"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[Sonny]

Since "we" were "in Christ" [see Rom 6:6/7:4] then Christ had in Him our bent to self (iniquity) because OUR humanity was in Him.

Again, Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin [where?] in the flesh

Now go to Romans 7:17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh

Where does iniquity reside? "In my flesh". Sin dwell in me, i.e., in my humanity.

Since I was "in Christ" then it goes without saying that Christ had to deal with my bent-to-self (my sinful nature) when He was made flesh (John 1:14).

Did Christ, through the Spirit, defeat my bent-to-self? Absolutely? This answered the positive demands of God's law, which is obey & live. So "in Christ" my humanity was made obedient.

And on the cross my old life from Adam (my humanity from Adam) died in Christ Jesus. This answered the justice of God's law.

You see Paul's gospel doesn't bypass God's holy law. It magnifies it. So "in Christ" I am positively righteous before God's law.

[Sonny]

God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh

Here's Jack (just read it):

Romans 8:3: For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man....

The law of God could not free you from the law of sin and death, and he’s already covered that in chapter 7. The flesh is incapable of keeping the law of God because it’s weak. What the law could not do, God did. How did God do it? By sending His own son in a human nature that is like yours and mine.

Now please notice what he condemned. He did not condemn “sins,” your performance or mine. He condemned “SIN,” singular. What is Paul referring to when he uses the phrase “sin in sinful man” (or “sin in the flesh,” as some translations read)? The phrase “sin in the flesh,” found in verse 3, the phrase “the law of sin and death” found in verse 2, the phrase “the law of sin at work within my members” found in Romans 7:23, the phrase “sin living in me” found in Romans 7:17 and 20 are all synonymous terms. Paul is not dealing here with our performance; he is dealing with the source of our problem, the foundation of our problem, which is sin dwelling in me.

Now, those who teach the post-fall position, to which I belong, have a problem. We must also be honest with our position. If Christ took that sinful nature which has sin dwelling in it, and which condemns me, doesn’t that make Christ a sinner in need of a Savior? That’s the argument of the pre-fall people. That’s a valid argument.

Unfortunately, the solution that is offered to them is unacceptable. Even I won’t accept it. They [the post-fall group] say that sinful nature is not sin. “Yes,” they say, “we have an inclination towards sin, we have a bent toward sinning, but it is not sin.”

Folks, you would have a hard time proving it from Romans 7 and from other passages. The Bible does call it sin, so that is not the solution. Sin is not a singular problem, it is a dual problem.

Then what’s the solution? Well, as I read the New Testament, I discovered something, that whenever the New Testament talks about the humanity of Christ, it always uses a qualifying word. In Romans 8:3 the qualifying word is “likeness.” In John 1:14 and Galatians 4:4 the word used is “made” or “to become,” the Greek word “ginomai.” In 2 Corinthians 5:21 you have the word “made” also, “He was made sin.” In Hebrews 2:14 the qualifying word is “partake” or “share”: He shared in our humanity.

In other words, what the New Testament teaches is this: in the incarnation Jesus Christ became, was made, shared, what we are, but what we are did not belong to him by native right. We must never ever teach that Christ HAD a sinful nature. That would be heresy. That would be making Him altogether like us. He ASSUMED our sinful nature. He TOOK upon Himself what belongs to us, not to Him.

Now it is true that if Christ consented to the sinful desires of that nature, if He yielded to that nature even by a thought, He would have become a sinner in need of a redeemer. But as long as He would not allow that nature to control Him or to express itself in Him, He was not a sinner. He was made sin, He was made flesh, but He was not sin. In other words, we must never drag the will of Christ, the mind of Christ into sin. That would be making Him a sinner. Yes, He took our nature, He struggled with our nature, but He conquered that nature and He executed that nature on the cross, and that is what verse 3 is saying. On the cross He took that nature and executed it or He allowed the executioners to execute it so that we may be set free from the law of sin and death. Now, what is our conclusion? What is the blessing of this wonderful truth? The blessing is twofold, not one, but twofold.

You and I are sinners, not because of our sins only, but because of what we are. I am a sinner by nature, plus I am a sinner by performance. Jesus saved me from both, not vicariously. He took my nature and He executed that nature on the cross so I’m saved from my sin. But in that death, all my sins which that nature produced also died. When you cut down an apple tree the apples also die. Am I correct? And when He dealt with the very core of my sin problem He dealt with the other problem too, the sin. Because of this there is no condemnation, and that’s the first blessing [Romans 8:1]:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus....

Even if God were to give you total victory over sin, you still stand as a sinner because your nature will condemn you. But in Christ I have freedom from my nature as well as from my performance. I have a perfect Savior.

But that is not the only blessing that we receive, we receive a second blessing from this truth, which we will study in detail as we go along to verse 4, but I’ll just review verse 4. The second blessing is this: that the righteous requirements of the law which we could not keep ourselves, might be fulfilled, are possible to be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh (because if you walk in the flesh you will have the frustration of Romans 7), but who walk according to the Spirit.

This same Spirit that conquered the law of sin in Christ and executed the law of sin in Christ, this same Holy Spirit that produced righteousness in the humanity of Christ that is identical to ours, that same Spirit is now available to you and to me who are born-again Christians.

And as we walk in the Spirit, the righteous requirements, not some of the righteous requirements, but the righteous requirements of the law might be fulfilled in us, not to justify us, but as evidence that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. So the humanity of Christ is everything.

These three verses are extremely crucial because in these verses Paul is telling me that Jesus did not only come to save me from my sins which are many, but to quote John the Baptist in John 1:29:

Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

He takes away sin, singular, the SIN of the world. He took the cause, the source of our problem and with it He took also our sins. And so in Christ, Who became one of us, we have a perfect Redeemer. We have a new history and we have a new hope. And I say praise the Lord for a Savior who came not halfway between God and man where Adam stood before the fall, but came to where I am, struggled with the struggles I am going through. So we have a Priest in heaven now who can sympathize with me and who can help me. I thank God for such a Savior. He is my elder brother. I hope He is yours, too, is my prayer in Jesus’ name.

[miz3]

Quote:

"Who has believed our message

and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,

and like a root out of dry ground.

He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,

nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,

a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.

Like one from whom men hide their faces

he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities

and carried our sorrows,

yet we considered him stricken by God,

smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to his own way;

and the LORD has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,

yet he did not open his mouth;

he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,

and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,

so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.

And who can speak of his descendants?

For he was cut off from the land of the living;

for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death,

though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the LORD makes[c] his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,

he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];

by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,

and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]

and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]

because he poured out his life unto death,

and was numbered with the transgressors.

For he bore the sin of many,

and made intercession for the transgressors."

Isaiah 53.

Sonny here is the whole chapter of Isaiah 53.

Of course you know that in a passage there can be metaphors and facts together. They can exist together in the same passage.

Just because part of the passage has a metaphor does not mean that the whole passage is a metaphor and that everything in the passage is a metaphor.

With that in mind let us look at this passage in whole.

1. Verse two uses the term "tender shoot" a metaphor for growing up. Because the tender shoot was a metaphor it does NOT mean that, the one the metaphor is talking about (Jesus Christ) is also a metaphor. Jesus Christ is a FACT!

So you see that FACTS and metaphors are mixed!

2. Verse three is all FACT!

3. Verse four states that Jesus Christ took upon him our humanity that suffered thirst, hunger, pain, tiredness, etc. and that God was the One who struck Jesus Christ!

4. Verse five is all FACT! Jesus Christ was nailed for our transgressions (our sin Sonny! On the Cross Sonny!), crushed by our iniquities (beaten and abused), the punishment of the transgressor was upon Jesus Christ on the Cross (not anywhere else just the Cross), the wounds of the Cross are what healed us.

Just FACTS! No metaphors in this verse!

5. Verse six starts with humans being like sheep. Now you are correct that this is a metaphor because we humans are likened to sheep. That is as far as that metaphor goes.

The second part of this verse is NOT A METAPHOR. It is FACT! It states that we humans have gone astray! Going astray is not a metaphor it is a FACT!

The third part of the verse states that God laid on Jesus Christ all our human iniquity. Again, this is a statement of FACT! There is no metaphor here! The construction of this point is not anything like a metaphor. These are REAL SINS not metaphorical sins. See also verse five which states the same thing as FACT!

6. Verse seven the first two lines state that Jesus Christ was afflicted. This is not a metaphorical affliction. Jesus Christ was actually beaten. Yet Jesus Christ did not open His mouth. NO Metaphor here.

The next four lines are clearly metaphorical because it uses the word "like". That's how we know it is a metaphor! Jesus Christ was like a sheep going to the slaughter and did not open its mouth. The slaughter was real but being like a sheep is metaphorical.

7. Verse eight is all fact! Jesus Christ in fact was taken away by Judgment of God and was oppressed on the Cross by the Father!

The next line states that Jesus Christ has no descendents. FACT! It does not use the word "like" to indicate a metaphor!

The next two lines are also clear fact! Jesus was indeed cut off from the land of the living. Jesus Christ was stricken for our transgressions (again on the Cross, Sonny, not at the Incarnation).

This is powerful Scripture!

8. Verse nine again all fact no metaphor. Jesus was assigned to the grave of the wicked and the rich (the human whose grave it was, was indeed a wicked sinner). This was done even though Jesus Christ had no sin of His own. He was the Perfect Lamb of God.

9. Verse ten is also FACT! It was God's Sovereign Will that Jesus Christ was to be crushed and to suffer so that Jesus Christ was a "guilt offering" (FACT no metaphor here because it does NOT say Jesus was "like" a guilt offering it says Jesus WAS a guilt offering). Scripture says Jesus Christ was actually (FACT) the guilt offering.

The next two lines are also FACT! Jesus Christ's reward was not a metaphor it is an actual factual reward.

10. Verse eleven states again FACT! It states that Jesus Christ will after the Cross "Justify many" (free gift no one earns Justification).

11. Verse twelve states again only FACT! What are those facts:

a. Jesus on the Cross was numbered with the transgressors.

b. Jesus Christ bore the sin of humanity on the Cross.

c. Jesus Christ made intercession for us on the Cross.

It all has to be the Cross. There is nothing here about the Incarnation.

In addition, you need to be more careful about what is and is not a metaphor.

We are now all witnesses to how you made something a metaphor that was indeed actually a FACT!

Remember the word "like" is a strong indicator of a metaphor. If that word is not there than it is likely NOT a metaphor. Also context helps too. You completely ignored the context.

If you make everything in this passage a metaphor than it does not make any sense.

For example are sorrows and sufferings metaphors. Surely you are not saying that Jesus Christ was only metaphorically suffering or metaphorically sorrowful. Surely you are not saying that the Cross experience of Jesus Christ was one giant metaphor and that it really did not happen.

Of course if you interpret this Scripture like you interpreted it then you make the whole thing a metaphor which of course is ridiculous.

[Sonny]

The third part of the verse states that God laid on Jesus Christ all our human iniquity. Again, this is a statement of FACT! There is no metaphor here!

Wrong! That's a metaphor that means God charged Christ with sin. But to do this He first had to qualify Christ by uniting our humanity to Him.

[Sonny]

If you make everything in this passage a metaphor ....

Never said that....

[miz3]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: miz3

The third part of the verse states that God laid on Jesus Christ all our human iniquity. Again, this is a statement of FACT! There is no metaphor here!

Wrong! That's a metaphor that means God charged Christ with sin. But to do this He first had to qualify Christ by uniting our humanity to Him.

This is your Pride again!

You know that this text is not a metaphor and that it also is not say anything about Christ "qualifying" for anything!

Everyone now can see that you really are wrong! Because no one thinks this is a metaphor!

[Sonny]

This is your Pride again!

[miz3]

Quote:

Originally Posted By: miz3

This is your Pride again!

Really, so you know my motive? Are you God?

I see your fruit, which you have freely of your own self given us!

No person of honesty would label what you labeled a metaphor a metaphor!

This is your own human devising and adding to the Word of God.

Does Jack S. think this text, Isaiah 53:6 second part, is a metaphor?

[Sonny]

No person of honesty would label what you labeled a metaphor a metaphor!

More manipulation.

[miz3]

No Sonny the Bible states it as just FACT! No metaphor in the Isaiah chapter fifty-three text!

PRIDE SAYS IT IS A METAPHOR.

TRUTH SAYS ITS FACT!

[Sonny]

PRIDE SAYS IT IS A METAPHOR.

TRUTH SAYS ITS FACT!

Nonsense....

[Sonny]

Let's get back on track:

Romans 8:1-3

[Sonny]

Let's get back on track:

Romans 8:1-3

Here's a snapshot of the above website:

The question is, “How did that humanity save us?” This is also a very important question, and within Adventism we have two answers. We are not agreed on how he saved us.

One camp says he saved us “vicariously.” The other camp says he saved us “actually.” Now, because each camp takes a different position on the human nature of Christ, what do these two positions mean? Those who teach the vicarious position teach that Christ had to take the sinless nature of Adam before the fall.

The word vicarious means “a person who functions instead of another.” This is their argument. They say that, “Sin is a dual problem. Sin is what I am and sin is what I do. I’m a sinner by nature.” (We touched on this last study where Paul teaches in Romans 7 that there is sin dwelling in our very members, in our nature, in verse 17, verse 20, verse 23. He calls it the law of sin and death.)

But sin is also performance and Christ had to save me both from what I am and from my failures. How did He do it? “It is very simple,” they say. “He took the sinless nature of Adam to substitute, to be in place of, the sinful nature of man. So His sinless nature saves us from our sinful nature. And His sinless performance, which is his doing and dying, saves us from our sinful performance. Thus, His sinless nature plus His sinless performance together give us salvation full and complete. Christ is the perfect Redeemer.”

Sounds good! Sounds wonderful! Sounds convincing! But there is one major problem. In fact, there are two problems, but one major one: this makes the gospel unethical. You see, it is perfectly acceptable to have substitutes in football and basketball and, in the teaching profession, we have substitute teachers. It is even acceptable that we have substitute foods, like substitute meats from Loma Linda and Worthington. That’s a substitute. It is in place of the real stuff. Now, it’s a poor imitation but it’s still a substitute.

But when you apply this definition of substitution, somebody who functions instead of somebody else, legally you face an ethical problem. Because it’s a fundamental principle of all law, God’s or man’s, that you cannot allow an innocent person to suffer in the place of a guilty person. No law will allow that. No judge would be legally right to allow [serial murderer] Ted Bundy’s mother to suffer the death sentence for her son no matter how much she wanted to, because it is unethical.

Now when God established Israel as a Theocracy, He made it very clear in Deuteronomy 24:16 that you cannot transfer guilt and punishment:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

He made a law and, in fact, He wanted to see the law carried out. Look at 2 Kings 14:6:

Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.”

You will notice how this law was fulfilled. And when Israel departed from this principle and began transferring guilt and punishment, God came down hard on them through Ezekiel the prophet. In Ezekiel 18:5-20 you will see how God comes down hard on people who transfer guilt.

Therefore, if God made it clear that you cannot transfer guilt and punishment — an innocent man cannot suffer in the place of a guilty man — then the vicarious position becomes unethical. And, because it is unethical, those who preach this position, like the Reformers, were accused of “legal fiction” or, “as if passed on righteousness.”

[miz3]

But when you apply this definition of substitution, somebody who functions instead of somebody else, legally you face an ethical problem. Because it’s a fundamental principle of all law, God’s or man’s, that you cannot allow an innocent person to suffer in the place of a guilty person. No law will allow that. No judge would be legally right to allow [serial murderer] Ted Bundy’s mother to suffer the death sentence for her son no matter how much she wanted to, because it is unethical.

Now when God established Israel as a Theocracy, He made it very clear in Deuteronomy 24:16 that you cannot transfer guilt and punishment:

You cannot take a physical human to human law and make it say something Spiritual. Deuteronomy chapter 24 was intended only for human to human issues. The Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue and is also a God to human issue. Thus there is a huge difference.

God never, ever intended Deuteronomy 24:16 to be the model for the Plan of Salvation. This a gross misuse of the text! Jack S. should know better than that. Shame! Shame!

In fact God did "substitute" in the OT Sanctuary because God was making a Spiritual issue and a Spiritual Lesson not a humans to humans physical issue. Our sin is not against humans but against God. Adam did not sin against other humans, Adam sinned only against God.

Second when Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac God indeed created a "substitute".

The fact is God always intended that "substitution" was to be the Spiritual Heart of the Plan of Salvation.

Shame on you and Jack S. for blatantly misusing the Deuteronomy 24:16 text! That text was never ever intended as a model of the Plan of Salvation.

[Sonny]

Deuteronomy chapter 24 was intended only for human to human issues. The Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue and is also a God to human issue.

You need to prove this from the Bible. I just can't take your word for it.

[Sonny]

We must be absolutely clear in our minds that Christ did not come to change the death sentence that hangs over the human race; but He did come to fulfill that death sentence and make a way of escape for lost humanity. For Christ to change the death sentence would mean He had break His own law or make it null and void; and this can never be for the law is a revelation of His just and righteous character which character never changes (Hebrews 13:8).

Since all have sinned in Adam, die the first death we must, but Christ came that we may be made alive in Him. To understand this, we must go back and take another look at 1 Corinthians 15:45, 47. In these two verses, Adam is referred to as the first Adam and the first man, while Christ is called the last Adam and the second man. According to verse 45, Adam is the first head of the human race, while Christ is the last (or second) head of the same human race. And, in verse 47, Adam is the head of the first or old human race, while Christ is the head of the second or new human race.

As the last (or second) Adam Christ gathered unto Himself the whole Adamic race and on the cross died the wages of sin (the second or eternal death) which is what we all deserved in the first Adam. And by His death on the cross, Christ in the resurrection rose up from the dead as the second man, the head of a new humanity who are altogether found in Him. Hence, “if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17). It was at the cross that old things, or the old humanity, passed away; and it is in the resurrection that “all things are become new.”

At the cross not only did Christ die the second death, but much more, we, too, died in Him. And, thus, we were delivered forever from our position in Adam and this doomed world, which position was under the condemnation of the law. Through the resurrection we were made alive in Him, born anew to a “lively hope,” which is entirely under grace and which is in Christ, the second man, the head of a new humanity. Therefore, “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to His abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead” (1 Peter 1:3).

This, in fact, is the truth all of us submitted to, or should have submitted to, when we were baptized into Christ (see Romans 6:3-6). For baptism, as we shall study later on, is simply our surrender or submission to what God did to us in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. Further, note how the apostle Paul illustrates this same truth of the cross in Romans 7:4, “Wherefore, by brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another [husband], even to him who is raised from the dead that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

In Adam we were married, as it were, to the law, that is to say, the law (like a husband) had dominion or authority over us as long as we lived (see Romans 7:1). But being incorporated or united to the body of Christ (the last Adam), by the act of God, we died to the law on the cross of Christ and thus were delivered from its dominion and authority (Galatians 4:4-5), freed from our position in Adam. And in the resurrection we were born anew, married or Christ (the second man) and became one with Him, possessing His life and living under His dominion and authority. For this reason Scripture defines the church as the body of Christ, and Christ as the Head of the church (Ephesians 5:23).

Through the cross of Christ we have said good-bye forever to the life we inherited in Adam, and in exchange we have received the life of Christ. It is this truth, above any other truth, that will determine whether we remain carnal Christians living like ordinary men (1 Corinthians 3:1-3) or become spiritual Christians bearing the fruit of Christ’s life (John 15:4-8). [JS]

[miz3]

You need to prove this from the Bible. I just can't take your word for it.

You mean that you have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue?

Do you also have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a God to human issue also?

If you do have doubts about these things it may explain a lot about your position.

By the way Genesis 3:15 states that the Plan of Salvation is a God to human issue and that God will indeed win!

Of course you read Deuteronomy chapter 24 and that is clearly a human to human issue. The Text clearly states this itself.

Wow! To think Sonny may have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue between God and humans?

[miz3]

Throwing Jack S. at us does nothing to change the wrongness of your position!

Jack S. is not an authority and look at complicated, convoluted mess he creates in his failed attempt to explain the simple Gospel!

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

You need to prove this from the Bible. I just can't take your word for it.

You mean that you have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue?

Do you also have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a God to human issue also?

If you do have doubts about these things it may explain a lot about your position.

By the way Genesis 3:15 states that the Plan of Salvation is a God to human issue and that God will indeed win!

Of course you read Deuteronomy chapter 24 and that is clearly a human to human issue. The Text clearly states this itself.

Wow! To think Sonny may have doubts about whether the Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue between God and humans?

None of what you wrote gave me a Bible answer. Just your speculation.

You said, "Deuteronomy chapter 24 was intended only for human to human issues. The Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue and is also a God to human issue." Prove it! Enough small talk....

[Sonny]

Jack S. is not an authority....

But the Apostle Paul is. That's who he primarily quotes.

[Dr. Rich]

Jack S. has more authority than Paul ever did my friend! You can't prove otherwise because it is Paul's word against mine. If you would stop using your blind faith to prove things perhaps you could see. Many have asked you to prove things and you thumbed your nose to them.

[Guest]

Throwing Jack S. at us does nothing to change the wrongness of your position!

Jack S. is not an authority and look at complicated, convoluted mess he creates in his failed attempt to explain the simple Gospel!

I have to agree with you there miz3.

Well, that's my 2 cents for the day, and more time than God wants for me to spend arguing with Sonny.

[phkrause]

Jack S. has more authority than Paul ever did my friend! You can't prove otherwise because it is Paul's word against mine. If you would stop using your blind faith to prove things perhaps you could see. Many have asked you to prove things and you thumbed your nose to them.

How does that work Dr. Rich!!!!! If, according to Sonny, JS quotes Paul????? How can he even have any authority???? I guess what that shows is you have no idea as to the authority of Paul or JS for that matter, you just have a bais against Paul period. He must've [censored] you off something bad I guess!

[Dr. Rich]

pk, Jack. S went to the seminar and also read the words of Jesus given to us by the eyewitnesses, which is MORE than what Paul did. Paul said he never earned anything from the eyewitness disciples and it shows in his writtings. And I object to being the one prejudiced as I was a Paul follower long before most people on this blog. So far, I have NEVER had anyone show me the difference between the 'wheat' and 'tare' as prophesied by Jesus. Can you tell the difference? If not, then why not? Why? Because Jesus said only the bond servants would be able to see the difference and you might want to consider you may not be one of them right now.

Jack S. spotted the difference and wrote that there were clearly two different gospels.

[miz3]

You said, "Deuteronomy chapter 24 was intended only for human to human issues. The Plan of Salvation is a Spiritual Issue and is also a God to human issue." Prove it! Enough small talk....

I did prove it but you crossed it out because you are rejecting the clear Word of God. You are also adding to the Word of God things God did not put in Deuteronomy chapter 24.

The Deuteronomy text you cited said nothing about the Plan of Salvation.

It did however say a lot about how humans are to interact with other humans. It also did not say anything about how God would interact with those humans.

You have added to the Word of God which makes you wrong in what you say!