Re: was:- Things the church never taught me



 Religions > Bible > Re: was:- Things the church never taught me

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Religions > Bible
User: "Timothy Sutter"
Date: 14 Aug 2007 07:16:52 AM
Object: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me
==
Colossians 1:17-18
And He is before all things, and in Him
all things consist. And He is the head
of the body, the church, who is the beginning,
the firstborn from the dead, that in all things
He may have the preeminence.
==
==
Matthew 7:24
Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine,
and does them, I will liken him to a wise man
who built his house on the rock[Petra]:
==
clearly it is hearing and doing Jesus's words
which will liken one to having built on a the rock.
the passage in question, Matthew 16
begins with Jesus asking his disciples,
who people said that he was,
they say this and that, and Simon
says you are the Christ,
he praises Simon, and then, it appears as if
he may shift and go back to speaking to all
of the disciples again;
==
Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi,
He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I,
the Son of Man, am?"
......
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they
should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.
==
a few bits later, in Matthew 18;
==
Matthew 18:1
At that time the disciples came to Jesus,
saying, "Who then is greatest in the
kingdom of heaven?"
==
and then he begins to address
statements to all of the disciples;
==
Matthew 18:18-19
"Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
will be loosed in heaven. "Again I say to you that
if two of you agree on earth concerning anything that
they ask, it will be done for them by My Father in heaven.
==
see, Jesus is here addressing all the disciples, and
saying the same bit about binding and loosing.
and also, look who actually holds this 'key'
==
Revelation 3:7
"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write,
‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true,
"He who has the key of David, He who opens and
no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens":
==
all of these statements -to- the churches
and made -by- Christ and here we see it
is Christ that holds the 'key' of David.
so, Jesus is still holding the 'key' of the kingdom.
the Church only has access to such
a thing by and through Jesus Christ.
and then there's Paul again;
==
Ephesians 2:19-22
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers
and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the
saints and members of the household of God,
having been built on the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
Himself being the chief cornerstone,
in whom the whole building, being fitted
together, grows into a holy temple in
the Lord, in whom you also are being
built together for a dwelling place
of God in the Spirit.
==
which again affirms Jesus as chief cornerstone.
but, you may also want to
consider this from Hebrews
in regards to what that 'household' is;
==
Hebrews 3:4-6
For every house is built by someone,
but He who built all things is God.
And Moses indeed was faithful in all
His house as a servant, for a testimony
of those things which would be spoken
afterward, but Christ as a Son over
His own house, whose house we are
if we hold fast the confidence and
the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end.[
==
the Church is Christ's own house
and Christ is over that house.
and, as long as people will be arguing
over whether Peter Paul or Apollos
is who they are with,
are they not carnal?
did Peter die for anyone?
was Paul crucified for anyone?
does Apollos send back the paracletos?
no.
==
1 Corinthians 1:11-13
For it has been declared to me concerning you,
my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that
there are contentions among you. Now I say this,
that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am
of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.”
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?
Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
1 Corinthians 3:3-4
for you are still carnal. For where there
are envy, strife, and divisions among you,
are you not carnal and behaving like mere men?
For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another,
“I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
==
if the problem is whether Peter is the
'chief cornerstone' of the Church,
look at what Peter says;
==
1 Peter 2:4-7
Coming to Him as to a living stone,
rejected indeed by men, but chosen
by God and precious,
you also, as living stones, are being
built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable
to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it
is also contained in the Scripture,
“ Behold, I lay in Zion
A chief cornerstone, elect, precious,
And he who believes on Him will by
no means be put to shame.”
Therefore, to you who believe,
He is precious....
==
it doesn't look like Peter calls himself
the 'chief cornerstone' of the Church, but Christ.
so, if Peter understood Christ implicitly,
then Christ is the chief cornerstone and not Peter.
==
John 21:18-24
I tell you the truth, when you were younger
you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but
when you are old you will stretch out your hands,
and someone else will dress you and lead you where
you do not want to go." Jesus said this to indicate
the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God.
Then he said to him, "Follow me!"
\Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved
was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back
against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is
going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked,
"Lord, what about him?"
Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until
I return, what is that to you? You must follow me."
Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers
that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not
say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want
him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
==
Peter himself seems to be perturbed that
he is told that he will die and John is
told that he may not die,
and so, how does ths fgure in to the bit
about 'the gates of hades shall not overtake...'
Peter is not been resurrected,
only Jesus has been resurrected.
and then there's Paul;
==
1 Corinthians 10:4
and all drank the same spiritual drink.
For they drank of that spiritual Rock
that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
==
.

User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me 14 Aug 2007 07:43:12 AM
==
Galatians 2:8-10
(for He who worked effectively in Peter for the
apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively
in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas,
and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the
grace that had been given to me, they gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we
should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.
They desired only that we should remember the poor,
the very thing which I also was eager to do.
=
Acts 10:45
And those of the circumcision who believed
were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been
poured out on the Gentiles also.
=
Acts 11:1-3
Now the apostles and brethren who were in Judea heard
that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those of the
circumcision contended with him, saying,
“You went in to uncircumcised
men and ate with them!”
=
Galatians 2:12
for before certain men came from James,
he[Peter] would eat with the Gentiles; but when
they came, he withdrew and separated himself,
fearing those who were of the circumcision.
==
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me 14 Aug 2007 07:46:12 AM
i have chi
but that's just physical
maybe it relates somehow to a 'higher' way
but, i have it nonetheless.
i would suppose that the area/location
is on any human body and you could call
that whatever you like, but it can become
underdeveloped to the point of atrophy.
and then there's the 'diaphragm'
the diaphragm and 'chi'
are by nature,
closely related.
but that would be the 'lower' abdomen
or mid abdomen
so why it it mentioned?
cuz i felt like it.
i got a body too yuh know.
i'm not just some tentacled head
in a jar under the desert.
so, if you look at that stuff, 'chi'
and some of it's entailments,
like looking it up in the dictionary,
it claims that 'chi' concerns itself
with some sort of 'balance' of elements
so as to increase your harmonious
disposition with -nature-.
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me 14 Aug 2007 07:46:37 AM
that being said,
if we go directly to the conclusion,
and look at "Life and Death"
one may ask themselves how -they-
would go about balancing 'life and death'.
in some respects it would seem that the very
best anyone could do is to flap their arms
as they fall into the grand canyon.
until and unless you even identify that
which -is- "Life" you cannot possibly
'balance' the predisposition towards death.
i mean, you could take cold showers and
hot baths or lay in a lukewarm body
temperature environment, and things
of this nature, and find that none
of these -increase- the balance of
'life' with respect to 'death'
so, you eat food that tingles all four
sensory receptors on your toungue.
that may be thrilling and 'taste' nice,
but it does nothing to -increase- your
balance of 'life' with respect to 'death'
and you take up with Renfield and start eating
live bugs so as to, you suppose, take their
'life force' directly into your being and
thereby -increase- your own 'lifeforce'
and find that this is a meaningless gesture
in pseudo-fanaticism to an idol of the 'Undead'.
because these bug's 'lifeforce' is not
transferable to you no matter -when-
you ingest them, before or after -they-
have ceased to carry it.
meaning, so, you eat a live bug,
an it dies while you are eating it,
just because it dies in -your- mouth,
doesn't mean that the bug's 'lifeforce'
will transfer to -you-, and it's just
as if you drank a protein drink.
just 'lifeless chemicals'
no increase in the 'balance' of your 'lifeforce'
so, you start flapping your arms.
good, that's nice, flapping yur arms is good,
-but- flapping your arms does not stop the falling.
so, that would seem hopeless,
and, we're right back at;
"eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"
but you still want to live.
so, where is this "Life"?
people would go halfway across
the earth to find fountains
of living waters.
little ever being able to realize that
these 'living waters' may be no further
than your own backyard,
but the -distance- between you and "Life"
is to be surmounted in our own conscious
agreement with "Life" itself and finding
that "Life" itself has a consciousness
all its own.
so, how do we reason with "Life"?
when we suggest that Jesus Christ is
"The Way, The Truth, and The Life"
we may begin to see
this "Life" as comprehensible
and our Hope is renewed.
and as -this- Hope begins to flood over
our conscious awareness, we get our
first taste of "Life" as if from
The Source of All things.
but, what we will begin to come to comprehend
is that -this- "Life" has _no_ 'death' as counterpart.
and so, as i meantioned in another place,
it begins to constitute itself as a radical
re-assessment of "Life" itself.
and this we can seek from no -other-
but only from The Source of The All.
and that Source is Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ -is- the chi and beyond
Jesus Christ -is- the culmination of
the perfectability of the Saints.
in Christ, we are -not- a
'balance' of 'yes and no'
but only Yes.
for, in Christ, -All- is -Good-
and outside of Christ, there remains only
the fast approaching appointment with
destination 'potential energy well.'
it is true, you cannot reach
this by flapping you arms
but if you raise your arms, Christ
is willing to reach for you and
pull you up.
you -will- see benefit,
in this life
and in
Life to come.
now, spit those bugs out of your mouth.
there's more...
of course.
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me 14 Aug 2007 07:47:03 AM
and the long and short of -this- is, that;
it leads to pessimism
which leads to cynicism
which leads to the
"whatever i can get away with"
mentallity
which leads to a
-perpetual- state of War
and that ain't 'harmony'
so, we -must- be looking for something -higher-...
so, seeking a harmony with nature leads to War?
sounds strange, but, we forget who we are...
still sounds strange, but look at it again;
seek harmony with nature to perpetuate life
see endless failures in perpetuating life
develop pessimistic attitude about life
decide life is short and immediate
gratifications are all we can accomplish
fully develop the breeding of Cynicism
and now,
"whatever i can get away with"
-is- your approach to 'harmony with nature'
and this -is- a state of perpetual conflict.
and this is where the 'higher way'
can be our -only- Savior.
....more details...
people who develop this will not
come right out and say to you;
"harmony is war"
because it gives their hand away.
but do not -fear- it
because -fear- is a most potent weapon inasmuch
as it places -you- at work against your own self.
just remember, -that- 'way' is -not- 'freedom'
inevitably, it is a tailspin
they -need- -you-
show Mercy
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: was:- Things the church never taught me 14 Aug 2007 07:47:20 AM
just see;
"harmony is war"
is a -trap-
do not fall into it.
as some are -in- the trap already
and would pull you -in- with them.
because look, it has what -seems- like benefits,
you are -always- in a state of war
so, when someone approaches you with difficulties,
you are not immediately taken aback and stumbling
over your own -fears-.
for you, war -is- 'harmony'
so, you are -never- 'caught off guard'
or unsuspecting or unawares.
but, in -your- 'ideal' state,
everyone else would behave the same 'way'
so, -no one- is out -looking for- conflict
because -everyone- is -always-
prepared for just that.
but this remains the 'lower way'
in that even the damping out of
as much conflict as is possible
will -not- _increase_ your ultimate balance
of 'life' so as to overcome the weight of -death-
and so, the pull towards complacency
and pessimism and cynicism maintains
a stranglehold.
you simply manage to flap your
arms as you fall into the chasm.
and...
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 16 Aug 2007 05:23:01 PM
faith and works.
alright, so you don't leave a turtle dove
at the altar anymore to make up
for having slapped your wife.
that is not a work of faith.
never was, that was an act of
propitiation in lieu of Christ.
drifting this way,
there is no schism between James and Paul.
in fact, James and Paul were friends.
so, when James proclaims that
faith without works is dead,
he is not arguing with nor against Paul.
in fact, Paul goes to great lengths
to suggest that we offer ourselves
as a living sacrifice to God.
but neither suggest that an offer
of a turtle dove on the altar of
the Temple is any longer a sufficient
or necessary _work_ of Faith.
oh, and James and Paul drafted a letter together.
we don't have this, but we have
referrence to it in the book of Acts.
the one where they suggest to the
new gentile converts that they "refrain
from things strangled, and from blood,
and from certain sexual immorality."
here's some of the bit from the book of
acts where we see that James and Paul
were not at odds nor strife torn.
Acts 21:17-20
When we arrived at Jerusalem,
the brothers received us warmly.
The next day Paul and the rest
of us went to see James, and
all the elders were present.
Paul greeted them and reported
in detail what God had done among
the Gentiles through his ministry.
When they heard this, they praised God.
--
Paul was greeted by James and the elders as "brother"
James and the elders of the church praised God in
acknowledgement of Paul's good works among the gentiles.
--
Acts 21:21-20
Then they said to Paul:
"You see, brother, how many
thousands of Jews have believed,
and all of them are zealous for the law.
---
James was seeking to protect Paul from those who *claimed*
they were in "The Way" but actually sought to destroy
Paul and his message.
---
acts 22:1-4
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
became very quiet. Then Paul said: "I am a Jew,
born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this
city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained
in the law of our fathers and was just as
zealous for God as any of you are today.
I persecuted the followers of this Way
to their death, arresting both men and
women and throwing them into prison,
---
Paul, in his defense, said he was "just as zealous
as they are now" *before* his conversion, insomuch
as he Paul, sought to destroy the followers
of "that way"
---
Acts 21:21-22
They have been informed that you teach all
the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn
away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise
their children or live according to our customs.
What shall we do?
---
James wonders what to do, to protect
Paul from "the angry mob"
---
Acts 21:22-24
They will certainly hear that you have come,
so do what we tell you. There are four men
with us who have made a vow. Take these men,
join in their purification rites and pay their
expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved.
Then everybody will know there is no truth
in these reports about you, but that you
yourself are living in obedience to the law.

---
James does not suggest that Paul repudiate his testimony,
but only to make a show for those "zealous for the law"
that he, Paul, is a jew and lives according to the law,
just as they.
---
Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written
to them our decision that they should abstain
from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
---
James does not send a letter to the gentiles insisting
that they conform to the law of moses, but only that
they should "abstain from meat offered to idols etc.."
---
Acts 21:26
The next day Paul took the men and purified himself
along with them. Then he went to the temple to give
notice of the date when the days of purification
would end and the offering would be made
for each of them.
---
Paul did as James suggested in order that he,
Paul, may enter the temple without causing a riot.
---
Acts 21:27-28
When the seven days were nearly over, some
Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at
the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd
and seized him, shouting, "Men of Israel,
help us! This is the man who teaches all men
everywhere against our people and our law
and this place. And besides, he has brought
Greeks into the temple area and defiled
this holy place."
---
It didn't work, as those "zealous for the Law"
siezed Paul and beat him anyway. and also, considered
it hateful that Greeks were brought into the Temple.
or, in to "the way"
a thing which James praised God for.
---
Acts 21:29-31
(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian
in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul
had brought him into the temple area.) The whole
city was aroused, and the people came running
from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged
him from the temple, and immediately the gates
were shut. While they were trying to kill him,
news reached the commander of the Roman troops
that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.
---
these people that "sought to kill Paul" were clearly not
1. working under the direction of James a pillar
of the church. James greeted Paul as "brother"
2. quite likely, "false brothers, crept in unawares"
who were, as Paul once was "zealous for the law"
to the point of murder. murder of followers of "the way."
Acts 21:32-40
He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran
down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander
and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
The commander came up and arrested him and
ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then
he asked who he was and what he had done.
Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some
another, and since the commander could not get
at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered
that Paul be taken into the barracks.
When Paul reached the steps, the violence of
the mob was so great he had to be carried by
the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting,
"Away with him!" As the soldiers were about to
take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander,
"May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?"
he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started
a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out
into the desert some time ago?" Paul answered,
"I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen
of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to
the people." Having received the commander's
permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned
to the crowd. When they were all silent,
he said to them in Aramaic:
Acts 22:1-5
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to
my defense." When they heard him speak to
them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.
Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus
of Cilicia, but brought up in this city.
Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in
the law of our fathers and was just as zealous
for God as any of you are today. I persecuted
the followers of this Way to their death,
arresting both men and women and throwing
them into prison, as also the high priest
and all the Council can testify. I even
obtained letters from them to their brothers
in Damascus, and went there to bring these
people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.
---
Paul says; "I was once like you, trying
to murder the followers of "the way"
---
Acts 22:6-10
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly
a bright light from heaven flashed around me.
I fell to the ground and heard a voice say
to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
"`Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "`I am Jesus of Nazareth,
whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions
saw the light, but they did not understand the voice
of him who was speaking to me. "`What shall
I do, Lord?' I asked. "`Get up,' the Lord said,
`and go into Damascus. There you will be told
all that you have been assigned to do.'
---
Paul has a vision of Christ on the Damascus road,
his story of conversion.
note; Paul does not in his defense,
repudiate his earlier teachings,
but, in fact, makes his usual attempt to
go into this selfsame "story of conversion"
but, as was Paul's usual manner, spoke to his
audiance in a language they understood.
and so, Paul says, in essence,
"why do you seek to kill me?
"I'm a jew just like you are."
---
Acts 22:11-18
My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because
the brilliance of the light had blinded me. "A man
named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer
of the law and highly respected by all the Jews
living there. He stood beside me and said,
`Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at
that very moment I was able to see him. "Then he said:
`The God of our fathers has chosen you to know
his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear
words from his mouth. You will be his witness
to all men of what you have seen and heard.
And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be
baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the
temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking.
`Quick!' he said to me. `Leave Jerusalem immediately,
because they will not accept your testimony about me.'
---
Jesus, in a trance, assures Paul that those
in Jerusalem will not accept Paul's witness,
and tells him to leave there.
---
Acts 22:19-20
"`Lord,' I replied, `these men know that
I went from one synagogue to another to
imprison and beat those who believe in you.
And when the blood of your martyr Stephen
was shed, I stood there giving my approval and
guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.'
---
in Part, because, Paul was known
as a persecuter of "the way"
---
Acts 22:21-22
"Then the Lord said to me, `Go; I will send
you far away to the Gentiles.'" The crowd listened
to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their
voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him!
He's not fit to live!"
---
Paul fails in his attempt to "win over the jews"
to "the way" in Paul's defense, you must note
that Paul does *not* repudiate his early testimony.
he gives his normal speech.
and the "mob" in jerusalem
are in an uproar.
not James.
James is not angry with Paul.
James greets Paul as "brother.
Acts 22:23-30
As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and
flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered Paul
to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be
flogged and questioned in order to find out why the
people were shouting at him like this. As they
stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the
centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog
a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"
When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander
and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked.
"This man is a Roman citizen." The commander went
to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"
"Yes, I am," he answered. Then the commander said,
"I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."
"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied. Those
who were about to question him withdrew immediately.
The commander himself was alarmed when he realized
that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.
The next day, since the commander wanted to find out
exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he
released him and ordered the chief priests and all the
Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and
had him stand before them.
Acts 23-1-3
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said,
"My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God
in all good conscience to this day." At this the
high priest Ananias ordered those standing near
Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said
to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!
You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you
yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"

---
note, those "zealous for the law" are lawbreakers.
while Paul has never been so, only taught
the gentiles that they have no need to observe
circumcision and mosaic ritual purity laws
to enter into "the way"
James said this;
Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written
to them our decision that they should abstain
from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
---
tell me if this isn't blatantly obvious
but the implication is;
"I am YHWH you shall have no other Gods before me"
is the chief instruction given to the gentiles.
they were not instructed to enter into mosaic ritual.
---
Acts 23:20-21,29
He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul
before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting
more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them,
because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush
for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink
until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting
for your consent to their request."
I found that the accusation had to do with questions
about their law, but there was no charge against
him that deserved death or imprisonment.

---
this entire incident centers around Paul's desire
to come to jerusalem and those "zealous for the law"
laying in wait so as to kill him.
but James knew they meant to kill Paul,
and sought to protect him.
James NEVER insisted that
Paul repudiate his testimony.
James greeted Paul as "brother"
Acts 23:30,35
When I was informed of a plot to be carried
out against the man, I sent him to you at once.
I also ordered his accusers to present to
you their case against him.
he said, "I will hear your case when your
accusers get here." Then he ordered that
Paul be kept under guard in Herod's palace.
---
circumcision is no avail unless you keep the law to the letter.
Paul's testimony still stands as revelation from God.
James and Paul are in no conflict, at all.
---
.
User: "Fred A Stover"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 16 Aug 2007 08:43:10 PM
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:46C4CE45.4D62@lycos.com...

faith and works.

alright, so you don't leave a turtle dove
at the altar anymore to make up
for having slapped your wife.

that is not a work of faith.
never was, that was an act of
propitiation in lieu of Christ.

drifting this way,

there is no schism between James and Paul.

in fact, James and Paul were friends.


so, when James proclaims that
faith without works is dead,
he is not arguing with nor against Paul.

They're addressing different works. Paul addresses out works and James
addresses the works of faith, His works in us.
His,
--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matk 10:15)
<)))))))><


in fact, Paul goes to great lengths
to suggest that we offer ourselves
as a living sacrifice to God.

but neither suggest that an offer
of a turtle dove on the altar of
the Temple is any longer a sufficient
or necessary _work_ of Faith.

oh, and James and Paul drafted a letter together.

we don't have this, but we have
referrence to it in the book of Acts.

the one where they suggest to the
new gentile converts that they "refrain
from things strangled, and from blood,
and from certain sexual immorality."


here's some of the bit from the book of
acts where we see that James and Paul
were not at odds nor strife torn.


Acts 21:17-20

When we arrived at Jerusalem,
the brothers received us warmly.
The next day Paul and the rest
of us went to see James, and
all the elders were present.
Paul greeted them and reported
in detail what God had done among
the Gentiles through his ministry.
When they heard this, they praised God.


--
Paul was greeted by James and the elders as "brother"
James and the elders of the church praised God in
acknowledgement of Paul's good works among the gentiles.
--


Acts 21:21-20
Then they said to Paul:
"You see, brother, how many
thousands of Jews have believed,
and all of them are zealous for the law.

---
James was seeking to protect Paul from those who *claimed*
they were in "The Way" but actually sought to destroy
Paul and his message.
---

acts 22:1-4
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."
When they heard him speak to them in Aramaic, they
became very quiet. Then Paul said: "I am a Jew,
born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this
city. Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained
in the law of our fathers and was just as
zealous for God as any of you are today.
I persecuted the followers of this Way
to their death, arresting both men and
women and throwing them into prison,

---
Paul, in his defense, said he was "just as zealous
as they are now" *before* his conversion, insomuch
as he Paul, sought to destroy the followers
of "that way"
---

Acts 21:21-22
They have been informed that you teach all
the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn
away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise
their children or live according to our customs.
What shall we do?

---
James wonders what to do, to protect
Paul from "the angry mob"
---

Acts 21:22-24
They will certainly hear that you have come,
so do what we tell you. There are four men
with us who have made a vow. Take these men,
join in their purification rites and pay their
expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved.
Then everybody will know there is no truth
in these reports about you, but that you
yourself are living in obedience to the law.

---
James does not suggest that Paul repudiate his testimony,
but only to make a show for those "zealous for the law"
that he, Paul, is a jew and lives according to the law,
just as they.

---
Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written
to them our decision that they should abstain
from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

---
James does not send a letter to the gentiles insisting
that they conform to the law of moses, but only that
they should "abstain from meat offered to idols etc.."
---

Acts 21:26
The next day Paul took the men and purified himself
along with them. Then he went to the temple to give
notice of the date when the days of purification
would end and the offering would be made
for each of them.

---
Paul did as James suggested in order that he,
Paul, may enter the temple without causing a riot.
---

Acts 21:27-28
When the seven days were nearly over, some
Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at
the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd
and seized him, shouting, "Men of Israel,
help us! This is the man who teaches all men
everywhere against our people and our law
and this place. And besides, he has brought
Greeks into the temple area and defiled
this holy place."

---
It didn't work, as those "zealous for the Law"
siezed Paul and beat him anyway. and also, considered
it hateful that Greeks were brought into the Temple.
or, in to "the way"

a thing which James praised God for.
---

Acts 21:29-31
(They had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian
in the city with Paul and assumed that Paul
had brought him into the temple area.) The whole
city was aroused, and the people came running
from all directions. Seizing Paul, they dragged
him from the temple, and immediately the gates
were shut. While they were trying to kill him,
news reached the commander of the Roman troops
that the whole city of Jerusalem was in an uproar.

---
these people that "sought to kill Paul" were clearly not
1. working under the direction of James a pillar
of the church. James greeted Paul as "brother"

2. quite likely, "false brothers, crept in unawares"
who were, as Paul once was "zealous for the law"
to the point of murder. murder of followers of "the way."

Acts 21:32-40
He at once took some officers and soldiers and ran
down to the crowd. When the rioters saw the commander
and his soldiers, they stopped beating Paul.
The commander came up and arrested him and
ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then
he asked who he was and what he had done.
Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some
another, and since the commander could not get
at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered
that Paul be taken into the barracks.
When Paul reached the steps, the violence of
the mob was so great he had to be carried by
the soldiers. The crowd that followed kept shouting,
"Away with him!" As the soldiers were about to
take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander,
"May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?"
he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started
a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out
into the desert some time ago?" Paul answered,
"I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen
of no ordinary city. Please let me speak to
the people." Having received the commander's
permission, Paul stood on the steps and motioned
to the crowd. When they were all silent,
he said to them in Aramaic:


Acts 22:1-5
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to
my defense." When they heard him speak to
them in Aramaic, they became very quiet.
Then Paul said: "I am a Jew, born in Tarsus
of Cilicia, but brought up in this city.
Under Gamaliel I was thoroughly trained in
the law of our fathers and was just as zealous
for God as any of you are today. I persecuted
the followers of this Way to their death,
arresting both men and women and throwing
them into prison, as also the high priest
and all the Council can testify. I even
obtained letters from them to their brothers
in Damascus, and went there to bring these
people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

---
Paul says; "I was once like you, trying
to murder the followers of "the way"
---

Acts 22:6-10
"About noon as I came near Damascus, suddenly
a bright light from heaven flashed around me.
I fell to the ground and heard a voice say
to me, `Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?'
"`Who are you, Lord?' I asked. "`I am Jesus of Nazareth,
whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions
saw the light, but they did not understand the voice
of him who was speaking to me. "`What shall
I do, Lord?' I asked. "`Get up,' the Lord said,
`and go into Damascus. There you will be told
all that you have been assigned to do.'

---
Paul has a vision of Christ on the Damascus road,
his story of conversion.

note; Paul does not in his defense,
repudiate his earlier teachings,
but, in fact, makes his usual attempt to
go into this selfsame "story of conversion"

but, as was Paul's usual manner, spoke to his
audiance in a language they understood.

and so, Paul says, in essence,
"why do you seek to kill me?
"I'm a jew just like you are."

---
Acts 22:11-18
My companions led me by the hand into Damascus, because
the brilliance of the light had blinded me. "A man
named Ananias came to see me. He was a devout observer
of the law and highly respected by all the Jews
living there. He stood beside me and said,
`Brother Saul, receive your sight!' And at
that very moment I was able to see him. "Then he said:
`The God of our fathers has chosen you to know
his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear
words from his mouth. You will be his witness
to all men of what you have seen and heard.


And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be
baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'
"When I returned to Jerusalem and was praying at the
temple, I fell into a trance and saw the Lord speaking.
`Quick!' he said to me. `Leave Jerusalem immediately,
because they will not accept your testimony about me.'

---
Jesus, in a trance, assures Paul that those
in Jerusalem will not accept Paul's witness,
and tells him to leave there.
---

Acts 22:19-20
"`Lord,' I replied, `these men know that
I went from one synagogue to another to
imprison and beat those who believe in you.
And when the blood of your martyr Stephen
was shed, I stood there giving my approval and
guarding the clothes of those who were killing him.'

---
in Part, because, Paul was known
as a persecuter of "the way"
---

Acts 22:21-22
"Then the Lord said to me, `Go; I will send
you far away to the Gentiles.'" The crowd listened
to Paul until he said this. Then they raised their
voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him!
He's not fit to live!"

---
Paul fails in his attempt to "win over the jews"
to "the way" in Paul's defense, you must note
that Paul does *not* repudiate his early testimony.

he gives his normal speech.
and the "mob" in jerusalem
are in an uproar.

not James.

James is not angry with Paul.

James greets Paul as "brother.

Acts 22:23-30
As they were shouting and throwing off their cloaks and
flinging dust into the air, the commander ordered Paul
to be taken into the barracks. He directed that he be
flogged and questioned in order to find out why the
people were shouting at him like this. As they
stretched him out to flog him, Paul said to the
centurion standing there, "Is it legal for you to flog
a Roman citizen who hasn't even been found guilty?"
When the centurion heard this, he went to the commander
and reported it. "What are you going to do?" he asked.
"This man is a Roman citizen." The commander went
to Paul and asked, "Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?"
"Yes, I am," he answered. Then the commander said,
"I had to pay a big price for my citizenship."
"But I was born a citizen," Paul replied. Those
who were about to question him withdrew immediately.
The commander himself was alarmed when he realized
that he had put Paul, a Roman citizen, in chains.
The next day, since the commander wanted to find out
exactly why Paul was being accused by the Jews, he
released him and ordered the chief priests and all the
Sanhedrin to assemble. Then he brought Paul and
had him stand before them.

Acts 23-1-3
Paul looked straight at the Sanhedrin and said,
"My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God
in all good conscience to this day." At this the
high priest Ananias ordered those standing near
Paul to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said
to him, "God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!
You sit there to judge me according to the law, yet you
yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck!"

---
note, those "zealous for the law" are lawbreakers.

while Paul has never been so, only taught
the gentiles that they have no need to observe
circumcision and mosaic ritual purity laws
to enter into "the way"

James said this;

Acts 21:25
As for the Gentile believers, we have written
to them our decision that they should abstain
from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."

---
tell me if this isn't blatantly obvious
but the implication is;

"I am YHWH you shall have no other Gods before me"
is the chief instruction given to the gentiles.
they were not instructed to enter into mosaic ritual.
---

Acts 23:20-21,29
He said: "The Jews have agreed to ask you to bring Paul
before the Sanhedrin tomorrow on the pretext of wanting
more accurate information about him. Don't give in to them,
because more than forty of them are waiting in ambush
for him. They have taken an oath not to eat or drink
until they have killed him. They are ready now, waiting
for your consent to their request."
I found that the accusation had to do with questions
about their law, but there was no charge against
him that deserved death or imprisonment.

---
this entire incident centers around Paul's desire
to come to jerusalem and those "zealous for the law"
laying in wait so as to kill him.

but James knew they meant to kill Paul,
and sought to protect him.

James NEVER insisted that
Paul repudiate his testimony.
James greeted Paul as "brother"

Acts 23:30,35
When I was informed of a plot to be carried
out against the man, I sent him to you at once.
I also ordered his accusers to present to
you their case against him.

he said, "I will hear your case when your
accusers get here." Then he ordered that
Paul be kept under guard in Herod's palace.

---
circumcision is no avail unless you keep the law to the letter.
Paul's testimony still stands as revelation from God.
James and Paul are in no conflict, at all.
---

.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 16 Aug 2007 09:23:09 PM

Timothy Sutter wrote...

faith and works.
alright, so you don't leave a turtle dove
at the altar anymore to make up
for having slapped your wife.
that is not a work of faith.
never was, that was an act of
propitiation in lieu of Christ.
drifting this way,
there is no schism between James and Paul.
in fact, James and Paul were friends.
so, when James proclaims that
faith without works is dead,
he is not arguing with nor against Paul.

Fred A Stover wrote:

They're addressing different works. Paul addresses out works and James
addresses the works of faith, His works in us.


His,

just as an example;
---
James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before God and
the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows
in their trouble, and to keep oneself
unspotted from the world.
1 Timothy 5:3-4
Honor widows who are really widows.
But if any widow has children or grandchildren,
let them first learn to show piety at home and
to repay their parents; for this is good
and acceptable before God.
Galatians 6:14
But God forbid that I should boast except
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
the world has been crucified to me,
and I to the world.
Galatians 2:9
and when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that had been given to me, they gave me
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,
that we should go to the Gentiles and they
to the circumcised. They desired only that
we should remember the poor, the very thing
which I also was eager to do.
---
Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.
yes, i agree there is a difference between,
"works of the law" and "works of faith"
where "works of the law" may be considered
'propitiatory' elements of the first
contractual arrangement, but the
"circumcision of the heart"
which may be found discussed in 'the law'
can also be considered a 'work of faith'
==
Deuteronomy 10:16
Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart,
and be stiff-necked no longer.
Deuteronomy 30:6
And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart
and the heart of your descendants, to love
YHWH your God with all your heart and with
all your soul, that you may live.
Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to YHWH, And take away the
foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and
inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth
like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it,
Because of the evil of your doings.”
==
which is also mentioned by Paul;
==
Romans 2:29
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly;
and circumcision is that of the heart,
in the Spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not from men
but from God.
==
so, there's really no conflict between
James and Paul and Moses either.

--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak

Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matk 10:15)
<)))))))><

in fact, Paul goes to great lengths
to suggest that we offer ourselves
as a living sacrifice to God.
but neither suggest that an offer
of a turtle dove on the altar of
the Temple is any longer a sufficient
or necessary _work_ of Faith.
oh, and James and Paul drafted a letter together.
we don't have this, but we have
referrence to it in the book of Acts.
the one where they suggest to the
new gentile converts that they "refrain
from things strangled, and from blood,
and from certain sexual immorality."

.
User: "Fred A Stover"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 03:09:22 PM
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:46C5068D.5B5@lycos.com...

Timothy Sutter wrote...


faith and works.


alright, so you don't leave a turtle dove
at the altar anymore to make up
for having slapped your wife.


that is not a work of faith.
never was, that was an act of
propitiation in lieu of Christ.


drifting this way,


there is no schism between James and Paul.


in fact, James and Paul were friends.


so, when James proclaims that
faith without works is dead,
he is not arguing with nor against Paul.



Fred A Stover wrote:

They're addressing different works. Paul addresses out works and James
addresses the works of faith, His works in us.


His,


just as an example;

---
James 1:27
Pure and undefiled religion before God and
the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows
in their trouble, and to keep oneself
unspotted from the world.

1 Timothy 5:3-4
Honor widows who are really widows.
But if any widow has children or grandchildren,
let them first learn to show piety at home and
to repay their parents; for this is good
and acceptable before God.

Galatians 6:14
But God forbid that I should boast except
in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
the world has been crucified to me,
and I to the world.

Galatians 2:9
and when James, Cephas, and John, who
seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace
that had been given to me, they gave me
and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship,
that we should go to the Gentiles and they
to the circumcised. They desired only that
we should remember the poor, the very thing
which I also was eager to do.
---

Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.

Correct. When He's doing it, it's an acr of faith. When we're doing it, it
is an act of the flesh.


yes, i agree there is a difference between,
"works of the law" and "works of faith"
where "works of the law" may be considered
'propitiatory' elements of the first
contractual arrangement, but the
"circumcision of the heart"
which may be found discussed in 'the law'
can also be considered a 'work of faith'

==
Deuteronomy 10:16
Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart,
and be stiff-necked no longer.

Deuteronomy 30:6
And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart
and the heart of your descendants, to love
YHWH your God with all your heart and with
all your soul, that you may live.

Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to YHWH, And take away the
foreskins of your hearts, You men of Judah and
inhabitants of Jerusalem, Lest My fury come forth
like fire, And burn so that no one can quench it,
Because of the evil of your doings."
==

which is also mentioned by Paul;

==
Romans 2:29
but he is a Jew who is one inwardly;
and circumcision is that of the heart,
in the Spirit, not in the letter;
whose praise is not from men
but from God.
==


so, there's really no conflict between
James and Paul and Moses either.

Correct. Moses never said the law was for the gentiles.
His,
--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
ho echon hota akoueto
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><


in fact, Paul goes to great lengths
to suggest that we offer ourselves
as a living sacrifice to God.


but neither suggest that an offer
of a turtle dove on the altar of
the Temple is any longer a sufficient
or necessary _work_ of Faith.


oh, and James and Paul drafted a letter together.


we don't have this, but we have
referrence to it in the book of Acts.


the one where they suggest to the
new gentile converts that they "refrain
from things strangled, and from blood,
and from certain sexual immorality."

.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 04:26:03 PM

"Timothy Sutter wrote ...

so, there's really no conflict between
James and Paul and Moses either.

Fred A Stover wrote:

Correct. Moses never said the law was for the gentiles.

and this is not exactly correct in that
YHWH did make metion to Moses of this;
--
Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and
would keep the passover to YHWH, let all
his males be circumcised, then he may come near
and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land.
But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
--
the 'stranger' is undoubtedly from among
'the nations' and therefore, a 'gentile'
and as such, a 'gentile' may take part in the law
after having eaten of the passover of his own free
will after having been circumcised.
just one other thing.
see, the so-called "circumcision party"
did have an actual point, or so they felt.
their point was that the Law suggested that if an
alien or outworlder wished to enter into Israel,
that they must circumcise their males
and eat the Passover.
but Peter already came to understand the
new creation thru Faith in likeness to Abraham
in the case of Cornelius of the Italian Corhort.
and they were shocked and amazed that the
Holy Spirit fell on what we may safely
assume was an uncircumcised male.
and Paul was quick to note that his
greek companions were not circumcised
but were undoubtledly among the Faithful.
and so, this was a true circumcision
of the heart and not that subject of
ritual purity which cannot cleanse
your conscience of shortfall.
and it appeared to Paul that this party,
though having many faithful in their midst,
had adherents who were simply bent
on "returning to Egypt"
and re-enslaving the people in
a bondage from which Jesus
had set them free
to add some clarity;
this "circumcision party" was in
the context of so-called "christianity"
they were, presumably "christians" who were
insisting on physical circumcision as
a sign of christian approval.
--
Acts 15:1
But some men came down from Judea and were teaching
the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according
to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."
Acts 15:5
But some believers who belonged to the party of
the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary
to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep
the law of Moses."
--
and in a certain respect, they had a minor point,
as, the law states that when a foreigner
wished to celebrate the passover, all males
in that family were to be circumcised,
and, somewhat, accepting Christ
was an entry in to the Passover.
--
Exodus 12:48
And when a stranger shall sojourn with you and
would keep the passover to YHWH, let all
his males be circumcised, then he may come near
and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land.
But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
--
but they were misguided in that Christ had
accepted a direct entry in to the "seed of Abraham"
aside from this physical circumcision as
evidenced by Cornelius, the gentile,
recieving the Holy Spirit, and Peter's
vision that Christ had purified all things.
--
Acts 10:1
At Caesare'a there was a man named Cornelius,
a centurion of what was known as the Italian Cohort,
Acts 10:45
And the believers from among the circumcised who
came with Peter were amazed, because the gift
of the Holy Spirit had been poured out
even on the Gentiles.
--
and, Paul never claimed that having the
circumcision of the flesh disabled one
from entering in to Christ, as he himself
was circumcised "on the eighth day."
--
Philippians 3:4-5
Though I myself have reason for confidence
in the flesh also. If any other man thinks he has
reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more:
circumcised on the eighth day, of the people
of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew
born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee,
--
so, clearly, Paul isn't saying that
circumcision prevents one from
entering in to Christ.
it was when they, the "circumcision party,"
insisted that Barnabus become circumcised
that Paul drew his line in the sand.
--
Galatians 2:12-14
For before certain men came from James,
he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he
drew back and separated himself, fearing
the circumcision party. And with him the rest
of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even
Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity.
But when I saw that they were not straightforward
about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas
before them all, "If you, though a Jew, live
like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can
you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"
--
and they spread the rumor that Paul was
suggesting to jews that they forsake
being circumcised, a thing which
Paul never suggested.
--
Acts 21:21
and they have been told about you that you teach
all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to
forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise
their children or observe the customs.
--
he only suggested that the gentile converts
did not have to enter in to the Sinai contract
in order to become "christians" and James agreed.
--
Acts 15:19-21
Therefore my judgment is that we should not
trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God,
but should write to them to abstain from the
pollutions of idols and from unchastity and
from what is strangled and from blood.
--
now, -that- "animosity between
the two," 'jews and gentiles'
was torn down.
--
Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in his flesh the law of commandments
and ordinances, that he might create in himself
one new man in place of the two, so making peace,
--
no longer two people, jews and gentiles,
but "all are one" in Christ.
-that- was 'abolished'
see, just as Job was 'hedged in' under the
protective elements of God's own presence,
so, Israel, that peculiar people to God
was hedged in, but thru Christ, that hedge
is broadened out to include anyone who calls
on the Name of Jesus [YHWH Savior] for salvation
-from- the basic elemental principles which
keep man in a bondage to the 'existing conditions'.
interestimg to note is the fact that Egypt
practiced what amounted to a severe reverence
-for- the stasis of nature.
--
Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither
slave nor free, there is neither male nor female;
for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
--
as the law states, and Moses echoes, that
"circumcision of the heart" was the ideal
state of affairs, anyway, and this was a
"spiritual" matter and not one attained
through any sort of physical markings.
--
Leviticus 26:41
so that I walked contrary to them and brought
them into the land of their enemies; if then
their uncircumcised heart is humbled and
they make amends for their iniquity;
Deuteronomy 10:16
Circumcise therefore the foreskin
of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Deuteronomy 30:6
And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart
and the heart of your offspring, so that you will
love YHWH your God with all your heart and
with all your soul, that you may live.
--
Deuteronomy 30:6 lays this circumcision
of the heart in the hands of YHWH.
--
Ezekiel 11:19
And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit
within them; I will take the stony heart out of
their flesh and give them a heart of flesh,
--
--
Jeremiah 4:4
Circumcise yourselves to YHWH, remove the
foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and
inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go
forth like fire, and burn with none to
quench it, because of the evil of your doings."
--
at any rate, whether *you* circumcise your
own heart or whether God does it for you,
*this* is the key to salvation, and not
just the sign of the physical peculiarity
thru the physical circumcision in the flesh.
so, these gentile converts could make
the jump to Christ directly,
and not pass thru Sinai.
controvery ended.
Titus 1:15
To the pure all things are pure,
but to those who are defiled and
unbelieving nothing is pure; but
even their mind and conscience
are defiled.
etc.
from the top...
-if- the blood atonement offered up
by lamb's blood according to Sinai had
acheived the goal of cleansing the
conscience of 'sin' then that thing
would have stood,
what's funny is that some people
dream up 648 'exceptions to the rule'
and thereby make the law of none effect.
what -stank- in the nose of YHWH
and was -not- a "sweet smelling aroma"
is when the blood of bulls and goats
were being brought year after year
as -payment- for -continuing- in the
same behaviors that are opposed to
the love of God and no redemption was seen.
-that- is called 'liscence'
Isaiah expounds on this in some detail.
the author of the letter to the Hebrews
echoes the prophet Jeremiah and says;
"the days are coming when i will formulate
a new contract with Israel and Judah, YHWH
will inscribe My ways upon their hearts
and minds and they -shall- be my people
and i shall be their God."
as far as people speaking about "the law"
the term "the law" may be
used for several things;
among them;
the commands of YHWH
propitiatory elements of the Sinai contract
the promulgation of the commands of YHWH by Moses
precedent set down by 'the seat of Moses'
"traditions of men"
"traditions of the fathers"
what you want to grasp is when exactly
"the law" is the embodiment of the
Love which is God, and subsequently,
how and when and by whom does this erosion
take place whereby the embodiment of the
Love of God is replaced with some
philosophical justification of self
in the face of the Law's conviction.
first, notice how the Law is viewed
as a "spiritual" matter with a
"righteous requirement"
---
Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual...
Romans 2:26
Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps
the righteous requirements of the law,
will not his uncircumcision be counted
as circumcision?
Romans 8:4,6-8
that the righteous requirement of the
law might be fulfilled in us who do not
walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit.
....
For to be carnally minded is death,
but to be spiritually minded is life
and peace. Because the carnal mind
is enmity against God; for it is not
subject to the law of God, nor indeed
can be. So then, those who are in
the flesh cannot please God.
---
-this- 'law' approaches the
embodiment of the love of God,
inasmuch as the general context
is that no harm be done to either
God or fellow man.
'harm to God'?
yes, you can engage in a
striving against God
which stinks.
but maybe more can be mentioned
on that in a different context.
in this next bit, you
will notice terms like;
"fleshly mind" and "commandments
and doctrines of men"
---
Colossians 2:17-22 [read verse 6-17 as well]
which are a shadow of things to come,
but the substance is of Christ. Let
no one cheat you of your reward, taking
delight in false humility and worship
of angels, intruding into those things
which he has not seen, vainly puffed
up by his fleshly mind, and not holding
fast to the Head, from whom all the body,
nourished and knit together by joints
and ligaments, grows with the increase
that is from God. Therefore, if you
died with Christ from the basic principles
of the world, why, as though living in
the world, do you subject yourselves
to regulations-- "Do not touch, do not
taste, do not handle," which all concern
things which perish with the using--according
to the commandments and doctrines of men?
---
so, obviously, this 'return' to the
'basic principles of the world' is -not-
The Law of YHWH which points towards
the embodiment of the Love which is God.
so, when it is suggested that you don't
return to -that- "false humility"
it is not suggesting in any fashion
that the manners and ways of YHWH
which are to be inscribed upon the
heart and mind of the faithful adherent
has been tossed in the wastepaper basket.
as an aside;
where the propitiatory elements found in
the 'law' do not remove conscious spot
from the mind of mankind,
---
Hebrews 9:9
It was symbolic for the present time
in which both gifts and sacrifices
are offered which cannot make him who
performed the service perfect in
regard to the conscience--
Hebrews 9:14
how much more shall the blood of Christ,
who through the eternal Spirit offered
Himself without spot to God, cleanse your
conscience from dead works to
serve the living God?
---
the all sufficient atonement made for the
human beings by Jesus Christ enables the
indwelling of God's own nature which inscribes
the very ways and manners of God up[on the
hearts and minds of those same human beings.
-that- is the _New Contract_ spoken of by
Jeremiah which accomplishes the circumcision
of the heart spoken of by Moses.
see below.
first notice these things;
--
Hebrews 4:1-3
Therefore, while the promise of entering his
rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be
judged to have failed to reach it. For good
news came to us just as to them; but the message
which they heard did not benefit them, because
it did not meet with faith in the hearers.
For we who have believed enter that rest,
as he has said, "As I swore in my wrath,
'They shall never enter my rest,'" although
his works were finished from the
foundation of the world.
--
those people who sat around Sinai and dropped
in the desert all had "the gospel" preached
to them, only they didn't recieve it in Faith
and so dropped every one in that desert.
they drank water from the Rock
and ate manna which fell
from the sky.
but, when Jesus pops up, those people had
rejected Moses outright and tossed it out
in favor of their own traditions.
they gave an appearance of remembering
Sinai but they had wandered far and
wide from that thing.
but look here;
---
Leviticus 26:41
so that I walked contrary to them and brought
them into the land of their enemies; if then their
uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make
amends for their iniquity;
Deuteronomy 10:16
Circumcise therefore the foreskin
of your heart, and be no longer stubborn.
Deuteronomy 30:6
And YHWH your God will circumcise your heart and the
heart of your offspring, so that you will love YHWH
your God with all your heart and with all
your soul, that you may live.
Romans 2:29
He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision
is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal.
His praise is not from men but from God.
---
see, circumcision of the heart was -always-
a matter considered in the law and
under the law already.
it was no "new thing" that Paul and Jesus
made up and delivered casting aside the law.
when the "circumcision party" popped
up in amongst the christian converts,
they wern't exactly trying to bring back
the christians to the law, they were trying
to re-institute what amounted to the traditions
that they had wandered away from
the law in favor of.
simply put, Jesus didn't come to cast
aside the law, -they- never had a
proper perspective on it any way.
-they- didn't greet it with faith
and -they- walked away from it.
but how else can Paul extract and
preach Jesus, from the law and the prophets?
because Jesus was right there, in
the law and the prophets the whole time.
anyway, "true" circumcision is of the heart,
and Moses shows this and Paul reaffirms this.
don't confuse casting down the law with putting
as much distance as possible between Jesus
and the 'traditions of the fathers.'
traditions that Jesus himself said
were contrary to his stated "mission".
i.e. traditions which Jesus was chastizing
the religious of his day for holding
to while casting down the law.
traditions which embody the basic principles
of the world in deferrence to the covetous
nature of flesh material man as opposed
to the embodiment of the Love which
YHWH God -is-.
yeah, i know it gets confusiing,
but there is a solution to the problem.
Jesus Christ [YHWH Savior]was right there in
amongst them the whole time, they just never
recognized him and failed to show the good
faith necessary for that recognition.
further;
the "circumcision party" were people who
thought that all new converts should
be circumcised.
i gave them only one benefit of the doubt
and that was that Torah suggests that any
new entry into Israel from the surrounding
"nations" was to eat the passover and
have all males circumcised.
Paul simply said that the contract
at Sinai was no abrogation of the
Promises made to Abraham.
said that these Promises superceded
the contractual elements handed
down 400 years later.
he never said that "the law is evil"
in fact, Paul says that "the law"
has a "just requirement" but that it
is the indwelling nature of God thru
Christ in the Holy Spirit that brings
about the renewal of the consciousness
that no legal code can bring about.
and, that therefore, entry into the
Sinai contract, for new converts was
simply unnecessary, but never suggested
that one practicing Sinai based understandings
was to simply shove them off.
Paul said that the law was still just
as good as it ever was at pointing out
a lack of love, only that the law itself
could not shove a loving nature into anyone.
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 06:34:11 PM
anyway,
Paul says Hagar and Sarah are two covenants,
and that one is -bound- and one is -free-,
but Hagar is -Sarai's- handmaid and bears
children for Abraham at -Sarai's- request,
because Sarai is unable to bear
children of her own, and then,
all of a sudden, Sarah bears
children of her own.
it's almost as if, the "princess"
is under the guidance of an overseer
until such time as she becomes a "queen"
Sarai = princess
Sarah = queen
and then you get all that Solomon
"don't stir up love before its time" routine.
so anyway, if Sarah is the covenant of promise
and Hagar is the convenant of contract law
the promise bears children by contract law
until such time as the promise is fulfilled.
but also, in actual practice,
the children under contract are already born
and so, the contract is used as a temporary
governing authority until such time as
the children are -reborn- into the promise.
i know i know, the children of the -bound-
woman will never be apportioned along with
the children of the free woman.
but; "flesh and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God"
so, not only do Hagar and Sarah represent
two covenants, but also, two births,
the first birth is unto the temporary dwellings
in the flesh and the second birth is unto the
eternal dwellings in the Spirit.
why can't Sarai bear
children of her own
immediately?
once again, it is God's will and not
man's desires that bring this work
to completion.
we shouldn't suggest that Hagar
is a slavery, but a -binding-
contractual relationship.
and we do not suggest that Sarah is free
-from- the contract, or free -in spite of-
the contract, but free in fulfillment
of the contract.
the contract that was entered in to by promise.
where, when God says;
"i promise to do this"
God -is- bound by oath.
that is, God's promise -is-
a binding contract and
cannot be broken.
the promise -is- the contract.
subsequent stipulations bring the
temporary to look toward the eternal
for ultimate salvation by grace.
and God leaves Abraham with Laughter.
get it? "Isaac..-->..laughter"?
...ha ha...oh nevermind.
anyway,
see yourself as there,
and you will be there.
see yourself in chains, and you
can never understand freedom.
see yourself as bound to God,
and Love is yours.
if you were born under contract,
seek to fulfill it,
if you were not born under contract,
seek first the Kingdom of God, and
God will bless you as a Holy Temple.
no hidden sanity clauses
just a promise of Love
fulfilled in Christ.
.
User: "Ralph"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 07:11:43 PM
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:46C63073.5F4D@lycos.com...

anyway,

***PLONK***
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 08:14:11 PM

"Timothy Sutter wrote

Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.

Fred said:

Correct. When He's doing it, it's an acr of faith.
When we're doing it, it is an act of the flesh.

==
Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your
reasonable service.
==
if it is one who is presenting themself
in reasonable service then it must be
that person -doing- something, and that
something is exactly -not- at enmity with God
and therefore -not- a work of the 'flesh'.
==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His,"
and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice."
21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==
==
2 Peter 1:5
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence,
add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
==
i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.
if you don't bring it home with you,
then there's really no purpose in
your being there at all anyway.
etc.
.
User: "Fred A Stover"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 17 Aug 2007 11:36:31 PM
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1187399651.520838.238790@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

"Timothy Sutter wrote


Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.


Fred said:

Correct. When He's doing it, it's an acr of faith.
When we're doing it, it is an act of the flesh.



==
Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your
reasonable service.
==

if it is one who is presenting themself
in reasonable service then it must be
that person -doing- something, and that
something is exactly -not- at enmity with God
and therefore -not- a work of the 'flesh'.

==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21

15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.

19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His,"
and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice."

21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==

==
2 Peter 1:5
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence,
add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
==

i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.

If we're doing it, He's not. We are free from the condemnation of the law so
we don't have to think about it. When we think about what we should not do,
we are thinking about it and tempting the flesh. When we think about what we
should do, we also think of what else we could be doing, tempting the flesh
again. The idea is to focus on Him not what we should or should not be
doing.


if you don't bring it home with you,
then there's really no purpose in
your being there at all anyway.

etc.

His,
--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
ho echon hota akoueto
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 18 Aug 2007 03:01:14 AM

"Timothy Sutter wrote:

Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.

Fred A Stover wrote:

Correct. When He's doing it, it's an acr of faith.
When we're doing it, it is an act of the flesh.

Timothy Sutter wrote...

==
Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your
reasonable service.
==
if it is one who is presenting themself
in reasonable service then it must be
that person -doing- something, and that
something is exactly -not- at enmity with God
and therefore -not- a work of the 'flesh'.
==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.
19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His,"
and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice."
21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==
==
2 Peter 1:5
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence,
add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
==
i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.

Fred A Stover wrote:

If we're doing it, He's not. We are free from the condemnation
of the law so we don't have to think about it. When we think
about what we should not do, we are thinking about it and
tempting the flesh. When we think about what we should do,
we also think of what else we could be doing, tempting the flesh
again. The idea is to focus on Him not what we should or
should not be doing.

if i took a small child's hand and walked
that small child over to a bubble gum machine
and placed a coin in that small child's hand
and motioned the child's hand to drop the coin
in the macine and assisted that child in turning
the coin mechanism so that the bubble gum ball
fell into the slot and then took that child's
hand and opened the slot and grab the little
gum ball and said, 'eat the gum ball' even going
so far as demonstrating the best manner to eat
the gum ball with proper chewing instructions,
as i've already got a piece and i won't
be chewing the gum for the small child,
there will definitely come a point when that
small child will be able to get a gumball
all by itself without my being there
to assist that small child.
when that child has learned to get and eat
the gumball, that child will be doing exactly
as i have instructed.
if the child resists my instructions and refuses
to be led by the hand, then there will come a time
when that child gets no gum.
now, if i tell that small child to tend
to the needs of orphans and widows and
to keep unspotted from the world,
my instructions in how to accomplish such
a thing may be a bit more involved, but, at
some time, depending on the cooperative
efforts of that small child, that small
child should be willing and able to correctly
tend to the needs of orphans and widows and
prove to me that the message in the
instruction has been received correctly.
clearly, the child will have to believe
that i mean the best for her and that i am
not trying to punish her in some manner
by convincing her to do foolish things like
being nice to people less fortunate that she is.
now all we have to do is make me a Holy Spirit,
as an example of course, whom she can't even see
with her eyes and yet can offer the same sort
of gentle guidance through my breathing supernatural
encouragements in her ear and directing her to keep
her eyes affixed on my instructions.
now, all anyone has to see is that i want the
small child to see the good and be the good and
do the good all of the child's own free will
and volition.
when that child has grown to know to do the
acceptable thing to choose the good and
eschew that which is not beneficial
we will say that he has become a mature individual.
not that i would mind to continue leading
him around by the hand, but that i would
like for that child to be able to progress
further into a deeper and more abiding
comprehension of my very nature, or in
the generalized case, the very nature of God.
all without the implication that
the child has no will of its own.
one may suggest that the very nature of God
is not summed up in stipulations of things that
a human being may or may not do,
but in a generalized pattern of this
ethereal quality we refer to as "Love"
God is not an automation.
a child of God should not be
considered an automation either.
God's tender mercies are not forced,
and the instruction which will lead
a small child into a more thorough
comprehension of these tender mercies
is not forced either.
we come to agree with God because we
see that God's manner is the best way.
etc.
.
User: "Fred A Stover"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 18 Aug 2007 01:39:59 PM
"Timothy Sutter" <a202010@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:46C6A74A.2D11@lycos.com...

"Timothy Sutter wrote:

Jame's 'pure religion' is
exactly paralleled in Paul's.



Fred A Stover wrote:

Correct. When He's doing it, it's an acr of faith.
When we're doing it, it is an act of the flesh.



Timothy Sutter wrote...

==
Romans 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren,
by the mercies of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable to God, which is your
reasonable service.
==


if it is one who is presenting themself
in reasonable service then it must be
that person -doing- something, and that
something is exactly -not- at enmity with God
and therefore -not- a work of the 'flesh'.


==
2 Timothy 2:15,19,21


15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God,
a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly
dividing the word of truth.


19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands,
having this seal: "The Lord knows those who are His,"
and, "Let everyone who names the name of Christ
depart from injustice."


21 Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter,
he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful
for the Master, prepared for every good work.
==


==
2 Peter 1:5
But also for this very reason, giving all diligence,
add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge,
==


i'd say that there would be a considerable amount
of conscious effort on the part of a christian
to conform to the will of God as outlined -to-
the christian -by- the Holy Spirit guidance.



Fred A Stover wrote:

If we're doing it, He's not. We are free from the condemnation
of the law so we don't have to think about it. When we think
about what we should not do, we are thinking about it and
tempting the flesh. When we think about what we should do,
we also think of what else we could be doing, tempting the flesh
again. The idea is to focus on Him not what we should or
should not be doing.



if i took a small child's hand and walked
that small child over to a bubble gum machine
and placed a coin in that small child's hand
and motioned the child's hand to drop the coin
in the macine and assisted that child in turning
the coin mechanism so that the bubble gum ball
fell into the slot and then took that child's
hand and opened the slot and grab the little
gum ball and said, 'eat the gum ball' even going
so far as demonstrating the best manner to eat
the gum ball with proper chewing instructions,
as i've already got a piece and i won't
be chewing the gum for the small child,
there will definitely come a point when that
small child will be able to get a gumball
all by itself without my being there
to assist that small child.

when that child has learned to get and eat
the gumball, that child will be doing exactly
as i have instructed.

if the child resists my instructions and refuses
to be led by the hand, then there will come a time
when that child gets no gum.

now, if i tell that small child to tend
to the needs of orphans and widows and
to keep unspotted from the world,

my instructions in how to accomplish such
a thing may be a bit more involved, but, at
some time, depending on the cooperative
efforts of that small child, that small
child should be willing and able to correctly
tend to the needs of orphans and widows and
prove to me that the message in the
instruction has been received correctly.

clearly, the child will have to believe
that i mean the best for her and that i am
not trying to punish her in some manner
by convincing her to do foolish things like
being nice to people less fortunate that she is.

now all we have to do is make me a Holy Spirit,
as an example of course, whom she can't even see
with her eyes and yet can offer the same sort
of gentle guidance through my breathing supernatural
encouragements in her ear and directing her to keep
her eyes affixed on my instructions.

now, all anyone has to see is that i want the
small child to see the good and be the good and
do the good all of the child's own free will
and volition.

when that child has grown to know to do the
acceptable thing to choose the good and
eschew that which is not beneficial

we will say that he has become a mature individual.

not that i would mind to continue leading
him around by the hand, but that i would
like for that child to be able to progress
further into a deeper and more abiding
comprehension of my very nature, or in
the generalized case, the very nature of God.

all without the implication that
the child has no will of its own.

one may suggest that the very nature of God
is not summed up in stipulations of things that
a human being may or may not do,

but in a generalized pattern of this
ethereal quality we refer to as "Love"

God is not an automation.

a child of God should not be
considered an automation either.

God's tender mercies are not forced,

and the instruction which will lead
a small child into a more thorough
comprehension of these tender mercies
is not forced either.

we come to agree with God because we
see that God's manner is the best way.

You're missing the point. No matter how "good" we become in our questionable
judgment, if we are doing it, we are not dying to ourselves and letting Him
live in us. When we find ourselves doing the right thing and realizing what
we are doing while asking ourselves "What in the hell are you doing!" we're
getting there.
His,
--
http://tinyurl.com/2hf6ak
ho echon hota akoueto Preparing the way of the Lord
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a
little child, he shall not enter therein. (Matt 10:15)
<)))))))><
.
User: "Timothy Sutter"

Title: Re: Things the church never taught me 18 Aug 2007 02:27:23 PM