King James Bible General - /KJV/ June 23rd, 2018 Pt. 2

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view of

the references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

The answer to the question, 'How is this thing possible?' is conveyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

Behind the contrast between "old man" and "new man" is the contrast between Adam and Christ, the "first man" and the "last" (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. Rom. 5:15, "the one man Jesus Christ").111 Those, then, who are "in Adam" belong to and exist as "the old man"; those who are "in Christ" belong to and exist as "the new man." In other words, these phrases denote the solidarity of people with the "heads" of the two contrasting ages of salvation history.112 It is only by interpreting "old man" and "new man" in this manner that we are able to integrate two apparently conflicting viewpoints in Paul. On the one hand, this verse and Col. 3:9-11 make clear that the believer has ceased to be "old man" and has become "new man." On the other hand, Paul in Eph. 4:22-24 commands Christians to "put off the old man" and "put on the new man." Attempts to reconcile these have often taken the form either of taking the "crucifixion" of the old man to be only a preliminary judgment (see above) or of denying that Paul is giving commands in Eph. 4:22-24.113 Neither approach is exegetically sound.114 If, however, these phrases look at the person as one who belongs to the old age or the new, respectively, then this conflict is easily resolved. For Paul makes it clear that the believer has been transferred from the old age of sin and death to the new age of righteousness and life (Rom. 6:6 and Col. 3:9-11) just as he indicates that the "powers" of that old age continue to influence the believer and must be continually resisted — hence the imperatives of Eph. 4:22-24. At the heart ofthe contrast between "old man" and "new man" is the eschatological tension between the inauguration of the new age in the life of the believer — he or she belongs to the "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) — and the culmination of that new age in "glorification with Christ" (8:17). What we were "in Adam" is no more; but, until heaven, the temptation to live in Adam always remains

This participation of our old man in the crucifixion of Christ has the purpose115 of "rendering powerless116 the body of sin." The "body" to which Paul refers is naturally often understood to refer to the physical body.117 If so, the qualification "of sin" would not mean that the body is inherently sinful (a Greek notion rejected by the Bible) but that the body is particularly susceptible to, and easily dominated by, sin.118 But Paul also uses the word soma to refer to the whole person, with an emphasis on that person's interaction with the world.119 This interpretation seems to fit this verse well. What must be "rendered impotent" if / am to be freed from sin (v. 6c) is not just my physical body but myself in all my sin-prone faculties. There is little evidence that Paul conceived of the physical body as the source or reigning seat of sin.

However, we should not go so far as to say simply that "body of sin" means "man in his fallenness."120 Paul chooses soma to connote the person as the instrument of contact with the world, a choice especially appropriate in a context that speaks of crucifixion. It is that "aspect" of the person which "acts" in the world and which can be directed by something else: either by that person's new, "higher nature" or by "sin."121 Here, then, Paul wants to say that our capacities to interact with the world around us have been rescued from the domination of sin.122 Paul's point, then, is that the real, though forensic, inclusion of the believer with Christ in his crucifixion means that our solidarity with, and dominance by, Adam, through whom we are bound to the nexus of sin and death, has ended. And the purpose of this was that the body as a helpless tool of sin might be definitively defeated. What this means for the Christian life, though inherent in what Paul has already said, is spelled out in the concluding clause: "that we should no longer serve123 sin."

the references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

Behind the contrast between "old man" and "new man" is the contrast between Adam and Christ, the "first man" and the "last" (1 Cor. 15:45; cf. Rom. 5:15, "the one man Jesus Christ").111 Those, then, who are "in Adam" belong to and exist as "the old man"; those who are "in Christ" belong to and exist as "the new man." In other words, these phrases denote the solidarity of people with the "heads" of the two contrasting ages of salvation history.112 It is only by interpreting "old man" and "new man" in this manner that we are able to integrate two apparently conflicting viewpoints in Paul. On the one hand, this verse and Col. 3:9-11 make clear that the believer has ceased to be "old man" and has become "new man." On the other hand, Paul in Eph. 4:22-24 commands Christians to "put off the old man" and "put on the new man." Attempts to reconcile these have often taken the form either of taking the "crucifixion" of the old man to be only a preliminary judgment (see above) or of denying that Paul is giving commands in Eph. 4:22-24.113 Neither approach is exegetically sound.114 If, however, these phrases look at the person as one who belongs to the old age or the new, respectively, then this conflict is easily resolved. For Paul makes it clear that the believer has been transferred from the old age of sin and death to the new age of righteousness and life (Rom. 6:6 and Col. 3:9-11) just as he indicates that the "powers" of that old age continue to influence the believer and must be continually resisted — hence the imperatives of Eph. 4:22-24. At the heart ofthe contrast between "old man" and "new man" is the eschatological tension between the inauguration of the new age in the life of the believer — he or she belongs to the "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) — and the culmination of that new age in "glorification with Christ" (8:17). What we were "in Adam" is no more; but, until heaven, the temptation to live in Adam always remains

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

However, we should not go so far as to say simply that "body of sin" means "man in his fallenness."120 Paul chooses soma to connote the person as the instrument of contact with the world, a choice especially appropriate in a context that speaks of crucifixion. It is that "aspect" of the person which "acts" in the world and which can be directed by something else: either by that person's new, "higher nature" or by "sin."121 Here, then, Paul wants to say that our capacities to interact with the world around us have been rescued from the domination of sin.122 Paul's point, then, is that the real, though forensic, inclusion of the believer with Christ in his crucifixion means that our solidarity with, and dominance by, Adam, through whom we are bound to the nexus of sin and death, has ended. And the purpose of this was that the body as a helpless tool of sin might be definitively defeated. What this means for the Christian life, though inherent in what Paul has already said, is spelled out in the concluding clause: "that we should no longer serve123 sin."

Try out the New King James version first, but the ESV isn't too bad.

However, we should not go so far as to say simply that "body of sin" means "man in his fallenness."120 Paul chooses soma to connote the person as the instrument of contact with the world, a choice especially appropriate in a context that speaks of crucifixion. It is that "aspect" of the person which "acts" in the world and which can be directed by something else: either by that person's new, "higher nature" or by "sin."121 Here, then, Paul wants to say that our capacities to interact with the world around us have been rescued from the domination of sin.122 Paul's point, then, is that the real, though forensic, inclusion of the believer with Christ in his crucifixion means that our solidarity with, and dominance by, Adam, through whom we are bound to the nexus of sin and death, has ended. And the purpose of this was that the body as a helpless tool of sin might be definitively defeated. What this means for the Christian life, though inherent in what Paul has already said, is spelled out in the concluding clause: "that we should no longer serve123 sin." sjjsaj

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

See JIDF is already here. Sliding the 2nd thread. You have to sleep sometime, and I'm making this everyday ;) Your damage control just confirms to me that this General was needed.

Attached: download.png (327x154, 10K)

justification for himself and others.127 But this introduces a shift in subject for which the context has not prepared us.128 For these reasons, it is likely that "justified from sin" means "set free from [the power of] sin."129 "The one who dies" could still refer to "the one who has died with Christ,"130 but this would make v. 7 virtually repeat v. 6. It is more likely, then, that Paul is citing a general maxim, to the effect that "death severs the hold of sin on a person."131 Paul's readers may have been familiar with similar sayings, known to us from the rabbinic writings.132 His purpose, then, is not to prove v. 6 but to illustrate his theological point by reference to a general truth.

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

veyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

how the fuck do Christcucks rationalize Romans 13?

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

>obey government and pay taxes like the cucks you are

The answer to the question, 'How is this thing possible?' is conveyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

about this verse is that Paul uses the same language to describe Christ's relationship to sin as he has done to describe the Christian's: dying "to sin."140 Despite the similarity in language, many think that the concepts must be different; for Christ, being sinless, had no need to be freed from sin, as Christians do. Therefore, Christ's death must be "to sin" in the sense that "He affected sin by his dying," for in his death he bore the penalty of the sins of others

Translating the translation of the translation of the translation of the translations. KJV is tranny cuck shit and you heretics should be burned

10 The immediate purpose of this verse is to furnish further proof for the last statement of v. 9 — "death no longer has lordship over him." But in doing so, Paul also provides an important link in his chain of reasoning in this passage. We "die to sin" (v. 2) when we die "with Christ" (w. 3-6) because "the death139 that he died, he died to sin once for all." What is striking

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

tion, implying the response 'Nonsense! A man can't enter hismother's womb, can he? For this the Evangelist has been taken totask, since Rabbinic writings contain not a few references to the ideaof a man becoming a 'new creature", and the comparison of a proselyteto a new born child is well known; v. 4 is therefore regarded as anindication that we here deal with a fictitious dramatic setting of theJohannine teaching on regeneration. It should be observed, however,that when the Rabbis spoke of a man becoming a new creature, theywere not really concerned with moral renewal. A man becamephysically a new creature when God healed him; and he became a newcreature in a sense of living in a different environment when histribulations and dangers were removed, or when his sins were for-given, bringing thereby renewal in health and in circumstances and achanged relationship with God. Moral renewal, however, was par-ticularly associated with the resurrection in the last day.1 Moreoverif the examples of Rabbinic quotations, even of this physical or ex-ternal kind of renewal, be examined in the collection provided byStrack-Billerbeck, it will be found that almost without exception theyare late.*

Praise Him

As Peter and his fellow disciples were astonished, and even indig-nant, at the teaching of Jesus on the impossibility of being saved apartfrom a divine intervention, so Nicodemus asks an incredulous ques

Which Bible do you read?

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

veyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

about this verse is that Paul uses the same language to describe Christ's relationship to sin as he has done to describe the Christian's: dying "to sin."140 Despite the similarity in language, many think that the concepts must be different; for Christ, being sinless, had no need to be freed from sin, as Christians do. Therefore, Christ's death must be "to sin" in the sense that "He affected sin by his dying," for in his death he bore the penalty of the sins of others

Why do you crap up this discussion too? Go away evil spirit!

Attached: 1517640238922.png (400x346, 85K)

7 This verse explains124 the connection between death ("crucified with Christ") and freedom from sin ("no longer serve sin") that is the main point of v. 6. Precisely how it does so is, however, debated. On one view, "he who dies" is "the one who has died [with Christ]" and "has been justified"125 has its usual Pauline sense, "acquit from the penalty of sin." On this, the "theological" interpretation, Paul is pointing to justification through participation in Christ's death as the basis for the freedom from sin enjoyed by the believer.126 But there are difficulties in taking "justify" in this sense here. Paul does not connect our dying with our justification anywhere else. To avoid this problem, it has been suggested that "the one who dies" is Christ, who through his death secured

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

justification for himself and others.127 But this introduces a shift in subject for which the context has not prepared us.128 For these reasons, it is likely that "justified from sin" means "set free from [the power of] sin."129 "The one who dies" could still refer to "the one who has died with Christ,"130 but this would make v. 7 virtually repeat v. 6. It is more likely, then, that Paul is citing a general maxim, to the effect that "death severs the hold of sin on a person."131 Paul's readers may have been familiar with similar sayings, known to us from the rabbinic writings.132 His purpose, then, is not to prove v. 6 but to illustrate his theological point by reference to a general truth.

I won't claim to understand everything in the Bible. But I know that no matter what government or man or life takes from me, when I put God first, He will provide.

Matthew 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Psalm 37:25
I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

However, we should not go so far as to say simply that "body of sin" means "man in his fallenness."120 Paul chooses soma to connote the person as the instrument of contact with the world, a choice especially appropriate in a context that speaks of crucifixion. It is that "aspect" of the person which "acts" in the world and which can be directed by something else: either by that person's new, "higher nature" or by "sin."121 Here, then, Paul wants to say that our capacities to interact with the world around us have been rescued from the domination of sin.122 Paul's point, then, is that the real, though forensic, inclusion of the believer with Christ in his crucifixion means that our solidarity with, and dominance by, Adam, through whom we are bound to the nexus of sin and death, has ended. And the purpose of this was that the body as a helpless tool of sin might be definitively defeated. What this means for the Christian life, though inherent in what Paul has already said, is spelled out in the concluding clause: "that we should no longer serve123 sin."

It may be taken as certain, then, that the man who post's God's words as a wall of text to deflect discussion would then, be cast upon a heap of wood to be burned alive for his misdeeds.

DUMB ARROGANT PRICK KYS

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

justification for himself and others.127 But this introduces a shift in subject for which the context has not prepared us.128 For these reasons, it is likely that "justified from sin" means "set free from [the power of] sin."129 "The one who dies" could still refer to "the one who has died with Christ,"130 but this would make v. 7 virtually repeat v. 6. It is more likely, then, that Paul is citing a general maxim, to the effect that "death severs the hold of sin on a person."131 Paul's readers may have been familiar with similar sayings, known to us from the rabbinic writings.132 His purpose, then, is not to prove v. 6 but to illustrate his theological point by reference to a general truth.

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

Jehovah is a terrible translation of יהוה

10 The immediate purpose of this verse is to furnish further proof for the last statement of v. 9 — "death no longer has lordship over him." But in doing so, Paul also provides an important link in his chain of reasoning in this passage. We "die to sin" (v. 2) when we die "with Christ" (w. 3-6) because "the death139 that he died, he died to sin once for all." What is striking

You can hide behind walls of text but
Shows your true self.

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

The answer to the question, 'How is this thing possible?' is conveyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

You still have not answered, do you have your soul?

9 The faith that we will share Christ's resurrection is grounded in what we know:136 "Christ, having been raised from the dead, will no longer die; death no longer has lordship over him." Unlike Lazarus's "resurrection" (better, "revivification"), which did not spare him from another physical death, Christ's resurrection meant a decisive and final break with death and all its power. For his resurrection was the anticipation of the general resurrection — he is the "first fruits" of those that rise (1 Cor. 15:23). As such, his resurrection spelled the beginning of the new age of redemption, in which sin and death are being vanquished (cf. 1:4). But Paul's focus in this verse is on the significance of Christ's resurrection for Christ himself.137 Christ's resurrection means that he "no longer" dies; "death no longer has lordship138 over him" This language shows again that Paul is viewing matters from the perspective of the two ages of salvation history. Christ, in coming to earth incarnate, came under the influence of the powers of the old age: sin (cf. v. 10), the law (cf. Gal. 4:4), and death. Because of this Paul can say that Christ is no longer under the lordship of death. Just as the general resurrection will bring "death" to an end (Rev. 20:11-15), so Christ's resurrection ends the power of death over himself, as well as anticipating the defeat of death in all those who belong to him. So, as those who are identified with Christ, we can be confident of sharing in that defeat of death when we "live with him" (v. 8b).

BAPTISTS ARE MORON
It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view of
the references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

JOHN 3.3-5It is important for the understanding of the famous v. 5 to considerits simpler form in v. 3, where the issues are more sharply presented.Nicodemus is told that a man cannot inherit1 the Kingdom of Godunless he be 'born from above" (ycwydfj dvu>6tv). A more shatteringshort sentence addressed to one characterized as 'the Teacher ofIsrael' (v. 10) can hardly be imagined. Nicodemus has spent his life inthe service of God and in hope of the Kingdom. He is told that if hewould attain the Kingdom he must have a wholly new beginning —not merely a fresh start but a fresh origin, a new birth. And the birth isnot of a kind that can be produced by human effort; it must beavoid (v, from above, from heaven, therefore from God.a By this state-ment the whole life and work of Nicodemus are set in question. It isas though the message of Jesus to the nation, 'Repent for the Kingdomof heaven has drawn near', (Mk. 1.15) were reformulated for him inthe most drastic manner possible, in the strain of Jesus' reply to thequestion as to who could be saved: 'With men it is impossible! Butnot with God' (Mk. 10.26 f). What Nicodemus can gain alone fromGod he must seek in penitence and humility from God

I grew up reading the KJV, my church used the NIV, my parents used the NKJV. They're all garbage because 1) the Council of Nicea 2)Christianity and all other religions are for cucks, and 3) While I hate them, at least the Jews don't have translation issues.
>inb4 "hurr durr much scholars for King James"
It's amazing what us hairless chimps come up with under penalty of life imprisonment or death, eh?

9 The faith that we will share Christ's resurrection is grounded in what we know:136 "Christ, having been raised from the dead, will no longer die; death no longer has lordship over him." Unlike Lazarus's "resurrection" (better, "revivification"), which did not spare him from another physical death, Christ's resurrection meant a decisive and final break with death and all its power. For his resurrection was the anticipation of the general resurrection — he is the "first fruits" of those that rise (1 Cor. 15:23). As such, his resurrection spelled the beginning of the new age of redemption, in which sin and death are being vanquished (cf. 1:4). But Paul's focus in this verse is on the significance of Christ's resurrection for Christ himself.137 Christ's resurrection means that he "no longer" dies; "death no longer has lordship138 over him" This language shows again that Paul is viewing matters from the perspective of the two ages of salvation history. Christ, in coming to earth incarnate, came under the influence of the powers of the old age: sin (cf. v. 10), the law (cf. Gal. 4:4), and death. Because of this Paul can say that Christ is no longer under the lordship of death. Just as the general resurrection will bring "death" to an end (Rev. 20:11-15), so Christ's resurrection ends the power of death over himself, as well as anticipating the defeat of death in all those who belong to him. So, as those who are identified with Christ, we can be confident of sharing in that defeat of death when we "live with him" (v. 8b).

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

>I have no argument so I'll call him a pharisee

Attached: giphy.gif (266x300, 2.9M)

veyed by the significant replacement of dvojOtv in the otherwiserepetitive assertion of v. 5: 'Unless a man be born of water and of theSpirit.. .'. The conjunction of birth, Spirit and Kingdom is signifi-cant; it hints of the eschatological background presumed in the ideaof being born from above. The Spirit is poured out in the last days,enabling God's people to walk in his statutes (Ezk. 36.26 ff) and evento experience resurrection from the dead (Ezk. 37.9 ff).1 The languagepresumes that the Spirit is even now at work in the righteous or isabout to be given for the attainment of such ends. The miracledemanded in v. 3 accordingly either has become or is shortly to be apossibility. But what is intended by the mention of 'water' in such aconnection? The former passage cited from Ezekiel conjoins with thegift of the Spirit the sprinkling of clean water for the 'cleansing ofuncleannesses' (36.25), so the idea of a ritual use of water in connec-tion with the gift of the Spirit would not be without precedent. But ata time when the employment of water for cleansing in view of the lastday had taken the specific form of baptism, it is difficult to takeseriously any other reference than baptism in the words «£ vSaros.1As in Jn. 6.51 ff the exposition on eating the flesh of the Son of Manand drinking His blood cannot fail to bring to mind the Lord's Supper,so the reference to new birth by water and Spirit inevitably directs

How's that straight jacket feeling?

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

ITT: Fascist tells the same wall of text to anyone who posts.

Attached: 1529386582706.gif (640x360, 1.85M)

about this verse is that Paul uses the same language to describe Christ's relationship to sin as he has done to describe the Christian's: dying "to sin."140 Despite the similarity in language, many think that the concepts must be different; for Christ, being sinless, had no need to be freed from sin, as Christians do. Therefore, Christ's death must be "to sin" in the sense that "He affected sin by his dying," for in his death he bore the penalty of the sins of others

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

No one cares about your Dead Sea scroll text posts faggot.

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

Nice you are literally just barely a functional human being. CTRL +V is so advanced.

KYS BAPSHIT

tion, implying the response 'Nonsense! A man can't enter hismother's womb, can he? For this the Evangelist has been taken totask, since Rabbinic writings contain not a few references to the ideaof a man becoming a 'new creature", and the comparison of a proselyteto a new born child is well known; v. 4 is therefore regarded as anindication that we here deal with a fictitious dramatic setting of theJohannine teaching on regeneration. It should be observed, however,that when the Rabbis spoke of a man becoming a new creature, theywere not really concerned with moral renewal. A man becamephysically a new creature when God healed him; and he became a newcreature in a sense of living in a different environment when histribulations and dangers were removed, or when his sins were for-given, bringing thereby renewal in health and in circumstances and achanged relationship with God. Moral renewal, however, was par-ticularly associated with the resurrection in the last day.1 Moreoverif the examples of Rabbinic quotations, even of this physical or ex-ternal kind of renewal, be examined in the collection provided byStrack-Billerbeck, it will be found that almost without exception theyare late.*

I've said it before I'll say it again. You are an abomination before man and God.

Attached: 1509732720915.gif (434x434, 60K)

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

Dumb bapshit

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

>Implying

MODS

the references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

As Peter and his fellow disciples were astonished, and even indig-nant, at the teaching of Jesus on the impossibility of being saved apartfrom a divine intervention, so Nicodemus asks an incredulous ques

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

However, we should not go so far as to say simply that "body of sin" means "man in his fallenness."120 Paul chooses soma to connote the person as the instrument of contact with the world, a choice especially appropriate in a context that speaks of crucifixion. It is that "aspect" of the person which "acts" in the world and which can be directed by something else: either by that person's new, "higher nature" or by "sin."121 Here, then, Paul wants to say that our capacities to interact with the world around us have been rescued from the domination of sin.122 Paul's point, then, is that the real, though forensic, inclusion of the believer with Christ in his crucifixion means that our solidarity with, and dominance by, Adam, through whom we are bound to the nexus of sin and death, has ended. And the purpose of this was that the body as a helpless tool of sin might be definitively defeated. What this means for the Christian life, though inherent in what Paul has already said, is spelled out in the concluding clause: "that we should no longer serve123 sin."

It looks as though we must reckon seriously with the possi-bility that the application of the concept of regeneration to the spirituallife of the individual was uncommon both in Judaism and in theworld of Hellenistic syncretism before the advent of Christianity.5 Itcannot be doubted that the Fourth Evangelist had frequently debatedwith Jews concerning the theme of the Nicodemus discourse; if thereactions he experienced were so different from v. 4, how could hehave represented so great a Rabbi to be so ignorant ( And if his ex-perience accorded with that answer, ought we not regard that fact asan important datum concerning Jewish opinion at this time, in viewof the indications in his Gospel that he was well acquainted with thetheological ideas of contemporary Rabbinic Judaism?* If the teachingon regeneration represented in this chapter were a commonplaceamong educated Jews of the Evangelist's day, he would not havepermitted even a dramatic setting to be so manifestly false

7 This verse explains124 the connection between death ("crucified with Christ") and freedom from sin ("no longer serve sin") that is the main point of v. 6. Precisely how it does so is, however, debated. On one view, "he who dies" is "the one who has died [with Christ]" and "has been justified"125 has its usual Pauline sense, "acquit from the penalty of sin." On this, the "theological" interpretation, Paul is pointing to justification through participation in Christ's death as the basis for the freedom from sin enjoyed by the believer.126 But there are difficulties in taking "justify" in this sense here. Paul does not connect our dying with our justification anywhere else. To avoid this problem, it has been suggested that "the one who dies" is Christ, who through his death secured

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.

attention to Christian baptism. But just as the exposition of partici-pating in the flesh and blood of Christ in ch. 6 has a history, so hasthe birth of water and Spirit in ch. 3 and it is necessary to understandthat history to grasp the significance of the passage.Contrary to the often expressed opinion that the Fourth Evangelisthas no historical sense in his dialogues and addresses, there are clearindications that he is sensible to the situations in which his teaching isset, and he provides signposts for the right perspective in which toview it. The future tense of 6.27, 6.51, for example, shows that theeating of the flesh and drinking the blood of the Son of Man strictlybelong to the time future to those addressed in the synagogue atCapernaum, though the presence of the Christ made a participationin the 'living bread' possible in a preliminary fashion even then.Similarly with regard to the life of the Spirit, 7.39 is a crucial sayingand is to be compared with the consistent portrayal of the sending ofthe Spirit in the Last Supper discourses as a promise, even for thedisciples who had in measure experienced the Spirit's ministry butnot his indwelling presence (14.17).

There really needs to be a way to automatically detect when someone is shitting up a thread like this.

Attached: 1529152388905.jpg (216x233, 9K)

the contrast between "old man" and "new man" is the eschatological tension between the inauguration of the new age in the life of the believer — he or she belongs to the "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17) — and the culmination of that new age in "glorification with Christ" (8:17). What we were "in Adam" is no more; but, until heaven, the temptation to live in Adam always remains

objectively wrong, it may is a good translation, but not completely accurate. for example in genesis it says
>And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
actual translation is that the world BECAME void, implying that something happened before adam and eve that made it void, one of the countless cataclysms so many other cultures speak off making the 6000 year earth not bibilical.

neither is the Flat Earth biblical
>It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,
actually that would have meant "volume" or "vault" of the earth
creation.com/isaiah-40-22-circle-sphere

furthermore it deletes 100 years of lifespan from every of Shems descendents up until abraham.
The kikes deleted this to deny Jesus the title of high priest. To be high priest of the levites you have to be born into, but jesus was born a jew and said he is from the priesthood of melchizedek instead. Now kikes, in order to deny jesus that, claim that Shem is Melchizedek. However Melchizedek spoke with Abraham which wasnt possible when everyone lived 100 years longer, so they scratched off 100 years from them in oder to claim that the priesthood of melchezidek and the priesthood of the levites (originating from Shem) are the same and thus Jesus obviously cant belong to that and is lying. So theyjust translated the ages wrong from that point on
youtube.com/watch?v=VI1yRTC6kGE
ignore the part about the pyramids, on that point the video is actually lacking some stuff, but on the stuff with shem its actually really good

So this translation, as any other is lacking

7 This verse explains124 the connection between death ("crucified with Christ") and freedom from sin ("no longer serve sin") that is the main point of v. 6. Precisely how it does so is, however, debated. On one view, "he who dies" is "the one who has died [with Christ]" and "has been justified"125 has its usual Pauline sense, "acquit from the penalty of sin." On this, the "theological" interpretation, Paul is pointing to justification through participation in Christ's death as the basis for the freedom from sin enjoyed by the believer.126 But there are difficulties in taking "justify" in this sense here. Paul does not connect our dying with our justification anywhere else. To avoid this problem, it has been suggested that "the one who dies" is Christ, who through his death secured

This participation of our old man in the crucifixion of Christ has the purpose115 of "rendering powerless116 the body of sin." The "body" to which Paul refers is naturally often understood to refer to the physical body.117 If so, the qualification "of sin" would not mean that the body is inherently sinful (a Greek notion rejected by the Bible) but that the body is particularly susceptible to, and easily dominated by, sin.118 But Paul also uses the word soma to refer to the whole person, with an emphasis on that person's interaction with the world.119 This interpretation seems to fit this verse well. What must be "rendered impotent" if / am to be freed from sin (v. 6c) is not just my physical body but myself in all my sin-prone faculties. There is little evidence that Paul conceived of the physical body as the source or reigning seat of sin.

It may be taken as certain, then,that the baptism in which birth by the Spirit is known is regarded bythe Evangelist as a phenomenon future to the time of Nicodemus.But there was a baptism open to Nicodemus which gave, if notpromise, at least hope of birth by the Spirit and entrance into theKingdom of God: the baptism of John, despised by the Pharisaiccolleagues of Nicodemus (Lk. 7.30) and presumably insufficientlyvalued by Nicodemus for him to humble himself and submit to it.But still more pertinently, a baptism was being administered at thistime yet more closely related to the promise of the Spirit and of theKingdom: the baptism of Jesus Himself! It is extraordinary how ithas been universally overlooked that Jesus, who authorized hisdisciples to baptize and whose baptisms at this time are said to haveexceeded those of John (3.26, 4.1), might have laid on a Pharisee thenecessity of submitting to baptism in the light of the imminence ofredemption and sending of the Spirit. Or, if more cautious speech isdesired, it is strange how neglected the idea is that the Johannine Jesusconjoined baptism with new life and the Kingdom of God, in view ofthe references made in this chapter to the baptismal ministry exercisedby his disciples and the greater value that the Evangelist would haveattached to this baptism than that assigned to the baptism of John.