Works

[Nathan]

  Hi Paul;

   when we jdge by appearance..we are judging good and bad

fruit from the tree of good and evil.That always brings

 condemnation and death.

   Sin in the flesh has always been condemned..I know that..

   and I know you know that. that being said..ALL have partaken

 of that tree..all have fallen short of the Glory that eat from

that tree.

  when we judge someone as good or bad..we judge

ourselves..for we,too have good and evil in our flesh.

  the TREE OF LIFE HAS NO CONDEMNATION OF MANKIND IN IT

But by confessing this good and evil that dwells in our flesh,too

  and knowing we can never be justified or be perfect,like He is

perfect..and will always fall short of it

 mercy is extended..and our transgressions are not imputed to

us and we are granted to eat from the tree of life and take

part in the new life in the spirit

  judging a tree by it's fruit..is discerning the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil's  fruit from the tree of life's fruit


which there is no condemnation of those in Christ..those who

 have eaten Christ's body and drank his blood.

  it was the denying of sin in their own flesh[good and evil] and

 judging by appearance from the tree of the knowledge of good

 and evil...that caused the Pharisee's to condemn an innocent

 man..and accuse those and persecute them whose sin had

been blotted out..as blasphemers.

  so, you will know a tree by it's fruit is...judgement by

appearance from tree of knowledge of good and evil..

.which
brings condemnation and death to all including the one judging

what is good and what is evil [law]

  or tree of life..

which is mercy and forgivesness and life in the spirit and a not

imputing of sin unto life and life eternal..but a providing for life

and healing and salvation for mankind


 it is the fruit of these two tree's you need to discern from

as it presents itself in  various men to various men..


  remembering that if you forgive men their tresspasses against

 you then your Father will forgive you..if you don't..your Father

will not forgive you...in this way you are fallen from Grace..that

 you speak of..if you should begin judging from the tree of good

and evil again....and become subject to the judge yourself.


  a shrinking back to judging by appearance from the tree of the

 knowledge of good and evil..and proclaiming judgement and

condemnation on other men..brings you subject to this same

judgement.

 Now the tree of life is salvation,mercy and undeserved

 kindness  unto all men...despite their having eaten from the

 tree of the knowledge of good and evil[having good and evil

 dwell in their flesh] but it is the confessing of this knowledge

 that evil dwells in their flesh..that allows them to accept their

Saviour and be granted to eat from the tree of life..and the

hope they have in Jesus Christ to completely deliver them from

this body of death.

  the denying of the knowledge that evil/sin dwells with

them..and the delusion of self-righteousness  from eating

from the tree of knowledge of good and eviland their judging of

others as condemned..and not themselve,also..is what makes

them blind guides.

   I hope this will help you understand what we speak of here

   and the not judgeing by appearance but at the same time

   discerning the tree by it's fruit

   we must judge ourselves by discerning from these tree's

  as to what fruit we are bringing forth...as to whether it is

  from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life


   It is as the tree of Nebuchanezzer that grew so tall..and then

 was cut down and it's stump banded until 7 times passed over

 it
                                     Sheila

Of course!  Thanks Shiela . . .you just reminded me of why I see what I do . . .can't believe I forgot this!

Romans 3
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin

Law is the knowledge of sin.  Knowledge of sin . . . awareness . . .emphasis . .. consciously looking for darkness in others is living under the law.  And that's what this whole thing has been all about . . . focusing on the works, the actions, the attitudes . . .the outward manifestations of others . .the measuring of one's outer court . . .all of these things come under this truth . . . observing the sin in others is living according to the law . . . .living by law is turning from grace.

BUT . . .there's always silver lining in everything, we just need to refocus ourselves in order to allow it to manifest So what's the silver lining in this case?  Ha!  Great question . . .next verse.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

God's rightesousness manifests when we CHOOSE to IGNORE the law . . . which again . .is focusing on the outward manifestations of the darkness in others.  Interesting that the law and the prophets . . .for me, this is simply saying the Old Testament Scriptures, the book of law and the prophets . . . they are a witness to this truth.  They testify of this truth. 

So, the law was not originally meant to focus on the sin . . .because it's the law and the prophets that testify to the righteousness of God . .which manifests when the law is not controling us.  So the law originally was intended to be a witness to the righteousness of God . .and the only way the righteousness of God will manifest  . . .is when law is not enforced or observed.

Same passage . . .but in Message Translation

Our involvement with God's revelation doesn't put us right with God. What it does is force us to face our complicity in everyone else's sin.   But in our time something new has been added. What Moses and the prophets witnessed to all those years has happened. The God-setting-things-right that we read about has become Jesus-setting-things-right for us.

[Nathan]

the denying of the knowledge that evil/sin dwells with

them..and the delusion of self-righteousness  from eating

from the tree of knowledge of good and eviland their judging of

others as condemned..and not themselve,also..is what makes

them blind guides.

I'd like to talk a little more about this.  The law gives us the negative--thou shalt not--and a list of things not to do.  It also gives us the positive--love God, honor father and mother, keep the sabbath--a list of things to do.

Is that the good and evil?  So we think if we don't do one and do the other we are good?

Certainly this has a lot of advantages from the point of view of a stable and safe society.

Under what circumstances am I not to judge murder as evil?  Or a murderer as evil?

Jesus ups the ante by saying that even hating is murder.  So by raising the standard we are all pulled under it.

Even so, how am I to treat a murderer as a member of society?  Because we have to live in this world.

What I'm asking is for a practical application.

For me, there are obvious consequences for such things.  And we really need to understand the difference between righteousness and consequences.  Because someone murdered someone in the presence of a believer, is not to say that the believer can ignore what just happened .. . the murderer may not have affected their spiritual freedom. . .but they did affect their earthly freedom.  My flesh is still bound by the law of physics . . .I still get hungry and need to eat, drink, bathe . . .my body is still subject to this realm . .and as such, my earthly activity is also bound by the laws established in the earth as well . . .but my focus is not on the things of the earth . . but of the spirit. 

Bottom line . . . there are separate laws for separate realms.  The laws of the flesh are intended to protect the freedom of physical life . . .the laws of the spirit are the entrance into the kingdom of spiritual life.  And for that, there are only two laws . . .Love God . . .and love each other as much as you love you.

[trettep]

Mat 7:20  Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

It refers knowing the person BY their fruits that they produce, not where they gathered it from.  It even goes further and explains this with these verses:

No, actually it does not.   The word their is traslated from a definition of a 3rd person perspective to self.

G846  autos  ow-tos'

from the particle au (perhaps akin to the base of G109 through the idea of a
baffling wind) (backward);

the reflexive pronoun self, used (alone or in the comparative G1438) of the
third person , and (with the proper personal pronoun) of the other persons:--
her, it(-self), one, the other, (mine) own, said, (self-), the) same, ((him-, my-,
thy- )self, (your-)selves, she, that, their(-s), them(-selves), there(-at, - by, -in,
-into, -of, -on, -with), they, (these) things, this (man), those, together, very,
which. Compare G848.



The reason that this is the proper definition and not one I just happen to like is because this verse is in a passage specifically telling YOU that it is YOU to focus on.

So what you saying the meaning should be, Paul?

Paul

I am telling you in that post.   That why I highlighted what I did in red.

Oh, ok, we are in agreement then.  I thought you were disagreeing with what I said. I'm guess I have been getting so much disagreement lately, I'm under that expectation now.   

Paul

[Paul Hazelwood]

the denying of the knowledge that evil/sin dwells with

them..and the delusion of self-righteousness  from eating

from the tree of knowledge of good and eviland their judging of

others as condemned..and not themselve,also..is what makes

them blind guides.

I'd like to talk a little more about this.  The law gives us the negative--thou shalt not--and a list of things not to do.  It also gives us the positive--love God, honor father and mother, keep the sabbath--a list of things to do.

Is that the good and evil?  So we think if we don't do one and do the other we are good?

Certainly this has a lot of advantages from the point of view of a stable and safe society.

Under what circumstances am I not to judge murder as evil?  Or a murderer as evil?

Jesus ups the ante by saying that even hating is murder.  So by raising the standard we are all pulled under it.

Even so, how am I to treat a murderer as a member of society?  Because we have to live in this world.

What I'm asking is for a practical application.

Molly what I am going to write is not trying to slight you, so bear with me.   When someone tries to work around the scripture implication that we really should be judging ourselves only they seem to have to pull out the big obvious things in order to make a point.

When it comes to murder, is murder as simple as someone killing another?   Does that mean based on that you can decide that persons standing with God?   No...  You want to think you have that right, but you do not.  

What about the killer in Alabama?  Can you say he is not a Christian?   No you cannot,  because it is not about HIM measuring up to YOU.   It is about what God does with peoples hearts no matter what they do.   Now, if the killer says,  God loves me and wanted me to kill those people,  then we have a difference in what we can rightly judge.  We can judge the mans words, but we still cannot judge the mans heart and his standing with God.


Many people judged my life Molly in the past, especially so during the time I met my wife,  they come to conclusions they did not have the right to come to.

If you had met a long haired drinker that never went to church, never read the bible, didn't want to to talk about religious things but said he loved woman and said he was a Christian.  Could you actually judge that I was not?   No you can't.


The problem is that we take what someone does out of the context of God working all things.


I do not condone getting drunk, but if you do, I still cannot say what your standing with God is.   I was drunk when I met my wife, in all likelyhood if I hadn't been drinking I would of never met her.   That will never be a statement saying  "Hey go get drink and meet the love of your life"

What it means is that you could not possibly have judged my standing with God based on the state of drunkeness I was in.  You also could not have judged that God was not using that to meet my wife and in all reality finding love in such a way that I was FORCED to make a choice between LOVE and ALCOHOL.

The difference is that many people judged that I did not actually love my wife, they judged that I could not have been manifesting fruit in my heart and they did not have the right to do so.  None of them knew a hill of beans what they were talking about.  

[trettep]

  Hi Paul;

   when we jdge by appearance..we are judging good and bad

fruit from the tree of good and evil.That always brings

 condemnation and death.

   Sin in the flesh has always been condemned..I know that..

   and I know you know that. that being said..ALL have partaken

 of that tree..all have fallen short of the Glory that eat from

that tree.

  when we judge someone as good or bad..we judge

ourselves..for we,too have good and evil in our flesh.

  the TREE OF LIFE HAS NO CONDEMNATION OF MANKIND IN IT

But by confessing this good and evil that dwells in our flesh,too

  and knowing we can never be justified or be perfect,like He is

perfect..and will always fall short of it

 mercy is extended..and our transgressions are not imputed to

us and we are granted to eat from the tree of life and take

part in the new life in the spirit

  judging a tree by it's fruit..is discerning the tree of the

knowledge of good and evil's  fruit from the tree of life's fruit


which there is no condemnation of those in Christ..those who

 have eaten Christ's body and drank his blood.

  it was the denying of sin in their own flesh[good and evil] and

 judging by appearance from the tree of the knowledge of good

 and evil...that caused the Pharisee's to condemn an innocent

 man..and accuse those and persecute them whose sin had

been blotted out..as blasphemers.

  so, you will know a tree by it's fruit is...judgement by

appearance from tree of knowledge of good and evil..

.which
brings condemnation and death to all including the one judging

what is good and what is evil [law]

  or tree of life..

which is mercy and forgivesness and life in the spirit and a not

imputing of sin unto life and life eternal..but a providing for life

and healing and salvation for mankind


 it is the fruit of these two tree's you need to discern from

as it presents itself in  various men to various men..


  remembering that if you forgive men their tresspasses against

 you then your Father will forgive you..if you don't..your Father

will not forgive you...in this way you are fallen from Grace..that

 you speak of..if you should begin judging from the tree of good

and evil again....and become subject to the judge yourself.


  a shrinking back to judging by appearance from the tree of the

 knowledge of good and evil..and proclaiming judgement and

condemnation on other men..brings you subject to this same

judgement.

 Now the tree of life is salvation,mercy and undeserved

 kindness  unto all men...despite their having eaten from the

 tree of the knowledge of good and evil[having good and evil

 dwell in their flesh] but it is the confessing of this knowledge

 that evil dwells in their flesh..that allows them to accept their

Saviour and be granted to eat from the tree of life..and the

hope they have in Jesus Christ to completely deliver them from

this body of death.

  the denying of the knowledge that evil/sin dwells with

them..and the delusion of self-righteousness  from eating

from the tree of knowledge of good and eviland their judging of

others as condemned..and not themselve,also..is what makes

them blind guides.

   I hope this will help you understand what we speak of here

   and the not judgeing by appearance but at the same time

   discerning the tree by it's fruit

   we must judge ourselves by discerning from these tree's

  as to what fruit we are bringing forth...as to whether it is

  from the tree of knowledge of good and evil or the tree of life


   It is as the tree of Nebuchanezzer that grew so tall..and then

 was cut down and it's stump banded until 7 times passed over

 it
                                     Sheila

Hi Sheila, I never stated that we should judge by appearance.  I stated what the Word of God says that we should judge righteously if we judge at all.

Paul

[trettep]

For those of  you that disagree with what I say, tell me then why should I not judge Christ to be different than the Pharisees?

Paul

[Taffy]

I'd like to talk a little more about this.  The law gives us the negative--thou shalt not--and a list of things not to do.  It also gives us the positive--love God, honor father and mother, keep the sabbath--a list of things to do.

Is that the good and evil?  So we think if we don't do one and do the other we are good?

Certainly this has a lot of advantages from the point of view of a stable and safe society.

Under what circumstances am I not to judge murder as evil?  Or a murderer as evil?

Jesus ups the ante by saying that even hating is murder.  So by raising the  we are all pulled under it.

Even so, how am I to treat a murderer as a member of society?  Because we have to live in this world.

What I'm asking is for a practical application

Molly , To dwell in the Mind set of the Law of sin and death , and to speak of it as the reality unto others, Is hate , for one who hates is A murderer and liar.

1John 2:9 He that **saith** he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

1John 2:10  He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.

 ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another
For such Darkness is PAST

1John 2:8 Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

OF WHICH WERE SPOKEN BEFORE,through the deceitful desires of the Mind\flesh  

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.

Ephes 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

For me, I cant think of any greater SIN then denying THE LIFE HE IS -

FOR THE law WORKETH Wrath..

THE CHILDREN OF WRATH released from Darkness?

Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour

Best application I got Molly

[sheila]

 Hi Molly

  murder is condemned as is all sin in the flesh..and death is

the judgement of God for sin in the flesh. It is the dwelling of

evil in our flesh that is the vessel of wrath fitted for destruction.

   It is to break up the 'works' of the devil..that Christ came.

    When we 'put to death" the old man..and 'deaden' our body

 members  as respect to fornications,murders,idolatry etc we

are in fact working in conjunction  with this sentence upon

him through the Holy spirit...the man of lawlessness is the man

 doomed to destruction.2Thessalonians 2;8 and then the

 lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord Jesus will

overthrow with THE BREATH OF HIS MOUTH,AND DESTROY BY

 THE SPLENDOR OF HIS COMING...

  this man of lawlessness or old sinner man does not LOVE GOD

  OR HIS FELLOW MAN

   the new creation or the 'new man formed in Christ" is

 delivered from this body undergoing this death..or man of sin

 that dwells in our flesh...Lift yourselves erect your deliverance

 draws nigh.

 that is why Paul said..some of us would be 'changed' in the

 twinkling of an eye at the last trump. Corruption put on

 incorruption.

   the old man of sin in the flesh dies and returns to dust

   and the new spiritual man returns unto God. that is why

  in the parable of the wheat and tares it says when the new

 heads of the wheat are formed..the tares appeared too

   That is why Paul said..that I wish to do,I do not,that I wish

to not do..I do..who will deliver me from this body undergoing

 this death. Also Jesus spoke of placing new wine in new skins

 Our new creation man in the image of the Son of God will be

 placed in a new incorruptible vessel. Those whom the Holy

 spirit has been given use this same Holy spirit to put to death

the old man of sin in them..by that same spirit of Christ...

  it is he that goes into everlasting cutting off....

 as we have all borne the image of the corruptible we shall

 all bear the image of the incorruptible. We have borne the

image of the corruptible man of sin..and we shall all

bear the image of Jesus Christ. A sinless body is to me given

 unto us as well as a new spirit. The Holy spirit as our token

 bespeaks what is to be our inheritance

   Jesus is to appear agins APART FROM SIN..he does seperate

 us from our man of sin body..and reclothe us.

   This is done for all mankind

  also, he shepherding the nations with a rod of iron and

shattering the vessels of clay bespeak of Him putting to death

 the man of sin clay vessels[breaking up the works of satan]

 and giving them new sinless bodies and the creation of  the

 NEW MAN IN CHRIST

   that rod of IRON IS THE WILL OF FATHER THAT HE YEILDS

  THAT ALL MEN BE SAVED AND DELIVERED FROM SIN

                             Sheila

[pneuma]

Of course, the Jews and Gentiles in the body of Christ are the ones that believe Paul's evangel.

Well glad you had a good laugh Tony, but of course you must be mistaken that some Jews beleived Pauls evangel for according to you Pauls teaching does not apply to the Jews.

You can't have it both ways Tony, either it applies to the Jews and Gentiles or it does not. Go figure

Not true. Some Jews did come over to Paul's evangel. Paul himself was a Jew and believed the evangel of the Uncircumcision with a heavenly allotment whereas Peter James and John's evangel has an earthly allotment.

But under Paul's evangel of the body of Christ the central barrier has been broken down between Jew and Gentile and in that body both Jew and Gentile are on an equality.

Paul went to the nations with the Uncircumcision's evangel. Peter, James and John told him that was cool in Galatians 2. And Peter, James and John said they would be for the Circumcision. But this would not forbid a Circumcision Jew from leaving that paradigm and entering into Paul's.

I don't have a problem with Peter and the boys preaching to the Jews and Paul preaching to the gentile Tony, my disagreement comes in when you say it is not the same gospel, that what Paul preached to the gentles is different then what Peter and the boys preached to the Jews. That makes two gospels and not one.

Also remeber Paul went with the gospel first to the JEWS and they rejected it so he went to the gentiles who accepted it.

So what in the world was Paul preaching to the Jews the SAME Gospel that he preached to the gentile if Pauls preaching has nothing to do with them?

And if it is a different Gospel why did Paul withstand Peter? Paul would have had no right to do that if Peters gospel was not the SAME as his.

Of course there are two gospels/evangels.

Peter preached repentance and baptism with faith.
Paul preached Christ and Him crucified.

Peter preached God was going to destroy them if they didn't repent.
Paul preached that God was at peace with all mankind and is not reckoning their offenses.

I could go on and on.

Paul withstood Peter because Peter shrank back when some from James came. Peter didn't want to be seen eating with "unclean" Gentiles even if they were believers. Paul stood up to Peter on this issue.

Tony your free to beleive that if you want to , but don't exspect me to swallow it.

Two different gospels put up the wall of DIVISION that Christ tore down.

Tis the same as saying those who are christians have a different gospel preached to them then those who are not christian.

You make a division between the haves and the have nots.

It apprears you might have a problem with an attention deficit. I already addressed your "walll of division" several times now.

The wall is torn down IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. IN THAT BODY THERE IS NO JEW OR GREEK.

Under Peter, James and John the believing proselyte is under the 12.

Yes you state the wall of division is torn down, but just like the ET preacher who state that Jesus came to save the whole world proceed to show that the whole world is not saved you likewise state the wall is torn down then beging building it back up.

And you have yet to answer me why Paul preached the SAME gospel to the Jews that he did to the gentiles.

Did he really? Go through the entire book of Acts and prove your assertion.

Acts 13:38-43
38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: 39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses. 40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets; 41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.
42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.  43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.

This is Paul preaching to JEWS and GENTILES the SAME message of GRACE. Tis why the GENTILES wanted him to preach the SAME MESSAGE the next Sabbath. And Paul speaking to the JEWS persuaded them to continue in the grace of God

Acts 14:1
And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both together into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that a great multitude both of the Jews and also of the Greeks believed.

Again we see Paul preaching the SAME message to the JEWS and the GREEKS

Kind of debunks the two different gospels does it not?

If you do not believe it debunks the two different Gospel theory please explain why Paul preached the SAME message to the JEWS and GENTILES.

[Nathan]

Not so sure that proves that much there . . .the message he preached was of grace . . .the message to the Jews was grace as well, but their heritage also required combined works . . .which is fine if it's because you just want to do it as it keeps you connected with your heritage . . .naturally . . .but it's when they were trying to force the Gentiles to the literal circumcizing is where things got hairy for them and Paul stepped in to separate the two saying that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized physically because the message he preached was of a spiritual circumcision.

So for me, that's the two gospels . . .and Paul's ministry was not "to" the Jews . . .his ministry was to the Gentiles . . .to say that because both Jew and Gentile were present at his gathering means the message is the same to both . . .I'd say "in those specific situations, yes, it was . . but what was the message being preached?  Was it aimed at the Jews and the Gentiles elected to conform to Jewish ways?  Or was it to the Gentiles and the Jews present elected to give up their literal laws and follow the law of grace . .which was again, directed primarily to the Gentiles.

[pneuma]

Not so sure that proves that much there . . .the message he preached was of grace . . .the message to the Jews was grace as well, but their heritage also required combined works . . .which is fine if it's because you just want to do it as it keeps you connected with your heritage . . .naturally . . .but it's when they were trying to force the Gentiles to the literal circumcizing is where things got hairy for them and Paul stepped in to separate the two saying that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized physically because the message he preached was of a spiritual circumcision.

So for me, that's the two gospels . . .and Paul's ministry was not "to" the Jews . . .his ministry was to the Gentiles . . .to say that because both Jew and Gentile were present at his gathering means the message is the same to both . . .I'd say "in those specific situations, yes, it was . . but what was the message being preached?  Was it aimed at the Jews and the Gentiles elected to conform to Jewish ways?  Or was it to the Gentiles and the Jews present elected to give up their literal laws and follow the law of grace . .which was again, directed primarily to the Gentiles.

Acts 9:13-16
13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

and the children of ISRAEL.

Pauls message was NOT just for the GENTILES and this scripture makes that plainer then the other ones I posted, Tis the same gospel bro.

Concering circumcision Paul said it does not matter whether one be in circumcision or one was not in circumcision.

In other word Paul made NO DISTINCTION between the TWO, which is what a different gospel would be doing.

[bobf]

In other word Paul made NO DISTINCTION between the TWO, which is what a different gospel would be doing.

First to Jerusalem, then to all nations.

• Luke 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

To all nations

• Mathew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come.

[bobf]

but it's when they were trying to force the Gentiles to the literal circumcizing is where things got hairy for them and Paul stepped in to separate the two saying that the Gentiles did not have to be circumcized physically because the message he preached was of a spiritual circumcision.

So for me, that's the two gospels

Except that Jews didn't need to be circumcised either.  So that is still one gospel of circumcision of the heart.

[Tony N]

Pauls message was NOT just for the GENTILES and this scripture makes that plainer then the other ones I posted, Tis the same gospel bro.

Concering circumcision Paul said it does not matter whether one be in circumcision or one was not in circumcision.

In other word Paul made NO DISTINCTION between the TWO, which is what a different gospel would be doing.

No distinction between Jew and Gentile IN THE BODY OF CHRIST.

In the body of Christ neither the act of circumcision nor the act of uncircumcision is availing anything.

[jabcat]

Tony, don't you think this whole issue is just that...a WHOLE issue?  By that I mean, I don't think we can take a passage of scripture here, and two more over there and then a doctrine make.  IMO, this is a study in context, taking a look at the big picture, putting together precept upon precept...not saying "well Paul said  (one or two verses) so here's the way it is"....Seems to me it's comparing Peter to Paul, the whole book of Romans, putting it in context of things Jesus said about the Kingdom, then praying for understanding...not just jumping to a conclusion, perhaps even based on preconceived notions or traditions (even without realizing it)...it's a big subject, and IMO we need to be open to revelation, seek God about it, realizing there may be some nuggets God has yet to show them/me/us.

[Nathan]

This feels to me like a kid going down to the water's edge to play in the mud and stuff . . .but then it get's too slippery and the pond beckons him to come in . . .even though he didn't come to drown . . .just play in the mud. 

This discussion may be another one of those that has no end . . .just a lot of slipping and sliding around and can't quite get enough of a grip to walk back out of it.

[Paul Hazelwood]

I think things could be addressed much easier if the people who think Christians should get off their lazy butts and do something that measures up to their expectations would just come out and say thats what they mean after 43 pages.   

[Tony N]

Tony, don't you think this whole issue is just that...a WHOLE issue?  By that I mean, I don't think we can take a passage of scripture here, and two more over there and then a doctrine make.  IMO, this is a study in context, taking a look at the big picture, putting together precept upon precept...not saying "well Paul said  (one or two verses) so here's the way it is"....Seems to me it's comparing Peter to Paul, the whole book of Romans, putting it in context of things Jesus said about the Kingdom, then praying for understanding...not just jumping to a conclusion, perhaps even based on preconceived notions or traditions (even without realizing it)...it's a big subject, and IMO we need to be open to revelation, seek God about it, realizing there may be some nuggets God has yet to show them/me/us.

Hi Jabcat, I just find it amazing that people can take just one verse from Paul's writing which says there is no Jew or Greek and leave out the whole contextual setting. Is that what you are getting at? And yet in other writings there is still Jew and Greek. They rip out of Pauline context that there is no male or female yet in other Pauline writings Paul tells the women (obviously a female concept would you not say?) things to do and men (obviously a male subject) things to do. They rip out of context from Paul's writings that there is no more slave nor free yet in Paul's writings he tells slaves how to act and the free how to act.

The ripping out of context is all due to immaturity.

You wrote:  "IMO we need to be open to revelation." I hope you don't mean revelation outside of God's written word. We need God to open His word up to our understanding so that the eyes of our heart will be enlightened to perceive. . . (see Eph.1:16 onward).

"In Him, in Whom our lot was cast also"

Tony

[jabcat]

IMO, absolutely yes to the first part, and absolutely no to the last part...within the Word...I've said that over and over...always within the Word, better, more accurate understandings...for instance, J. Preston's teachings on Lazarus/Rich Man...within the Word, but very different, multi-layered, etc., than orthodoxy...

and yes, not just ripping pieces here and there out of context to attempt to prove some point, using a couple of verses to establish a whole doctrine, while really just putting our own spin/understanding on it...which I believe I'm guilty of as well at times...probably part of our nature, but I believe, something we need to be aware of...The very thing I/we swear up and down on and push it off as the absolute truth and THE way to view it, God may show us something different and better about it yet today or tomorrow.  Part of the humbling process as well maybe...I should be a very humble guy by now  .

IMO, again, not outside the Word...anything needs to match up with accurately translated, rightly divided, in context, Spirit revelation OF the Word  ...

[Taffy]

The ripping out of context is all due to immaturity.

Hey Tony 
I may be quiet right now but I aint dead yet.

Tell Paul that   come Hebrews 11.,,he makes whole DOCTRINAL POINT on FAITH...

Beg to differ bro....


as for your comments elsewhere..multiple levels....s

ya could say the ACT of immaturity IS NOT SEEING THEM....

Blessing

[Paul Hazelwood]

I am going to stop when the page count equals my age, I'm just helping it along, one more page.

[Paul Hazelwood]

hey where did that post go?

[Paul Hazelwood]

Nope not there yet.

[Cardinal]

I am going to stop when the page count equals my age, I'm just helping it along, one more page.

  rofl.....

[jabcat]

Ah, I decided it was unnecessary...but it would've added to the length of the thread, huh?