Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
What kind of person asks another to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I mean this is weird even for Jesus isn't it?
If anyone, and I mean anyone, said something even remotely similar, we would either lock him up or run like crazy.
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
It is neither bizarre nor unapproachable.
In fact, we need to do it daily.
Just like your natural body needs to eat and drink everyday — your spiritual body also needs daily nourishment.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the Bread and Water of Life for our spiritual man.
He is Who makes and keeps us alive in Christ.
If we don't partake of Him everyday we will starve.
If we partake of a half-truth we become malnourished.
He is our food, water and breath.
I enjoyed reading that Beloved Servant. It is so true. :thumbsup:
Also , if we eat tainted or poisoned truth, we get spiritually sick! Meaning false doctrine mixed with truth.
CP... I know what you mean. I think the same thing.
This might help:
http://www.helium.com/items/734383-bible-study-eat-my-flesh-drink-my-blood---john-653-explained (http://www.helium.com/items/734383-bible-study-eat-my-flesh-drink-my-blood---john-653-explained)
Yes, fullarmor, especially the ones that are hidden.
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 12:17:17 AM
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
Here's another article that also puts into the right perspective:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Eat-My-Flesh,-Drink-My-Blood&id=794071
I think he was again talking metaphorically to weed out those who were not ready to truly follow Him. Not that he didn't already know who would and wouldn't... but for the benefit of all. Us reading these words today...
I guess it's a heart thing... same with ET/UR I suppose, in a way.
Those whose hearts are not ready for the truth that all are saved will not understand the parables until their heart is ready for it. Until their heart has gone through a bit of purification and burning off the dross. If people aren't ready for something... then it suits them better to WAIT until they are ready rather than to just let them have it anyway because it might do SOME good. It's better that they must wait and receive it when they are ready, then it will do ALL good. Not just "some" good. That's why I think there are so many parables and some "strange" sayings like the "eat flesh, drink blood" thing.
Hope I'm making sense. I know what I want to say, but not sure if it's coming out right.
It's not coming out right, Sparrow, would you please explain it further in a much more detailed explanation.
I just like to know what people are thinking so I can understand it better.
Which part don't you understand? Maybe if you tell me what you think I'm saying that will help me better explain what I mean. Then I'll know which part I need to clarify. Know what I mean? Thanks.
No, don't know what you mean.
Just a more in-depth detailed explanation.
hmmm, Well, like I said earlier I'm having trouble explaining what I mean so perhaps I should just leave it at that until I can ponder more. I'd rather my words be MORE clear, not less clear.
:cloud9: You have to remember His audience; He was talking to Jewish converts who were familiar with the concept of the priesthood that literally ate the tithes, and so He was painting a picture of the sacrificial lamb that they, as the soon to be spiritual priesthood (formed on the day of Pentecost), would consume.
So I doubt they batted an eye, except to marvel over how He was to become the sacrifice. I think they all had a lot to learn from the Spirit after the day of Pentecost as well, just as we do, as they had to be told what manner in which He would die, which to me shows they weren't yet all 'with the program', so to speak. Blessings......
The Lord is my bucket.
He bails us out from the most awkward situations.
Claypot,
Had I not known that the words Jesus spoke were spiritual, (which he had said they were), then I'd have thought him a lunatic, I guess. But he spoke of things spiritually.
And indeed, I have partaken of the body of blood of Christ for my own salvation and sanctification through those in his body who have poured themselves out on my behalf.
Anne
Quote from: sparrow on October 16, 2009, 05:03:06 AMI think he was again talking....to weed out those who were not ready to truly follow Him. Not that he didn't already know who would and wouldn't... but for the benefit of all. Us reading these words today....If people aren't ready for something... then it suits them better to WAIT until they are ready rather than to just let them have it anyway because it might do SOME good. It's better that they must wait and receive it when they are ready, then it will do ALL good. Not just "some" good....
Very beautiful, Sparrow! Exactly. Luke 6:40 comes to mind. There comes a point for all who are just like their Master where they've got to just leave it alone about the more precious truths, and not slip into the ego thing that if I give it to them in 75 different ways with illustrations and Scripture references being different each time that they'll unquestionably get it. It's not for fear of being misunderstood or because of some things being too precious to share, but because certain things can't be received from certain teachers and that's as much a matter as the timing as it is of the development of those that would know all truth at all costs.
Sometimes the "at all costs" to get the rest of the way includes patience and walking out what you already have until He gives you more, or until why the part you let get away from you in the previous lessons suddenly makes the most sense out of all of it and it wasn't a matter of opinion, but finally fits because I'm walking out the patterns on my own now, and now it's like "oh!" (i.e. the V8 moment of striking one's head) "Now I know why He or he or she was saying this or that. Makes so much more sense now." And then when the prior lessons are finally grasped and those that won't endure to the end have been calculatingly cut loose to go ahead and be lost in the wilderness, and the wheat and tares are allowed to grow to harvest, then when the wheat is fully matured, then the ones who've clung to both until harvest time are much more eager to disguard the tares into the unquenchable fire so that the fire has more fuel and the wheat can become the bread of your dreams!
Wheat grows much more easily without the tares being present, however when both are seen in their fully matured form, then it becomes abundantly clear to all on why the wheat is preferable and it's no longer just a Fatherly "BECAUSE I SAY SO!!" but sin is shown in it's true light, it's true colors, etc., as nothing but a python that was fighting night and day to destroy all that Father was trying to bring of His goodness into your life and to try to lie to you that it was Him doing the stealing, killing, and destroying. For the same reason that some will say that the sin was allowed, in order to magnify the knowledge of the good, acceptable, and perfect -- for the exact same reasons the tares are allowed to grow with the wheat and the blatantly obnoxious is interspersed with all of the beauties of Jeremiah 33:9-26, Psalm 23:1, and Isaiah 61:10-11. As Andrew Jukes has said in "Restitution of all things" the very form of the Written Word is a part of our chastening by the Lord. That's likewise true of the "proceeding Word" and of the Word made flesh with those that Luke 6:40 is true of.
:cloud9: I especially liked the part about the tares feeding the fire for the bread of your dreams, Martin.......... :thumbsup: Blessings....
"A fire burns in the heart, to drink and eat beyond measure."
:smile: :smile: :smile:
Ok, well I'm glad something I said seemed to make sense to someone. I'm still not satisfied with what I wrote but oh well. Still pondering, like I said. lol.
Beloved, I still don't know how else to word what I wrote. But I think this brings up an important issue.
I think that we should always be able to question others beliefs when we don't understand what they are saying. When I question other's posts, the majority of the time, I'm trying to clarify what it is they are saying. Words they are using. Phrases they are using. Someone will say "new earth". Ok, What does "new earth" mean to you? A phrase or a word could mean something ENTIRELY different to two different people. And a person can use a phrase or word one minute one way, and the next minute they are using that same word or phrase with a totally different meaning. For example someone could say "new heavens" refers to literal new physical heavens. Then the next minute they may say "new heavens" referring to a renewed mind.
Clarification in discussion forums is a must.
Clarification in a disccusion forum talking about GOD is an ABSOLUTE must.
Because there ARE so many symbols etc., and so many different ways people USE symbols.
It's not always about people not understanding you so they must not "be ready" for truth...
Sometimes people just need to know what it IS that you are saying in the first place. (general you.)
Sorry if this went off-topic a bit... but it needs to be said, I think.
Quote from: sparrow on October 16, 2009, 08:12:03 AMIt's not always about people not understanding you so they must not "be ready" for truth...
Sometimes people just need to know what it IS that you are saying in the first place. (general you.)
Exactly. I'm trying all of the time to clarify, though I know I fall far short of my own standards and intentions on clarifying, and there's about 3 others with some amazing things to say that I'm always [or frequently] picking on BECAUSE I want them to spend that extra sentence or paragraph with each post, beyond what they feel He's given them, to help to clarify what they feel He's given them 'cause what they've posted could be 100% valid and even life changing, but as you said, many of us have our own emerging lingo and it's not always consistent even within the same weeks or even within the same post and since 250 New Testament phrases have 1800 meanings around here, depending on who is posting and their context and Scriptures or personal experiences being alluded to, it's only fair to clarify or to adopt additional ways of clarifying that they mean over time, that if I capitalize such and such or bold print it, then I'm meaning this other entirely different whatever based upon such and such a pattern, such as the Tabernacle, whether Tabernacle of Moses or Tabernacle of David -- and those two tabernacles aren't even identical, I've been informed by someone around here that the Tabernacle of David only had two chambers instead of the 3 we're all used to hearing about. Well, for newbies, when we're wandering from our customary way of expressing Scriptures we speak the most often of, then we need to clarify the understood change in lingo based upon another set of types and shadows being appealed to or whatever. It's not an incredible departure from the opening post 'cause it comes up in the writings of the New Testament with the so-called [according to some] "contradictions" that when looked into further are either a matter of a translational issue or weren't even [contextually] about the same thing that's being discussed by the other [seemingly] contradictory passage, and is often referring to something entirely different in the Old Testament from what was previously presumed to be what it was talking about.
Thanks Martin. :thumbsup:
Quoteand since 250 New Testament phrases have 1800 meanings around here, depending on who is posting and their context and Scriptures or personal experiences being alluded to..
YES.
precisely. :grin:
I just want to post a thought to this verse.
This ritual that Jesus did was an END of a system for the Jews. The Last supper was just that, and Religion has made that supper happen every year in the Christmas Joke we tell our children when we give presents.
Jesus became the Life in the Blood, the Life In the Flesh.
He did do away with death at the resurrection because He is the Life in ALL.
Whether we hear now or later. "the Moving of the Waters" US.
Lee Damboise II IMO Father Bless...
Sparrow, you make perfect sense to me. Your posts here spoke to me and you are so right about clarifying our statements with each other. I'm glad you and Belserv strive to get clarification as that opens the door and turns on the light in many ways.
Card, you wrote..........
[You have to remember His audience; He was talking to Jewish converts who were familiar with the concept of the priesthood that literally ate the tithes, and so He was painting a picture of the sacrificial lamb that they, as the soon to be spiritual priesthood (formed on the day of Pentecost), would consume.
So I doubt they batted an eye, except to marvel over how He was to become the sacrifice. I think they all had a lot to learn from the Spirit after the day of Pentecost as well, just as we do, as they had to be told what manner in which He would die, which to me shows they weren't yet all 'with the program', so to speak. Blessings......]
As I continued reading after Jesus talked of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, I noticed that many thought He was nuts and many quit following Him. I think they 'batted an eye' at least but I do get your drift about these words not being as shocking to them as it would be today. I know you also see deeply into the spiritual realm and I appreciate your input here. Thanks!
I'm thinking Anne hit the nail on the head, for me anyway, about Jesus' words being spiritual and thus not palatable for the 'natural man' within us all. I believe this is the way we should view all of God's words but Jesus came in a natural way and I was just thinking that He could have made the transition a bit less dramatic at times but of course, Jesus knew exactly what He was doing. I'm just airing and all your thoughts are deeply appreciated.
Sparrow, I'm off to check out the links you suggested and thanks in advance!!!
cp
Quote from: martincisneros on October 16, 2009, 07:45:05 AM
As Andrew Jukes has said in "Restitution of all things" the very form of the Written Word is a part of our chastening by the Lord.
Martin, this especially was good for my ears to hear. Thanks.
cp
Eating his flesh is eating his word (the bread of life).
Matthew 4:4:
But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The life is in the blood, so we drink his blood.
(Gen9:4) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul"(Lev17:11)
Quote from: sparrow on October 16, 2009, 05:03:06 AM
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 12:17:17 AM
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
Here's another article that also puts into the right perspective:
http://ezinearticles.com/?Eat-My-Flesh,-Drink-My-Blood&id=794071
I think he was again talking metaphorically to weed out those who were not ready to truly follow Him. Not that he didn't already know who would and wouldn't... but for the benefit of all. Us reading these words today...
I guess it's a heart thing... same with ET/UR I suppose, in a way.
Those whose hearts are not ready for the truth that all are saved will not understand the parables until their heart is ready for it. Until their heart has gone through a bit of purification and burning off the dross. If people aren't ready for something... then it suits them better to WAIT until they are ready rather than to just let them have it anyway because it might do SOME good. It's better that they must wait and receive it when they are ready, then it will do ALL good. Not just "some" good. That's why I think there are so many parables and some "strange" sayings like the "eat flesh, drink blood" thing.
Hope I'm making sense. I know what I want to say, but not sure if it's coming out right.
Like trying to give a newborn a big juicy steak or even a more healthy vegi burger. Even though the burger is healthy, it would prove deadly to the newborn.
Again Sparrow, good thoughts, and the links you gave out are well received too.
cp
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 16, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Eating his flesh is eating his word (the bread of life).
Matthew 4:4:
But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The life is in the blood, so we drink his blood.
(Gen9:4) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul"(Lev17:11)
What I like most about passages like the ones we are discussing is that they make it perfectly clear that the Bible is a closed Book to the natural or carnal man. It is truly a treasure hidden in a field. It closes the discussion as to whether God's words should be read and taken literally or spiritually. I'm not saying His words are not helpful in the physical realm, they are, but the true life in them is in the spiritual IMO.
Thanks j.
Belserv, are things clearer for you now? Do you see what Sparrow is saying?
cp
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 16, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Eating his flesh is eating his word (the bread of life).
Matthew 4:4:
But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The life is in the blood, so we drink his blood.
(Gen9:4) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul"(Lev17:11)
What I like most about passages like the ones we are discussing is that they make it perfectly clear that the Bible is a closed Book to the natural or carnal man. It is truly a treasure hidden in a field. It closes the discussion as to whether God's words should be read and taken literally or spiritually. I'm not saying His words are not helpful in the physical realm, they are, but the true life in them is in the spiritual IMO.
Thanks j.
Belserv, are things clearer for you now? Do you see what Sparrow is saying?
cp
Claypot, i really believe that when people read the Bible they must do so with a spirit of love, remembering that God is good, perfect even; and all loving, all knowing, all forgiving, all compassionate etc.
Then when people come across these 'hard' passages they don't understand, rather than think 'whats going on??!!! This sounds horrible!!, they will instead think 'Well....God is all loving, so what does he mean when he says this, i know for sure it can't be anything bad he meant because God is love'.
And then they can go and read about what the passage further, and what the passage really means, and who God was saying what he was saying to and why he said it at that time, etc etc etc.
Quote from: fullarmor2 on October 16, 2009, 04:15:35 AM
I enjoyed reading that Beloved Servant. It is so true. :thumbsup:
Also , if we eat tainted or poisoned truth, we get spiritually sick! Meaning false doctrine mixed with truth.
So true fa. I think of some of my brothers and sisters who believe in the eternal torment doctrine and how they are forced to say outright that they will have pleasure in viewing people being tormented. They believe it must be a good thing or God would not allow it. I think this is very sick and is the outcome of poisoned and tainted truth as you put it.
I am not judging these Brothers and Sisters, I just am making an observation.
cp
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 12:17:17 AM
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
What kind of person asks another to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I mean this is weird even for Jesus isn't it?
If anyone, and I mean anyone, said something even remotely similar, we would either lock him up or run like crazy.
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
I think that Jesus said that to those people at that time so that 'many' (who did not understand him' would leave. He needed the people who understood him. (By spirit).
Read the entire thing with all you have learned now on the forums and see what Jesus really meant.
35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. 36But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. 37All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. 38For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."
41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"
43"Stop grumbling among yourselves," Jesus answered. 44"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets: 'They will all be taught by God.'[d] Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. 46No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. 48I am the bread of life. 49Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"
61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[e] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."
66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.
67"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.
68Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: jesushandsarekindhands on October 16, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Eating his flesh is eating his word (the bread of life).
Matthew 4:4:
But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
The life is in the blood, so we drink his blood.
(Gen9:4) "For the life of the flesh is in the blood...for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul"(Lev17:11)
What I like most about passages like the ones we are discussing is that they make it perfectly clear that the Bible is a closed Book to the natural or carnal man. It is truly a treasure hidden in a field. It closes the discussion as to whether God's words should be read and taken literally or spiritually. I'm not saying His words are not helpful in the physical realm, they are, but the true life in them is in the spiritual IMO.
Thanks j.
Belserv, are things clearer for you now? Do you see what Sparrow is saying?
cp
God is Love :HeartThrob:
I think that's what she said, but I'm not sure...just pondering I guess.
Now you got it. That's exactly what Sparrow says all the time for those who have eyes to see.
cp
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
Card, you wrote..........
[You have to remember His audience; He was talking to Jewish converts who were familiar with the concept of the priesthood that literally ate the tithes, and so He was painting a picture of the sacrificial lamb that they, as the soon to be spiritual priesthood (formed on the day of Pentecost), would consume.
So I doubt they batted an eye, except to marvel over how He was to become the sacrifice. I think they all had a lot to learn from the Spirit after the day of Pentecost as well, just as we do, as they had to be told what manner in which He would die, which to me shows they weren't yet all 'with the program', so to speak. Blessings......]
As I continued reading after Jesus talked of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, I noticed that many thought He was nuts and many quit following Him. I think they 'batted an eye' at least but I do get your drift about these words not being as shocking to them as it would be today. I know you also see deeply into the spiritual realm and I appreciate your input here. Thanks!
:cloud9: They left Him when He revealed the manner in which He should die. Many leave Him still when they realize the manner in which THEY are going to die, with Him.
Which his why it says that man is in bondage to the fear of death all of his days. He's in in bondage to the fear of dying to self all of his days, UNTIL he is birthed into the NEW DAY, ie. Christ, the 7th day with no part darkness. Blessings....
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 12:17:17 AM
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
What kind of person asks another to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I mean this is weird even for Jesus isn't it?
If anyone, and I mean anyone, said something even remotely similar, we would either lock him up or run like crazy.
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
I haven't read through the responses yet, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, which may have been hit on already.
First, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him. God wanted him killed. He was the lamb to be led to the slaughter. Now who would lead Jesus to the slaughter if they all understood exactly what he meant? Jesus provoked certain people to kill him.
1 John 5:8 says that the water, blood and spirit are one and that they are witnesses that agree. Contextually they all agree with the testimony revealed in verse 11: "And this is the testimony: God has given us aionios life (life of the age), and this life is in his Son."
So when Jesus said "You must drink my blood" what is Christ's meaning there? What is the testimony: LIFE. He is saying: you must live by the Life that I promise to give. But that life is a RESURRECTED life, which is why Jesus died. To die, he must be killed. To be killed, there must be those who WANT to kill him.
What is easer to kill, the Messiah, or one who seems like a lunatic who says weird things?
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 01:34:56 AMFirst, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him.
No one speaks with the intent that no one should understand them, if they're in their right mind. Now some teachers will speak with the intent that you understand them LATER instead of sooner.
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 01:34:56 AMNow who would lead Jesus to the slaughter if they all understood exactly what he meant?
It doesn't take someone misunderstanding someone for them to have issues with them based upon their own issues rather than the issues of the speaker. Lots of people, even innocent people, have been very clearly understood and yet folks have taken great delight in killing them anyway.
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 01:34:56 AMWhat is easer to kill, the Messiah, or one who seems like a lunatic who says weird things?
No one needs to be perceived as a lunatic to be thought too dangerous [to one's own agenda] to live. Judas tried to make Him reveal Himself to the world by forcing Him into a dangerous position. That's what a Judas will always do with trying to prematurely force someone's hand. It's really a spirit of rape, if you think it through logically and Scripturally. Neither Messiah nor a lunatic would NECESSARILY be easier to kill than the other. Gadarene demoniac comes to mind as someone equally as difficult to kill as a Messiah figure, and equally feared.
Quote from: martincisneros on October 17, 2009, 01:58:15 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 01:34:56 AMFirst, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him.
No one speaks with the intent that no one should understand them, if they're in their right mind. Now some teachers will speak with the intent that you understand them LATER instead of sooner.
Good point. :thumbsup: That is what I meant though, essentially. They weren't meant to understand at that moment.
QuoteIt doesn't take someone misunderstanding someone for them to have issues with them based upon their own issues rather than the issues of the speaker. Lots of people, even innocent people, have been very clearly understood and yet folks have taken great delight in killing them anyway.
That is true, but this is a more unique situation in which the Jews wanted their Messiah to come. Not understanding his words was part in parcel to not understanding he was the Messiah. Case in point:
1 Cor 2
7No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
QuoteNo one needs to be perceived as a lunatic to be thought too dangerous [to one's own agenda] to live.
See above.
God hides as good as He reveals. I think of the time when Jesus told people not to tell others about Him.
I think of Jesus thanking God that He hides things from some while revealing things to some.
cp
Quote from: claypot on October 17, 2009, 02:07:15 AM
God hides as good as He reveals. I think of the time when Jesus told people not to tell others about Him.
I think of Jesus thanking God that He hides things from some while revealing things to some.
cp
Amen.
Proverbs 25:2
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 02:05:32 AM
That is true, but this is a more unique situation in which the Jews wanted their Messiah to come.
:cloud9: The ordinary people wanted their Messiah to come; the ruling Pharisees and the Sadducees, uh........not so much. He was perceived as a threat because it meant their "kingdom" they had corrupted to suit themselves had come to an end, ie. they were out of a job, no more "middle men" doing sacrifices were needed, ALL could come to the Father thru the Son.
They understood that very well thru what He said when they tempted Him by saying He did the miracles thru devils. They were unwilling to be "unemployed". Blessings...
Quote from: Cardinal on October 17, 2009, 02:44:16 AM
:cloud9: The ordinary people wanted their Messiah to come; the ruling Pharisees and the Sadducees, uh........not so much. He was perceived as a threat because it meant their "kingdom" they had corrupted to suit themselves had come to an end, ie. they were out of a job, no more "middle men" doing sacrifices were needed, ALL could come to the Father thru the Son.
They understood that very well thru what He said when they tempted Him by saying He did the miracles thru devils. They were unwilling to be "unemployed". Blessings...
Well, maybe neither of us are in a position to say what they actually wanted, since we cannot read thoughts. In fact, Paul who was a Pharisee and persecuted the church made it clear that when he was under the Law, he struggled to do good but was a slave to sin. So I think it is too simplistic to say that the Pharisees did not want deliverance from sin, or the Messiah to come. I think they were slaves to sin which is a condition that overrides any desire to do good so that you do bad instead, it's subjection to vanity. As you would probably agree, we all have conflicting thoughts. I doubt the Pharisees were any different.
Remember it was the "ordinary people" who said "crucify him" and "let his blood be upon us and our children" (a request God has plans to fulfill in spades). So inasmuch they wanted a Messiah, they were also subverted against themselves in their own minds.
However, Christ's choice of words were spoiled food for the carnal mind, and good food for the Spiritual mind. Since none of their minds were prepared Spiritually to understand his words, they were hardened instead. That is why if they understood the mysteries, they would NOT have crucified the Lord of Glory. The fact that they didn't understand the mystery is crucial to whether or not Christ was crucified.
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 01:34:56 AM
Quote from: claypot on October 16, 2009, 12:17:17 AM
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh , and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
What kind of person asks another to eat his flesh and drink his blood?
I mean this is weird even for Jesus isn't it?
If anyone, and I mean anyone, said something even remotely similar, we would either lock him up or run like crazy.
Why did Jesus go to such lengths to be so bizaar and unapproachable?
cp
I haven't read through the responses yet, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on this, which may have been hit on already.
First, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him. God wanted him killed. He was the lamb to be led to the slaughter. Now who would lead Jesus to the slaughter if they all understood exactly what he meant? Jesus provoked certain people to kill him.
1 John 5:8 says that the water, blood and spirit are one and that they are witnesses that agree. Contextually they all agree with the testimony revealed in verse 11: "And this is the testimony: God has given us aionios life (life of the age), and this life is in his Son."
So when Jesus said "You must drink my blood" what is Christ's meaning there? What is the testimony: LIFE. He is saying: you must live by the Life that I promise to give. But that life is a RESURRECTED life, which is why Jesus died. To die, he must be killed. To be killed, there must be those who WANT to kill him.
What is easer to kill, the Messiah, or one who seems like a lunatic who says weird things?
Hi!
If you don't mind, I found myself disagreeing with your comment saying: "First, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him. God wanted him killed. He was the lamb to be led to the slaughter. Now who would lead Jesus to the slaughter if they all understood exactly what he meant? Jesus provoked certain people to kill him".
An earlier Post by 'Martincisneros' has correctly answered your comment, "Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand Him".
Here I wish specifically comment on the additional statement you made: "God wanted him [Jesus] killed".
God never wished that Jesus be killed.
God's original intent with Adam and Eve is that they would mature and develop as a spiritual man ... just like Jesus.
It was as if God had a business and wished to share it with His family; wanted to name His business 'God and Sons' [and daughters]. But Adam and Eve failed in this.
God's eternal counsel; His thoughts and intent (His Word) never returns void; His Word always accomplishes everything it set out to accomplish. So, Jesus (the Second Adam) appeared on the face of the earth and succeeded where Adam and Eve had failed.
The events of the Matthew 17:1-3 describe where Jesus was first called a "Son": "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."
And the Word (thoughts and intents of God) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Jesus was the "only begotten Son of God" at this point, but God's desire was that He would have many sons [daughters]. This Word of God would have gladly been accomplished in Adam and Eve too if they had chosen to obey the purpose of God for their lives.
The same event is described in Mark 9:2, "And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid. And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves. And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead."
At this point in time, Jesus could have chosen to simply be 'raptured'; permit his spirtual body to absorb his natural body and joyfully sit at the right hand of His Father as the only spiritual man ... the first and only Son of God.
Instead, this is what happened:
Remember the parable of the Pearl of Great Price?
Do you see what it says about the Pearl Merchant?
Matthew 13:45-46, "Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it".
The Pearl Merchant was the devil.
The devil was obsessively determined to own Jesus who was the Pearl of Great Price.
The devil then gave up all his other pearls in the heavenly transaction to bring Jesus under slavery to the powers of sin and death.
Jesus could have rightly refused this task; well, in a sense He could have.
You see? Jesus shared the very heart of God; He knew the secret desires of His Father's heart. His every waking hour was spent joyfully pleasing His heavenly Father.
So, here too, Jesus willingly laid down His life as a ransom for many; to exchange Himself for the untold thousands of other tarnished pearls (human kind) imprisoned in the kingdom of Death and Hades.
It was NOT God who demanded the ransom.
It was not God who demanded payment for sin.
It was the evil one.
God did NOT want Jesus killed. The evil one wished this; not God.
Of Jesus it is said: "Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth".
So, the devil had no claim whatsoever over Him. The devil could not pay him wages of Sin and Death because Jesus had not sinned and was therefore not deserving of such a treachery.
But Jesus willingly and knowingly offered Himself (as the Pearl of Great Price) to the evil one in exchange for all of mankind.
So, please refrain from stating that God wanted Jesus killed and other such nonsense.
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 03:34:09 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on October 17, 2009, 02:44:16 AM
:cloud9: The ordinary people wanted their Messiah to come; the ruling Pharisees and the Sadducees, uh........not so much. He was perceived as a threat because it meant their "kingdom" they had corrupted to suit themselves had come to an end, ie. they were out of a job, no more "middle men" doing sacrifices were needed, ALL could come to the Father thru the Son.
They understood that very well thru what He said when they tempted Him by saying He did the miracles thru devils. They were unwilling to be "unemployed". Blessings...
Well, maybe neither of us are in a position to say what they actually wanted, since we cannot read thoughts. In fact, Paul who was a Pharisee and persecuted the church made it clear that when he was under the Law, he struggled to do good but was a slave to sin. So I think it is too simplistic to say that the Pharisees did not want deliverance from sin, or the Messiah to come. I think they were slaves to sin which is a condition that overrides any desire to do good so that you do bad instead, it's subjection to vanity. As you would probably agree, we all have conflicting thoughts. I doubt the Pharisees were any different.
Remember it was the "ordinary people" who said "crucify him" and "let his blood be upon us and our children" (a request God has plans to fulfill in spades). So inasmuch they wanted a Messiah, they were also subverted against themselves in their own minds.
:cloud9: Hi Seth........not reading minds, just the Word, LOL........I base what I said on these observations in the Word.
Matthrew 27:17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that
for envy they had delivered him.
Additionally; the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons (could be sicknesses, evil spirits as well) by an evil spirit. The Pharisees were well aware of the fact from Deuteronomy and other books that God set up this as a part of the OT covenant curses.
So in fact, what they were asking Him is by whose authority do you do these things (including healing the man on the Sabbath day), because we know this demon/sickness is a judgment established by God for disobedience, and carried out by Satan. So since God authorized it; for You, Jesus, to UNDO it, must mean it's an evil spirit in You, Jesus, opposing what we know by the law, is God's judgment to the flesh of men.
So Jesus did answer perfectly, telling them that if that if He was casting out what Satan had done, by Satan, then Satan's kingdom would be divided and fall, because Satan's kingdom was given by God, ie. to eat dust, the prince of this world, bringer of judgments.
But that He was casting them out by God, meant that a NEW COVENANT was in fact about to come into place in the whole, and had already come into place in the part, the part being Christ Jesus the Head, because God's kingdom is NOT divided.
Which meant to them obviously, "we're out of a job", because the least in the kingdom (the children/as the disciples viewed the non priest disciples) can now cast out devils, ie. they were stripped of their authority. Blessings.....
QuoteIf you don't mind, I found myself disagreeing with your comment saying: "First, Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand him. God wanted him killed. He was the lamb to be led to the slaughter. Now who would lead Jesus to the slaughter if they all understood exactly what he meant? Jesus provoked certain people to kill him".
An earlier Post by 'Martincisneros' has correctly answered your comment, "Jesus did NOT want everyone to understand Him".
Martin, as I understood him, did not disagree with whether Jesus did not want people to understand him. He made the good point that they were not meant to understand him until later.
QuoteHere I wish specifically comment on the additional statement you made: "God wanted him [Jesus] killed".
God never wished that Jesus be killed.
We will just have to agree to disagree. But to clarify, the word "want" that I used is not to say that God relished killing Jesus, but that God found it vital to his plan from the beginning to provide a savior to die and be resurrected. Jesus was fulfilling His father's will in doing so, not the devil's will. Unless, you believe that God was completely ignorant to what His Son was about to do. Remember, Jesus says NOBODY takes my life, I give it WILLINGLY. It so happens that was His Father's will for Christ to do that.
QuoteSo, please refrain from stating that God wanted Jesus killed and other such nonsense.
It isn't nonsense.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 17, 2009, 08:31:17 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 17, 2009, 03:34:09 AM
Quote from: Cardinal on October 17, 2009, 02:44:16 AM
:cloud9: The ordinary people wanted their Messiah to come; the ruling Pharisees and the Sadducees, uh........not so much. He was perceived as a threat because it meant their "kingdom" they had corrupted to suit themselves had come to an end, ie. they were out of a job, no more "middle men" doing sacrifices were needed, ALL could come to the Father thru the Son.
They understood that very well thru what He said when they tempted Him by saying He did the miracles thru devils. They were unwilling to be "unemployed". Blessings...
Well, maybe neither of us are in a position to say what they actually wanted, since we cannot read thoughts. In fact, Paul who was a Pharisee and persecuted the church made it clear that when he was under the Law, he struggled to do good but was a slave to sin. So I think it is too simplistic to say that the Pharisees did not want deliverance from sin, or the Messiah to come. I think they were slaves to sin which is a condition that overrides any desire to do good so that you do bad instead, it's subjection to vanity. As you would probably agree, we all have conflicting thoughts. I doubt the Pharisees were any different.
Remember it was the "ordinary people" who said "crucify him" and "let his blood be upon us and our children" (a request God has plans to fulfill in spades). So inasmuch they wanted a Messiah, they were also subverted against themselves in their own minds.
:cloud9: Hi Seth........not reading minds, just the Word, LOL........I base what I said on these observations in the Word.
Matthrew 27:17 Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? 18 For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
Additionally; the Pharisees accused Him of casting out demons (could be sicknesses, evil spirits as well) by an evil spirit. The Pharisees were well aware of the fact from Deuteronomy and other books that God set up this as a part of the OT covenant curses.
So in fact, what they were asking Him is by whose authority do you do these things (including healing the man on the Sabbath day), because we know this demon/sickness is a judgment established by God for disobedience, and carried out by Satan. So since God authorized it; for You, Jesus, to UNDO it, must mean it's an evil spirit in You, Jesus, opposing what we know by the law, is God's judgment to the flesh of men.
So Jesus did answer perfectly, telling them that if that if He was casting out what Satan had done, by Satan, then Satan's kingdom would be divided and fall, because Satan's kingdom was given by God, ie. to eat dust, the prince of this world, bringer of judgments.
But that He was casting them out by God, meant that a NEW COVENANT was in fact about to come into place in the whole, and had already come into place in the part, the part being Christ Jesus the Head, because God's kingdom is NOT divided. Which meant to them obviously, "we're out of a job", because the least in the kingdom (the children/as the disciples viewed the non priest disciples) can now cast out devils, ie. they were stripped of their authority. Blessings.....
True, Jesus did answer them. But did they truly understand? If they thought he was a man of God and had power from God to be a great prophet of sorts, did they understand him to be the Lord of Glory? I don't believe so. Even if they thought him to be the Messiah, I think it was a false concept of the Messiah they had, even those who believed. I think nobody knew Christ for who he truly was or they would not have killed him as the Bible says.
John 1: 10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
What I am getting as is that there are very many layers to our desire and understanding. Sometimes I desire one thing, and simultaneously desire the contrary. It's a conflict. You see what I mean? The Pharisees were no different. They may have had intellectual understandings about things, yet at the same time, they knew him not and did not receive him.
This is precisely why Paul said:
1 Cor 2:7-8
No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
So this goes back to my main point in answering the first post. Jesus spoke in terms relating to physical things, knowing that the people could not receive those things. Christ knew that their carnal minds would BLOCK his statement about "drinking his blood" and that their reactions would lead them away from Him. He knew that because he could read their very thoughts and knew their hearts even better than they did.
Had they understood the mystery of "drinking his blood" then they would not have crucified Him, because they would have known the secret wisdom, the truth that would set them free: Christ was talking about his Spiritual Life, not physical blood. They WANTED that life. The young rich man came to Jesus asking what he must do to gain life. So in another passage, when Jesus says "Drink my blood" that's not an answer that a carnal mind can accept and will cause them who WANTED life to turn away.
That betrayal is what caused Christ's death....and life. How ironic.
:cloud9: I think they knew more than they are given credit for......consider this.........
John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Quote from: Cardinal on October 18, 2009, 02:05:21 AM
:cloud9: I think they knew more than they are given credit for......consider this.........
John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Interesting that the passage adds "this he spake he that not of himself." When someone is prophesying, who is inspiring the speech?
As the Bible says: They knew him not. For as the passage also says "Ye know nothing at all."
If they knew the mysteries, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory. :dontknow:
:cloud9: My point was, that it was revealed to them, so at a certain point, they knew and were then accountable for what they knew. Blessings.....
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. If a cop pulls you over and you say "I didn't know about that" he will still give you a ticket.
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 02:16:15 AM
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
I haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize if these verses are not in line with the discussion; but I personally see a difference between sins of ignorance, and sins after revelation:
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
If they sin willingly after.....remain no more sacrifice for sin
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a
sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they
knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Quote from: Zeek on October 18, 2009, 02:23:23 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 02:16:15 AM
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
I haven't read this whole thread, so I apologize if these verses are not in line with the discussion; but I personally see a difference between sins of ignorance, and sins after revelation:
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
If they sin willingly after.....remain no more sacrifice for sin
If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.
Mar 3:29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
But forgiveness is not a counterpoint to judgment, if judgment is good for the the one being judged, see what I mean? The cross is the judgment of the whole world. EVERYONE will be judged by it to kill the flesh in one way or another as we discussed in the LOF thread. Take the Prodigal Son, the Father showed no signs of wrath against the Son, yet he gave him what he wanted. The results were good, but the experience was pretty rough.
QuoteIf they sin willingly after.....remain no more sacrifice for sin
Since the death that Jesus died is "the judgment of the world" I take the above statement to mean that there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin: either it's grace or resistance, the flesh is going to die. There is NO other judgment of the world than the cross. Grace is not ignorant of sin if it chastises us to live godly lives.
We were reconciled to God while we were enemies, and I don't think even when we willfully sin, we get unreconciled. It's just that the sacrifice is the judgment of the world, so everyone's carnal mind will be sacrificed, so pick: grace or resistance.
That is what I think it means.
BTW, "They know not what they do" is the crux of what I am saying.
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 02:16:15 AM
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
If a cop pulls you over and you say "I didn't know about that" he will still give you a ticket.
We've all heard that: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
What is legal in the Copper State of Arizona, may be illegal in the Golden State of California, but is it a state of knowing?
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then, I take it, one is obligated or required to know the law?
(Modified post for reasons of gender)
A few years back there was a federal district court judge who ruled that a defendant must be acquitted,
if he had acted in good "faith" believing he was not violating any law.
Can you define ignorance of the law, verses acting in faith?
Quote from: peacemaker on October 18, 2009, 03:15:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 02:16:15 AM
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
If a cop pulls you over and you say "I didn't know about that" he will still give you a ticket.
We've all heard that: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
What is legal in the Copper State of Arizona, may be illegal in the Golden State of California, but is it a state of knowing?
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then, I take it, one is obligated or required to know the law?
No not necessarily. As I said, if someone breaks a traffic law, they will be ticketed whether they knew or not, depending on the officer. But the officer has the right to judge the offender whether the offender knows the law or not, and will be fulfilling their office by doing so.
So the judge that you mentioned was lenient. However, that judge would not have been out of line to have held the person accountable if the judge had made that choice.
Quote
Can you define ignorance of the law, verses acting in faith?
Great question. The answer is two-fold according to disobedience according to ignorance, and obedience according to a changed nature by the Spirit, even without having the law.
Disobedience: Ignorance of the law that I am referring to is when someone breaks the law, even when not knowing the law, and are then judged as I described above. In relation to the Spirit, the judgment would be in their favor: when God's judgments are in the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.
Obedience: Ignorance of the law verses acting in faith in terms of our walk in Christ means that we will BY NATURE do the things that are in the law (ie fulfill the righteousness of the law which is love) without the letter. This is via Romans 2.
Those who act in faith do not act in CONTRARY to the law, but they do the things (like honoring their mothers and fathers) not due to the letter but by nature, which is the Godly nature imparted by the Spirit. That means that those who are ignorant but by nature are obedient are a law unto themselves showing that it is written in their hearts, not that they live by the letter.
In other words, in terms of obedience, the ones who act in faith to Christ are
naturally obedient to the righteousness of the law.
He said this due to the annointing/spirit that He was of
He knew there were many[offspring of viper] other spirits
that people were eating of.
this 'other' spirit would say 'cause the HOLY ONE of ISRAEL to
cease from before us" or would extinguish a smouldering wick
Jesus come to light the candle of every man .He would not
extinguish a smoldering wick. That smoldering wick was the
breath of God that was breathed into the family of Adam.That is
why Jesus could say to some'you have been with me from the
beginning.".for they were God's first and delivered unto Christ.
to be relit/resurrected/quickened
That is also why He said if the light in you is really
darkness,how great is that darkness.When the light in you is
really darkness it is the abomination of desolation,for that light
is the anti-Christ spirit..and puts the spirit of Christ to death in
the person/temple it dwells in/rejecting him.
He says'tear down this temple and I will raise it in three
days"
There is a 'sin unto death" and a sin not unto death,
the mother of the living was a sin not unto death and portrays
the woman/flesh..and the sin unto death KNOWINGLY
committed by Adam portrays the son of perdition/evil spirit not
of God. Christ was certainly not of The Family of the
UNSANDALED. John told him,that he was unworthy to untie
His sandals. In other words, John was unable to deliver the
family of Adam from the offspring of vipers.Mt 3;7,But as
the freind of the bridegroom,he rejoiced. John was beheaded
due to telling Herod it was unlawful for him to have his brothers
wife...evidently the brother must be dead before brother-in-law
marriage is performed. And so too, under law, the sin unto
death had been commited,and Jesus Christ was and did raise up
seed for his dead brother Adam
He further identified these other spirits when He said'You are
of your father the devil,and you do his will." Satan killed Adam
[made in the image of God] to seize his wife and raise up his
own kind. Now we can understand a little better Abraham
asking Sarah to say 'you are my sister" and Isaac,too, had the
same fear in regard to Rebecca.
The spirit and the bride say 'Come"
:cloud9: LOVE IT! :thumbsup: Blessings....
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 08:51:44 PM
Quote from: peacemaker on October 18, 2009, 03:15:48 AM
Quote from: Seth on October 18, 2009, 02:16:15 AM
I don't believe them knowing is a prerequisite for being accountable. There is an old saying: Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.
If a cop pulls you over and you say "I didn't know about that" he will still give you a ticket.
We've all heard that: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."
What is legal in the Copper State of Arizona, may be illegal in the Golden State of California, but is it a state of knowing?
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then, I take it, one is obligated or required to know the law?
No not necessarily. As I said, if someone breaks a traffic law, they will be ticketed whether they knew or not, depending on the officer. But the officer has the right to judge the offender whether the offender knows the law or not, and will be fulfilling their office by doing so.
So the judge that you mentioned was lenient. However, that judge would not have been out of line to have held the person accountable if the judge had made that choice.
Quote
Can you define ignorance of the law, verses acting in faith?
Great question. The answer is two-fold according to disobedience according to ignorance, and obedience according to a changed nature by the Spirit, even without having the law.
Disobedience: Ignorance of the law that I am referring to is when someone breaks the law, even when not knowing the law, and are then judged as I described above. In relation to the Spirit, the judgment would be in their favor: when God's judgments are in the earth, the people of the world learn righteousness.
Obedience: Ignorance of the law verses acting in faith in terms of our walk in Christ means that we will BY NATURE do the things that are in the law (ie fulfill the righteousness of the law which is love) without the letter. This is via Romans 2.
Those who act in faith do not act in CONTRARY to the law, but they do the things (like honoring their mothers and fathers) not due to the letter but by nature, which is the Godly nature imparted by the Spirit. That means that those who are ignorant but by nature are obedient are a law unto themselves showing that it is written in their hearts, not that they live by the letter.
In other words, in terms of obedience, the ones who act in faith to Christ are naturally obedient to the righteousness of the law.
Thank you for setting forth the boundaries within the explanation; Disobedience and Obedience. It was helpful in understanding. But this is not a "Willful blindness" which is equivalent to having knowledge, with regards to those who should have known the SPIRIT of the law.
The statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine:
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because
'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him. Therefore, ignorance of the law did not justify an act, and since every person is presumed to know the law; they could not provide a rebuttal.
The laws have/had swollen to a size that is unknowable, even by the so called experts themselves. And many are/were held to the letter, contrary to the Spirit.
Surely, "our walk in Christ means that we will BY NATURE do the things that are in the law (i.e. fulfill the righteousness of the law which is love) without the letter." :thumbsup:
Jesus brought before CaiaphasThose who had seized Jesus led Him away to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together (the law makers?).
But Peter was following Him at a distance as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and entered in, and sat down with the officers to see the outcome.
Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.
They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, and said, "This man stated, ' I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'"
The high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?"
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, "I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God."
Jesus said to him,
"You have said it yourself; nevertheless, I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." Then the high priest tore his robes and said, "He has blasphemed! What further need do we have of witnesses? Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy; what do you think?" They answered, "He deserves death!"
Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, "Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?" (Matthew 26:57-68)
John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
"The caterpillar of mans volitional ignorance, gives way to the Spiritual butterfly of wisdom."
Much like Joseph's brothers who lacked knowledge and understanding:
"As for you, you intended evil against me, but God disposed it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)
Indeed, If they knew, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
But the Letter of the Law cannot be upheld, without the Spirit of the Law being Fulfilled.
QuoteThe statement "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is an ancient legal doctrine:
Ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because
'tis an excuse every man will plead, and no man can tell how to confute him.
Therefore, ignorance of the law did not justify an act, and since every person is presumed to know the law; they could not provide a rebuttal.
Perhaps, but the same concept is still applicable to those who do not know the law at all even in our society. Not everyone is presumed to know the law in our society, and even when they they don't, those who enforce the law are not bound by the knowledge of them who break it. In other words, it is not out of line for a judge or police officer to hold a law breaker accountable even if they didn't know they broke a law. This does not preclude the option of leniency, but that leniency is not mandatory for the officer or judge.
QuoteThen they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists; and others slapped Him, and said, "Prophesy to us, You Christ; who is the one who hit You?" (Matthew 26:57-68)
John 11:49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. 51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; 52 And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. 53 Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
"The caterpillar of mans volitional ignorance, gives way to the Spiritual butterfly of wisdom."
Much like Joseph's brothers who lacked knowledge and understanding:
"As for you, you intended evil against me, but God disposed it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive." (Genesis 50:20)
Indeed, If they knew, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.
We do agree then, as Jesus said on the cross "they know not what they do." That was really my main point. When Caiaphas spoke, he did so not of himself. Now, they did hear the words that he spoke under influence of the Spirit, but did they understand? Of course not. That goes back to the levels of human behavior that I was talking about before. There is knowledge, then deeper, there is understanding.
Did they know that Jesus was the Messiah. We could argue that for days. What is clear, is that they did not understand. And that goes all the way back to my main point which was to answer the first post: Jesus spoke Spiritual words veiled in physical language in order to hide the truth. So that, whatever they superficially knew, they truly did not understand, and therefore they killed him, thus fulfilling what he wanted: to be killed.
QuoteBut the Letter of the Law cannot be upheld, without the Spirit of the Law being Fulfilled.
There is no phrase that I know of in the Bible which is "the Spirit of the Law." It is referred to as "The Spirit of God." The letter is not God, which is why it is not called "the Spirit of the Law" in the Scripture. The difference between the letter of the Law and the Spirit, is that the letter is external and not living, and the Spirit of God is living and internal. That is why, what the Law could not do, Jesus was able to do.
Example: if you said "The letter of the Law cannot be upheld without the Spirit of God" I would have to seriously clarify. With the Spirit of God it becomes unnecessary to live by the letter of the Law, but to fulfill the righteousness of the Law. If we live by the letter, then we have to obey all of it, including all the sacrifices and Levitical priesthoods. But if we live by the Spirit of God, then the things that are in the letter will naturally be fulfilled WITHOUT living according to the letter: meaning someone without a copy of the 10 Commandments in the jungles of Africa with the Spirit could naturally fulfill righteousness, being naturally inclined to love God, to honor mother and father, without living by the letter but by Faith in Christ.
The one who defines the word sets the rules and determines the course.
"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart,
by the Spirit, not by the letter itself; and his praise is not from men, but from God."
To fulfill the righteousness of the Law (the spirit of the law, if you will), walk in the
Spirit that preserves life to the highest degree of perfection; Love.
In the faith of Christ
Quote from: peacemaker on October 21, 2009, 08:12:02 AM
The one who defines the word sets the rules and determines the course.
"But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart,
by the Spirit, not by the letter itself; and his praise is not from men, but from God."
To fulfill the righteousness of the Law (the spirit of the law, if you will), walk in the
Spirit that preserves life to the highest degree of perfection; Love.
In the faith of Christ
I agree. Also, thank you for clarifying what you mean by "spirit of the law." I know better what you mean now.