Guest yod Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 It isn't. As many, many Christian preachers have observed for centuries, it is not a comparison, but an exchange. You either have the flesh, or you have Christ. That is not difficult to see. so you do hate your parents? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 It isn't. As many, many Christian preachers have observed for centuries, it is not a comparison, but an exchange. You either have the flesh, or you have Christ. That is not difficult to see. No, it is a matter of what you are putting your confidence in. Paul begins by saying that he does not put confidence in the flesh or any of his worly accomplishments, and that those things junk that he may know Christ. That is different than acsetism which despises the flesh altogether. Again, it is a matter of keeing everything in proper perspective. As yod said it compares with Christ stating that one must hate their parents to follow Him. No one is absurd enough to state that Jesus actually wants anyone to "hate" their parents in the absolute sense. He certainly does not excect us to hold them in comtempt in order to walk with Him. I must "hate" my worldly accomplishments, and all things pertaining to this world in order to know Christ, in the same sense that Christ says that we should "hate" our parents. It is really quite simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted September 25, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted September 25, 2006 It isn't. As many, many Christian preachers have observed for centuries, it is not a comparison, but an exchange. You either have the flesh, or you have Christ. That is not difficult to see. No, it is a matter of what you are putting your confidence in. Paul begins by saying that he does not put confidence in the flesh or any of his worly accomplishments, and that those things junk that he may know Christ. That is different than acsetism which despises the flesh altogether. Not so. 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not, at least not the way it is used i Phil. 3. Paul says that he more than anyone has cause to put confidence in the "flesh. As applied in Phil3:3-4 it refers to his physical pedigree, external rites, or ceremonies. He considers them worthless in order to gain Christ. In other words, he either had to put confidence in the flesh or in Christ, it could not be both. However that only applies to issue of salvation and relationship with Christ. It is not a repudiation of his Jewishness. It was just a matter of keeping it proper perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted September 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted September 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Black is white, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Black is white, too. Can you respond with something intelligent? The fact is, there is nothing in the verse yo provided that mentions "deceit." It is up to you to demonstrate your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointer Posted September 26, 2006 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 636 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/11/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted September 26, 2006 'The flesh' means all of the deceits of the world. No it does not 'If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.' Phil 3:4-6 NIV That has does not support your definition. Black is white, too. Can you respond with something intelligent? I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 No, you answered in mockery saying "black is white, too." That is not an intelligent answer. The truth is that you cannot provide an honest direct answer to a reasonable request. You are simply responding out of pride and not sound biblical exegesis. I asked you to show why the verse you quoted can be attributed to "deceits of the world" as you allege. All you have chosen to do dance around answering the question. The truth is you can't. You cannot provide an honest, answer. Thank you for demonstrating the inherent weakness of your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts