15 and 5:13 (and James 2:10 and Galatians 3:10 and 5:4).
Also, 1 Corinthians 1 gives us another clue:
1:27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 1:28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, yes and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 1:29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
In much of the same way, I think that small group wasn't chosen because they were strong, but because they were weak - so we can look at what resulted and know it was God alone that did it.
Post by socalexile on Sept 11, 2018 19:55:06 GMT -6
I know someone who was lying on his bed, and thinking about the sheer magnificence of the hyperdimensionality of God and was "caught up" such that he wondered if it was the rapture. He saw stars all around as if in space, and felt what he describes as the presence of God, which was the most incredible sense of love, joy, and peace he had ever felt. He was there for a moment, and being unsure of his faith, asked God "who is right? Is it the Calvinists? who?" He then "descended" back to where he was.
A year and a few months or so later, he was away on a trip, again lying in bed, listening to some old Latin hymns, and was caught back up into the stars, with the same presence and feeling of love, joy, and peace - he said it made him overwhelmed with awe. This time, he only praised God and thanked Him. He wanted to be closer to God, to be with Him, but it felt like he was being stopped, like something may be in the way, or it wasn't time yet. He again "descended" back.
Yet later again, he had a vivid dream, where he was walking and talking to someone in casual conversation, he remembers specific details about where he was, but didn't recognize the place, only things like that it as early morning before dawn, walking down a hill, seeing an empty parking lot in front of him, a slight morning chill, a sense of trouble with him in the world and a resignation that God would take care of him. As he walked away from the person he was talking to, along a long sidewalk to what looked like a building with gov't architecture, he looked up and felt his spirit and God's Spirit say in unison, "IT IS TIME" and what he felt through his limbs was like electricity, but without pain, and he was lifted up, "raptured" back into the stars and God's presence, before quickly "descending again" and waking up.
He doesn't know the meaning of these things. He says he keeps these "private revelations private". But tells them because he is still trying to figure out their meaning. Maybe it was God telling him that He doesn't need to worry about his place in Him. And maybe the last one was God letting him know some things about when God was really coming. Maybe it wasn't anything at all, but he couldn't imagine that kind of love, joy, and peace coming from a demonic source.
Last Edit: Sept 25, 2018 9:03:54 GMT -6 by socalexile: updated details.
Post by barbiosheepgirl on Sept 11, 2018 20:23:35 GMT -6
lifting you in prayer socalexile thank you for a truly timely sharing that you have no idea how the words you have written here have validated many a word among this household even in the past 24 hours.
This constant reminder of Faith is the harp to my ears personally. The lesson of the sinner defined rings true. Amen! and thanks for speaking up!
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thes 5:9 KJV
Post by socalexile on Sept 12, 2018 5:07:54 GMT -6
Paul uses two words for "sleep" in his writings. He uses both in 1 Thess. 4 and 5.
In 1 Thess 4, the word is koimaō, like in v.15. This is Paul's word for dead Christians, to differentiate them from the dead unbelievers. In 1 Thess. 4 he uses that word to let the readers know that those believers that are physically dead will not miss the rapture.
1 Thess. 5 is where it gets interesting. In verses 6 and 10 he switches to another word for sleep, katheudō, which according to BLB can metaphorically mean "yield to sloth and sin" or "to be indifferent to one's salvation":
Why the switch if he meant the same thing as koimao earlier? Read verse 6, it makes no sense if he's talking about physically dead people (unless someone wants to claim that Paul is telling people not to die). He's talking about not being given to sin and instead of being alert for the Lord's return, and it's the same word in v.10:
5:3 Because, when they say, "Peace and safety!" then sudden destruction comes upon them, like labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they will not escape. 5:4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that this Day should overtake you like a thief. 5:5 You are all the children of light, and the children of the day, we are not of the night, nor of darkness. 5:6 Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be sober. 5:7 Because, those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who are drunk are drunk at night. 5:8 But let us who are of the day be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love, and as a helmet, the hope of salvation. 5:9 Because, God has not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:10 who died for us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him.
Did you read that? Whether or not we are spiritually awake or yielded to sin, we will be with the Lord!
As we yield ourselves to the Lord he will grace us with more joy, peace, and if you study how the tribes of Israel were laid out in the promised land with those most faithful closest to Jerusalem, it MAY determine our proximity to the Lord in the re-creation.
A lot to chew on here socialexile, when I have more time I want to go back and read more carefully. The one thing I always took away from the account of the adulterous woman, was the idea of taking the beam from your own eye. The religious leaders were guilty of sin, I think of the very sin they were accusing this woman of. Maybe even some of them had adulterous relations with her. They were themselves guilty of adultery and should have received the same condemnation that they wanted to give the woman. Your insights are interesting, seeing it from a different angle. Scripture is pretty cool that way.
Some One: I suppose encrypted password data would function similar to the way centralized encrypted messaging works. Each passport would be encrypted with a unique symmetric key.
Jan 15, 2022 23:02:28 GMT -6
Some One: he key would likewise be stored on the passport, but encrypted using a unique public/private key pair. The public key needed to reach passports would be controlled by a central authority.
Jan 15, 2022 23:02:33 GMT -6
yardstick: joe: re: vaccinated - that's because it isn't a vaccine. It is an irreversible medical treatment for mitigating the symptoms. It wont stop you from getting covid. By definition, a vaccine prevents you from getting a disease. There are no 'break-through's
Jan 15, 2022 23:15:40 GMT -6
EnochWalked: @someone: Yes, it's interesting to compare it to DVD restrictions. I believe that the Content Scramble System actually allowed multiple drive-specific keys, so that if a key was extracted from a drive, future disks could refuse to play on that drive model.
Jan 16, 2022 2:10:35 GMT -6
EnochWalked: If each passport's data is encrypted with a unique private key, each border agent would need to get that private key from the central authority to be able to decrypt it and read the passport. The authority might as well just send the plaintext instead.
Jan 16, 2022 2:15:24 GMT -6
EnochWalked: yardstick: Actually it has been standard to refer to such treatment as "vaccines", but you're right that this hides an important detail, and a more accurate term in this case would be "leaky vaccine". There are many such "leaky vaccines" in use, but...
Jan 16, 2022 2:19:29 GMT -6
EnochWalked: The public wasn't told about this risk of accepting permanent dependency on covid vaccines, nor were we told about "antigenic original sin". So much for informed consent. In the rush to get everyone to "trust the science", they had to hide a few facts.
Jan 16, 2022 2:23:49 GMT -6
yardstick: @ew re: vaccines - compare how chicken pox is innoculated against using cowpox. I believe this is a 'true' vaccine. It does not mitigate symptoms, but does what the strategy of a vaccine is is supposed to do, by prompting the body to develop antibodies...
Jan 16, 2022 14:22:43 GMT -6
yardstick: It may be that I am approaching the discussion from a technicality, but when we use the word vaccine, and then change what it means to be a vaccine, to describe 'effect' rather than its actual activity, we run the risk or redefining words or terms...
Jan 16, 2022 14:26:13 GMT -6
yardstick: and I am certain you know where that can and has taken us...
Jan 16, 2022 14:26:34 GMT -6
EnochWalked: "The major remaining sticking point appears to be the insistence of the attorney general ... on a charge of moral turpitude – a formal declaration that Netanyahu is desperate to avoid as it could bar him from political life for seven years." Hmm, 7 years?
Jan 16, 2022 23:50:09 GMT -6