Who receives God's Grace? To law or not to law?

reply to post by bb23108

So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!

You are having a reading comprehension problem.
The other person over on that other thread was falling into a specific fallacy by thinking repentance means changing your mind because of the root words making up the compound Greek word that we see in the New Testament.
You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meant that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.

. . . he gifted everyone who directly recognized him as Divine with this recognition of one's own non-separation from God . . .

You seem to be mixing the two things up: nearness, with knowledge of nearness.
Maybe if your name was John, the disciple of Jesus, you were near and knew it, otherwise, you didn't, that's what it seems like to me.
In hindsight, through the writings of the Gospels, we are aware of that knowledge that the people at the time were not.

Paul created this rift between Jesus the God-Person and Christ as God elsewhere -

Jesus created it himself, from day one, he was pushing away and pushing away, because he knew that the people could not understand that his Messiahship was to be of the Heavenly kind, not the earthly sort that everyone expected. It took his death and resurrection to be sure that they finally understood and could embrace them as their true Lord.

Originally posted by OpenEars123
God didn't love my partner, Mother or Grandparents.

He let them all get cancer and die.

If there is a god, he certainly doesn't love everybody.

edit on 18/4/13 by OpenEars123 because: (no reason given)

Maybe you loved you partner, mother and grandparents more than you loved God. You broke the 1st Commandment. Maybe if you didn't brake it God would have healed them.

It is not God's fault for the toxins in the environment. All people after power, money, lust, avarice...etc. kill our environment, our bodies and with immorality on TV and music they kill our souls. I think it is not God to blame but us. God allows it because we have placed many gods before Him. You want hell, have it, that's how it goes I think.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Have you found unconditionall love here on earth? Why do you refuse to believe it possible?

I don't have a clue how you could ask me this, unless you have not understood most of what I have been saying. I have repeatedly said that Jesus commandments are about loving God fully (= unconditionally) and one's neighbor as oneself - and only on the basis of recognizing that we are already NOT separate from God, is this possible. This was Jesus' great gift to all who would see it, and certainly not what Paul was tending to preach.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
In your argument you are agreeing with Paul. We are not separate from God, but we are separate from unconditional love, for the mere fact that most of our brothers are in their sin living lives feeling separate from the love of God. Until all men realize the love of God and pursue it than the consolation is all we have.

See comment above. As I have also mentioned, you cannot seek, pursue, and as a result find Unconditional Love, as though it is some great Object or elsewhere. You have to release your egoic hold on yourself, and everything else internal and external, and recognize that one is already not separate from Unconditional Love. No egoic seeking, even for unconditional love, is going to allow such recognition.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Myself and Paul we will continue to preach, love is for all, and until all find love there is a separation. Sin is separation, until sin is completely defeated their remains not separation from God but separation from love.

How can there be non-separation from God and yet separation from love? Isn't God the same as Love?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Until we have world peace than you have not experienced heaven, therefore it must be something to come, not something that has come. Just like Paul said. There is work that needs to be done simply because that is what God demands, works done in the name of love to spread love. He puts the seed of love in all men and for the one who he chooses to reveal himself to is commanded to feed his sheep. If even one is lost should we all not be concerned?

Oh I agree that world peace is not the case and that love is the necessary means or basis for feeling the unity in which we all arise. It is a matter of everyone recognizing that we are one people, unified at heart, arising in the same infinite unified Divine Light. This is the primary recognition upon which we can love and cooperate - which can result in peace. Peace is not an ideal, but the result of recognizing our unity, love, and cooperation.

However, world peace is not necessary to achieve before one can realize Unconditional Love or God - or as you seem to be saying, experiencing heaven. Unconditional Love or God is obviously not dependent on any such conditions - otherwise it would not be Unconditional!

Originally posted by jmdewey60
You are having a reading comprehension problem.
The other person over on that other thread was falling into a specific fallacy by thinking repentance means changing your mind because of the root words making up the compound Greek word that we see in the New Testament.
You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meat that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.

And you seem to be having a rudeness problem. I asked "So sinning is not missing the mark?" and rather than just telling me how wrong I am, why not also at least tell me what you believe sin to mean during the time of Paul?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Jesus created it himself, from day one, he was pushing away and pushing away, because he knew that the people could not understand that his Messiahship was to be of the Heavenly kind, not the earthly sort that everyone expected. It took his death and resurrection to be sure that they finally understood and could embrace them as their true Lord.

Jesus clearly wanted to be accepted on earth by all, but knew the realities of the day. He also knew that in order for his work to be established eternally, he needed to teach others of the Spirit Above. He wanted people to live by the Spirit in life, and also for all generations to do so - as well as when one passes from this life. Paul emphasized only the latter, whereas Jesus was more radical than that - he taught such perfect Unity was possible in life too.

reply to post by bb23108

And you seem to be having a rudeness problem. I asked "So sinning is not missing the mark?" and rather than just telling me how wrong I am, why not also at least tell me what you believe sin to mean during the time of Paul?

Yeah, well thanks for pointing that out, rude. You were going off on something about repentance.
Sin means sin, in the same way as repentance means repentance, I figured that would be the obvious corollary.

Jesus clearly wanted to be accepted on earth by all, but knew the realities of the day.

I'm not sure if that was the case. He got tired of all the attention and did things it seems more to show his disciples how it is done, then was happy to go off to a meeting room and argue with Pharisees and basically ditch everyone else.
He mostly feared being caught up in some sort of uprising where the accusations against him would be all too real. Jesus was supposed to be the unblemished lamb, so had to keep himself free from inciting acts of violence except to himself.

Paul emphasized only the latter

I see that as a popular misconception about Paul. I noticed that sort of thing in a customer review on Amazon, of the book that I mentioned, that I was about exasperated with, wondering if the guy had read the same book.
After my latest study on Paul's supposed apocalyptic bent, I think it is based on a misunderstanding of what Paul was talking about. He was constantly working towards legitimizing the church as being just as good as the Old Testament Israel and too many people take it as if he was talking about a kingdom in the sky when as far as I can tell, he doesn't at all.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Yeah, well thanks for pointing that out, rude. You were going off on something about repentance.
Sin means sin, in the same way as repentance means repentance, I figured that would be the obvious corollary.

Yes, but relative to living Jesus' commandments of love, I think sin is best defined as what it was originally assumed to mean - i.e., missing the mark.

If one assumes separation from God or to not be in communion with God, but instead is obsessed with worldliness, then one is missing the mark. That is pretty obvious to me, and is a valid enough usage for the word sin. In fact, original sin can be looked at as the original missing of the mark or separation from God - i.e., it is the most fundamental sin in which all others follow. Once one assumes separation from God, all works, whether good or bad, are not based in love or self-transcendence.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
He was constantly working towards legitimizing the church as being just as good as the Old Testament Israel and too many people take it as if he was talking about a kingdom in the sky when as far as I can tell, he doesn't at all.

Oh, I don't doubt that Paul did more for the survival of the institution of Christianity as we know it today than anyone else did back then. But at the cost of having to significantly revise Jesus' original message of taking full responsibility for one's life and spiritual practice to the relatively easy believers approach with salvation in the end - guaranteed!

reply to post by jmdewey60


I understand what you are getting at, but you are missing why taking on the name (Character) is part of God's work in us and not our work to do. I am not saying we can do this ourselves. On the contrary, the law was there to show us we cannot do it ourselves. It requires faith, which is God's work in us. We have no part in that faith other than recognizing what God is doing in and through us. Here is a good example:

John 6

65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

The Father must enable us first. This is also why John 2 stated this about our connection to Christ.

John 2

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.[d] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

The people were coming to Christ, but what was his connecting point? He would NOT entrust himself to them. Why? They were not prepared yet by the Father. How are they prepared?

Here is where you must know the true meaning and significance of baptism. You MUST be born again. This is how Elijah prepares the way and brings the father and the sons back together.

Malachi 4:6

He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents; or else I will come and strike the land with total destruction."

We are baptized (Immersed into the water) so we can rise to new life. You will be born again and being baptized in Christ is us rising from the grave back into the water. If you fail to see this one fact, what I said in the other post is a contradiction to salvation. If you can see what I am saying here, there is no contradiction. Our theology has denied the facts Christ came to show. We will be born again and this is the way we are prepared by God and our faith grows over time.

Isaiah 26

19 But your dead will live, Lord;
their bodies will rise—
let those who dwell in the dust
wake up and shout for joy—
your dew is like the dew of the morning;
the earth will give birth to her dead.

The DEW of the morning are the tiny drops of water that are distilled when the Sun rises each day. The cycles of time also reveal the nature of the Shepherd pulling the wool over our eyes, sheering it off season after season, washing it white as snow, then returning it as a new robe (Body). Apart from defining the symbols to their root meanings, it's easy to see a contradiction in what I say. Define the symbols in the Bible to their root meaning and suddenly the symbols reveal the truth.

Compare the meaning of DEW in Isaiah to the meaning of Dew in 1 Kings 17. Read the whole chapter and you will know why Elijah prepares the way for Christ to entrust Himself to us when we are no longer children. In this chapter, Elijah pictures the soul returning to the body after death, then coming back to Mater (Mother / Material World). Like Elijah, we need to be able to say this:

2 Kings 1:12

"If I am a man of God," Elijah replied, "may fire come down from heaven and consume you and your fifty men!" Then the fire of God fell from heaven and consumed him and his fifty men.

Are the laws of nature at Elijah's command? Then he is not restricted by them. He is not bound by laws that restrict others. Why? He is grown up and more than a child of God. He is a man of God.

1 Corinthians 13

11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Seeing face to face is Christ entrusting Himself to us in the mirror of our own character. The Father prepares us by baptism. You are immersed in the water as DEW to rise to new life. When you finally achieve stature in Christ and can claim the name, he reciprocates and two become one.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108

 

So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!

You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meant that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.

I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing. How do you definitely know this?

Even today, sin is commonly understood to mean "missing the mark". It has been my understanding for many years, though obviously many people think of it more in terms of disobeying the commandments, etc. - although that also can be said to be missing the mark. I think this understanding is important in terms of understanding repentance as well.

reply to post by bb23108


I will not know unconditional love until all 7,00,000,000 people know unconditional love. I will only be aware that God loves me unconditionally. If even one is left behind it is not unconditional. Until all are saved we should live as if none are. According to the conditions placed on our hearts. To love one another through action, words have no meaning apart from action.

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bb23108

 

So sinning is not missing the mark? Relative to repentance, I only ever said that repentance was simply recognizing that one is not separate from God - and such repentance is certainly far more than just a changing of one's mind!

You are falling into the same fallacy by thinking sin means missing the mark.
It probably meant that back when Plato was alive, but definitely not by the time that Paul was writing.

I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing. How do you definitely know this?

Even today, sin is commonly understood to mean "missing the mark". It has been my understanding for many years, though obviously many people think of it more in terms of disobeying the commandments, etc. - although that also can be said to be missing the mark. I think this understanding is important in terms of understanding repentance as well.

edit on 19-4-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Sin is every thought, word or deed contrary to the Law of God. To repent means changing my will to be conformed to the will of God and to do this you do an examination of conscience.

reply to post by bb23108

But at the cost of having to significantly revise Jesus' original message of taking full responsibility for one's life and spiritual practice to the relatively easy believers approach with salvation in the end - guaranteed!

"Sell all your possessions", that would be the not so easy approach?
Jesus said 'if you believe in me then you will not die', how much easier can it get?
I think that this perspective on Paul is more a result of the "Free Grace" cult manipulating Paul's words, than from Paul himself.
Paul's term, free grace, meant everyone is invited to become Christians so you don't have to be from any particular background. That gets turned into the idea that you don't have to actually do anything, by people who basically don't want to actually do anything other than what comes naturally to them.

Anyone who is seeking God's Grace will not find it.
God's Grace is ever present so if you can't see it now then when are you expecting to see it? This is the presence of the lord but man seeks outside presence. Man cannot appear to exist unless he is seeking outside presence. When the seeking stops it is found that there is only God.

In this moment there are no problems. Only when looking outside of presence do problems arise. One looks outside presence to ensure the survival of 'me'. 'Me' is scared that it will die.
'Me' does not exist in reality - 'me' only appears to exist in time.
Nothing has ever escaped presence - it is eternally complete.

reply to post by bb23108

I am really wondering why you say that sin definitely was not looked at as "missing the mark" during the time Paul was writing.

You should avail yourself of the resources for discovering these things, mainly the Bible.cc website.
biblesuite.com...
That is for the verb, to sin.
biblesuite.com...
That is for the noun, a sin.
On the first linked-to page, look down in Thayer's lexicon, it will say that even in Homer, if it literally means to miss the whatever, it will have the word there that describes the thing missed, in the genitive case.
In the Septuagint that predates Paul by hundreds of years, it uses the same word found in the New Testament for sin, whenever it means "sin" in the Hebrew, and if it means literally to miss something, it always uses compound words to translate it.
For the ultimate authority on Greek words in the New Testament, I use Danker, but I have basically a shelf of lexicons for Greek and Hebrew and ones for specifically the Greek of the Septuagint.
Anyway, Danker has it that whenever those words for sin show up in the NT, they always mean, sin.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Yes - it says 'miss the mark' and 'miss the target'.

Right here and right now is where all the action is happening. The happening that is happening presently is the mark that most miss because they are concerned with the past or the future. They are 'concerned' with another time - when in reality there is only ever the presence (of the lord). They deny God by wanting 'other'.

Whatever this life is - it is all being taken care of in presence as presence but man does not notice the Glory of God because he is 'concerned' with his own survival, he is 'concerned' with his self - he looks in time. Looking in time to ensure 'your' survival divides one from presence.
Presence is timeless being.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

God's Grace is ever present . . .

Right, and that is something I haven't gotten into on this thread, the multiple uses for that word in the New Testament.
For example, the child Jesus was full of grace. Oh, was he handing things out to people, or was he a person with positive personal attributes in general?
It could mean a lot of things but always good things.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

God's Grace is ever present . . .

Right, and that is something I haven't gotten into on this thread, the multiple uses for that word in the New Testament.
For example, the child Jesus was full of grace. Oh, was he handing things out to people, or was he a person with positive personal attributes in general?
I could mean a lot of things but always good things.

There is only presence.
There is the moving colours and noises appearing presently and there is the seer of the appearance.

The image (made of light) that is appearing presently is Christ (the son) and there is the ever present seeing knowing presence that never moves.

God said let there be light and there was light - God saw the light and it was good. This is the complete story - it is this presently.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

God's Grace is ever present . . .

Right, and that is something I haven't gotten into on this thread, the multiple uses for that word in the New Testament.

Is there more than one 'presence'?
What definitions do the bible have for 'presence' or 'ever present'?

reply to post by Itisnowagain

. . . but man does not notice the Glory of God because he is 'concerned' with his own survival, he is 'concerned' with his self . . .

I would include myself with "Man".
If that is what man is, then I am one, too.
I don't get all into the "glory" business, and normally think about what God can do for me, and I am being honest about it.
For example, hiking about in mountainous terrain by myself in the wilderness, I would pray a lot, as in constantly, because I would see myself constantly on the edge between life and death, where I don't want to fall over a rock and break my leg, or step over a log and get bitten by a rattlesnake, and I would think about it and ask God to like keep the snakes out of my way, and things like that.
Obviously I'm still alive, so I suppose I can say it worked, that there was a God out there listening to me, and helping me to survive. I have always been that way, that I always knew God was real and was always there and always listening to me and always helping me.
That is Grace, if we want to talk about grace, as in the New Testament, the writer will open his letter to whoever he is sending it to, saying, "grace be unto you", which means you don't die from the next plague that sweeps through the city or your country does not get invaded by a barbarian horde that kills half the people including you.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

. . . but man does not notice the Glory of God because he is 'concerned' with his own survival, he is 'concerned' with his self . . .

I would include myself with "Man".
If that is what man is, then I am one, too.
I don't get all into the "glory" business, and normally think about what God can do for me, and I am being honest about it.
For example, hiking about in mountainous terrain by myself in the wilderness, I would pray a lot, as in constantly, because I would see myself constantly on the edge between life and death, where I don't want to fall over a rock and break my leg, or step over a log and get bitten by a rattlesnake, and I would think about it and ask God to like keep the snakes out of my way, and things like that.
Obviously I'm still alive, so I suppose I can say it worked, that there was a God out there listening to me, and helping me to survive. I have always been that way, that I always knew God was real and was always there and always listening to me and always helping me.
That is Grace, if we want to talk about grace, as in the New Testament, the writer will open his letter to whoever he is sending it to, saying, "grace be unto you", which means you don't die from the next plague that sweeps through the city or your country does not get invaded by a barbarian horde that kills half the people including you.

Oh so it is all about 'you' and what God can do for 'you'.
The 'you' that you are so concerned about will be what makes life so hard. Where is this 'you' that is separate from all that is? Can you find it now? Right now there is 'only' presence (the presence of the lord) - the 'you' that is frightened of breaking a leg or dying does not exist right here and right now - that person you 'think' you are lives in time and there is no time - only presence.
What is happening presently is just happening all by itself - there is no 'you' separate from this moment. Can you peel yourself away from presence? Or do you just hear words that speak of 'other' - the speaking serpent is very deceptive.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Obviously I'm still alive, so I suppose I can say it worked, that there was a God out there listening to me, and helping me to survive. I have always been that way, that I always knew God was real and was always there and always listening to me and always helping me.
That is Grace, if we want to talk about grace, as in the New Testament, the writer will open his letter to whoever he is sending it to, saying, "grace be unto you", which means you don't die from the next plague that sweeps through the city or your country does not get invaded by a barbarian horde that kills half the people including you.

Did you not hear the 'good news'? Life is eternal.
Problem is you believe you 'have a life' When really you are life.