Logical Proof: ALL children crying, ABBA! IMA! ...

~*~



Back to Paul:

were there to be two or more 'peoples'
his whole theological scheme woulds lapse back into some sort of paganism:
with each tribe or race possessing
its own national
deities


-


THE [other] rabbis,
however, did NOT see IT that way:
allowing that others could worship "G*D" and be saved
without joining into ONE
"People of "G*D"?


ONCE MORE,
I think the passion for unity
must be ascribed to Paul's Hellenistic Jewish
Weltanschauung ...


-


The Law
is THUS demoted in importance vis-a-vis the promise,
but whether it was given to prevent
or to punish transgression,
there is no suggestion here that it has a demonic function
or that these 'angels' are to understood
demonically.


It is easy, however,
how GNOSTICS could find
SUCH a meaning
here?


In any case,
THE important point is
that there is no warrant here
to understand that the function of the Law
was to produce transgression
in order to increase the scope of the working of "G*D's" grace -
rather like a doctor making the patient sicker in order to increase
the scope of her
healing power.


NOR do
the next verses
argue for SUCH an
interpretation
either?!


GAL 3:21-25


"IS the law then against the promises of 'g*d'?"


~*~


IS THE LAW then angainst the promises of "G*D"?


Certainly NOT!


For if a law had been given which could make alive,
then justification would indeed be by the law?


BUT the Scripture
consigned everything under sin,
in order that the promise,
by faith in Yehoshuah haMashiach
might be GIVEN to those
who believe!


BEFORE FAITH CAME,
we were kept in custody under the Law,
confined until the coming of faith
was to be revealed ...


Therefore,
the Law has BEEN our guardian until "CHRIST",
in order that we might be justified
BY FAITH.


But since
the faith HAS come, [and we have become of age]
we are no longer under
a guardian.

~~

set, man, 110 jaar

• mahakala zaterdag 02 juli 2005 22:46
  Therefore,
  the Law has BEEN our guardian until "CHRIST",
  in order that we might be justified
  BY FAITH.
  
  
  in other words:
  it's a free for all no rules fight
  'cause christ died for our sins !
  
  i can justify any thing !
  just put faith in it and my soul is saved
  wish it was that simple
  but then again, the books were not written that way
  just read that way !
• set zondag 03 juli 2005 00:02
  
  ~*~
  
  OF course
  THE meaning
  of REAL FAITH is:
  faith in the righteous example of
  the 'son of man' which can only be 'adopted'
  if we really believe that it IS a way OUT of just
  'follow' the Rules, be 'part of the Group' or some other way
  to go on as "Exclusive" 'Jew', 'Christian', 'Muslim'
  or 'whatever'?
  Almost anything CAN be read,
  interpreted and/or understood "ANY" way?
  The point,
  I think YESH & Paul are making essentially,
  is that 'if we really want to do "IT" honestly, openly &
  critically according to our understanding of this faith
  in what is right and/or wrong',
  THAN we almost can't go wrong,
  whatever background we have!
  IF we are prepared to 'give up' our 'old roots' of belonging ONLY
  to this or that family, tribe, race, religion or 'FIX',
  ONLY THAN we CAN be open
  to the greater unity of mankind,
  without the limiting restrictions of 'the old ways' of 'flesh', 'rules', 'exclusivity' & 'superiority'.
  THIS 'new' attitude only
  enables us to be free in the way they meant
  and I think this is also what for instance Jiddu Krishnamurti was aiming at in his choice NOT to be a Leader.
  NOT the belief in ONE group,
  person or dogma anymore,
  BUT taking really our own responsibility before "G*D"
  [or whatever you want to call "IT" ...] ...
  It's not so easy to be clear for everyone
  in any language,
  but as far as my understanding goes
  this is what they meant ...
  And all I can do is
  try to clarify 'this way' to anyone who really wants 'to know'
  which way they want 'to go':
  to be free, responsible and try to put into
  practice what Yehoshua & Paul a.s.o.
  in their time tried to discover
  and took the risk of 'talking' about
  & 'acting out':
  to be a child of 'g*d'/nature/son/daughter of man,
  not as a 'holy' formula
  but a a daily
  'myDidiscovery'
  we 'do' ... ?
  ~~
  

• O 14 mei 2011 Ergens
• O 14 mei 2011 't myDiPopulisme i/d VS & 't populisme @ EU ...
• O 14 mei 2011 stomme mydireclames vergeten chaipaswoord & ~shit!
• O 14 mei 2011 Sorry: je zit al aan het maximum van tien mydiers!   ( 2 )
• O 21 feb 2011 mydiklandestientje tussen de regeltjes door enzo?!
• O 31 jul 2010 First entry by iPad: even ietwat wennen, instellen   ( 1 )
• O 17 sep 2009 mydismikkelsmakkelsmoggordijnen   ( 2 )
• O 10 aug 2009 Jungle balls {suck it to me}!
• O 02 jul 2009 Niets menselijks is ons vreemd aan de moederborst!
• O 01 jul 2009 vandeweeromstuitdusook
• O 25 jun 2009 myDiNitWitMadness, Fat Bitches, Skinny Whores aso?
• O 23 jun 2009 Grafgrotkelders spelonken hal[le]lu[ja]cinaties ed
• O 21 jun 2009 spiritual footballgames 1979 jaar geleden & slthat
• O 20 jun 2009 mydivorm & ~inhoud [tussen zusjes & zoo{n}tjes]   ( 2 )
• O 17 jun 2009 SjapoVrouwenSjaulPaulDiscriminatiesInAndereTijden?