Evangel...dichotomy?

[Seth]

I'm as much against Judaizing Jewish Christians as I am Gentile Christians, personally. And of don't think Peter, James or John was doing that. They were encouraging us to love in deed and in truth. I don't call that Judaizing myself.

[Tom]

I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.

[eaglesway]

I think the important thing is to realize we are unlikely to change one another's minds about our theological presets, so as we discuss and share our views, it is important we stay in patience and gentleness.

But that is nt why we are here anyway.

The site is devoted to sharing the salvation of all, and we have come into it from different backgrounds and with different theological emphasis.

I personally believe the salvation of all is more fundamental than most of the things we discuss. A deeper foundation is Christ Himself, His birth, life. atoning death and resurrection- and His Lordship. Other than that I do not see a deeper foundation stone than the salvation of all.

[bushy]

One thing I strongly believe is that only people who are insecure about what they believe refuse to hear other viewpoints. We can do nothing against the truth, only for it, so if I believe something, why feel threatened by a different viewpoint? I notice this a lot with the attitude of Christians towards Mormons, for an example. I have heard many Christians talking about being rude and hateful towards Mormons, and gloating about it, as if they have stood up for the truth by slamming the door in their face for preaching "another gospel", but why should we fear them? Would it not be better to invite them in and speak the true gospel to them? Would it not be better to show them some love, rather than act as though even letting them set foot in the door will cause us to rush to the altar of Joseph Smith?

:iagree:

[rosered]

One thing I strongly believe is that only people who are insecure about what they believe refuse to hear other viewpoints. We can do nothing against the truth, only for it, so if I believe something, why feel threatened by a different viewpoint? I notice this a lot with the attitude of Christians towards Mormons, for an example. I have heard many Christians talking about being rude and hateful towards Mormons, and gloating about it, as if they have stood up for the truth by slamming the door in their face for preaching "another gospel", but why should we fear them? Would it not be better to invite them in and speak the true gospel to them? Would it not be better to show them some love, rather than act as though even letting them set foot in the door will cause us to rush to the altar of Joseph Smith?

:iagree:

I find them in the first of the seven churches and Ephesus , means ''permitted''   in Rev 2

  I see the 7 churches    as  the race that even we are running  , as Paul  taught  in the WORD  and said he wrangled with the beasts of Ephesus   , being  beastly natured men [carnal babes in Christ ]and your sins are forgiven you for his names sake ..

As   spiritually symbolic   of the beasts hating the whore  [ Babylon ] God has put in in their minds to hate the whore  of the earth and queen of heaven  , being the lies   eating her flesh and burning her with fire 

  again symbolic of  the tongues of fire    speaking against   them and devouring one another

  God permits this  but also has the warnings   

  To the Church in Ephesus
2 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: messenger  as'' a star'' in Jesus ''right hand of power ''  being a light in the darkness of ignorance  that covers the earth in what is the  Will , desire of God  in His Glory'' LIGHT OF HIM  ''

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.

2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.

5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

I know there is history   about this'' time ''  and people   as examples
  but we also must learn to discern the ''times ''   and peoples      as ''nothing new under the sun ''   exactly the same   natures and waring  as the times of old 

Gods Word is perpetual  unchanging , meaning occurring repeatedly so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted....

  To me more   as signs and  seasons of the same  ''exact   things'',   that has not changed in human nature  from the beginning

But Gods Word  has not changed towards   this exact    dealing with us  as repeated over and over again , as they progress   individually   

The lampstand removal     to me means the Holy OIL  OR HOLY SPIRIT [5 wise and 5 foolish virgins] in the kingdom ,     from them being that they have fallen from grace     

The grace is the unmerited favor of the Lord    by the   LORD JESUS CHRIST  AS the   tree of Life being the LOVE    and rooted and grounded   in HIM  ,    and I see them as to going back to LAW     as the tree of knowledge of good and evil   ,  which is the ministration of death   

He who lives by the Sword dies by the Sword /WORD OF GOD  ..
and   there is the other 6 churches    as progression   and the end  , last one is warned not to become   lukewarm/rejected     after all the revelation  in JESUS CHRIST     
This has been my comfort and only sharing    my own personal view    , what I consider   kingdom ''treasures ''     and  do believe the Holy Spirit is truly   teaching  me
  If you see this as being deceived   and want  no  part of it   ,  it not my place to    judge anyones faith  , The   WORD judges us all      , for real   

  WE ARE JUST WITNESSES TO HIS GLORY and the work of His hands   The rewards  are with Him in those seven eyes  '' Spirits '' of the 7  churches
also the correction      by those whom he loves and chastens    and corrects   His eyes are on them always      :HeartThrob:

[ed]

I find them in the first of the seven churches and Ephesus , means "permitted"   in Rev 2

  I see the 7 churches    as  the race that even we are running  , as Paul  taught  in the WORD  and said he wrangled with the beasts of Ephesus   , being  beastly natured men [carnal babes in Christ ]and your sins are forgiven you for his names sake ..

As   spiritually symbolic   of the beasts hating the whore  [ Babylon ] God has put in in their minds to hate the whore  of the earth and queen of heaven  , being the lies   eating her flesh and burning her with fire 

  again symbolic of  the tongues of fire    speaking against   them and devouring one another

  God permits this  but also has the warnings   

  To the Church in Ephesus
2 "To the angel of the church in Ephesus write: messenger  as" a star" in Jesus "right hand of power "  being a light in the darkness of ignorance  that covers the earth in what is the  Will , desire of God  in His Glory" LIGHT OF HIM  "

These are the words of him who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands.

2 I know your deeds, your hard work and your perseverance. I know that you cannot tolerate wicked people, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false. 3 You have persevered and have endured hardships for my name, and have not grown weary.

4 Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken the love you had at first.

5 Consider how far you have fallen! Repent and do the things you did at first. If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place. 6 But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.

7 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.

I know there is history   about this" time "  and people   as examples
  but we also must learn to discern the "times "   and peoples      as "nothing new under the sun "   exactly the same   natures and waring  as the times of old 

Gods Word is perpetual  unchanging , meaning occurring repeatedly so frequent as to seem endless and uninterrupted....

  To me more   as signs and  seasons of the same  "exact   things",   that has not changed in human nature  from the beginning

But Gods Word  has not changed towards   this exact    dealing with us  as repeated over and over again , as they progress   individually   

The lampstand removal     to me means the Holy OIL  OR HOLY SPIRIT [5 wise and 5 foolish virgins] in the kingdom ,     from them being that they have fallen from grace     

The grace is the unmerited favor of the Lord    by the   LORD JESUS CHRIST  AS the   tree of Life being the LOVE    and rooted and grounded   in HIM  ,    and I see them as to going back to LAW     as the tree of knowledge of good and evil   ,  which is the ministration of death   

He who lives by the Sword dies by the Sword /WORD OF GOD  ..
and   there is the other 6 churches    as progression   and the end  , last one is warned not to become   lukewarm/rejected     after all the revelation  in JESUS CHRIST     
This has been my comfort and only sharing    my own personal view    , what I consider   kingdom "treasures "     and  do believe the Holy Spirit is truly   teaching  me
  If you see this as being deceived   and want  no  part of it   ,  it not my place to    judge anyones faith  , The   WORD judges us all      , for real   

  WE ARE JUST WITNESSES TO HIS GLORY and the work of His hands   The rewards  are with Him in those seven eyes  " Spirits " of the 7  churches
also the correction      by those whom he loves and chastens    and corrects   His eyes are on them always      :HeartThrob:

Lovely rose,

The seven churches is always a good read for the current state of the believer.

You made me hungry to do so.

:friendstu:

[rosered]

 

Blessings Ed , so glad you  can understand  '' in this way'',   also!!!       :dsunny:

[Seth]

I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.

I agree with all that, especially the bolded part. :thumbsup:

[rosered]

I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.

I agree with all that, especially the bolded part. :thumbsup:

  :iagree:   as well  Seth & Tom      :thumbsup:

There are many layers  of'' seeing ''      Gods Word though,   History  ''eye'' , and the literal  ''eye''    and the Spiritual    ''eye''  of understanding and many  depths

His riches are  all  poured   out  for our benefit ....   praise the Lord !!

God bless .. :HeartThrob:

[eaglesway]

I realize that theology is simply the study of God, and I know we all use labels to identify what we're talking about. The problem isn't theology or labels. The problem is using one school of thought, or theology, to put down another because it doesn't conform to the accepted one. I don't claim to follow any particular brand of theology, and I'm not interested in preaching one or defending one. I'm just interested in what scripture is actually saying. I'm also not interested in debating figurative vs. literal interpretation. I don't expect anybody to see things my way, and I think the feeling should be mutual. I just offer my opinion to things like everybody else here, but I never mean to make anybody feel like what they believe is any less important than what I do. I think we're all on the same level here, and the word of God is the authority.

Using one school of thought to put down another is just typical religion. Theology in action is the study of God. Theology as a possession is that perspective that each one of us has derived from our study.

I think you present and defend a pretty clear theology- and there is nothing wrong with that. It is your point of view. You and Seth and I post more on general theology than everyone else on the forum combined. Sometimes we discuss, sometimes we debate.

Everyone says, "I am just interested in what the scriptures say"- and I think they are sincere, because none of us arrived at what we believed lightly.

When sincere people disagree with one another there are several obvious possibilities, such as- Some are right about some things and wrong about others and no one is right about everything. Sometimes we do not fully understand one another's positions and terminology. Sometimes we argue two sides of one coin(heads is the truth- no tails is the truth)- but to the extent anyone is in disagreement with what the Spirit is teaching through the scriptures there is one culprit that is always in the mix- and it is our theologies.

The systems of interelating verses we use to present our points of view are inherently theological....

Unless they are spiritual.....

But they clearly all arent, or else we would all agree ;o)

"Debate" is often circular and fruitless anyway. The benefit is that some others may learn the ins and outs of opposing views and make their own conclusions. Debate, for the debaters, is not a "learning mechanism". It is a method of conducting ideological conflict, a war of words. It can be more or less collegial, depending on the rules of the debate.

"Discussion" implies a mutual journey. Conducting a debate in the tone of a discussion is really just a polite, heavily moderated debate. There is not much discussion about theological issues. It quickly becomes debate- and that is ok because the questions are legitimate...the answers are sometimes complex. There may be a little bit of sifting that gets done in the process, but the pattern I have noticed is someone asks a question and then evryone else beats it to death until they can t stand it anymore because the dead body of the question just stinks too much to endure  :laugh:

For that reason we want to try to keep reminding ourselves that these little quarrels are being carried out on every other forum out there. We are here to bring things back to the salvation of all, upon which we all agree- regardless of our other theology.

[CST]

I had no idea there we're people who thought there might be two Gospels. Where on Earth did that come from. I thought the Gospel was that Jesus died the death and was raised to life so that when we die the death we can be raised to life. OK, that may require several qualifications but I thought that was basically how it goes.

The best way I can even being to reconcile this concept is to consider the effect of one Gospel in two administrations. Basically the Gospel, being a message of Good News, contains no obligation on the Gentiles to follow the Jewish Torah. At the same time it contains no power to free the Jewish people from the obligations they've already been put under.

A bit like the question of paying tribute to Ceasar. The Jews already have to do so, so must continue to do so as best they can at least until freed from the obligation forcefully in AD 70.

My :2c:

[Seth]

I'm not exactly sure I understand the second part of that. The obligation for the Jews  to follow the Torah is due to being blinded by God in order to initiate the Gentile conversion. So it wouldn't be a result of the Good News in a separate administration, but a way of spreading the Good News. It's that Jesus is the Savior of all, and faith brings the gift of the Spirit for anyone who does believe including the Israel remnant. The remnant and the Gentiles were all one under the same Gospel.

[CST]

But that doesn't make sense. God gave them the law, with the understanding that they should follow it even if He knew that they wouldn't. He didn't mitigate all the punishments He put in then because when they failed it was as He expected and even intended in order to prove a point about human fallibility.

The Gospel means, to me in this context, you don't need to follow the Jewish law to be put right with God, Jesus has achieved that.
But just as the Jewish state (if that's the right term in the context) is run by a Roman administration who they are expected to pay taxes to which Jesus said, 'yes, you should pay' because He wasn't instituting rebellion against Rome. It is also run by a Jewish religious state operated by the Scribes and the Pharisees who, while Jesus disapproves of hasn't yet overthrown and they don't accept Him. In the same sense as Jesus isn't pushing for Jews to rebel against the Roman leadership they're not authorized to actively oppose the Jewish leadership either.

Is that clearer, it's just my feeling about something that seems a very strange idea?

[Seth]

What is it specifically about my post that didn't make sense?

[CST]

Not sure I can remember, sorry. May have misunderstood may have been in a mindset that read in other things. But I know the idea of there being two Gospels has been pitched apparently on the basis of some scriptural support which must mean something. I was attempting to propose that at the time Paul wrote his epistles and I think most if not all other epistles were written it was pre-AD 70 and the Jews lived mainly in a Jewish administration in Palestine who expected them to follow the law and would punish them accordingly if the didn't. I doubt Jesus would consider it good service to willfully break the law and thus fall under the consequences, often death, that would just mean they couldn't be effective servants, I suspect.

Oh, wait I've remembered the part that didn't make sense about your post. You said that "the obligation for the Jews to follow the Torah is due to being blinded by God in order to initiate the Gentile conversion." How does that work? They were blinded by God for a very long time prior to the Gentile conversion including getting exiled from their state precisely because they didn't keep their obligation. That seems more than a little tricksy to me.

[Seth]

Just to be clear, I am in agreement with you that the two-evangel theory is problematic. I think it's false. My point about attempting to reconcile it had been a response to this, what you said:

"The best way I can even being to reconcile this concept is to consider the effect of one Gospel in two administrations. Basically the Gospel, being a message of Good News, contains no obligation on the Gentiles to follow the Jewish Torah. At the same time it contains no power to free the Jewish people from the obligations they've already been put under.

A bit like the question of paying tribute to Ceasar. The Jews already have to do so, so must continue to do so as best they can at least until freed from the obligation forcefully in AD 70."

We have to distinguish between the Israelites that became believers and those who were not. The two-evangel Gospel theory states that Jewish BELIEVERS are still under the Law (mixed with Grace) to this day. So, my earlier comments are meant to distinguish between them. The wider part of Israel was blinded to Christ to bring the Gentiles into the fold along with a remnant of Jewish believers. THOSE two latter groups are under ONE Gospel and administration of Grace without Law, while the rest of Israel is still under the Law. Even after 70AD they follow the Law as best they can.

In other words the "one Gospel under two administrations" would mean to me, the Gospel to the remnant of Israel and the Gospel to the Gentiles without a difference in content, just a difference in audience.

[CST]

Oh, I certainly don't believe any Jewish Christians should be considered to be under the law now, that's not even possible to try to keep I don't know why people would argue it should be, they seem to be arguing against themselves even more than people who like to think they keep the law but don't because they must know they don't keep any part of the sacrificial law.

My only point was that have endured reading all Tom's articles that he posted I got them impression that there might be some Biblical support for this principle which we can't just dismiss. I was trying to reconcile that with the fact that that could be considered the case with the fact that I think all such material pertains (but I could be wrong) to the world before AD 70. Even Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill them, which He did. But it just seemed to me to make sense on the basis of things written in the text that before AD 70 it wouldn't do to advocate (or look like you might be advocating) for Jewish Christians to go around flaunting the law in whole or in part which was likely to just get them punished needlessly.

Not that anyone advocates for people to go around breaking the law anyway, I find the whole presentation of this really weird. I've not given up trying to resolve it but it still seems pointless to just tell someone they're no longer under the law, the breaking of which is sin, and them telling them they still shouldn't sin, while at the same time apparently continuing to keep the same definition of sin: breaking a law or laws they're no longer under.  :dontknow:

[Seth]

I definitely appreciate you testing it and seeing if it makes sense. I think that's important for anyone seeking truth. You have to weigh the evidence and see what makes most sense given what you have. So, think it's a good conversation to have.

It's very true that Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law. But, I think that's a good way to say that there is more than one way to skin a cat. After all, in Romans 7, Paul compares the Law to a wedding contract. To get out of the marriage, you can't destroy the contract; that would be dishonest. Fulfilling a wedding contract requires death. So, in Romans 6, he describes that death by way of baptism into Christ's own death and resurrection to a new way of life. Jesus didn't destroy the Law. He fulfilled the contract by killing us.

He killed our old man, and resurrected us into the new man instead. Now, we can all be under a new wedding contract.

That's why I don't believe the Jewish believers needed to wait until 70AD to released from the old contract. They just needed to believe and receive the Spirit. I also think that is why Paul said that Jesus "is the end of the Law for righteousness for anyone that believes." (Romans 10:4). Notice that he didn't say that Jesus is the end of RIGHTEOUSNESS, but the end of the Law FOR righteousness.

Meaning, the Spirit is the new way for righteousness, not the Law. The Jewish believers didn't need to wait for 70AD to have that. All they needed was to believe.

[CST]

I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.

That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.

[marie glen]

Was it Peter who wrote that (brother) Paul wrote some things "hard to understand"? I think that's very true! Even though this isn't a discussion of law vs grace :doh: (did I say that out loud? :eek: I need a smiley here that holds up his fingers in a cross, lol) but I bring it up because they're related.. When seeing the aforementioned 'debates' I hated to mention, i always think 'but they are missing how The Law actually isn't good enough'.. As we know, Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount(ain) "don't commit adultery" or "don't murder" are not the whole thing.. "Don't have it in the heart" by "being angry without cause" for example. The Law, Paul said in Galatians (3?) was/is a tutor for the old man. A babysitter! Now by a new and living way, Jesus in us, our new law is love.. and "love works no ill".

So though we are free from the law - mostly I believe this refers to the ten commandments written with God's own finger on stone - free from the law as to our relationship with Him - our salvation doesn't rest upon our fulfilling the law, perfectly, because that's what perfection is, gulp; to this day i can still get the urge to use the Lord's name in vain! showing me/reminding me of how very imperfect I am, if my salvation were to rest upon my performance of perfection :laughing7: !  And I think that's what Paul meant when he said "O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?!" When we try to follow The Law, for approval, what not, The Law becomes ruler and master over us.. tying us up in knots.

But our new law is love, and I actually think it's ultimately just the one, "love God". If we truly "love God" we are going to draw near to Him. That's what fills us, our hearts overflow with He Who is Love. "Love works no ill" - His love works no ill is surely an understatement! To "Love God" I believe naturally flowers into "loving our neighbor/fellow person". But The Law produces frustration, competition.. pride? Not the law itself, but our imperfect nature (aka, flawed character). But the law itself, surely will always exist? "He will rule the nations with a rod of iron".. An unbreakable rule and measure. We cannot break God's Law, we break our self upon it.

So whereas we are imperfect, it is unlikely many of us who truly, truly believe, are living a life of fraud or oppression, etc.. Except, eek, the 'hell' (or eternal damnation/death) belief can twist the fabric...
Just my :2c: .. :gsmile:

[marie glen]

the Gentiles into the fold along with a remnant of Jewish believers.

"I have other sheep" Jesus said, "not of this fold" :smile:

...the "one Gospel under two administrations" would mean to me, the Gospel to the remnant of Israel and the Gospel to the Gentiles without a difference in content, just a difference in audience.

I love how you said that!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[CST]

Was it Peter who wrote that (brother) Paul wrote some things "hard to understand"? I think that's very true! Even though this isn't a discussion of law vs grace :doh: (did I say that out loud? :eek: I need a smiley here that holds up his fingers in a cross, lol) but I bring it up because they're related.. When seeing the aforementioned 'debates' I hated to mention, i always think 'but they are missing how The Law actually isn't good enough'.. As we know, Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount(ain) "don't commit adultery" or "don't murder" are not the whole thing.. "Don't have it in the heart" by "being angry without cause" for example. The Law, Paul said in Galatians (3?) was/is a tutor for the old man. A babysitter! Now by a new and living way, Jesus in us, our new law is love.. and "love works no ill".

So though we are free from the law - mostly I believe this refers to the ten commandments written with God's own finger on stone - free from the law as to our relationship with Him - our salvation doesn't rest upon our fulfilling the law, perfectly, because that's what perfection is, gulp; to this day i can still get the urge to use the Lord's name in vain! showing me/reminding me of how very imperfect I am, if my salvation were to rest upon my performance of perfection :laughing7: !  And I think that's what Paul meant when he said "O wretched man that I am! Who will save me from this body of death?!" When we try to follow The Law, for approval, what not, The Law becomes ruler and master over us.. tying us up in knots.

But our new law is love, and I actually think it's ultimately just the one, "love God". If we truly "love God" we are going to draw near to Him. That's what fills us, our hearts overflow with He Who is Love. "Love works no ill" - His love works no ill is surely an understatement! To "Love God" I believe naturally flowers into "loving our neighbor/fellow person". But The Law produces frustration, competition.. pride? Not the law itself, but our imperfect nature (aka, flawed character). But the law itself, surely will always exist? "He will rule the nations with a rod of iron".. An unbreakable rule and measure. We cannot break God's Law, we break our self upon it.

So whereas we are imperfect, it is unlikely many of us who truly, truly believe, are living a life of fraud or oppression, etc.. Except, eek, the 'hell' (or eternal damnation/death) belief can twist the fabric...
Just my :2c: .. :gsmile:

Yeah, but Jesus said some things that were hard to understand they were called 'parables' and were supposedly meant to be confuse to those who weren't actually ready to accept Jesus yet. It's a strange thing for one apostle to write things other apostles don't understand. It can result in they speaking across purposes and confusing everyone they were speaking to. Or could if they weren't being guided by God.

Jesus followed the law perfectly and fulfilled every aspect of it. It was good enough for Him. It's actually us that aren't good enough for the law.

I really don't see Paul making any sort of distinction between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the statues and ordinances is the Torah and in fact Jews don't actually make any such distinction and a correct reading of the text doesn't support it. Although it is true that only the Decalogue were supposedly put in the Ark of the Covenant. My feeling is that the rest of that statues and ordinances are just to avoid confusion about what breaking the ten commandments actually entails.

It's true we shouldn't try to follow the law for approval, I think I've mentioned before that doing that makes the law into an idol which we don't want to do, we are to serve only God.

I'm not sure you really take the Lord's name in vain. I'm sure that the meaning of that commandment has been perverted spectacularly since it was 'taken over' by the church.

Yes, love works no ill and our new law is love. Unfortunately people seem to have the capacity to pervert the word love to justify anything including some abominable things including, of course, the doctrine of eternal torment.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if we're all living a life of at least some sort of self-delusion. Sad and unnerving as that is. I fear that just the way it is sadly. The consequence of being consigned to unbelief.

[Seth]

I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.

That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.

I'm not aware of where Paul told anyone they were in the wrong for not following the Law. If so, that would further cast doubt on the two-evangel theory that Paul's gospel was grace alone, where the other Gospel is grace plus Law. Why would Paul rebuke anyone under a Grace alone Gospel for not following the Law?

But he was very keen on morality. He summed it up by saying "Love does no harm to a neighbor, so he who loves has fulfilled the whole Law." (Romans 13:10) Along with believing in Christ, that's the guideline to follow, and it should permeates everything we do in life. It doesn't always work that way because we are fallible humans, so when people got out of line, Paul rebuked them as necessary.

The reason it makes sense is because the Law reflected a high level of morality, but humans, according to Paul, are not inherently moral, but carnal. So the Law could stand for morality, but without the Spirit to break the bonds of carnality we are doomed to break it. Having received the Spirit, Christians now can begin a new walk, and if they faltered, Paul would check them. That didn't mean he thought they were under the old covenant.

[Seth]

CST, quick question, besides miracles, what do think is the reason Christians are given the Holy Spirit when they believe? Or better yet, what does the Bible say are the reasons?

[CST]

I don't think they needed to have it but I do think up until 70 AD, and quite possibly later in some cases, they couldn't break the law with impunity from the people administering it.

That said Gentiles apparently couldn't do that either. Paul told them they were no longer under the law and was freed from the power of the law yet if if he heard of people breaking the law he seemed to think he had the authority to treat people as if they were and we're apparently meant to accept that he was. Even if I agree with his conclusion this just seems like spectacular incoherence to me and makes no sense.

I'm not aware of where Paul told anyone they were in the wrong for not following the Law. If so, that would further cast doubt on the two-evangel theory that Paul's gospel was grace alone, where the other Gospel is grace plus Law. Why would Paul rebuke anyone under a Grace alone Gospel for not following the Law?

But he was very keen on morality. He summed it up by saying "Love does no harm to a neighbor, so he who loves has fulfilled the whole Law." (Romans 13:10) Along with believing in Christ, that's the guideline to follow, and it should permeates everything we do in life. It doesn't always work that way because we are fallible humans, so when people got out of line, Paul rebuked them as necessary.

The reason it makes sense is because the Law reflected a high level of morality, but humans, according to Paul, are not inherently moral, but carnal. So the Law could stand for morality, but without the Spirit to break the bonds of carnality we are doomed to break it. Having received the Spirit, Christians now can begin a new walk, and if they faltered, Paul would check them. That didn't mean he thought they were under the old covenant.

He judges people for breaking the law, you've directed people to this illustration before I think I've seen:

"It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father's wife." (1 Cor. 5:1)

Paul isn't even present and he condemns this. I'm not offended by this I agree that this is wrong but I have to question his position when I am fully aware that I probably do thing paul would disapprove of. He's condemning immorality and not lawbreaking you seem to be arguing. Here's the law:

"'Do not have sexual relations with your father's wife; that would dishonor your father."  (Lev. 18.8)

This is a covenant law violation, it's written there. People either are under the law and can be condemned by it or they're not and thus can't. I can't see a logical middle ground here. Telling people they're not under the law seems reckless of course they'll be inclined to think that they can do this sort of thing. They'll also argue that they love each other as would others caught in similar situations.

The Jewish law covers pretty much everything prevalent in its day it was very comprehensive but to say people aren't under the law seems meaningless. Obviously no one think this sort of thing is OK except those doing it but how can they be condemned if the law isn't doing the condemning.

Now, while I don't think it makes any difference to the morality of the act I should point out that I don't know what the content of the report Paul has received is. Here's the rest of the law:

"" 'If a man has sexual relations with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."( Lev. 20:11)

Now in the story in John of the woman supposedly caught in adultery the general understanding seems to be of Jesus simply being merciful for the sake of meaning merciful. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." But there is a line of thought, that you may be aware of, that what Jesus actually does here is to point out by writing of the ground the law that states that whenever two parties are caught in adultery both parties shall be stoned to death. They have provided one women to 'test' Jesus. He then proceed to point out that the law also says that anyone bearing false witness shall receive the punishment of those they are accusing. At which point they all clear off and there's no longer any case to answer. That may or may not be a correct understanding but this case here looks similar. Paul only demands the condemnation of the man, the women either gets off or has already been condemned in a very partisan move.

Just an observation.

The point is Paul is a trained Pharisee, he's learned his idea of morality at their lap, I've learned it from reading the Bible which contains the same laws. Other cultures have a completely different sense of morality whatever Paul says and people feel what they said. I prefer to look at the Biblical law for my guide for morality but I'm not sure how to do that and not be somehow following the law, even if I'm not depending on that law for my salvation. But then why not just write that?

CST, quick question, besides miracles, what do think is the reason Christians are given the Holy Spirit when they believe? Or better yet, what does the Bible say are the reasons?

Short answer, because Jesus said He would be here with us until the end of the age. But then He left to be with God preparing the Kingdom and everything. The Spirit is sent so that Jesus can be here with us as He said He would be, Jesus is here in the Person of the Holy Spirit.