Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Thou Shalts and Thou Shalnts
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 157 of 204 (254413)
10-24-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
10-21-2005 10:14 AM


Re: On Romans
Jar writes:
One of Paul's primary missions was to take these new Churches and mold them into Christianity as Paul saw it
How does one assume to trust (if only for the sake of discussion) that Jesus words are accurate recording/transmitted. The only way for this to have happened in the days when there was no recording equipement was if God ensured it would happen. Especially given that two Gospels are secondhand accounts. And how does one assume the context they were reported under being trustworthy if not to assume the Gospel writers own words are similarily God breathed. If so, on what basis are Pauls and other epistle writers excluded as being God ensured?
It seems that it is either all God-dicated, as it were, or none of it is. How do you manage to insert a division and say some is and some isn't. If none of it is God-ensured, then there is no way to know what the actual gospel is.
And we may as well all go home.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 10-21-2005 10:14 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 10:33 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 158 of 204 (254422)
10-24-2005 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by ringo
10-21-2005 10:58 AM


Re: the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians....
ringo writes:
I've been trying to make the point with iano that Jesus' message about loving thy neighbour is universal - and that Paul's message of condemnation under the law was not (necessarily) universal. I am not suggesting that nothing that Paul said was universal - I am referring only to the current topic.
Romans 3:19-20
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, (in order) that every mouth may be stopped and all the world may become guilty before God
Therefore (as a result of what I have been saying) by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is a knowledge of sin"
The law speaks to every man as every man is born under the law. It tells him:
- because of the law you are made aware of your sin
- you are guilty before God
- following the law won't change your guilt.
- your mouth will be shut. A shut mouth cannot speak a defence.
3:19-20 come at the end of an argument Paul has been making from 1:18. He has been demonstrating that everyone, whether Jew or Gentile is guilty before God. And the law is what is used to achieve this. In speaking to the church in Rome specifically he wraps up by pointing them at a universal truth. When you read it you arrive at the same universal truth. Your guilty too.
There is no good news here. This is not the gospel. It is a precursor for the gospel. First you need to show everyone they are guilty. Then show them the way out. The Gospel starts at the very next verse
Romans 3:21 "But now......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by ringo, posted 10-21-2005 10:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by ringo, posted 10-24-2005 12:00 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 162 of 204 (254482)
10-24-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by jar
10-24-2005 10:33 AM


Re: On the Gospel.
Jar writes:
It's likely that all of the Gospels are both second hand edited and redacted, not just two of them. The same
You talk with a certain degree of conviction about what the gospel is (not the Gospels or Pauls exposition of the Gospels) but the actual, effectual gospel - the one that results in salvation
If you didn't get your idea from the bible (because it is not reporting in an inerrant sense, none of it can be relied upon) from where did you get your view of which you sound so convinced.
If none of your sources are considered inerrant is it not just the gospel according to man?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 10:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 2:00 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 163 of 204 (254484)
10-24-2005 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by ringo
10-24-2005 11:51 AM


Re: the Galatians, the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Colossians....
Okay back to universality it is. If that is established then the case can be made for the purpose of the law. There is little point in discussing at the moment. Just consider it an interlude in order to get a little of the gospel out. It is "the gospel (afterall) which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe"
So...Paul pointing the Romans at a universality (which would need as much backing up scripturally as Jesus universal statements)
Jesus and Paul speaking universally. Agreed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 10-24-2005 11:51 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ringo, posted 10-24-2005 2:35 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 166 of 204 (254640)
10-25-2005 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by jar
10-24-2005 2:00 PM


Re: On the Gospel.
Religion is always of man alright. Religion, as I'm sure you agree, means 'concerning the law'. But the gospel isn't religion as it concerns salvation apart from the law (the bibles version of it whether that be a corrupted or otherwise)
That you would read the bible and test it against what you see around you would only lead you to conclude, perhaps, that God exists, that he is logical, rational, ordered etc. What test of the reality around you, do you apply, in order to form the more specific views you hold regarding the way of salvation.
Assuming you cannot derive such specifics from what you see around you, does this not mean your view can only come from edited highlights from the bible account. Yet you say the bible (nigh on all I gather) is inaccurate. So which snippets of an inaccurate documnent do you hold to inform you accurately and how do you ascertain this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by jar, posted 10-24-2005 2:00 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 10-25-2005 7:21 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 168 of 204 (254651)
10-25-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by ringo
10-24-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Purpose of the Law
Ringo writes:
No. Forget about universality. That's just a side issue. It has no impact on my point.
You hold that the universality of Pauls writings is irrelevant to your point. ie: You've already decided that Pauls writing are none-permissable in argument on the basis of a decision that they don't hold equal weight as Jesus' words. (although you have agreed all the bible is the word of God). But if the biblical argument about law's purpose it to be made, I naturally must have access to the bible. Or you can show why only certain sections of the bible are open to be included
knowledge of sin. How can guilt/condemnation be the "sole purpose" of the law, as you claimed
Before we can address this we must first get over the problem of the acceptability of Pauls writings. However...
If salvation is the symphony, then condemnation is but one movement in the symphony. Knowledge of sin (brought about by law) is just a note in the condemning movement. In having the law result in your (and everybody elses) condemnation it is Gods intention that YOU become aware of that fact. He wants you to know you are condemned. He wants you to hear the note, hear the note in the movement. He also wants you to hear the symphony.
The law is summed up by Love God /Love your neighbour (it's remarkable how often people only quote the second greatest commandment). These are still commandments. The purpose is not the commandment. It never is. "Keep of the grass" is a commandment. For the reason why someone made the commandment one must look (biblically) elsewhere...not at the commandment itself
Commandment Ringo. "Do this...."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by ringo, posted 10-24-2005 2:35 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 10-25-2005 11:23 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 169 of 204 (254674)
10-25-2005 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by jar
10-25-2005 7:21 AM


Re: On the Gospel.
Jar writes:
The message is that we know right from wrong. In addition, the moral, which is that you are expected to do right and that doing wrong gets you sanctioned, is repeated time and again throughout the books of the Bible.
I'd agree except for the 'expected' bit. The repeated picture seems to me to be one where man does wrong and is punished for doing wrong (given that as you say, he is in a position to know the difference). 'Expected' appears to be inserted as a 'rational conclusion' to be drawn out but doesn't appear in the message itself. There is a difference between falling short of the standard God sets and being punished for it and God expecting that we meet his standard and punishing us when we don't. Our own law works the same way. It doesn't expect anything from us, it just punishes for transgression. 'Expect' is only a possible implication - not a given
Second, again and again throughout the Bible, there is another story. Even though man is not capable of always choosing right over wrong, GOD forgives man. Whether or not the stories are true, the message remains the same. GOD forgives man.
He does and is displaying merciful attributes in doing so. God is ultimately the one offended by any of our sins and it is only mercy that results in him forgiving (the same as when/if we forgive). But there is no case of forgiveness in the bible which excludes the person realising a) they have sinned b) their need of God to forgive them. (except in certain cases where God is fulfilling a covenant he has made himself with certain people- in which case it is not his mercy acting at that point but his justness).
Forgiveness in non-covenental cases appears to hinge on a person realising their need of it. Pick any case and go look. Somewhere in there you'll see that picture: self realistation in the individual or a corporate realisation of having turned away from God. It may not necessarily be described as a condition but in both OT and NT, realistion of sin is evident throughout.
In one, there are conditions. You must believe in the GOD. You must worship him. Or, as an alternative you must behave perfectly, be Christ and not Christ-like.
I would contend that the biblical 'condition' for forgiveness is realisation of being in need of forgiveness. I don't understand why you appear to exclude so many sections where this is evident as you say you are looking globally at it. The NT is literally littered with people seeing their need of a saviour from sin. It is littered too with direct explaination (as opposed to pictures) as to this being the case.
The question is WHY? What kind of a GOD would require someone to worship Her as a precondition? The only answer I can imagine is that that God is vainglorious, insecure. Or if option two is attempted, to fail. A God that would set a bar so high that its own creation cannot possible succeed is both stupid and vainglorious. Speaking only for myself, as always, that seems very improbable.
Worship is not a precondition of forgiveness/salvation it is a logical consequence of the above having occurred. An expression of gratitude willingly entered into perhaps. But not a necessity.
As to the 'high bar' problem. It is there in the bible if we limit ourselves to what it says and don't leap in to (natural) errors ascribing conclusions that don't exist in it. (like purpose of Law extracted from existance of Law above). How high-bar works is there, if we take the full story and don't arbitarily amputate bits in our rush to design a self-defined view.
Is not the OT picture one of Gods people ever turning away, God ever desiring and working on their return? And a picture of people only turning back when they realise (yet again) that they need God? When Jesus arrives we get a clear picture of man turned from God and focussed on his own ability to jump the bar (Phariseeism). But Jesus derails that idea completely. He only says "do" never "try" "Try" is a man-made (thus religious, thus "concerning the law") conclusion drawn not out of the bible but out of himself.
But salvation is of God not man. God has the plan and mans thinking is irrelevant to that. Too-high-a-bar is only irrational if it were left at that. "Who then can be saved" indeed. Except it isn't left at that.
Try it yourself Jar. For the hell of it.
Stand before the biblically evidenced too-high bar ("do this" not "try to do this..."). Look at it. Gods standard for behaviour
a) what is the only conclusion that can be drawn on examining it (hint: "who then can be saved..")
b) Do you see the parallel between yourself and the biblical message of 'recognising own need of forgiveness' (hint: do you think you have need of forgiveness
c) What do you do then?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by jar, posted 10-25-2005 7:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 10-25-2005 1:20 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 172 of 204 (254848)
10-26-2005 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by ringo
10-25-2005 11:23 AM


Re: Purpose of the Law
ringo writes:
Paul's words do not hold equal weight to Jesus' words. I'm sorry, but that's a given. If you think it's up for discussion, then you need to take it to an appropriate topic.
A given? Ringo, I'm surprised at you. You've been around here long enough to know better than that
And I have not agreed that all of God's words (transmitted by man) are of equal importance. You can stop pretending that I have. Take it to another thread.
"As if dictated by God..." were the words you used, if I remember correctly. 'Transmitted by man' makes no difference unless you are suggesting that this may include the authors typos during God dictating it and successive attempts at transmission resulted in further corruption. In this case then ALL of it is suspect and NONE of it can be referred to in discussion as having any basis in fact (for the purposes of discussion).
If your suggesting that we are reading Gods word (for the sake of discussion) then Gods word it is. If God 'dictated' each and every word then talk of the weight and import of one over the other is futile. He put them there. They are all relevant and all important.
In any case, even Paul's writings do not confirm that the "sole purpose" of the law is condemnation.
That remains to be seen. However entry into that area has been barred by your holding views (including the above) that prevent investigation
I think the time has come to end this discussion Ringo. We've hit barriers which prevent the topic under discussion (sole purpose of law) to be tackled head on. The issues causing this probably are suitable for another thread as you say. I imagine they are the ones that need addressing first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 10-25-2005 11:23 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 11:40 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 173 of 204 (254849)
10-26-2005 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by jar
10-25-2005 1:20 PM


Re: On the Gospel.
Fair enough. Have you anything to comment on re: the main body of the post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by jar, posted 10-25-2005 1:20 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by jar, posted 10-26-2005 11:30 AM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 176 of 204 (254899)
10-26-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ringo
10-26-2005 11:40 AM


Re: Purpose of the Law
iano writes:
I think the time has come to end this discussion Ringo. We've hit barriers which prevent the topic under discussion (sole purpose of law) to be tackled head on. The issues causing this probably are suitable for another thread as you say. I imagine they are the ones that need addressing first.
I reiterate the point. We haven't agreed sufficient boundaries in which discussion can take place. So I can't see how discussion can take place.
But thanks all the same for the discussion thus far Ringo: "knowledge and understanding through discussion". You go in looking at one thing and come out having learnt another

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 11:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 12:27 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 178 of 204 (254908)
10-26-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by ringo
10-26-2005 12:27 PM


Re: Purpose of the Law
Ringo writes:
1. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Jesus said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.
2. The universality and/or relative value of Paul's words would be moot if you could show where Paul said that the sole purpose of the law was condemnation.
Moot indeed and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But the bible omitting the word 'sole' no more means sole-it-isn't than the omission of the word Trinity debunks the case for a trinitarian God.
But like I say, our difficulty lies elsewhere. I agree that not every item of the bible has the same significance: talk of salvation and how one attains it is ultimately more important than the condition underwhich God describes his design for marraige. But all talk of marraige has a relevancy to the discussion about marriage. As does all talk of law to purpose of law
Besides. I would suggest that there is no conflict between anything Paul or Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) says. So there would be no need to worry about Jesus > Paul. They are both singing from the same hymn sheet... different musicians in the same (Gods) symphony.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 12:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 2:15 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 180 of 204 (254913)
10-26-2005 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ringo
10-26-2005 2:15 PM


Re: Purpose of the Law
You don't have to find the word "sole" in Paul's writings. All I want you to do is show that Paul thought the only purpose of the law was condemnation.
And you're still ignoring Jesus. Show us where Jesus said the purpose of the law was condemnation.
I wouldn't ignore any of the bible if the discussion was about purpose of law. But the discussion hasn't been about that very much thus far. The reason for concentrating on Paul was that you wouldn't accept than what he says has the same legitimacy (ie: Gods stamp of legitimisation) as what Jesus says (ie: Gods stamp of legitimisation). IOW, what Jesus, Paul or anybody else says can be weighed on what it can be argued to mean as it stands and in relation to what others in the bible say in support of the argument - with a view to seeing what the 'whole' says. The originator is God in all cases.
If you are now saying that that is the basis on which we can proceed then fine. You've shifted position... and to the good in my opinion.
A test of whether your position has indeed changed would be the following. If Jesus didn't say (as clearly) as Paul that laws purpose=condemnation does not mean that this isn't the case. The case for laws purpose does not rely on Jesus being the one making the clearest or prime case. If Paul was the only one to make the case (he isn't) then that would be sufficient - if you had changed your postion in fact. If you say no then you still have an issue with legitimacy of authors. (I pre-supposing here that the would be no argument as to conflict between Jesus and Paul - although were conflict shown then of course Jesus would have last say - but it is a moot point - there is no conflict)
In the case that you won't accept this, my original basis for ending discussion stands: we have different terms of reference so discussion would be meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 2:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 3:08 PM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 182 of 204 (255009)
10-27-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ringo
10-26-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Purpose of the Law
I seriously doubt that the world is watching us Ringo. But if others have been following this, then they may hold the view that it matters quite a lot whether or not grounds for discussion with the person with whom I am discussing, are established. Lack of establishment means a potential return to counters from you such as: "those writing are corrupted", "that is Pauline doctrine only", "we know that Johns gospel doesn't match up with the others" and other such Herrings Rouge.
Clarification required on this matter (for the purposes of discussion only of course )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 3:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 10-27-2005 11:25 AM iano has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 183 of 204 (255010)
10-27-2005 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by ringo
10-26-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Purpose of the Law
delete content: double post
This message has been edited by iano, 27-Oct-2005 10:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by ringo, posted 10-26-2005 3:08 PM ringo has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 185 of 204 (255144)
10-27-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
10-27-2005 11:25 AM


Re: Purpose of the Law
'tis with you I am discussing Ringo. I have no obligation to anyone else. And it's with you, that the unestablished terms for discussion apply I'm afraid.
Going, going...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 10-27-2005 11:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ringo, posted 10-27-2005 6:00 PM iano has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024