ECT The Right Man, Walking in the Spirit.

[musterion]

I accused myself: You don't agree with and therefore I teach a false gospel. That's interesting since you have never spoken of what it is you claim I am in error and especially when you won't speak of the stripe you belong to. All you know is slander. Sad commentary.

Paul said forgiveness of all sin and justification in Christ are freely received through faith in Him via believing the Gospel of grace, without any works to earn, maintain or keep safe in Him. You've already rejected all this. You don't believe it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Paul said forgiveness of all sin and justification in Christ are freely received through faith in Him via believing the Gospel of grace, without any works to earn, maintain or keep safe in Him.

You've already rejected all this. You don't believe it.

What words of mine have led you to believe that of me?

Nonsense! Your interpretation is grossly skewed! To receive faith is to then live by the life of another as a testimony of that life, one that speaks of an indwelling Holy Spirit by Jesus Christ. (John 20:22) I.e., no indwelling life to evidence, no belonging to Christ Jesus. That requires a work with the goal being crucifixion because there is conquering that must happen and by necessity, be an unrequited love unto Him who has redeemed me per John 17:3: ". . .this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." [Might meaning it depends on us seeking to understand the ways of God. In this, *sin cannot abide and though forgiveness might be ours there remains a price to pay that will require another trip around the mountain until we come to understand that fact 'for' life..]

*Romans 8:1,2 KJV

 

[musterion]

That requires a work with the goal being crucifixion

This explains everything you ever posted.

 

[elohiym]

How was the "Man" God became not wrong if the law shows that man is wrong?

Romans 8

3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh,

When he became flesh, he did not become sinful. He came in the likeness of it. He came in the flesh, but not of Adam. Paul is very clear. In the likeness. He looked like it, but that doesn't mean you are also it.

Could his flesh be judged by the law? For example, was it possible for the Lord to become unclean under the Mosaic ordinances?

My position: We should not use the letter of the law to measure the goodness of our Lord. He is the High Priest of a priesthood that apparently was not subject to the Mosaic covenant; many things Jesus did were seen as violations of the law, certainly of the letter.

He was not under death and sin, and he did not sin in his action. Is that what you are asking? His flesh still went through we went through. Happy, sad, angry, embarrassed, humiliation....he was tested in all ways.

If He has flesh like you and I and was subject to the Mosaic ordinances, He would have become unclean at some point and had to make a sin offering for atonement. In that case his sin would be taken away and he would have no sin. The alternative is that his flesh was impervious to becoming unclean and that is why he was without sin. Either way, he would be without sin. If he was above the law, his flesh would be impervious to becoming unclean and he would just be participating in the motions of the law to not offend his kin. Since he is the High Priest of an order not under the Mosaic Law ...

Romans 3

10 As it is written: “There is none righteous, no, not one; 11 There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. 12 They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”

The context is unbelievers under the law and without the law, is it not? Are you applying that to every person but Jesus?

Romans was written by someone who understood and was seeking after God. He had turned aside perhaps, but he turned back and became profitable for God. He did good by preaching the truth.

A bunch of people already know, that was Sozo's poem.

Yeah. I'd like to see a more recent version.

:sozo: He needs to come back and write it.

 

[Cross Reference]

If He has flesh like you and I and was subject to the Mosaic ordinances, He would have become unclean at some point and had to make a sin offering for atonement. In that case his sin would be taken away and he would have no sin. The alternative is that his flesh was impervious to becoming unclean and that is why he was without sin. Either way, he would be without sin. If he was above the law, his flesh would be impervious to becoming unclean and he would just be participating in the motions of the law to not offend his kin. Since he is the High Priest of an order not under the Mosaic Law

Come again? Can you elaborate on this, I want to make sure of what I am reading? Thank you. I am trusting you have read the scriptures and can explain them.

 

[elohiym]

Come again? Can you elaborate on this, I want to make sure of what I am reading? Thank you. I am trusting you have read the scriptures and can explain them.

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law."

"I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live."

"Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty."

The Lord touched and was touched by people who were unclean according the Mosaic ordinance, e.g. the leper, the woman with the blood issue, etc.

Did he become guilty under the law, or was he somehow above the law? As a priest of the Melchizedek order he could do that without becoming unclean, but then he's not really under the Mosaic Law in a way he can become guilty like every other man.

If that woman had touched you under the law, you would have been made unclean, right?

 

[elohiym]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that Jesus did become unclean and guilty under the Mosaic ordinances. He could still be without sin because sin was taken away by the rituals. For example, Luke 1:6; John's parents were blameless under the law.

 

[Cross Reference]

For the sake of discussion, let's say that Jesus did become unclean and guilty under the Mosaic ordinances. He could still be without sin because sin was taken away by the rituals. For example, Luke 1:6; John's parents were blameless under the law.

No. Not if you understand that Jesus not only kept but fulfilled the law. The law is now a Person, Him. His Law can be read in Matt 5:1-12 KJV. All of what you read [ vs3-11) is of the Fruit of the Spirit.

 

[elohiym]

No. Not if you understand that Jesus not only kept but fulfilled the law.

Did John's parents keep the law? Luke 1:6.

Did they become unclean and guilty under the law? Yet they kept the law and were blameless.

Is there a difference between them being blameless while keeping the law and Jesus being sinless while keeping the law?

 

[Cross Reference]

"But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law."

"I also gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not live."

"Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean cattle or a carcass of unclean swarming things, though it is hidden from him and he is unclean, then he will be guilty. Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort his uncleanness may be with which he becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, and then he comes to know it, he will be guilty."

The Lord touched and was touched by people who were unclean according the Mosaic ordinance, e.g. the leper, the woman with the blood issue, etc.

Did he become guilty under the law, or was he somehow above the law? As a priest of the Melchizedek order he could do that without becoming unclean, but then he's not really under the Mosaic Law in a way he can become guilty like every other man.

If that woman had touched you under the law, you would have been made unclean, right?

All of a type that pointed up man's need for a "never ending redemption". Jesus didn't need to be redeemed. He became the Author of it.

Jesus also walked on water and revealed mens hearts. Having complete His work required of Him, cross over into Glory, wittnessed by Peter, James and John. Now if He did all those things it seems obvious that he could NOT have been guilty of sin. This is where truth by revelation comes in handy. As written by God, was the law commands or decrees. The only decree I find is that of circumcision. Jesus, by His life explained the commands. He wrote them before He took on human flesh.

Obviously, there is more that be can opened up to our thinking if meditated upon. I hope some of it makes sense.

 

[Cross Reference]

Did John's parents keep the law? Luke 1:6.

Did they become unclean and guilty under the law? Yet they kept the law and were blameless.

Is there a difference between them being blameless while keeping the law and Jesus being sinless while keeping the law?

Atonement under the law never "dealt" with the issue of sin. It was only the means by which sin was "covered". Faith unto good works remained the thing God would be looking for.

 

[elohiym]

Atonement under the law never "dealt" with the issue of sin.

"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for, And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil."

How were John's parents righteous and blameless? Luke 1:6.

It's interesting that the law presents ritual atonement as efficacious.

"So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Sure, with the ordinances came the daily and yearly reminders that sin was ever-present in the flesh, but that didn't mean there was not atonement under the law.

 

[Cross Reference]

"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for, And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil."

How were John's parents righteous and blameless? Luke 1:6.

It's interesting that the law presents ritual atonement as efficacious.

"So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Sure, with the ordinances came the daily and yearly reminders that sin was ever-present in the flesh, but that didn't mean there was not atonement under the law.

How about posting your scripture references?

 

[musterion]

How about posting your scripture references?

How about you posting yours on how grace can be merited.

 

[Cross Reference]

"By lovingkindness and truth iniquity is atoned for, And by the fear of the LORD one keeps away from evil."

How were John's parents righteous and blameless? Luke 1:6.

They lived by faith and were justified. see Rom 5:1 KJV.

It's interesting that the law presents ritual atonement as efficacious.

"So the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin, and he shall be forgiven."

Covered.

Sure, with the ordinances came the daily and yearly reminders that sin was ever-present in the flesh, but that didn't mean there was not atonement under the law.

Covered. To be dealt with that would wholly reconcile man and God, a sacrifice of a sinless human being of Adam's race was necessary to cancel the transgression that separated man from God. Can you name one who was which would have made Jesus unnecessary?

 

[elohiym]

How about posting your scripture references?

Proverbs 16:6
Leviticus 4:26 (as one example of sins being forgiven under the law)

 

[Cross Reference]

Proverbs 16:6
Leviticus 4:26 (as one example of sins being forgiven under the law)

Do you now understand that they were covered and not dealt with as in, canceled out? They could not enter the Presence of God for this reason because there was a wall that God erected between Himself and man that man, in his corrupted state of being, by his own righteousness, could not climb over, go under or around. No sin merely covered could ever enter into the Presence of a Holy God and live. That is why when man died, he went into the abode of the dead, sheol, paradise, Abraham's bosom to await redemption.

 

[elohiym]

Do you now understand that they were covered and not dealt with as in, canceled out?

The sins that were atoned for and forgiven under the law were dealt with: they were forgiven completely, not partially. However, some sins under the law had no sacrifice, just a penalty of death. Those have to be forgiven by God strictly according to God's mercy, e.g. David's adultery.

They could not enter the Presence of God for this reason because there was a wall that God erected between Himself and man that man, in his corrupted state of being, by his own righteousness, could not climb over, go under or around.

God's Spirit was in David before and after his sin. That's Presence.

No sin merely covered could ever enter into the Presence of a Holy God and live. That is why when man died, he went into the abode of the dead, sheol, paradise, Abraham's bosom to await redemption.

The High Priest of Israel entered into the most holy place and lived. Therefore, the atonement and cleansing rituals really worked (for him at least).

 

[Cross Reference]

The sins that were atoned for and forgiven under the law were dealt with: they were forgiven completely, not partially. However, some sins under the law had no sacrifice, just a penalty of death. Those have to be forgiven by God strictly according to God's mercy, e.g. David's adultery.

You just don't understand.

God's Spirit was in David before and after his sin. That's Presence.

You don't understand.

The High Priest of Israel entered into the most holy place and lived. Therefore, the atonement and cleansing rituals really worked (for him at least).

Ditto!

In your world, Jesus wasn't necessary.

 

[elohiym]

In your world, Jesus wasn't necessary.

That's just your opinion, but I don't believe that.

He is the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

We just see things differently.

Are we saved by having a perfect understanding of theology?