ECT Our triune God

[TFTn5280]

What an amazing claim!

Care to explain how you know what I do or do not know?

Calm down, Nang. I'm not claiming to read your mind.

 

[Simon Baker]

I Will !

 

[Psalmist]

MANY can't hang, for long. not about this stuff. few can, or, i should say will. nobody enjoys "re-thinking", not many folks like change. this is not a CHANGE, as it is written. i am so thankful to God that, although the opportunity has always been available, I have disregarded ANY outside "doctrines", denominations, and most certainly ANYTHING not revealed in scripture the main problem i see, is people either refusing to read and RE-UNDERSTAND, or not admitting that they did, and all variations between. anger, attempted rebuke, questions that are answered already in Scripture, etc. etc. i have never listened to anyone else's detailed interpretations, to my detriment perhaps. perhaps not. i thank God for being Blessed with discernment. - IMO - no need to explain things, and backtrack for the stubbornly ignorant and self-absorbed "know-it-alls" - you know, the ones that are done learning and seeking God - atrol:

The diggers, after all their digging they come back to the same point, and then say is that all there is.

The seekers, those who seek the truth and find it, they do not turn in at every door that invites them, behind that door clothed in scarlet and filled with lies, are destroyers seeking to destroy the truth as quickly as it's revealed to the seekers. So the seeker finds the truth and lives by that truth that is given in the Scriptures, and affirmed by the Holy Spirit to know this is the way walk you in it.

Then the seekers become the settled in their spirit, but not so settled they stop seeking, especially for the truth. Like Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the will make you free."
​

 

[TFTn5280]

The diggers, after all their digging they come back to the same point, and then say is that all there is.

The seekers, those who seek the truth and find, they do not turn in at every door that invites them, behind that door clothed in scarlet and filled with lies, are destryers seeking to destroy the truth as quickly as it's revealed to them. So the seeker finds the truth and lives by that truth that is given in the Scriptures, and affirmed by the Holy Spirit to know this is the way walk you in it.

Then the seekers become the settled in their spirit, but not so settled they stop seeking, especially for the truth. Like Jesus said, "You shall know the truth and the will make you free."
​

I couldn't agree more.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

there you go, with a limited understanding of God and Christ. oh, i forgot God's Spirit, All One In The Beginning. if you're still chewing on that, and can't seem to swallow it, stay put. do not try advancing to the deeper meaning of ALL THINGS, until you figure out the basics. SHOW -ME - atrol:

I've got over 2,ooo posts, go do some studyin'.

Yer still stuck on the traditions and theories of men.

Ever learning, never coming to the truth.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Calm down, Nang. I'm not claiming to read your mind.

You sound like my wife.

:chuckle:

 

[TFTn5280]

Please consider me an illiterate. Can we put off words that have me going to the dictionary in every sentence? I have never heard the word "genitive" nor ever read it in all my life. It is difficult enough to have to interpret your "legalize" writing to the point of discouragement. Come on down a few notches.

My apologizes. "Genitive" is not just a term used in Greek grammar; it is used in teaching English grammar too. It notes a case of nouns, pronouns, or adjectives, used primarily to express possession, measure, or origin: as John's hat, week's vacation, duty's call. In these instances the object of the phrase ~ hat, vacation, call ~ is possessed by the subject identified in the phrase itself ~ John, week, duty. However, in the Greek there is also what is called a subjective genitive, where the subject of the statement, if other than that of the phrase, is referenced by the genitive. In those instances the genitive skips over the subject of the genitive to the subject of the statement and takes on the form of "in," for example, as seen in one of those two translations. Instead of it being then the Son's faith that is referenced by the genitive (the objective genitive), it becomes faith in the Son, the subject of the statement being those whose faith it is that's being referenced (hence, the subjective genitive). It is often left up to the discretion of the translator to determine which construct is in view in such statements; hence the discrepancy between the two.

Hope this is helpful.

T

 

[Cross Reference]

My apologizes. "Genitive" is not just a term used in Greek grammar; it is used in teaching English grammar too. It notes a case of nouns, pronouns, or adjectives, used primarily to express possession, measure, or origin: as John's hat, week's vacation, duty's call. In these instances the object of the phrase ~ hat, vacation, call ~ is possessed by the subject identified in the phrase itself ~ John, week, duty. However, in the Greek there is also what is called a subjective genitive, where the subject of the statement, if other than that of the phrase, is referenced by the genitive. In those instances the genitive skips over the subject of the genitive to the subject of the statement and takes on the form of "in," for example, as seen in one of those two translations. Instead of it being then the Son's faith that is referenced by the genitive (the objective genitive), it becomes faith in the Son, the subject of the statement being those whose faith it is that's being referenced (hence, the subjective genitive). It is often left up to the translator to determine which construct is in view in such statements; hence the discrepancy between the two.

Hope this is helpful.

T

Hence, the great mishmash of the modern translations. Each one called the more "accurate" translation. To which I say, "Rubbish".

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

2 Corinthians 5.14-21

Okay, I will be using the NKJV and addressing only certain Greek words.

14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;

The word for "compels" literally means "to seize without release": "For the love of Christ seizes us and won't let go."

This verse and the passage as a whole speaks to humanity’s ontology in Christ, our existent status as human beings in him. Hence in this verse "all" means all and not some, as in some who are elect. And "died" means dead. As dead as Christ was dead in the tomb, that is how dead all humans were in his death. He died for all; thus in his death, all died with him.

15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.

"Those who live" is likewise a reference to all humanity and not to certain individuals who have put their faith in Christ and have thus been born again (This is not an argument against faith in Christ or regeneration; it's just that faith is not in view here). We may know that “those who live” is inclusive of the all of v 14 by simple deduction: If everyone died in Christ's death, but only the faithful are alive in his resurrection, then with whom should the living share the Gospel? The dead are as dead as Christ was dead in the grave, that’s the point of this passage ~ not spiritually dead but dead as in no breath in them whatsoever. Again, they are as dead as Christ was when he died. Thus, the "those who live" is a reference to everyone who has breath in his or her lungs. Everyone died in Christ, and everyone rose with him in his resurrection; therefore the living should live no longer for themselves but for him who died for them and rose again.

And here the word "for" should better be translated as "on behalf of": He died on behalf of all, their ontological status contained in him, "in order that" those who live, literally, "the living ones" should live no longer for themselves…

The important thing to take away from this verse is that all humanity died in Christ's death, and all humanity rose in Christ's resurrection. All humans are alive right now on Christ's side of the resurrection ~ and are included in him.

16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.

"Flesh" in this verse is a loaded term. It speaks to the entirety of human ontology. It is the flesh that the Word became in the incarnation. It is humanity on the fallen side of Adam. It entails every aspect of our personhood, even our fallen state of being. And Paul says that we are to evaluate no one on these terms any longer ~ because dead on the fallen side of Adam means alive on Christ's side of resurrection. We regard no one as dead in Adam's flesh but everyone alive in Christ, in his resurrection.

And I will expand more on this in a bit but Paul says that Christ was once known according to this same flesh but not any longer. What happened? Christ took that fallen humanity to the cross with him and into the grave with him ~ and there he left it! In resurrection, Christ is victorious over everything that set itself against life in him: sin, death, the devil, even flesh, everything. In his resurrection we no longer regard him or anyone else according to that former humanity.

17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

My translation: "For this reason, if even one person is in Christ, a new creation he is; the old flesh (sin, sinful nature, sickness and psychosis, hence the entire range of human being) has passed away; behold, the new has come."

In this translation I turn to the UBS text rather than the TR because in this instance it fits better with the context of the rest of this passage.

"In Christ" is again a reference to ontological status in him in his incarnate person, in resurrection. The old flesh died in Christ; a new creation has come with him in resurrection.

This verse does not narrow the preceding verses down to a select few; instead it narrows it down to one. This is Paul's way of addressing “the many in the one" or said another way, "the all in the one." This is a common construct in the Mediterranean social world of his day: the one and the many; the many in the one. Here Paul is including all in his reference to the one.

18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,

Here "all" is neuter and is inclusive of all creation, humanity included.

The word for "has reconciled" is an aorist participle and should be translated thus: "... God, who reconciled us..." The Gr aorist tense conveys the certainty of a past event but does not take time into consideration. Therefore, no matter where we are in our walk of life, the aorist is always active: we are reconciled to God in Christ.

And again, "us" here is inclusive of all humanity because, as we learned above, we are to regard no one according to the flesh because all died in Christ and rose again with him in resurrection.

19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

This is our ministry as believers, the Gospel we should declare to those who do not yet believe: that it was in the flesh or "incarnation" of Christ (again from verse 16) that God reconciled the entire world to himself, and that includes all who hear our voice, not crediting to them the sins they committed.

20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.

"Therefore, be reconciled to God!" Here is the second half of the Gospel, the first half being: you died in Christ; you rose again with him; you are alive in him and are no longer to be considered as someone who is yet dead in the flesh, because Christ came in that same flesh, died to it and rose victorious over it; you are now included in his resurrection, just as you were in his death, and you are therefore a new creation. You stand now as one who is completely reconciled to God because of what Christ did in your place ~ Therefore, drop your enmity against God, befriend him and be reconciled to him!

21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Two things about this verse, the second first: "might become" here does not convey possibility; instead it denotes certainty. The death Christ died was a righteous death. Sin had no hold on him; thus nor did death. His was a resurrection of righteousness. We died that death with him, in him, in his incarnate Person; thus the grave he took us to could not hold us either. Hence ours as well is a resurrection of righteousness, the righteousness of God in Christ.

Second point: this verse speaks plainly as to how that happened. The early Church Father’s had a saying that speaks profoundly to the incarnation of Jesus Christ: That which Christ did not assume, he could not heal. Christians live predominately today under a Doctrine of Christ that teaches them that Jesus came in a new kind of humanity, unrelated to our sin fallen flesh, and that he lived out his life in that perfect humanity, never giving credence to the outward temptations that he faced. He went to his death in the perfect state in which he came, but on the cross God imputed our sin to him, whereby he died in estrangement. In resurrection his righteousness is imputed back to those who believe. This is called the double move of God or the double decree.

This I see as legal fiction. Legally God decrees Christ a sinner. But he’s not. Legally God declares believers righteous. But we’re not. Both sides are legal but neither side is true. It is a legal fiction.

What Christ did not assume, he could not heal means that he assumed our entire flesh in his incarnation: sin, sickness, psychosis and all. That’s what it means that he became sin. Yet he fought back the proclivities of humanity in his flesh his entire life, beating and bending our self-sickened desires back to his Father. The temptations he felt were real temptations, internal temptations, because they were our temptations. Beating and pounding his way forward with blows, defeating the tyrants at every juncture ~ sin, sickness, psychosis, the devil, even the Law ~ so that when he went to the cross to face the final enemy, that enemy could not hold him there. There he took us with him in his flesh, and with him there we rose in righteousness, his real and true righteousness, his genuine ontological righteousness, not the kind that God blinks and winks at, but the real righteousness of God in Christ: Christ in us and we in him that we might become the righteousness of God in Christ. Amen

T

EDIT: Just as this was not a passage that takes into view humanity's faith response to the evangel's call, neither does it speak to the consequence of rejecting that call. And so, to make it clear that the above is not my lone standing argument for universalism, I am not a universalist, nor do I believe that this passage should stand alone in any such discussion. In spite of the wonderful assurance that this passage should give Christians and the world alike, there will be those who hear its simple call and still reject the good news contained therein. However, their rejection will not have the power to nullify any of these truths, because here we are discussing ontology and not experience; our existence, not what we believe about or how we experience that existence. Everything contained in these verses will remain true in spite of their rejection. Apart from believing the Gospel content, however, they cut themselves off from participating in its truth. They destine themselves to live a lie while the truth passes them by.

It's because you (and all the proponents of fallacious universal atonement) don't and can't consider the true post-resurrection hypostatic ontology of Paul's Gospel that you misapply your translation attempts.

The us and all relative to the audience for the Epistle. The entire context of Paul's Letters aren't directed toward the world at large. And to understand what this means, one has to truly comprehend the phenomenology and aseity and immutability of God relative to foreknowledge.

Universal atonement voids the actual ontological Gospel of Paul, but not in a manner your mentors and peers OR your standard doctrinal opponents understand. Hence, the false binaries of Limited Atonement and anything beyond those limits as a formulated doctrine.

It's maddening to watch this false dichotomy of mutual double standards as a binary that doesn't even exist.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hence, the great mishmash of the modern translations. Each one called the more "accurate" translation. To which I say, "Rubbish".

I gotta totally agree here. Please tell all the KJVO proponents AND all their critics who just choose another English translation and build another subtly different low-context theological castle of their own conceptualizations instead of core foundational truth.

 

[TFTn5280]

It's because you (and all the proponents of fallacious universal atonement) don't and can't consider the true post-resurrection hypostatic ontology of Paul's Gospel that you misapply your translation attempts.

The us and all relative to the audience for the Epistle. The entire context of Paul's Letters aren't directed toward the world at large. And to understand what this means, one has to truly comprehend the phenomenology and aseity and immutability of God relative to foreknowledge.

Universal atonement voids the actual ontological Gospel of Paul, but not in a manner your mentors and peers OR your standard doctrinal opponents understand. Hence, the false binaries of Limited Atonement and anything beyond those limits as a formulated doctrine.

It's maddening to watch this false dichotomy of mutual double standards as a binary that doesn't even exist.

As I've said before, I think I'm in a line of pretty good company on this one. Maybe if you'd read them, instead of just talk poorly about them, you'd agree.

 

[Lon]

John 14:23

John 14:23

...

Does Christ dwell in you?

Does God dwell in you?

Does the Holy Spirit dwell in you.

[John 14:23] Jesus said, "We will come and dwell in you."

 

[Nang]

Um . . John 14:23 only (literally) refers to the Father and Son.

 

[Lon]

Um . . John 14:23 only (literally) refers to the Father and Son.

But just 3 verses later? I'm not sure of your point. Is it a clarification? Disagreement?

Thanks,

-Lon

 

[Lon]

I know how you get your doctrine. What you don't know is how you got it.

It is a bit assumptive and needs explanation or it was a passing canard.

It would 'seem' that it came from passages as such
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[Nang]

But just 3 verses later? I'm not sure of your point. Is it a clarification? Disagreement?

Thanks,

-Lon

Just a nit-picking clarification on my part, against casual use of isolated proof texting, that does not prove anything.

Sorry . . . Sometimes I cannot help myself to not point out obviously bad arguments. Especially when it comes to searching out the most holy Trinitarian truths.

 

[patrick jane]

I've got over 2,ooo posts, go do some studyin'.

Yer still stuck on the traditions and theories of men.

Ever learning, never coming to the truth.

once again, you display your limited understanding. you even misinterpreted my post and took it personal. no wonder you can't see that God Is Christ. i live in Missouri, and you don't need to show-me nuttin'. i seed enuf. what i haven't seen is any contributions to the thread, besides pestering anyone that seems wiser than you. i came to the truth long ago and i am ever learning. maybe you can get a bit part on Duck Dynasty. the Ozark Mountain man - atrol:

View attachment 19320

 

[patrick jane]

It's because you (and all the proponents of fallacious universal atonement) don't and can't consider the true post-resurrection hypostatic ontology of Paul's Gospel that you misapply your translation attempts.

The us and all relative to the audience for the Epistle. The entire context of Paul's Letters aren't directed toward the world at large. And to understand what this means, one has to truly comprehend the phenomenology and aseity and immutability of God relative to foreknowledge.

Universal atonement voids the actual ontological Gospel of Paul, but not in a manner your mentors and peers OR your standard doctrinal opponents understand. Hence, the false binaries of Limited Atonement and anything beyond those limits as a formulated doctrine.

It's maddening to watch this false dichotomy of mutual double standards as a binary that doesn't even exist.

yes pps, Paul's epistles are for ALL, Now. i knew there was something eating at you, and it seems that's it. i can't believe it took so long to come out, say what you're actually saying. you have a "special" understanding and see the true meaning of scripture in a way that very few, if any can grasp. it must be MADdening - atrol:


View attachment 19321

 

[TFTn5280]

Originally Posted by TFTn5280
I know how you get your doctrine. What you don't know is how you got it.

It is a bit assumptive and needs explanation or it was a passing canard.

It would 'seem' that it came from passages as such
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

My statement was in reference to Nang's assertion that Scripture is replete with references to "spiritual death." I said simply that I understand how she has been equipped to interpret those verses as such; however, I also know where those interpretations originate, some 300 years after the closing of the canon. They are built on a trichotomous understanding of personhood: spirit, body, and soul/mind as separate unrelated entities. That view has been thoroughly debunked, especially in recent decades with breakthroughs in neural psychology, where we see mereological ~ both top-down and bottom-up ~ ordering between mind and brain, for example: a "person" being an integrated whole, and not a collection of parts.

Think not? Try to explain how a devout, soft-spoken, bible-believing saint throughout her life can succumb to Alzheimer's and suddenly begin spewing hatred toward others and disdain for God, in the most vilest of terms. Can it be denied that her spirit has been compromised by the physiological decay of her brain? Are we to determine that she is now showing her true colors and was never truly a believer ~ she having always been spiritually dead? Or that she has suddenly lost her salvation ~ her spirit now having died a second time? No, we know that the physiological attack of Alzheimer's has affected her mind and spirit as well. AND WE KNOW THAT IN HER STRIFE SHE IS TUCKED SAFELY IN THE ARMS OF JESUS.

All of this to say that "spiritual death" is not only non-biblical terminology, it is just plain non-biblical. The verses that we as westerners have been trained to read in such context are either rightly interpreted as metaphor, speaking to the futility of life lived in animated refusal of Christ (the things of God), or in reference to one or the other of the only two deaths mentioned in scripture.

Ephesians 2.4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,"

Here Paul is speaking to people, the adults of whom were living at the time of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. We see that he considers their "quickening" ~ being brought to life ~ to have taken place in Christ's resurrection, God having “raised [them] up together” in him, far apart from anything they, as in any human, had done by way of contribution. That is the point and the power of the metaphor of being “dead in sin.” They were helpless to do anything to contribute to their quickening ~ not just spiritually but holistically as in up from their graves: For by grace they had been saved.

Paul sets this forth as well in his letter to the Colossians: "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him" (2.13). Just as "by the circumcision of Christ" they had been circumcized (cf. verse 11), they had also been made alive with him in his resurrection. In other words, they were "regenerated" or "restored" or “regathered” or "quickened" in Christ in his resurrection. It was not their own circumcision which had circumcized them and it was not a work on their part which had made them alive.

This is to say that when Christ rose again victorious over death, humanity was made victorious in him (and there humans remain, unless or until they reject him unto death). His life is the source and means of all life: He is life. All life is therefore in him; moreover, all life is "right" in him because he is the justification of all life (see my commentary on Rom 5). Hence Paul's words to the Corinthians, "we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again; therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh."

Here again Paul is addressing people who were once dead in this same metaphorical sense as in Colosse and Ephesus, in that they had been held captive by death (as well as by the other tyrants), without hope of escape prior to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Now though in resurrection, Christ is victorious and they/we ~ all humans ~ are alive in him and are thus called to live for him. The "flesh" which once defined and controlled humanity has been defeated in Christ, being themselves now in captivity to him, the tyrants no longer having the power to prevent humans from living for him, should we so desire, whereby we receive the surety of the Holy Spirit to live lives characterized in sanctification. As Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God into (eis) salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Rom 1.16).

 

[Lon]

Sorry, not sure where the confusion came from, likely my fault but I read universal as salvation, rather than atonement. Forgive my stumbling in and any ensuing confusion. I'll pay for any broken china or crystal. -Lon

My statement was in reference to Nang's assertion that Scripture is replete with references to "spiritual death." I said simply that I understand how she has been equipped to interpret those verses as such; however, I also know where those interpretations originate, some 300 years after the closing of the canon. They are built on a trichotomous understanding of personhood: spirit, body, and soul/mind as separate unrelated entities. That view has been thoroughly debunked, especially in recent decades with breakthroughs in neural psychology, where we see mereological ~ both top-down and bottom-up ~ ordering between mind and brain, for example: a "person" being an integrated whole, and not a collection of parts.

"Heart sould, mind and strength?" Luke 10:27

Think not? Try to explain how a devout, soft-spoken, bible-believing saint throughout her life can succumb to Alzheimer's and suddenly begin spewing hatred toward others and disdain for God, in the most vilest of terms. Can it be denied that her spirit has been compromised by the physiological decay of her brain? Are we to determine that she is now showing her true colors and was never truly a believer ~ she having always been spiritually dead? Or that she has suddenly lost her salvation ~ her spirit now having died a second time? No, we know that the physiological attack of Alzheimer's has affected her mind and spirit as well. AND WE KNOW THAT IN HER STRIFE SHE IS TUCKED SAFELY IN THE ARMS OF JESUS.

I'd be guessing, Romans 8:27, I think you are saying provincially, God keeps His own, though, and I agree.
I'm not sure I disagree, that we are one being, but at the same time, you can take a scalpel and divide me up into 'parts.'

All of this to say that "spiritual death" is not only non-biblical terminology, it is just plain non-biblical. The verses that we as westerners have been trained to read in such context are either rightly interpreted as metaphor, speaking to the futility of life lived in animated refusal of Christ (the things of God), or in reference to one or the other of the only two deaths mentioned in scripture.

It seems you are attacking a theology perspective rather than scriptural givens. This is my first induction into this topic of debate.
I hadn't realized there was a contest on it. I wasn't confused on this part, but am intrigued and interested. I will listen more than talk as is true of the other discussions lately in this thread. It is better sometimes to just read and pay attention At this point, I'm bowing out and listening, but may ask more questions for clarification or bring in a few scriptures as above, for further commentary. Thank you. -Lon

Ephesians 2.4 "But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,"

Here Paul is speaking to people, the adults of whom were living at the time of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. We see that he considers their "quickening" ~ being brought to life ~ to have taken place in Christ's resurrection, God having “raised [them] up together” in him, far apart from anything they, as in any human, had done by way of contribution. That is the point and the power of the metaphor of being “dead in sin.” They were helpless to do anything to contribute to their quickening ~ not just spiritually but holistically as in up from their graves: For by grace they had been saved.

Paul sets this forth as well in his letter to the Colossians: "And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him" (2.13). Just as "by the circumcision of Christ" they had been circumcized (cf. verse 11), they had also been made alive with him in his resurrection. In other words, they were "regenerated" or "restored" or “regathered” or "quickened" in Christ in his resurrection. It was not their own circumcision which had circumcized them and it was not a work on their part which had made them alive.

This is to say that when Christ rose again victorious over death, humanity was made victorious in him (and there humans remain, unless or until they reject him unto death). His life is the source and means of all life: He is life. All life is therefore in him; moreover, all life is "right" in him because he is the justification of all life (see my commentary on Rom 5). Hence Paul's words to the Corinthians, "we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again; therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh."

Here again Paul is addressing people who were once dead in this same metaphorical sense as in Colosse and Ephesus, in that they had been held captive by death (as well as by the other tyrants), without hope of escape prior to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. Now though in resurrection, Christ is victorious and they/we ~ all humans ~ are alive in him and are thus called to live for him. The "flesh" which once defined and controlled humanity has been defeated in Christ, being themselves now in captivity to him, the tyrants no longer having the power to prevent humans from living for him, should we so desire, whereby we receive the surety of the Holy Spirit to live lives characterized in sanctification. As Paul says, "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God into (eis) salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek" (Rom 1.16).