The Law

[Mountain_Climber]

I will be presenting Romans chapter 7 in two or three or perhaps more parts. Get ready for a delicious eye-opening meal.

We today are emotional wimps when it comes to what we read into what people say to us. No sooner than Paul had asked us if we were ignorant either the conversation would be over or we would go on the war path. And think of how Jesus sometimes spoke to the Scribes and the Pharisees. This is why many as myself believe that if Jesus suddenly showed up back on earth and in the flesh began preaching to men once again it would most likely be from among those of us who consider ourselves his followers who would put him to death again, even if only by figuratively beheading him through locking him away from us and ours that we might stop his voice from being heard.

Paul begins Romans chapter 7 making it known that what he is saying is specifically to those who know the Old Law. And he speaks to the fact that the Law has dominion over them so long as a man yet lives, which as we have seen in chapter 6 of Romans as well as at 1 Timothy 1:9-11 he teaches to be a bondage placed upon our backs of God due to sin in us through our lack of self-discipline:

Romans 7:

1 Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth?

<><><><><><><>

Continuing to speak to those that either know or ought to know that Old Law, Paul speaks of the Law's stipulation that it remains binding upon us so long as the woman's husband remains alive. Why? Open your ears as I will now share a delicious morsel of God's revealed truth through Paul so as to enlighten you:

Romans 7:
2 For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband.
3 So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man.

You will need to exercise patience as we continue to read on all of the way through before picking to try to find fault, or you won't understand.

What Paul is telling us here in Romans 7:2-3 relates also to what Paul shared at Galatians 1:15-17 “But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.”

There what we learn is that Paul viewed that Jerusalem here on earth to be his mother from whose womb God called and separated him to preach the gospel of Christ. Take the time to compare: 1 Corinthians 15:7-9; Galatians 4:21-25

So brothers, we were children of Jerusalem here below in the flesh, and under obligation to the Law which she was charged to dispense on behalf of her husband for the benefit of their children.

Make sure you take time to absorb it all to this point, before proceeding.

Now, Paul has said here in Romans 7:2-3 that this Jerusalem, the one here below in the flesh, remains obligated to that Law of her husband so long as he remains alive but freed from the Law of her husband if he would die. And we know God never dies. So if we believe that Jerusalem here below was married to God above then we can see no way this could ever happen. Thus, it would seem that either we are wrong that our Jerusalem here below is married to God or Paul is wrong that she and her children are freed from his Law which was given to be dispensed through her to her husband's children.

Pause so as to calmly absorb up to this point.

We are told that Jacob is our father: 2 Kings 17:34; 1 Chronicles 16:13; Psalms 105:6

Now, if Jacob be our father then Jerusalem here below must be Jacob's figurative wife. And the Law is said to be God's Law as God is dispensing it through his chosen son so that the son is the one actually holding Jerusalem and her children here below bound to God's Law which comes through Jacob. And therefore if Jacob be dead Jerusalem and her children here below would be freed from that Law of God which Jacob bound her to.

How then might it be true that Jacob died? Who might Jacob have actually been used as a figure for by God? What father did we have who sinned and brought death to himself and to his offspring?

I am going to deliberately leave you hanging here for a little while and will speak to this in the next post I make on Romans chapter 7.

Go through this as many times as it takes for you to get it straight in your minds up to this point.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

A little help for you:

Now, at this point, many of you are likely saying to yourselves that Paul's next comment in Romans 7:4 then proves that Jesus had sinned. But if that were true then Jesus would be of no help at all to us. Therefore, Paul must not be telling us that.

The fact is that Jacob served as a type of the first Adam and Jacob's children as a type of picture of all children who came through that first Adam.

Issac served as a type or picture of Jesus, for the first Adam came through Jesus the Son of God just as Jacob came through Isaac the chosen son of God and son of Abraham who pictured God.

Yet this does not yet explain to us how what Paul goes onto say in verse 4 could then be true. It in fact at this point seems like it may be a contradiction, doesn't it.

We will talk about that in the next post, after you have had time to get through the war this is likely at the moment causing in some of your minds.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

An important interjection:

From the beginning, if Adam actually came through Jesus as the heavenly Son of God, how then was Adam actually bound to God and God's law? It could not have been directly but through Jesus.

Thus what we see with the arrival of Jesus in the flesh as our Messiah is merely a removal of the one faulty link.

So things are not so vastly different after all, are they. One bad link was removed and the link just above that one slid down.

In fact that one bad link was removed and the one just above it slid down that we might be moved up.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

In fact that one bad link was removed and the one just above it slid down that we might be moved up from the dead and then he whom God used to move us up from the dead was moved back up to the place where he belongs.

While, as Paul said at Galatians 4:24-25, Hagar was the allegory for the Jerusalem here below, grasp this, too, that Hagar and thus Jerusalem here below were both a figure of Eve.

Now then we have many Eve's who bear the image of their one husband to his glory just as Eve bore the image of Adam to his glory and together to the glory of God. All created through Jesus and made ready of God to be wed to Jesus as the last Adam. (compare 1 Corinthians 11:7; 2 Corinthians 3:18)

And yet in them we have one Adam, one body, one spirit, perfectly fashioned in the image of God just as Jesus who is the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power. Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Colossians 3:10; Ephesians 2:15

 

[Ken Brown]

No sir, that explanation does not keep with the way it is written in the Greek. I said it before and I will say it again, regardless of who doesn't like it, the truth is that you are forcing your own independently derived ideas on the scriptures and it is for your benefit that you see that and so cease doing it. So you can count on my being honest enough to tell you, also for your sake.

The Greek word "gar" assigns the reason for what was just finished said: G1063 - gar -- a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles)

The word, "for", is that word, "gar":

Romans 5:15 "But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many."

And so it is that you are violating the Greek by associating, "but not as the trespass, so also is the free gift", back to verse 14 to set Paul's meaning.

Shalom Mountain Climber, sorry for the delay in responding. I want to thank you for helping to establish the Truth of what Paul was saying when he stated that Adam was a figure or type of the coming One. You see, as Paul explains that the figure or type is NOT according to the trespass/offense, but rather the free gift, he then assigns an explanation to his reasoning (that the figure or type is through the free gift, and not the offense). So it fits perfectly with your criteria for “gar,” when you apply that Greek word for what he had just said (the figure is according to the free gift and not the offense).

Simply put, here is what Paul was expressing. Through Adam and his ONE transgression/offense, condemnation and death were given to many. Through Yeshua, by MANY transgressions/offenses, righteousness and life were given to the many. This is the similarity between them, they BOTH gave a gift to mankind, Adam’s was condemnation and death, Yeshua’s was righteousness and life. So when you increase the transgression/offense of Adam (through the giving of the Torah) Grace (the free gift of righteousness) is increased all the more. This is the essence of Grace, that by sinning, ALL sinners have fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Torah for sacrifice by His submission to our killing of Him (by MANY transgressions). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

P.S. Someone else who has a working knowledge of the Greek language is also going to respond to you Mountain Climber, and I would hope you show him a little respect.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, sorry for the delay in responding. I want to thank you for helping to establish the Truth of what Paul was saying when he stated that Adam was a figure or type of the coming One. You see, as Paul explains that the figure or type is NOT according to the trespass/offense, but rather the free gift, he then assigns an explanation to his reasoning (that the figure or type is through the free gift, and not the offense). So it fits perfectly with your criteria for “gar,” when you apply that Greek word for what he had just said (the figure is according to the free gift and not the offense).

Simply put, here is what Paul was expressing. Through Adam and his ONE transgression/offense, condemnation and death were given to many. Through Yeshua, by MANY transgressions/offenses, righteousness and life were given to the many. This is the similarity between them, they BOTH gave a gift to mankind, Adam’s was condemnation and death, Yeshua’s was righteousness and life. So when you increase the transgression/offense of Adam (through the giving of the Torah) Grace (the free gift of righteousness) is increased all the more. This is the essence of Grace, that by sinning, ALL sinners have fulfilled the righteous requirement of the Torah for sacrifice by His submission to our killing of Him (by MANY transgressions). Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

P.S. Someone else who has a working knowledge of the Greek language is also going to respond to you Mountain Climber, and I would hope you show him a little respect.

Yes, that fits well together with his saying basically that there was much greater power in the gift to forgive, There would have to be. As soon as God allowed Adam to continue to live and bare offspring something more powerful was necessitated.

I too am studied in the Greek so I have no problem with any who wish to have reasonable discussions concerning it. I prefer not to speak of it as I feel it is like showing off in front of those who lack in that knowledge and so I merely filter in tid-bits here and there from sources they are familiar with.

However, as far as showing respect is concerned, you are not my filter to determine what respect is. And if I see a duck I will call it a duck, regardless of whose petty feelings it hurts. That is their weakness, not mine. I have known many children who cannot take healthy criticism and I will not be one who enables them to remain that way.

 

[Latuwr]

Hi Mountain Climber,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Shabbat Shalom!

You wrote:

"No sir, that explanation does not keep with the way it is written in the Greek."

The Apostle Paul states in verse 14 that Adam is a type or stamp of the coming one. In reference to Adam, Paul uses "estin" which is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "eimi". The use of the present tense in verse 14 indicates that at the time in which Paul wrote, Adam existed in the mind of Paul as a type of Messiah Yahushua, and for that matter must still be considered a type of Yahushua because the present tense is on going in Greek language usage. You yourself in your wanderings on this issue have indicated the difficulties in saying that Adam is presently a type of Messiah. You have previously insisted on this thread that Adam can only be typical of Messiah Yahushua through his life prior to his sin; therefore, you insist that verse 15 goes on to explain how Adam and Messiah are actually not similar and therefore in reality not presently typical of each other.

The Apostle Paul anticipates your thinking by telling all of us that Adam is not a type of Yahushua through the Offence through his wording at the beginning of verse 15. Obviously, Messiah Yahushua engaged in no sin so Adam and Messiah could not in any fashion be similar through the Offence of Adam. So, exactly how is Adam presently a type of Yahushua? Adam is typical of Yahushua when we look solely at the Free Gift which each of them gave to mankind. Adam gave mankind the free gift of physical death through his Offence, and Messiah Yahushua gave mankind the free gift of righteousness through HIS Obedience. This gift of Messiah Yahushua does result in perpetual LIFE for many men and women (see verse 21) So, what you see written in the Greek is not what we see written in the Greek, and we would both encourage you to look again at this our translation of verse 15:

Romans 5:15

15 But not with respect to the Offence; rather the Free Gift. For (gar) if the many died by the Offence of the one, by much more, does the Grace of the ELOHIM, the Free Gift in the Grace of the one Man, Yahushua Messiah, also abounds unto the many.

Accordingly, both Adam and Messiah Yahushua have each given the many a Free Gift at least according to the Greek of the Apostle Paul.

Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Hi Mountain Climber,

Blessings to you through Messiah Yahushua, My YAHWEH and My ELOHIM!

Shabbat Shalom!

You wrote:

"No sir, that explanation does not keep with the way it is written in the Greek."

The Apostle Paul states in verse 14 that Adam is a type or stamp of the coming one. In reference to Adam, Paul uses "estin" which is the 3rd person singular present indicative of "eimi". The use of the present tense in verse 14 indicates that at the time in which Paul wrote, Adam existed in the mind of Paul as a type of Messiah Yahushua, and for that matter must still be considered a type of Yahushua because the present tense is on going in Greek language usage. You yourself in your wanderings on this issue have indicated the difficulties in saying that Adam is presently a type of Messiah. You have previously insisted on this thread that Adam can only be typical of Messiah Yahushua through his life prior to his sin; therefore, you insist that verse 15 goes on to explain how Adam and Messiah are actually not similar and therefore in reality not presently typical of each other.

The Apostle Paul anticipates your thinking by telling all of us that Adam is not a type of Yahushua through the Offence through his wording at the beginning of verse 15. Obviously, Messiah Yahushua engaged in no sin so Adam and Messiah could not in any fashion be similar through the Offence of Adam. So, exactly how is Adam presently a type of Yahushua? Adam is typical of Yahushua when we look solely at the Free Gift which each of them gave to mankind. Adam gave mankind the free gift of physical death through his Offence, and Messiah Yahushua gave mankind the free gift of righteousness through HIS Obedience. This gift of Messiah Yahushua does result in perpetual LIFE for many men and women (see verse 21) So, what you see written in the Greek is not what we see written in the Greek, and we would both encourage you to look again at this our translation of verse 15:

Romans 5:15

15 But not with respect to the Offence; rather the Free Gift. For (gar) if the many died by the Offence of the one, by much more, does the Grace of the ELOHIM, the Free Gift in the Grace of the one Man, Yahushua Messiah, also abounds unto the many.

Accordingly, both Adam and Messiah Yahushua have each given the many a Free Gift at least according to the Greek of the Apostle Paul.

Thanking you in advance should you be moved to reply, I am,

Sincerely, Latuwr

(So you would rather paraphrase me than use my exact quotes? Why is that? Are we all just supposed to have faith you are interpreting me correctly? Come on! If you went to college they trained you better than that. I have already lost faith in your education as it is not very obvious in the way you write. LOL)

I agree that Adam was a type of Messiah as he held the covenant of life for all that would come through him, even as I have many times said.

But I disagree with your conclusions concerning, quote, "You yourself in your wanderings on this issue have indicated the difficulties in saying that Adam is presently a type of Messiah. You have previously insisted on this thread that Adam can only be typical of Messiah Yahushua through his life prior to his sin; therefore, you insist that verse 15 goes on to explain how Adam and Messiah are actually not similar and therefore in reality not presently typical of each other." End Quote

First of all your premise as to what I have been saying is in error. My point was made plain in that I said more than once that what I was refuting was Ken's claim that the words of Paul speak to the predestination of Jesus to take Adam's place from the moment Adam was first created.

get your facts straight before you speak to me and don't let Ken the whiner lead you as a puppet.

 

[Ken Brown]

Shabbat Shalom Again JB, I also would like your advice as to how you think I should respond to Mountain Climber's latest ridicule of me:

"get your facts straight before you speak to me and don't let Ken the whiner lead you as a puppet."

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Romans 7:4 “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, [even] to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God.”

How then can it be true that we “were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that we should be joined to another, [even] to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God” ?

In the life that he lived, Jesus “... spoiled principalities and powers...” Colossians 2:15

Most might think that means his resurrection but it does not. It means that as a man he proved to have no need of sacrifice for sins, thus parading that law as unneeded or (through his consistent righteous conduct) put off him (as in throwing it's bondage down as unneeded by and useless to him. In that way this comment by Paul relates back once again to what he said at 1 Timothy 1:9-11.

Thus when Jerusalem voted to put Jesus to death and used Jacob's Law to do so, they thus killed Jacob and Jerusalem below and all their children in them. In essence they put all back to square one as dead in Adam, all but that one faithful man, Jesus.

That act left Jesus the sole inheritor of all of the promises of that Old Law. And having been put to death but rescued from having to see corruption by the Father's resurrection of him he carried the right to those promises with him so as to have them to share to any who would put faith in him as God's messiah, the covenant holder of life and salvation for all men.

I am leaving a lot out as I was too lazy to dig out my old writings and so am just speaking all of this from the very beginning by spirit, but also because there are things you may not yet be ready to hear.

As I have said elsewhere in another thread, my being given this knowledge to share does not prove I am guaranteed salvation any more than anybody else. It is not the knowing that saves us but the doing of that knowledge which Christ lived and died to leave with us.

Now at last in my next post I will be able to put the things Ken and I disagreed on into the proper context that what Paul went onto say will be crystal clear to any person among you of meekly honest heart.

The nay-sayers are no doubt by now ready to rip their garments and pull their hair out. It is entirely up to you whether you will side with them or keep your mind open so that you can make your own informed decisions.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shabbat Shalom Again JB, I also would like your advice as to how you think I should respond to Mountain Climber's latest ridicule of me:

"get your facts straight before you speak to me and don't let Ken the whiner lead you as a puppet."

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

You may perhaps remember another site you participated in a few years back where in a debate as to how close we are to the finish and with most either saying it was decades away or saying it was as near as in that year? Well, remember the one voice that piped in and told you all that it would be in a few years but that first something serious would take place concerning Syria according to what the spirit led me to understand from the scriptures?

Well that was me and exactly what God gave me to share with you has proven so.

But the point is that I was gathered against and beheaded from the site organized by a someone that reminds me of you.

Have at it. As i told you then I tell you now. I must do what God moves me to do. What you do is your business.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Romans 7:5 “For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.”

“For when we were in the flesh”..? I could swear I hear many who speak as though we are yet in the flesh. Not only that, but they claim that we are powerless to defeat all sin in our flesh until our literal physical death removes our flesh out of the way.

Immediately we see the apparent contradiction of what many teach as compared to what Paul taught. And yet we are puzzled. How could Paul be talking to those yet alive in the flesh and say such a thing to them as, “For when we were in the flesh”?

We could be hasty and conclude Paul was but a mad man.

By saying, “for”, Paul signals us that he is supplying a reason behind something he had, just prior to that, said. “ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, [even] to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God.”

How can it be that what Paul said in verse 4 relates to verse 5, “when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death”?

Paul very obviously is indicating that what Jesus did for us removed us from the flesh, and just as obvious is the fact that this needed not be a literal removal of us from the flesh.

So what does it mean to be in the flesh? How does Paul see this? Jumping ahead to chapter 8 we find the answer: Romans 8:5 “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.”

Romans 8:5 thus clues us that to Paul's mind, being in the flesh is about where our minds are fixated, and not about where our natural fleshly bodies exist. Henceforth let us remember to understand that phrase, “in the flesh”, as referring to the place we have our minds fixated upon.

And so it is that Paul is telling us that what he spoke of Jesus doing for us, as he described in verse 4, ought to have lifted our minds up and out of the flesh along with Christ as he was raised back to heaven. Thus, “For when we were [fixated with our minds] in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Romans 7:5

In other words, Paul has right away here taught us, that if we are yet having that fight in our flesh with sinful passions, this proves we have not yet fully given our self to rise with Christ in our minds and hearts.

Take all the time to ponder this that you need before we proceed onward.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Hi Ken, sorry for the delay, I've been busy all day today.

Shabbat Shalom Again JB, I also would like your advice as to how you think I should respond to Mountain Climber's latest ridicule of me:

"get your facts straight before you speak to me and don't let Ken the whiner lead you as a puppet."

Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Fair enough Ken, what's up with this MC? Is it really necessary seriously? This is like serving up a Sunday Roast only to dump a big turd in the mashed potatoes! Sorry if that sounds crass but that's exactly how statements like this come across. I have to confess that I have a bad tendency to be polite to my own detriment and that of others. I'd be the sort of person who would try to gulp down the mashed potatoes so as not to offend the Chef. It's the way I was raised. But in doing so, others can be tempted to follow my example coz it's the "polite" thing to do! Ken comes across as the sort of person who would politely tell the Chef, "excuse me sir but there's a turd in your potatoes". And your response has been to serve him up a double batch for complaining about it. That's my honest take on this discussion. Potentially a nice Roast were it not for the mashed potatoes. Hope it's ok Ken that I respond to your earlier post separately.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Shabbat Shalom Again JB, and thank you for the further clarification. I'm not certain if you fully understand where the difference of opinion arose between Mountain Climber and myself, but it might help if I review that with you. This issue is not at all a minor or foolish issue, as the essence and interpretation of Grace depends heavily upon what Paul means here in Romans 5.

Here are a few of the words that I have politely rendered to Mountain Climber, and with each quote there is an embedded link to the post:

"I like what you have said, and it does appear you are climbing a mountain"
"I can see a different attitude in how you think and I appreciate it."
"I am again intrigued by your beliefs."
"you are impressing me, as I have a friend that views the abomination much as you do."
"I really like how you think and how you express yourself. You have done a lot of thinking about what you believe...it really shows."
"I'm not sure we are that far apart here"
"I think that maybe you might have misunderstood something very important."
"you are unique."
"I'm glad you are in agreement with the opening paragraph, as I know how difficult it is to accept."

JB, it is at this point that Mountain Climber says that I am so full of myself and that I am worse than the others, and "One thing you can take to the bank is that matter not how well you are able to deceive others, you will never be able to deceive me because you have finally met a true son of God, brother of Christ."

Then I responded with:
"for a surety, I would never deceive you as I am convinced that those who know the Truth must be sincere. I see that in you, and I see that you would never knowingly try to deceive me, yet, you are opposing a truthful teaching."

And Mountain Climber came back with this:
"be patient, as I am going to put an end to this foolishness once and for all if it be at all possible."

Mountain Climber calls me a Hebrew Muslim, he wants to give me a "quarter teaspoon" of his knowledge, he wants me to figure it out for myself using the premise he has revealed to me, he questions whether or not I know Paul and cannot be wrong, to him I am a child with no memory retention, he doesn't do patience with ignorance, he wants to forgive me for my nonsense, and he wants to share more with me but wants me to first grasp what he has been saying (show signs that I understand his vaulted knowledge). These are all comments that he made to me while I was being polite and courteous.

You were trying to eat the mashed potatoes, yes I know (now) and I apologise that I didn't say something sooner.

It was at this point that I decided to test his knowledge and understanding of Paul, and this is where and why Romans 5:14-15 was introduced. Was I wrong to do this JB? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

I think the offence needed to be dealt with first, because it was evident from that moment on that it was there and just becoming more glaringly obvious as the discussion went on. Again my bad for not saying something sooner for all our sake including MC.

P.S. Are we not to "test" the spirits to see whether or not they are of Elohim? Do you not "test" someone's spirit with the Truth?

I might be wrong here, but I have come to understand "testing the spirits" to be in relation to myself rather than others. An internal checking of myself whether I am in the faith or not (2 Corinthians 13:5), whether I'm being led by the Spirit or the flesh (Galatians 5:16). I have come to believe from experience as well as observing others that one of our greatest enemies is self-confidence. We all seem to have a keen ability to see the faults and flaws in others, and this ability entices us to assume that we don't have those same faults and flaws ourselves. But the Scriptures state plainly that we do the same things that we are tempted to judge others for (Romans 2:1). We just can't see it (Luke 6:42). I believe this is why we are told to esteem others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3) so that we guard ourselves against falling into this trap(Romans 1:22). There is indication in the Scriptures both figuratively in the OT (Leviticus 23:22) and in plain speech in the NT (1 Corinthians 12:22-26) that no one person is given total knowledge of every mystery in Scripture, but everyone is given something that we could all benefit from. This should encourage us to always have an attitude of a student, so as to benefit from the gift others have been given by God to share with us. I tend to feel sorry for those who think they have total knowledge of God's mysteries, coz in doing so they unwittingly rob themselves of the gift that others have to share with them.

As I mentioned before, both you and MC have both said things that I found insightful and beneficial to my learning and maybe it would be helpful to both of you if I shared some of these in my next post (with accompanying verses) . But may I just state for the record, I already know that I don't agree with both of you completely and not because I haven't considered your statements carefully. But because sometimes certain Scriptures yell at me so much that they prevent me from taking certain statements on as the Gospel truth. Hence the reason I asked you both to quote more scripture, so that I could follow the example set by the Bereans (Acts 17:11) just in case I have overlooked something that you have been given eyes to see.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Hi Ken, sorry for the delay, I've been busy all day today.
Fair enough Ken, what's up with this MC? Is it really necessary seriously? This is like serving up a Sunday Roast only to dump a big turd in the mashed potatoes! Sorry if that sounds crass but that's exactly how statements like this come across. I have to confess that I have a bad tendency to be polite to my own detriment and that of others. I'd be the sort of person who would try to gulp down the mashed potatoes so as not to offend the Chef. It's the way I was raised. But in doing so, others can be tempted to follow my example coz it's the "polite" thing to do! Ken comes across as the sort of person who would politely tell the Chef, "excuse me sir but there's a turd in your potatoes". And your response has been to serve him up a double batch for complaining about it. That's my honest take on this discussion. Potentially a nice Roast were it not for the mashed potatoes. Hope it's ok Ken that I respond to your earlier post separately.

You were trying to eat the mashed potatoes, yes I know (now) and I apologise that I didn't say something sooner.
I think the offence needed to be dealt with first, because it was evident from that moment on that it was there and just becoming more glaringly obvious as the discussion went on. Again my bad for not saying something sooner for all our sake including MC.
I might be wrong here, but I have come to understand "testing the spirits" to be in relation to myself rather than others. An internal checking of myself whether I am in the faith or not (2 Corinthians 13:5), whether I'm being led by the Spirit or the flesh (Galatians 5:16). I have come to believe from experience as well as observing others that one of our greatest enemies is self-confidence. We all seem to have a keen ability to see the faults and flaws in others, and this ability entices us to assume that we don't have those same faults and flaws ourselves. But the Scriptures state plainly that we do the same things that we are tempted to judge others for (Romans 2:1). We just can't see it (Luke 6:42). I believe this is why we are told to esteem others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3) so that we guard ourselves against falling into this trap(Romans 1:22). There is indication in the Scriptures both figuratively in the OT (Leviticus 23:22) and in plain speech in the NT (1 Corinthians 12:22-26) that no one person is given total knowledge of every mystery in Scripture, but everyone is given something that we could all benefit from. This should encourage us to always have an attitude of a student, so as to benefit from the gift others have been given by God to share with us. I tend to feel sorry for those who think they have total knowledge of God's mysteries, coz in doing so they unwittingly rob themselves of the gift that others have to share with them.

As I mentioned before, both you and MC have both said things that I found insightful and beneficial to my learning and maybe it would be helpful to both of you if I shared some of these in my next post (with accompanying verses) . But may I just state for the record, I already know that I don't agree with both of you completely and not because I haven't considered your statements carefully. But because sometimes certain Scriptures yell at me so much that they prevent me from taking certain statements on as the Gospel truth. Hence the reason I asked you both to quote more scripture, so that I could follow the example set by the Bereans (Acts 17:11) just in case I have overlooked something that you have been given eyes to see.

You have a good attitude, just don't sully it with an effort to be the arbitrator of the natural law of sowing and reaping. Don't try to be anyone's cushion against hurt feelings, for you just might be interfering with something God is doing and tampering with his natural laws.

I have absolutely no animosity toward Ken. In fact it is very much the opposite. So I don't say anything to him beyond what the spirit in me by love tells me he needs to hear so as to be incited to make his own mistakes which i trust God will then use to reveal his innermost self to him.' You have said very much in that direction and so I believe that your post is led of God's spirit. But while being led of God's spirit we don't always understand the finer details as to why this and why that. I admire your comment and your attitude very much and wish that there were more like you in this world. But I also know that if we don't unwittingly interfere with the process so that we are the ones slowing it down, there will soon be many more with your healthy attitude in the world. God will see to it. And he doesn't pad things over for anyone. The last I knew we were to learn to image him. Which we will never really do if we mistake love for misplaced kindness.

PS/ Ken has in mind the scripture at 1 John 4:1

I think he is worried that I may be the antichrist.

So we can understand the fear which is causing much of what he says.

Added: I am working on my next post for Romans 7 which is much deeper and more detailed, referencing prior points and how they tie together in the verses I am presently focusing on. It is near being posted. But I want to take this moment to help you see something else.

I, too, could selectively go through my posts and show all the places where I have showed the same tolerance and patience toward Ken. Why don't I then? Because it is a foolish contest with no real value or purpose. All i would be doing by it is letting his attitude cause me to begin selfishly focusing on myself.

Think about that.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Romans 7:6 “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.”

In verse 5 Paul had spoke of “the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.”

Here is where it is important to remember what I spoke of previously concerning how Jesus, while yet alive in the flesh of man, “... spoiled principalities and powers...”, that this means, “as a man he proved to have no need of sacrifice for sins, thus parading that Law as unneeded or (through his consistent righteous conduct) put off him (as in throwing it's bondage down as unneeded by and useless to him.)”

My point now is that Jesus was “in all things .. made like unto his brethren, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Hebrews 2:17 And yet this in no way means he had to have sin living in his body. Why? Because neither do we have sin literally living in our bodies of flesh. Rather, what we have is merely the influence of sin being in the world around us just as Paul said at Romans 5:12. And being in the world sin is external to us but in a position to tempt and thus influence us by creating desires in us. These desires then play with our emotions so that we too end up engaging in sin.

Notice how Weymouth New Testament words Romans 7:5 “For whilst we were under the thraldom of our earthly natures, sinful passions -- made sinful by the Law -- were always being aroused to action in our bodily faculties that they might yield fruit to death.”

I can see that Weymouth was giving forth a great effort to try to understand. But he fell prey to the common missed conception concerning our nature. We must understand that the word, “earthly”, is used by Paul and other writers at times to indicate the nature of lower beasts which we can come to have but do not innately have just by being flesh. Our innate nature is able to be obedient to God just as Paul speaks of at Romans 2:14-15. But our corrupted nature, which is like that of lower beasts, is not able to be subjected to God. And it is a complete lie that we are born with that corrupted nature. How then does that corruption come to us?

Genesis 6:12 “And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.”

Exodus 32:7 “And Jehovah spake unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, that thou broughtest up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves..”

Deuteronomy 9:12 “And Jehovah said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people that thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.”

Sin entered the world just as Paul said at Romans 5:12, and being in the world is in position to tempt and influence us: Proverbs 25:26 “As a troubled fountain ,and a corrupted spring ,So is a righteous man that giveth way before the wicked .”

How does all of this relate to the question as to how we should understand Romans 7:5?

It relates in that in innocence like Adam and Eve were first created, there is no temptation to bring about a consciousness of an ability to chose to act in a sinful way. This is why the serpent had to introduce the idea of disobeying God. In innocence, apart from that external prodding Eve would have never thought about doubting Adam or God. And if sin was never introduced into the world, neither would we.

It is a sort of paradox, for the Law was necessitated by the presence of sin in the world as it warned us not to succumb to that sin. Weymouth New testament, reads, “Why then was the Law given? It was imposed later on for the sake of defining sin, until the seed should come to whom God had made the promise; and its details were laid down by a mediator with the help of angels.” Galatians 3:19

Weymouth cared to see deep into what Paul meant. And the NWT has showed that same insight on that particular verse. To warn us concerning the sin which was already in the world at that time and dispense justice, that Law had to speak to the consciousness of sin so as to convince us of the existence of sin, before we could even see our need to return to innocence of the knowledge of sin. Thus Paul said: “... I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet..” Romans 7:7

One hundred years into a world without sin no one will need any longer to have any knowledge concerning sin. All will obey God from the heart, never having any doubt in them which would raise a challenging question in them. It was Satan that sold us the idea we need all that knowledge. And we see many have built their religious beliefs centering around that lie, believing that it is the lack of that knowledge which cripples us, knowing full well God had said not to even touch it.

It is in fact the presence of that knowledge combined with a love of the independent thinking which is also birthed of Satan's lie, holding man into that frame of contradictory thinking which disallows man to defeat sin by forgetting sin. Under that frame of contradictory thinking, someone will always choose to sin, thus keeping it's temptation in the world for others who have bought the lie of independent freedom to eventually also act upon. Yet the Law is righteous and holy and good because it is speaking nothing but the truth and standing up for justice to be issued against sin. The weakness by the flesh (that is by are minds fixated in satisfying our flesh rather than completely in obeying God, is that we have lost our innocence. That loss of innocence is the weakness of the flesh Paul speaks of at Romans 8:3. It works just the opposite of the way this world has made popular for us to think. That ought not surprise us.

Innocence was the only thing which could keep that Law and prove that it is only love for God and his natural laws in the heart of man that can be faithful to God:
2 Corinthians 5:21 "Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him."

An external Law which speaks of sin can only work to keep us conscious of sin. And in preventing us from forgetting sin it at the same time makes it difficult for us to return to innocence by reason of the beliefs sin has twisted into us. And this is why Paul tells us, “by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

We are going to find those who stubbornly resist this education. Do not allow that to discourage you.

So then as Paul says in Romans 7:6 “But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.” And we should now understand why and be looking forward to the day we finish our journey back to innocence wherein nothing will ever be able to separate us from God ever again.

Isaiah 43:25 “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake; and I will not remember thy sins.” In our return to innocence, neither will we remember the knowledge of sin. As God forgets by love, so will we.

 

[Ken Brown]

Yes, that fits well together with his saying basically that there was much greater power in the gift to forgive, There would have to be. As soon as God allowed Adam to continue to live and bare offspring something more powerful was necessitated.

I too am studied in the Greek so I have no problem with any who wish to have reasonable discussions concerning it. I prefer not to speak of it as I feel it is like showing off in front of those who lack in that knowledge and so I merely filter in tid-bits here and there from sources they are familiar with.

However, as far as showing respect is concerned, you are not my filter to determine what respect is. And if I see a duck I will call it a duck, regardless of whose petty feelings it hurts. That is their weakness, not mine. I have known many children who cannot take healthy criticism and I will not be one who enables them to remain that way.

Shalom Mountain Climber, I would ask, are you agreeing with Paul in how he said the "figure" was not through the offense, but rather through the free gift that came from both Adam and Yeshua (Adam's free gift-death and condemnation, Yeshua's free gift-life and righteousness)? That would be great if you do see it.

Your statement above about "there was much greater power in the gift to forgive," may be a misunderstanding of Paul's statement by you when he said "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more." Grace is the free gift of righteousness (Galatians 2:21), and righteousness is the doing of Elohim's commandments (Psalms 119:172, Deuteronomy 6:25, Romans 2:13), and if anyone fails to accomplish those commandments, they can perform the prescribed sacrifice, and fulfill the righteous requirement of the Torah when they do so (Leviticus 4:13-15, Romans 8:1-4). Elohim has given all sinners this free gift of fulfilling what the Torah required that sinners do, and that is to sacrifice THEIR offering, which all sinners did with the help of wicked men (Acts of the Apostles 2:23), when they placed Yeshua up on the cross. All sinners have done this in ignorance (Acts of the Apostles 3:17, 1 Timothy 1:13), and once they are made aware of what they did, they are to repent (turn from their sin), and be baptized, so that their sins go into remission (no longer stay actively/knowingly sacrificing Yeshua).

So see, Paul was maligned by teaching these things about Grace, in which a person fulfills righteousness because their sin sacrificed Yeshua, and that is why Paul was slandered by those who could not accept this teaching, but rather claimed Paul was saying, "Let us do evil that good may come." (Romans 3:8) Paul was not understood by most back then, and for a surety, those now who claim to be "christians" do not grasp Paul's teaching on Grace at all, as they have followed those whom Jude spoke of as "changing" the Grace of Elohim INTO a license to sin (Jude 1:4).

It really boils down as to whether you can "see" these things, or not. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ken Brown]

You were trying to eat the mashed potatoes, yes I know (now) and I apologise that I didn't say something sooner.
I think the offence needed to be dealt with first, because it was evident from that moment on that it was there and just becoming more glaringly obvious as the discussion went on. Again my bad for not saying something sooner for all our sake including MC.
I might be wrong here, but I have come to understand "testing the spirits" to be in relation to myself rather than others. An internal checking of myself whether I am in the faith or not (2 Corinthians 13:5), whether I'm being led by the Spirit or the flesh (Galatians 5:16). I have come to believe from experience as well as observing others that one of our greatest enemies is self-confidence. We all seem to have a keen ability to see the faults and flaws in others, and this ability entices us to assume that we don't have those same faults and flaws ourselves. But the Scriptures state plainly that we do the same things that we are tempted to judge others for (Romans 2:1). We just can't see it (Luke 6:42). I believe this is why we are told to esteem others as better than ourselves (Philippians 2:3) so that we guard ourselves against falling into this trap(Romans 1:22). There is indication in the Scriptures both figuratively in the OT (Leviticus 23:22) and in plain speech in the NT (1 Corinthians 12:22-26) that no one person is given total knowledge of every mystery in Scripture, but everyone is given something that we could all benefit from. This should encourage us to always have an attitude of a student, so as to benefit from the gift others have been given by God to share with us. I tend to feel sorry for those who think they have total knowledge of God's mysteries, coz in doing so they unwittingly rob themselves of the gift that others have to share with them.

As I mentioned before, both you and MC have both said things that I found insightful and beneficial to my learning and maybe it would be helpful to both of you if I shared some of these in my next post (with accompanying verses) . But may I just state for the record, I already know that I don't agree with both of you completely and not because I haven't considered your statements carefully. But because sometimes certain Scriptures yell at me so much that they prevent me from taking certain statements on as the Gospel truth. Hence the reason I asked you both to quote more scripture, so that I could follow the example set by the Bereans (Acts 17:11) just in case I have overlooked something that you have been given eyes to see.

Shalom JB, you do present a compelling case for extreme patience with one another, and I do hope we all can attain to that level. And I do like the example of the Bereans, I wish everyone would be like them. It does happen though that some will not believe and remain fractious as in the case of those who debated with Apollos in (Acts of the Apostles 18:24-28) and Stephen here (Acts of the Apostles 6:9-10), and Paul advising Titus to exhort, refute, and rebuke sharply (Titus 1:9-16). Even brothers can contend with one another, but do it out of love, not hate (Acts of the Apostles 15:39). So thank you for your kind words and advice. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ken Brown]

You may perhaps remember another site you participated in a few years back where in a debate as to how close we are to the finish and with most either saying it was decades away or saying it was as near as in that year? Well, remember the one voice that piped in and told you all that it would be in a few years but that first something serious would take place concerning Syria according to what the spirit led me to understand from the scriptures?

Well that was me and exactly what God gave me to share with you has proven so.

But the point is that I was gathered against and beheaded from the site organized by a someone that reminds me of you.

Have at it. As i told you then I tell you now. I must do what God moves me to do. What you do is your business.

Shalom Mountain Climber, you will have to refresh my memory (you know how bad my memory is) as to where this took place. Do you have a link or a web address for this site that "gathered against and beheaded" you from their site? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Your statement above about "there was much greater power in the gift to forgive," may be a misunderstanding of Paul's statement by you when he said "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more."

And the misunderstanding may be all in you. For you need things worded perfectly your way before you are willing even to try to understand. So let me restate that for you:

"there was much greater power in the gift of grace to perform the act of forgiving many sins thus blotting out the record of those sins (thus imputing righteousness) which is necessary for life to be recognized of God,"

IMHO, your scholars have misled you concerning Romans 5:15. For whatever reason, they have failed to make the connection with Paul.

Notice the clear contrasts: “But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many.”

You are trying to claim the gift is righteousness in that verse when in Paul's mind he is contrasting that gift with the words, "many died" or "death".

The only appropriate contrast to that sir, is life.

Does that mean that the imputation of righteousness is not also a free gift of God through his grace? No. For there cannot be an accreditation of life from the dead apart from righteousness.

I am sorry Ken, if you disagree with me that is your right. But the reality is that you have said nothing in your posts I have not already seen and determined whether or I agree or disagree already. I see no point in allowing you to act like the arbitrator of my faith and belief by always seeking to put me on the defensive the way you tend to do.

I get very little agreement out of you with anything. So I see our even speaking with each other as fruitless. You are quite welcome to keep imagining I do not see the things you say but insofar as posting to me any more I will ask you to be a gentleman and refrain. It has not resulted in anything beneficial for either of us and has been an annoyance to others. So make that your last post to me. Please.