ECT 2Co 5:16 What does it mean to you?

I

Interplanner

Well-known member
The person speaking grew up in Judaism. He saw things done by the guy but was as offended as the rest at the claim that that was the complete statement of a Messiah.

Now, IN CHRIST, he knows it is not to be read at face value, and that was Messiah; that is what Messiah was supposed to be and that is what kind of kingdom was supposed to come.

there is not a tick of indication in the apostles that a Judaistic theocracy (the only meaningful definition of that is what they grew up learning about) is coming. But Christ's enthronement in the resurrection and THAT kingdom was supposed to fill the earth.

'Kata sarka' means the way the flesh would do things, and is used elsewhere about Judaism (not the moral law) and is a failure, (and by the way STP is a failure for not doing enough basic Greek to know some key terms like 'kata sarka' but to considered an adept at knowing the Bible.

In 'the flesh' you would never say (see the passage) 'all men are dead' but he meant that in the legal sense that has to do with being justified from the debt of sin. But it is true IN CHRIST.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Tambora said:
Why?
I already know.
And, BTW, one does not need to know any Greek at all to know what it is saying, because it can be referenced through other scriptures, NOT by knowing Greek (which I do).
Click to expand...


Tell STP that about Greek.

You already know that you are running the NT backwards and trying to make Judaism happen all over again?
 
Tambora

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
musterion said:
The best part of this thread will be the number of people who stop in to tell MADs that we're wrong without offering an explanation of their own.
Click to expand...
I hope not.
Just looking for opinions of TOL members of what this verse means to them.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
musterion said:
Quoting another unbelieving Jew. Typical.
Click to expand...



You don't understand a damned thing about the argument. He is UNBELIEVING that is why it is such a paradox that a CHRISTIAN would think that way (that the 2nd coming is basically Judaism's 1st coming finally happening). That is the thinking of an UNBELIEVER!!! Not my quoting it. As far as I'm concerned, you are doing what an unbelieving person in Judaism is doing but 'calling' it Christian for no good, apostolic reason. it makes the whole direction of the bible run backwards.
 
steko

steko

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Interplanner said:
You don't understand a damned thing about the argument. He is UNBELIEVING that is why it is such a paradox that a CHRISTIAN would think that way (that the 2nd coming is basically Judaism's 1st coming finally happening). That is the thinking of an UNBELIEVER!!! Not my quoting it. As far as I'm concerned, you are doing what an unbelieving person in Judaism is doing but 'calling' it Christian for no good, apostolic reason. it makes the whole direction of the bible run backwards.
Click to expand...

Restoration is a return.
 
Jerry Shugart

Jerry Shugart

Well-known member
"Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more" (2 Cor.5:16).​

Paul is saying that after he was converted he no longer evaluated people according to their outward appearance, and telling those in the church at Corinth that they should not either. Before, when Paul had opposed the Lord Jesus and His followers He only knew Jesus "after the flesh," meaning from a worldly point of view. It is only after a person is converted can he really know the Lord and the blessings which flow to believers as a result of His death upon the Cross.

In the verse which follows when Paul uses the words "old things have passed away" he is referring to the old way of evaluating people, that is, according to their outward appearance:

"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Cor.5:17).​

At least that is the way I understand these verses. But I will admit that this passage is difficult to interpret and any other view on its meaning will be welcomed.

Thanks!
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Speaking on behalf of no other mid-Acts believer (so no one take this as "a MAD doctrine"), I believe Paul was telling his readers that even if there were some among them who may have heard and seen Christ during His exclusive ministry to Israel, no one could now know Him according to that ministry because Israel refused to repent and so blindly stumbled. Therefore, no one could know Him in that context any longer. It has not been continued or transferred to Gentiles in any sense; it had been deactivated by God Himself even while Paul had written those words and remains (for now) completely deactivated.

But the Good News is that it was superseded by better things: the progressive revelation through Paul of God's secret purposes of grace (Rom 16:25; Gal 1:12; Eph 3:8-9).

The point is, if Paul said even to those who might have known Him "according to the flesh" of His ministry to Israel (meaning, for us, according to the four Gospels and early Acts), then that inability to know Him thus HAS to go double for us today.

The old rallying cry of "Get back to the Gospels!" is not just backwards, it is rebellion against the revealed will of God and denies Christ as He has revealed Himself to us.

YOU CANNOT AND WILL NOT KNOW CHRIST THE WAY GOD DESIRES WITHOUT MAJORING ON THE PAULINE REVELATION. SCRIPTURALLY, THAT'S "WHERE IT'S AT." TO DIMINISH OR DISMISS PAUL'S REVELATION IS TO DISMISS CHRIST HIMSELF.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
Must wrote:
early Acts), then that inability to know Him thus HAS to go double for us today.

The old rallying cry of "Get back to the Gospels!" is not just backwards, it is rebellion against the revealed will of God 1


What is 'go double' mean?

What 'old rallying cry'? Never heard of it.

There is no exclusive ministry to Israel for a Davidic theocracy. The exclusive part was because, due to their background, they would be the best missionaries to jump-start the Messianic mission and message, which is what happened.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
There is no exclusive ministry to Israel for a Davidic theocracy. The exclusive part was because, due to their background, they would be the best missionaries to jump-start the Messianic mission and message, which is what happened.
Click to expand...

No, the LORD Jesus came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and those were the fathers of Israel. He was a minister of the circumcision.

THAT is why.
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
SaulToPaul said:
No, the LORD Jesus came to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and those were the fathers of Israel. He was a minister of the circumcision.

THAT is why.
Click to expand...



Why do actually ignore what the passage says? "...so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy as it is written" in (4 OT passages).

That's why it happened.

All you do with the Bible is chop and divide it. You are a complete stranger to what the heart of Ephesians (_____) was about. And many other passages. Total strange spirit.
 
SaulToPaul 2

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
Interplanner said:
Why do actually ignore what the passage says? "...so that the Gentiles may glorify God for his mercy as it is written" in (4 OT passages).

That's why it happened.

All you do with the Bible is chop and divide it. You are a complete stranger to what the heart of Ephesians (_____) was about. And many other passages. Total strange spirit.
Click to expand...

Gentiles come to God THROUGH ISRAEL. Read your prophets. Believe them.
The LORD Jesus was a minister of the circumcision. You do not like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top