The Passion of the Christ - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

0 posted 2004-01-21 08:40 AM

I am no scholar or even an intellectual by any means so I will not try to be, but I would like to know how you fello poets feel about "The Passion of the Christ"  Mel Gibson's movie coming out in February.  Personally I am so excited, in fact I haven't been this excited about a movie since I was a kid.  I understand that there will be differences in doctrine between Catholics and Baptists and Pentecostle and the list goes on and on and on and on.  What I am trying to say is I am sure this film will be picked to death by all sides.  Unfortunately it is the attacking of Christians by Christians that has totally blindsided the things that are really important and even worse this attitude drives others away who are seeking.  It is my belief that we ARE all DIFFERENT creatures and it would only make sense that God could use many many many different ways to reach us according to our needs.  I am not Catholic, but to me thier religion is so beautiful and my friends that are, are incredible devoted Christians.

Sorry about the tangent - What I am so desperately trying to get around to is - The most important thing about this movie is how will it affect those seeking God, how much will it influence the holy spirit to work in others.  I would hope that other believers would go see it not with intentions to analyze it but with an incredible sense of excitement in that it will reach so many lives with the message of Christ.

For those unbelievers, I will totally respect your opinions on the movie, but I would approach them from a different angle.  I would hope that you might venture to see it regardless, for I truly believe it will be a good quality film.

Can't wait - Tim

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

1 posted 2004-01-21 09:35 AM

I, myself, plan on seeing it out of curiosity more than anything.
The one thing I find amazingly hilarious is that the Jewish folks of the world (no, not all of them) are screaming that the movie blames them for the death of Jesus...
hmmmmm.......
In the bible that I read, it seems to me that it WAS the Jews who were responsible for bringing this "heretic" to justice. It was they who accused Him of Blasphemy and sent him to trial, and, etc. Judas Iscariat sold Him, not to the Romans, but to the church elders (Matthew 26:14, Mark 14:10, Luke 22:4, John 18:3) to betray him. It was these Chief Priests that turned him over to the Romans, which led to His death.
Does this mean that I blame the Jewish faith and all of those who profess it to have been the cause of his death? No,we cannot modern followers of the the Law of David responsible any more than we can blame modern Catholics for the Crusades. What it means is that I thank their ANCESTORS for giving me the faith I have now, and for making it possible.
Just my thoughts.

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

2 posted 2004-01-21 09:40 AM

"For those unbelievers, I will totally respect your opinions on the movie, but I would approach them from a different angle. I would hope that you might venture to see it regardless, for I truly believe it will be a good quality film."

~ I don't relate being an unbliever with one who would not want to see this movie. As an unbeliever, I have recently went to see the live performance of JCS (which is a controversy among christians itself), and is my favorite musical of all-time.

~ The Last Temptation of Christ stirred much controversy too, and unjustly so imo, so it doesn't surprise me the same will happen with this one. I'll probably see it. I don't know if I will go to the theater, but I will eventually watch it.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

3 posted 2004-01-21 10:08 AM

I've seen a trailer ... and what I saw was awesome. It is well done. It is emotionally moving. And it is done to portray the grim reality of the crucifixion. It doesn't try to make the incident look like someone's calm passing in a hospital bed. I would encourage everyone to see it, believer or not.

Thumbs up to Mel. (on what I have thus far seen and read)

Stephen.

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

4 posted 2004-01-21 11:09 AM

LOL. I haven't seen the Return of the King yet, but I have watched the first two movies in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. They're good, don't get me wrong, but they are still only a very dim reflection of the books. Of course, that didn't surprise me in the least, because the movie is never as good as the book.

I doubt this one will be, either.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

5 posted 2004-01-22 02:05 AM

Ron,

You haven't seen ROTK? Shame on you. You should see it before it leaves the big screen. It's a great one, though it deviates from the book too much in places. But then again, I couldn't imagine trying to make Tolkien's text into a movie. What a daunting task.

But then again ... The crucifixion of Jesus ... What a daunting task.

Stephen.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis

since 2002-11-18

Posts 7350
the ass-end of space

6 posted 2004-01-23 11:16 PM

It all really centers around a bible passage that the producers had promised to edit but have since placed back in the movie much to the horror of Jewish Rights groups. It was this passage that fueled anti-semitism and the groups fear it will again.

"His blood be on our heads and on the heads of our children" (Matt 27:25)

Mistletoe Angel

Member Empyrean

since 2000-12-17

Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon

7 posted 2004-01-23 11:23 PM

"It is as it was" so said the Pope.

Being Catholic, I am looking forward to seeing it and judging for myself, as I'm sure non-Catholics would also find this enthralling. Apparently it stays true to Him as I'm told by my church-going friends.

Love,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

8 posted 2004-01-23 11:29 PM

How groups have abused, or taken certain scriptural portions out of context, to justify their hatred should not be the cause of criticizing the scriptures themselves ... nor to any artistic expression which might include them. Hatred and prejudice have always taken things "out of context". If we pulled everything that was ever said, on account of those who misused the quotes, we would have little left.

But if one really reads the NT (not looking to pick a fight) ... the charge of anti-semitism appears for what it is ... absurd.

Stephen.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis

since 2002-11-18

Posts 7350
the ass-end of space

9 posted 2004-01-23 11:29 PM

And speaking of Tolkien, yes an impossible task. The only way a Tolkien fan can watch them is by totally detaching from the original text and enjoying it for what it is. An artistic interpretation. I mean I was livid when Frodo revealed the ring to the Nazgul, furious at how Faramir was portrayed..but I've calmed since. grins

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

10 posted 2004-01-24 09:52 AM

I do agree about Tolkien, read those books a few times, and I definetly had to go see the films for just what they were - good (GREAT!) entertainment. I think Tolkien himslef would have been pleased. Anyway - thanks for all your responses. February will be a great month for me - I can't wait (a little off the topic but - oh well) The Passion comes out - going to go see MercyMe in concert and two CDs that I have desperately been waiting for come out the 10th.. Norah Jones - and the new Jeremy Camp.. will be a good month indeed. sorry for the tangent.. thanx

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

11 posted 2004-01-25 08:04 AM

I thought the bible teaches its followers to not make any "graven images" of the lord God? A graven image most certainly means putting the face and appearance of the Lord God on a movie screen for the purpose of entertainment... oh, there must be another "out" to justify that one.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

12 posted 2004-01-25 11:03 AM

Not an "out" Opeth, a reality, and one that you either disbelieve or just fail to comprehend (I know that I personally have shared this with you on more than one occassion) : Christ fulfilled the Law.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

13 posted 2004-01-25 11:47 AM

Denise, that is an out. For if christ fulfilled the laws then christiand do have a license to sin - but we been there before!

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

14 posted 2004-01-25 12:04 PM

Nope, Opeth, no license to sin:

"Because the law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, there is no transgression. Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed not to that only that is of law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham who is the father of us all." (Romans 4:15-16)

Now there is some reality worth plugging into.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

15 posted 2004-01-25 12:26 PM

Interesting, Denise, but quite puzzling to me still...

Romans 6:12-13

"Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness..."

Then what does Paul say?

verse 15

"What then? Are we to sin because we are not under the law but under grace?"

And the big answer is?

"By no means!"

~ So, a christian is to refrain from sinning. What is sin? "The breaking of the laws of God." What do these laws include? The 10 Commandments. Christ summed them up this way... Love your god (1st 4 commandments) and loving one's neighbor (last 6).

One of the commandments is not make graven images of God - so on what grounds do christians watch movies with the image of god on screen or have pictures of a white-brown-haired-blue-eyed saviour hanging on their walls?

An out, indeed.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

16 posted 2004-01-25 01:05 PM

Opeth, that is your definition of sin, and an erroneous one, scripturally speaking, which tells us that the power of sin is the Law and that Christ fulfilled the Law so that we are not under it for the obtaining of righteousness, and therefore no longer under the power of sin. We are now free to live in Christ (the fulfillment of the Law) and not by a rule book of "right and wrong".

I've just seen a definite correlation here (I love it when that happens! ) regarding the Tree of Life (Christ) and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (the Law).

The beauty is is that when you are feasting from the Tree of Life, you won't be fulfilling the lusts of the flesh. When we become Law conscious again, we set ourselves up for a fall.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

17 posted 2004-01-25 01:24 PM

"Opeth, that is your definition of sin, and an erroneous one, scripturally speaking..."

I beg to differ, Denise. I merely provided the biblical definition of sin. For, if the question, "What is sin?" is asked, the bible would be the source to answer the question. And the bible does indeed provide a direct answer - one that is crystal clear.

IJohn 3:4 (Straight from Strong's concordance of the bible)

"Sin transgresseth also the laws; for sin is the transgression (breaking) of the laws of God."

Please Denise, explain to me how that is my definition and not the definition inspired by the Holy Spirit of God?

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis

since 2002-11-18

Posts 7350
the ass-end of space

18 posted 2004-01-25 01:58 PM

Denise if Jesus fulfilled the law then why did God not, for example, raise up the dead of Israel under David the King? That was his plan as he Told Ezekiel and David yet it has not come to pass. To call Opeth's statement erroneous is to call Judaism erroneous as they still observe the Law and have yet to see all the words of god to Israel it fulfilled.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

19 posted 2004-01-25 02:22 PM

Opeth, it is not a scriptural definition in the sense that you are not reading the whole counsel of what the Bible is saying, you are taking one verse at the expense of all the other verses and are therefore drawing an erroneous conclusion. You seem to be stuck on Law, disregarding the clear scriptural evidence that Christ fulfilled it.

Raph, because it's not yet time for the resurrection. And I'm not calling Judaism erroneous. Have you never heard of progressive revelation? And everything that was ever promised will be fulfilled, I have absolutely no doubt about it.

Let's think outside the box a little bit here guys!

And I know that "Man does not live by bread alone", but if I don't go food shopping I won't have any bread (or milk, or eggs) before the snow storm hits!

Be back later.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

20 posted 2004-01-25 02:40 PM

(Shakes head in disbelief over Denise's reply)

I guess when the bible states that sin is the transgression of the laws of god, I am not to believe it to be true because I am taking the meaning out of context.

I believe you are hung-up on the fact that god's spiritual laws do exist and that sin (bible's definition) is the breaking of the laws of god - but, hey, that is only my erroneous interpretation.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis

since 2002-11-18

Posts 7350
the ass-end of space

21 posted 2004-01-25 03:10 PM

Denise you stated that

"Christ fulfilled the Law so that we are not under it for the obtaining of righteousness"

Yet Jews do not believe the Law fulfilled, so in an offhand way you're claiming that they're going about righteousness the wrong way. The resurrection and kingdom under David of the Old Testament would essentially occur once the Laws/prophecies were fulfilled. Since they have been fulfilled in your opinion God's promises to the Jews should have been fulfilled. By your reasoning God is essentially saying to the Jews "Ok, we've got you covered but you're going to have to hold off until i can the rest of these guys in order."

As for thinking outside of the box..that's one of the most incredibly ironic statements I've read thusfar.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

22 posted 2004-01-25 06:39 PM

Opeth, nope, I'm not hung up, just rejoicing that Jesus did for us what we couldn't do for ourselves.

Raph, but not all of the prophecies have been fulfilled yet, and it's not me saying anything, I'm telling you what is revealed in the Scpritures. The Jews as a nation have been temporarily set aside (but not forsaken), a pause, if you will, during this age of the gathering in from among the Gentile nations. This is the mystery spoken of in the New Testament "hidden in ages past", something that had never been revealed to Israel, that Jesus alluded to when He said He had "other sheep, not of this fold" that he had to gather, which falls under the progressive revelation that I mentioned. Even though God of course sees the big picture, man received His revelation in progressive steps. When our time is finished, God will again resume where He left off with Israel, the clock will start ticking again, and all of the prophecies will then become fulfilled.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

23 posted 2004-01-25 08:47 PM

Denise- I apologize in advance if I completely took your meaning out of context, yet, am I to presume that you are implying that the Jews will be the last of His peoples left on Earth???

____________________________________________

When our time is finished, God will again resume where He left off with Israel, the clock will start ticking again, and all of the prophecies will then become fulfilled.
____________________________________________

To me it sounds as if you believe that He will send those that follow His Son Home, and THEN work on fulfilling the prohesies of Judism, which- therefore- implies that the Jews will be left on Earth after He is done with the rest of us.

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

24 posted 2004-01-25 09:27 PM

Ringo, It's my understanding, from what I've studied of the issue, that it is only the Jews who will enter the earthly Kingdom in mortal bodies, to receive the fulfillment of the promises made to Israel. If we are there at all (I've read differing opinions on this), we will be there in our new immortal bodies (given to us by Christ when He comes in the clouds to take us out of the earth), in a ministering capacity, serving alongside Christ.

Ringo

Member Elite

since 2003-02-20

Posts 3684
Saluting with misty eyes

25 posted 2004-01-25 10:06 PM

Oh... OK.
That is interesting... I hadn't heard that, however, I am far from being an expert on the situaion, other than my own beliefs (which don't really match too many people)... the one question I haev about your thoughts, is if we are all "there"... who are we ministering to?

Cause in my dreams it's always there
The evil face that twists my mind
And brings me to despair.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

26 posted 2004-01-25 10:12 PM

We would be ministering to the Jews in the Kingdom, carrying out any tasks that we are given by the King in the administration of the Kingdom. That's my understanding, at least at this point in time.

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

27 posted 2004-01-26 08:33 AM

WOW!

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

28 posted 2004-01-26 11:56 AM

"Opeth, nope, I'm not hung up, just rejoicing that Jesus did for us what we couldn't do for ourselves."

Denise, I cannot figure out what you are saying at all.

Certainly, according to the bible Christ died so that we could be reconciled with the Father, but we don't keep the laws of God. The Spirit of God keeps the laws within each person who receives the Spirit. The laws of God are spiritual and never were done away with. That is why the bible states that to sin is to break the laws of God. I am taking nothing out of context. The bible clearly states that phrase.

When a person sins, the person's carnal mind is at disagreement with the Spirit. A person will know, through the Spirit, when that person transgresses a law of God. To me, it is that simple.

This doesn't mean the bible teaches that everyone will be perfect and not ever sin. However, the bible does give examples of many who had God's Spirit within them and "were righteous, walking with the Lord" ~ repenting from and not sinning.

Paul was talking about a person who is trying to keep the laws, not singling out the 10 commandments, on their own and how that is futile.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

29 posted 2004-01-26 09:19 PM

Poet4Christ -

My reaction exactly! And even if my Dispensational understanding of the end times turns out to be incorrect, I'm more than sure that however it all plays out we will still be saying WOW!

And I'm looking forward to seeing the movie too. I have heard that it has left even grown macho men in tears.

I better take along a case of tissues!

Opeth, I certainly can't explain it any better than the Word of God does. Maybe that's the problem, me trying to explain it. I think it might be better if I just let the inspired Word say it.

Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Galatians 2:16).

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)

For if justification (righteousness, acquittal from guilt) comes through (observing the ritual of) the Law, then Christ, the Messiah, died groundlessly and to no purpose and in vain - His death, was then wholly superfluous (Galatians 2:21, Amplified).

For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. (Romans 10:2-4)

"For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.'" (Galatians 3:10)

"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13)

“Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.” (Romans 4:4-5)

I also think this is a good piece of insight:

“Our pride drives us to establish our own righteousness. We strive all our life to see ourselves as keepers of rules we cannot keep, as loyal subjects of laws under which we can only be judged outlaws. Yet so deep is our need to derive our identity from our own self-respect – so profound is our conviction that unless we watch our step, the watchbird will take away our name – that we will spend a lifetime trying to do the impossible rather than, for even one carefree minute, consent to having it done for us by someone else.” Robert F. Capon, Between Noon And Three

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

30 posted 2004-01-27 08:48 AM

Amen Denise - Can't Wait, if only those unbelievers could feel the drug like addiction that the Holy Spirit has on our lives. Just a taste developes an excitement to search out more. I have no doubts that when I go see this film - I will be floating out.

By the way another INCREDIBLE movie thats not getting enough recognition is...

RADIO

I have NEVER EVER been so emotionally overcome by a movie before - almost sobbing throughout the whole movie. I think only The Passion of the Christ will affect me more.

God bless both of you - Tim

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

31 posted 2004-01-27 08:51 AM

Opeth

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Romans 3:23

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

32 posted 2004-01-27 09:40 AM

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

~ But if all have sinned, sinned must be defined... so I ask you, what is sin? Or better yet, what is the biblical definition?

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

33 posted 2004-01-27 09:47 AM

Denise,

I understand. What you are failing to consider is Paul is talking about people trying to keep laws. I truly believe you are missing the point and I don't know how else to explain it but the laws of God and the Holy Spirit keeping those laws for you is not what Paul is talking about in Galations.

I believe Stephanos could explain it to you as I am sure he would not disagree with me on this particulare issue.

If the laws of God don't exist.
There cannot be sin.
Human beings don't keep the laws (Paul rails against this)
It is the Spirit which provides the begotten christian the understanding and caring to refrain from sinning.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

34 posted 2004-01-27 11:17 AM

quote:
I believe Stephanos could explain it to you as I am sure he would not disagree with me on this particulare issue.

Opeth, could you concisely restate your position, and how it differs from Denise's? Then maybe I can understand where the tension is. I still feel that you guys are missing each other through semantics, and probably agreeing with one another more than you know.

Stephen.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

35 posted 2004-01-27 11:42 AM

What is sin? I asked Denise. She gave me an answer. I gave her the biblical answer:

"Sin is the transgression of the laws of God."

But Denise seems to think that Paul preaches that christians are not under the law.

I have explained that Paul was talking about law in 2 different ways... just read our conversation and see what you make of it. It begins at reply 11.

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

36 posted 2004-01-27 12:03 PM

"Denise, that is an out. For if christ fulfilled the laws then christiand do have a license to sin - but we been there before!"

~ going back and reading this quote of mine, I realized I made an error. Yes, Christ did fulfill the laws of God, but that doesn't mean the laws of God are no longer in existence. That is what I should of said.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

37 posted 2004-01-27 12:31 PM

I think the confusion is caused by both the covenant theologians and the dispensationalists Denise mentioned in this or another thread.  Many in both camps fail to realize that gospel existed before Christ's advent as much as it did after it.  The main difference was timing.

Regarding law, we have both the Law of Moses and the law "written on the hearts" of all men mentioned by Paul in the beginning of his Letter to the Romans.  The law presents God's standards of conduct for one to be considered righteous or just.  Before Christ, the ceremonial sacrifices were necessary in order to atone for violations of the law (not for any intrinsic value of the sacrifices, but rather for the value imputed to those sacrifices by God).

Christ's fulfilment of the law simply means that he was the first person who truly lived a life that met God's perfect standard of righteousness and, in his sacrifice on the cross in accordance with God's design, the ceremonial sacrifices were no longer necessary.  It was by faith in God's promise to accept the sacrifices as atonements for sin that made a person just, not engagement in the act of sacrifice itself.  This is, conceptually, very similar to how one is made righteous by faith in the atoning death and resurrection of Christ, as I think whomever wrote the Letter to the Hebrews made that point clear enough.

Regarding Gospel, the promise of future redemption from sin dates in the Biblical accounts back to immediately after Adam's fall from grace.  As God's revelations in history progressed, more details concerning His (then future) promises were made known.  Righteousness was always imputed to men by faith in the truth of God's fulfillment of His promises, again, as the author of the Letter to the Hebrews articulates.

Although I don't think I've done the subject justice, I just thought I'd throw the Lutheran position in the mix, recognizing that we are significantly outnumbered by dispensationalists of both the covenant and progressive revelationist breeds.

And one would think theology would be be a little neater subject after 2000 or so years.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

38 posted 2004-01-27 12:45 PM

I am not confused on this matter.
And you are correct, Jim, in stating that the Laws of Moses were done away with, but the 10 commandments precede those laws.

And yes, your saviour fulfilled the law - not by "the letter" by through His heart. We all know the Scribes/Pharisees of time did no have the Spirit of God within their hearts and Christ showed the difference.

God's laws do indeed exist.
They are spiritual and to be kept in Spirit.
The Spirit of a Christian keeps them, not the carnal mind of a person, which is at war with the Spirit.

You cannot have sin without the laws of God. It is impossible and completely irrational to suggest.

Example: Thou shalt not steal.

Keeping the Commandment

by Letter of the Law - A person may say I never stole anything from my neighbor or any other person or business. I have kept the commandment. Christ would say this is not necessarily keeping the commandment.

by the Spirit keeping it for you - A person, throught the Spirit is selling a car. They read up on the Internet/Blue book value etc, of what the fair market value of that car is and therefore they won't accept any amount of money over that fair value. Same could go with selling a home or piece of real estate, etc. That is keeping the commandment as Jesus would - or the God's Spirit keeping the Spiritual (Spirit of the) law for you.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

39 posted 2004-01-27 12:54 PM

Well, then your understanding of what it means differs from mine. It is not the Spirit within you that keeps the law perfectly, it is Christ whose work is finished. Read Romans and Galatians carefully and I think you will see that it is Christ's righteousness which is imputed to us in a legal sense called "justification" in the English translations and all sins were counted or imputed to him at his sacrifice on the cross.

Now I think it is correct to say that it is the Spirit's presence in a Christian that makes our imperfectly good works acceptible to God, but I think your position, unless I'm misreading it, takes it a little farther than the text does. You seem to be confusing justification and sanctification - that is, what makes use righteous in the eyes of God versus living the good, Christian life.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

40 posted 2004-01-27 01:00 PM

The problem that just arose is that you believe the Spirit to be a part of a trinity, for me saying that the Spirit of God keeps the laws of God for you, which the Spirit must do because God's laws are spiritual and Paul (with much passion) says Christians are not to sin, is saying that the Spirit of God (Christ) through the Father is the Spirit residing within you.

Poet4Christ
Member

since 2003-02-19

Posts 211
Oklahoma City

41 posted 2004-01-27 01:03 PM

Opeth - I'm not an arguer - as a believer What is said in scripture is final.. so if it sais - "all have sinned" than it means all have sinned. I can't look at it the way Clinton looked at the defintion of "is".

God bless you man - Tim

He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered. Proverbs 28:26

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

42 posted 2004-01-27 01:12 PM

"... so if it sais - "all have sinned" than it means all have sinned. I can't look at it the way Clinton looked at the defintion of "is"."

~ What Clinton declared about "is" has nothing to do with what I asked you. All I asked you was to define the biblical definition of sin. If you believe "all have sinned" don't you think you should know what sin is?

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

43 posted 2004-01-27 01:45 PM

Opeth:

Whether the Spirit is part of the triune Godhead or an impersonal force has little to do with the interpretation of the key passages in Romans, Galatians and Hebrews I alluded to.  Paul said "Don't sin" so emphatically because, at the same time Judaizers were trying to get all new believers to keep the ceremonial laws, antinomians were saying "sin more so grace may abound also."

Both positions are error and Paul addresses both.  In contrast to both extreme positions, I believe Paul was abundantly clear that the good things we do are done in response to the finished work that was done for us in Christ.  James has a little bit of a different spin on it when he wrote "Faith without works is dead," but I believe both Paul's and James' positions are harmoneous if you consider good works (and refraining from sinning) to be evidence of true faith, rather than a means to faith.

As to God's laws being spiritual, I believe most of them are more properly described as being moral - the first table address how we are to act toward God and the second regarding how we are to act toward our fellow man.  Our spiritual conditions affects to what extent we are capable of keeping those laws - but I'm not sure whether I agree with you that God's laws are therefore spiritual.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

44 posted 2004-01-27 01:50 PM

Let me ask you this, Jim...

What is sin?

And have you not read that Paul defines the laws of God as spiritual? I am not saying they are spiritual, but Paul says so.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

45 posted 2004-01-27 02:12 PM

I'd need to find and read the passage.

Regarding sin, it is an act contrary to God's command which, for us, is both the offense and guilt of Adam having been imputed to all mankind (Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-19) and, second, because every human being is a sinner by the hereditary corruption of his nature (Romans 7) he/she sins (i.e., acts contrary to God's command) daily.

I realize you have a problem with original sin, so I don't expect you to completely agree with my position.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

46 posted 2004-01-27 02:28 PM

"Regarding sin, it is an act contrary to God's command"

~ Which is basically what I told Denise. The next logical step in determining the aspects of sin is - once we know that sin is the breaking of the laws of god as is written in the bible (you say command and I will equate that to law(s)), the next step is to determine what those commands are.

Humans cannot add nor subtract from the bible, so whatever those commands are, must come directly from scripture.

So I ask you, what are those commands?

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

47 posted 2004-01-27 02:44 PM

Put simply, to love God with all our heart, all our soul, and all our strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is at the heart of what God expects, and it is our total inability to keep these commands (or laws) that condemns us.

That's the law part. The Gospel is simply that we have been save from God by God.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

48 posted 2004-01-27 02:54 PM

To love God with all of your heart and soul (The first 4 Commandments). To love your neighbor likewise (the last 6 commandments).

Not obeying the letter of the law, but the Spirit of the laws of God. This cannot be open to interpretation, otherwise the church splits (as has already happened), as humans inject what they believe it means to love both God and neighbor, when Christ, who gave the 10 Commandments to begin with, instructs us, through the Spirit, as to what it means to love both God and neighbor - by keep the commandments.

But then Jim, you still didn't answer my questions.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

49 posted 2004-01-27 03:03 PM

Which acts are and are not sinful can certainly, at times, be open to interpretation. What isn't open to interpretation is our utter inability to keep even the simplest commands perfectly. Don't you think that was Jesus' point in answering the lawyer's question regarding which is the greatest commandment?

I thought I answered your questions. Maybe I didn't understand what you wanted. If you wanted me to give you a definitive list of laws and sins, then I'd have to say "You go first" because I have neither the time nor inclination to do so.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

50 posted 2004-01-27 03:46 PM

I didn't ask you to give me a definitive list of laws/sins.

I asked you to define sin.

What is sin?

I also asked you if you knew that Paul called Gods laws to be spiritual.

As for the greatest commandment, it was quite clear that Christ teaches that breaking any commandment is breaking them all, but that is not the issue at hand.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

51 posted 2004-01-27 04:02 PM

I wrote:

quote:
Regarding sin, it is an act contrary to God's command which, for us, is both the offense and guilt of Adam having been imputed to all mankind (Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-19) and, second, because every human being is a sinner by the hereditary corruption of his nature (Romans 7) he/she sins (i.e., acts contrary to God's command) daily.

Am I missing something? I suppose I should have included omissions also. Not doing what you ought to do is not all that different from doing what you ought not.

Jim

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

52 posted 2004-01-27 04:12 PM

By the way ... you may want to read the conclusions Paul draws in Romans 8 from Romans 7. As to "spiritual," I think it simply means the law has a spiritual source (i.e., God).

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

53 posted 2004-01-28 07:02 AM

I sincerely apologize. I thought Poets4Christ answered the question I asked, not yourself, Jim. The eyes do play tricks on me sometimes.

You gave your definition of sin.
I gave the biblical definition of sin.
I choose the biblical definition over yours (although yours was similiar, it wasn't exact).

Michelle_loves_Mike

Senior Member

since 2003-12-20

Posts 1189
Pennsylvania

54 posted 2004-01-28 09:44 AM

I remember, way back in the 80's, when I was a teen,,,a movie called "The Last Temptation Of Christ" was beaten to death by all sides.
From what I remember, it was an ok movie, from the idea of "jesus" saying,,,the heck with this and hopping down off the cross to have a life etc...
It was one mans idea of "what if"....and it was attacked as a blaspheme...not seen as an.."o.k., could have happened that way IF..."
I'll go see this movie,,,,I'm always up for a good laugh
Michelle

I wish all could find the true happiness I have found,,in the eyes of Mike

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

55 posted 2004-01-28 10:30 AM

Opeth:

I offer you this in support of the part of my definition you declared "not biblical:"

quote:
Romans 5:18 Then as one man's [Adam's] trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

So Adam's sin led to the condemnation of all men. Feel free to read the surrounding texts to confirm this is in context. By the way, before you cite what I quoted as proof that all are saved as a result of Christ's sacrifice, regardless of faith:

quote:
Romas 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; 26 it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus. 27

Saying my position is not biblical is one thing, Opeth. Proving it is something I do not believe you can do.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

56 posted 2004-01-28 10:40 AM

Jim, take a deep breath. I said your definition of what sin is was your own. The passages you just recently provided does not define sin. Sin is, however, defined in the scriptures, which I still cannot figure out why you just don't admit to it. It is there, right in front of you.

"Sin is the transgression of the laws of God."

Clear, simple, precise, not my definition, but your own scripture's definition.

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

57 posted 2004-01-28 10:58 AM

Well, I don't see how my restatement is substantially different from the biblical definition, but if you use the old maxim, "let Scripture interpret Scripture," you find that the "clear, precise definition" is just as clearly applied. I would say our basic definitions are in sync, but I believe your application of the definition is in error.

Jim

Opeth
Senior Member

since 2001-12-13

Posts 1543
The Ravines

58 posted 2004-01-28 12:07 PM

Let's take it from top, starting with the precise, clear, definition the bible gives:

"Sin is the transgression of the laws of God."

Does that mean the laws of God are in existence or not? If you answer no, explain how they are not in existence. If you answer yes, tell me what you think those laws are, if you care to, that is.

Thanks!

btw ~ I take it you don't accept my apology?

jbouder
Member Elite

since 1999-09-18

Posts 2534
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash

59 posted 2004-01-28 12:28 PM

Of course they are in existence. So you do want a definitive list? Okay, I'm game. Although his list isn't comprehensive, Paul offers a fairly good examples of transgressions of the law of God in Romans 1. You will note that Paul addresses gentiles here who did not have the Law of Moses, and I would direct you to the beginning of the passage to see Paul's reasoning for suggesting that the gentiles are accountable to God for their violations of his law.

quote:
Romans 1:29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

But, again, I say that it is just as important to apply the facts properly as it is to know what the facts are.

And I do accept your apology, by the way.

Jim

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

60 posted 2004-01-28 07:33 PM

Stephen, no tension here, at least not on my part!

No, I don't think it is merely a matter of semantics. Two entirely different concepts are being expressed. Opeth, on the one hand, I believe, is stating that the law (and the 10 commandments in particular) are in effect for the obtaining and/or maintaining of righteousness and that the Holy Spirit was given to enable us so that we can personally accomplish the demands of the law. I, on the other hand, am stating that Christ fulfilled the law, we are not under its requiremnts either to obtain or maintain salvation, but are freed from its bondage and condemnation in order that we may live unto God in newness of spirit. I believe that is the clear teaching in the New Testament regarding those who are of faith, and I believe that is the only path to victory over the flesh, not in trying to live by a rule book. Paul has stated in the Scriptures that if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly. That's the difference I see here between Opeth's position and mine, I think.

Jim, I misspoke before telling Opeth his definition was not scriptural (sorry, Opeth), which started his questioning regarding the definition of sin. What I meant to say was what you have said, his application of the verse he cited is off-base, not the truth of the verse itself, which I thought I had conveyed by telling him he was taking one verse at the expense of lots of others and coming to a wrong conlusion, but I guess I didn't make myself clear enough.

I think the point Opeth is trying to make is that since sin is defined as the transgression of God's law, and since that is the case, why aren't we attempting to obey all of the law, say like keeping the Sabbath (Saturday) holy? Is that your point, Opeth?

ESP
Member Elite

since 2000-01-25

Posts 2556
Floating gently on a cloud....

61 posted 2004-01-28 08:09 PM

I know I know nothing but just wanted to ask Denise...and please excuse poor phrasing of question, it would be nerves of poking my lil nose in here....should Christians try and keep what they can of the laws or because of Jesus and the holy spirit, does that mean that the laws don't matter anymore. Is it ok for Christians to sin because Jesus died for them? Please if this doesn't make too much sense or seems out place, ignore it.
PS Hats off to everyone trying to answer questions...it's hard enough trying to ask them coherently let alone reply...
Thanks!
Liz.

Denise

Moderator

Member Seraphic

since 1999-08-22

Posts 22648

62 posted 2004-01-28 08:55 PM

quote:
should Christians try and keep what they can of the laws or because of Jesus and the holy spirit, does that mean that the laws don't matter anymore. Is it ok for Christians to sin because Jesus died for them?

Liz, the way that I understand it is that the laws could never be perfectly obeyed by anyone (and that is the requirement, perfection, 24/7 all the days of your life, and if you break one you are guilty of breaking the whole...all of them, so we've all blown it and there is no hope for anyone under the law to obtain righteousness, all the law can do is say we are guilty), therefore Christ came to do for us what we couldn't do for ourselves by perfectly obeying them and then giving himself as a sin offering on our behalf. By God's grace through faith we can experience his gift to us. We are no longer under the obligation of performing the law or trying to perfect ourselves for righteousness, because Christ did all that had to be done. We can now breathe a sigh of relief and just live life loving God.

Is it okay to sin? I can only say what the Apostle Paul said in response to the question, "...shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? ...May it never be! How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" (Romans 6: 1-2) and "Likewise reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:11)

It's never 'okay' to sin, and we always reap what we sow. But increasing victory over sin does not come by trying to do what Jesus has already done, because we can't do it! It comes by keeping our focus on the fact that He has done all that is necessary to make us right with God and resting in that knowledge and praising God for it. He changes you when you keep your mind resting there "working in you, both to will and to do of His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13) and "not having my own righteousness, which is of law, but that which comes through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." (Philippians 3:9)

I hope that helps to answer your questions.

berengar
Member

since 2004-01-02

Posts 86

63 posted 2004-02-01 06:36 AM

Are you there Brad?

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

64 posted 2004-02-01 06:52 AM

Steve,

What am I suppose to argue here? I'm not a Christian.

By the way, Mijung told me to post.

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.