Are we prisoners of sin

quote:

---

you find one that teaches from the bible and not doctrines of men.

---

And yet what you've been presenting are doctrines of men.
Paul is a man, not God.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

If you have the bible and Pauls own writings about the issue of the Gentiles and the law, why dont you use it?

---

I have many Bibles and a book entitled "The Letter Writer, Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" by Tim Hegg; but you don't seem to want to discuss what Paul wrote in relation to what was written in the OT.

quote:

---

You dont believe that the Apostles were inspired, yet God proved that he was with them by giving them powerful works. Moses was just a man too, but God used him to lead the nation...he used the Apostles to establish christianity. Paul had Gods backing just as Moses did.

---

You know better than that. I feel that all writing is inspired. I have no doubt that Paul was inspired by the state of the world around him, but he wasn't speaking for God. Moses supposedly spoke to God, you know burning bush, on the mountain, in the tent. Paul did not claim to pass on information from God as Moses or the prophets did. Paul's writings do not show that he had God's "backing" just like Moses. If Paul had God's backing, then God changed his mind on how he wanted things done and according to Cedre, God never changes.Christianity today developed through the Gentiles from Paul's writings. You've been shown the contradictions between Paul and the OT. Address them.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

How had God changed his mind?

​

Christianity did not develop thru gentiles. The Apostles of Jesus and Jesus himself were Jews. So christianity was developed thru Jews because they did the inviting. Gentiles did not invite jews to christianity.

​

Perhaps you can repeat the 'contradictions'.

---

How rude! You want me to go to the work of repeating myself which I've already done several times with you and cedre. It is more responsible and considerate if you go back and read what I've written. Message 21, Message 28, Message 40, Message 89, Message 93, Message 98, Message 106, Message 107, Message 113, Message 127, Message 128, Message 148, Message 159, Message 165, Message 171, Message 178, Message 181, Message 186, Message 196, Message 204, Message 209, Message 214, Message 231, Message 246, Message 255, Message 288, Message 311, Message 313Edited by purpledawn, : Added comma

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

and as you know, Paul was not a Gentile, he was a Jew... a Jew who no longer believed the Mosaic law was the way to salvation.

---

So the question is, was the Mosaic Law ever the way to salvation per God in the OT anymore than our own legal system today?You would have to define salvation from what, but I imagine your decription of salvation is just as wishy washy as your list of Christian Laws.Even though Paul was a Jew he preached his gospel to the Gentiles. The Gentiles never were under the Mosaic Law so why does it matter whether Paul no longer believed the Mosaic Law was the way to salvation? My guess is he took more issue with the additions, which we don't have in the Bible. Not being able to eat at the same table as someone who is eating meat that was presented to idols, etc. Things that made it difficult for the Jews to "mingle." As I've pointed out before, according to Jewish history within Judaism people wanted to reform the religion so that they could "mingle". Not be so different.Paul was a reformer. Was Jesus?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Do you really not understand what I've been saying?The early "Christians" were the disciples of Jesus who according to Christian History were called Nazarenes. They were Jewish and still followed the Mosaic and Oral Laws of Judaism at the time. Remember they supposedly required Paul to make an offering to show that he was not teaching against the LaW and Paul made the offering.Also according to Christian history Paul's followers were gentiles and were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:25)
(A History of Christianity, 1953, by Harper & Brothers)Again, Paul is not God. Show me that God presented the Mosaic Laws as a way to salvation.Since you have difficulty defining your catch phrases, I will assume that by salvation you mean a place in the world to come or the afterlife. If I'm incorrect, please clearly define it. I don't feel that a local or ancient legal system has anything to do with the afterlife. Religion is the source of requirements for the afterlife. Did the OT give requirements needed to obtain a place in the afterlife?As I've said several times, the Mosaic Law was the legal system for the Hebrew nation. Since it was a theocratic nation, the laws supposedly came from their God. So government and religion were interrelated. Eventually government and religion split. Remember Saul, the first King of Israel?Did God, not Paul, present the Laws as a way to achieve a place in the world to come?Was Paul really against the Mosaic Law or the Oral Law? Resurrection and reincarnation is a later development in Judaism. After the Laws of Moses were supposedly presented to the people of Israel. It something that seems to have developed more with the second temple. My contention is that the Mosaic and Oral law was the legal system for an ancient theocratic nation and wasn't a system that gentiles of the first century were required to follow since Israel was no longer a reigning nation. Even for the Jewish people the system was limited by Roman rule. The Jews supposedly did not have the authority to put people to death.I will agree that Paul was probably going against the rabbinic teachings of the time concerning the requirements for a place in the World to Come. Halakha, Talmud
(See above quotes from Judaism 101).Through Ezekiel, God does tell us what he considers righteous. (I've shown this several times, so please read and understand.) So God tells us that we can be deemed righteous by following his decrees and faithfully keeping his laws. God does not say we are to live by law perfectly. You have yet to show me that he does. Again, Paul is not God.So here we have a contradiction between God and Paul if Paul is truly railing against the Mosaic Law in the OT. If Paul is arguing against the Jewish doctrine of the time, which isn't written in the OT, then what has that got to do with the Gentiles? Even Noah was considered righteous in his time. Blameless does not mean without sin or "perfect". Even Paul in Philippians 3:6 claimed to be blameless Does God (not Paul) make it clear in the OT that he will reward believers in the afterlife for following the laws presented through Moses?Show me that Paul's arguments holds water.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Those who try to separate the teachings of Paul regarding salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ from the teachings of the other apostles are dealt with by Peter in this passage:

---

2 Peter 3 written about 100-160 AD according to Edgar Goodspeed. Not written by the apostle Peter. The author was addressing (if you read chapter 2) disreputable people, greedy swindlers, etc. Nothing in my words has shown me to be such a person. I haven't provided fictional stories. I've simply looked at what the Bible says. Combating seemingly false doctrine is not forbidden by God. If you read what I wrote earlier, that's exactly what Paul was supposedly doing. So now I question what people of today present as Biblical, required by God, spoken by God, etc. The author said be on your guard and I am. If what you say is true, you should be able to clearly show that it comes from what we have of God and not mankind.

quote:

---

OT salvation was always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which led to the coming of our Redeemer whose blood covered their sin. NT salvation is always in the "blood covenant" which God established with man which looks back to our Redeemer whose blood covers our sin.

---

Don't just say it, show me that the Mosaic Law was clearly given by God to the Hebrews for the purpose of the afterlife and not as laws of the nation and day to day living.Explain what you mean by salvation as it relates to this topic dealing with Paul's comment that we are all "prisoners of sin". Please don't just give the same old sales pitch and catch phrases. Actually explain.When was a blood covenant made between God and mankind?I agree that blood was an ancient tradition to sealing contracts, which is what a covenant is. A contract is very specific and both parties know what is involved.I see where God made covenants with Abraham, Moses, and David; but I don't see where God made a blood covenant with mankind concerning sin.It is simple if you don't want to deal with what the Hebrew Bible says that God said and did.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I put this first so it doesn't get lost in the babbling. Try to address the overall point of a post and not so much each line.This is the point I'd like you to address, not half prophecies:
As I've said before, salvation (resurrection) is not the topic. The topic is about whether we are a prisoner of sin and that the wages of sin is death.

​

I've shown that today only in extreme murder cases is death the consequence of breaking a law.
I've shown that even in the time of Jesus and Paul the Jews did not have the authority for capital punishment and even when they did supposedly it was rarely used.
I've shown that God does not expect "perfection" and with repentance God will forget our wrongs.

​

So why worry so much about whether a person has sinned or not, when 1. it doesn't impact one's spot in the resurrection and 2. Gentiles (NonJews) have their own legal system to keep them in line and death is not the primary punishment?

​

If following the law doesn't gain us a spot in the resurrection, then not following the law doesn't lose us a spot in the resurrection.

​

Why the obsession with sin and the need to be "perfect"?

​

Neither you no cedre have shown that humans are prisoners of sin, which by definition means breaking God's law.

quote:

---

Salvation does not mean obtaining an afterlife. An afterlife was not a biblical teaching. The resurrection was the teaching in the OT

---

Getting past the catch phrases and meaningless words, sure takes a lot of time. So when you say salvation you mean the resurrection or rising from physical death. Why not just say resurrection?I agree with you that God did not stipulate that obeying the Hebrew legal system was a means to get on the list for resurrection.
I also agree with you that God considers people righteous who follow his laws and commands.

quote:

---

you are misunderstanding me. I have said, more then once, that the mosaic law was a law that demanded perfection because anyone who failed to abide by it could be put to death for certain things. So if you committed an act that violated the law (eg fornication/adultery/idolatry) you could be put to death.

​

So the law demanded perfection, but God did not because as i've also said, being declared righteous was due to 'faith' and not 'works of law' as in the case of Rahab the prostitute from Jerico. Her faith was counted to her as righteous, not her obedience to the mosaic law.

---

I do understand you and I'm disagreeing with you. The Mosaic law can't demand anything, it isn't alive. I've also shown you scripturally that "perfection" was not required from God. (Message 246) I also showed you that according to extra Biblical history the death sentence wasn't necessarily enforced and at the time of Jesus the Jews didn't have that authority. Here it is again. So why the obsession with the Mosaic Law when it has nothing to do with get a slot in the resurrection? Why try to prove God meant for it to end when it has nothing to do with the resurrection?

quote:

---

there is nothing un-scriptural in Pauls teaching that the Mosaic Law had come to an end...it was supposed to come to an end. God himself said it would. ...
As the OT shows, it was only to be a temporary arrangement until the Messiah arrived. But those who died whilst following the mosaic law such as Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Able...all those who had been declared righteous by their 'faith', will be rewarded with a resurrection to life on this earth. Paul explains this in Acts 24

---

When the Mosaic Covenant was "signed", it was forever. God felt that the Hebrews had broken the covenant and said in Jeremiah that he would establish a new covenant with them. Nothing in the OT shows me that God knew the Hebrews would break the covenant. The new covenant would be with Israel and Judah (not gentiles) once they returned from exile. Remember the whole prophesy needs to come about not just one sentence. Man is still teaching, so this covenant has not come about or God is not holding up his end of the deal this time.

quote:

---

i'd like to comment on this but could you please provide scriptural references so I know where you are coming from.

---

As far as what the followers were called, I told you where I "was coming from". (A History of Christianity, 1953, by Harper & Brothers) Not all books are online. You won't find the term in the NT mainly because it was a term used by others just like the word Christian. The people didn't call themselves Christians. It was a derogatory term when used in Antioch. When you see links in my posts, those lead you to where I pulled information. Here is a Jewish online source for Nazarene.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

That wasn't a blood covenant.
If you want to discuss covenants then start a new thread.
There's nothing I can add to this to tie in with the topic of sin.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I find it fascinating that even when presented with information from their own religious source, they cling to a confused doctrine.
Christianity is stuck in Paul mode: Create a need and then fill it.They don't even see the contradiction in what they are presenting. They've painted themselves into a moral corner and don't know how to get out. Even though they say believing in Jesus gets them off the hook for any wrongs done, they don't want people to think they can go ahead and do wrong.Even before Jesus there were Jews trying to reform the legal system and get rid of the sacrificial system that was very expensive. Of course it didn't go away until the destruction of the temple. Those trying to reform felt that the writings of Moses weren't necessarily by Moses.Just looking at the United States shows how much a culture can change in less than 400 years let alone over 2,000 years. Slang, euphemisms, humor, etc. We miss the point when we are so far removed from the event. A colonial Christian woman (or any woman for that matter) would have been arrested for walking around on a sunny summer's day showing as much skin as one would today in a bikini. But today a Christian woman can wear a bikini with no fear of being arrested or called immoral.Christianity seems to try to cover all bases. IOW, they really don't know what their God expects from them. They're guessing based on an ancient text written in dead languages and translated into a foreign language to boot.We have no idea what was said in humor or a reference to fiction. I believe that Matthew is a work of satire.Christianity today is wishy washy. When Mohammed wanted to do away with polytheism he looked to Judaism as a model. Christianity in his eyes wasn't strictly monotheistic. He went with the fixed law and an oral law.I feel that Christianity tries to keep its members confused. Just looking at the responses I've gotten here enforces that feeling.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Simply put, all creation are prisoners of sin because we are born from Adam & Eve. We've inherited it. The proof of sin is that we all die. Gentiles, jews, christians, muslims etc ALL die. That means we have all inherited that trait from Adam.

---

But that's what you haven't shown. That is Paul's teaching. Jesus did not teach that we inherited sin from A&E or that death is proof of sin. Death is not proof of sin. Death is part of the circle of life, period. You who doesn't accept that the trees in the A&E story impart knowledge and life. According to that foundational myth A&E already had the capability of dying before "the fall". (They were thrown out of the garden so they couldn't eat from the tree of life.) So sin has nothing to do with being able to die in that story. Paul was trying to create a need and he was talking with Gentiles who knew very little if anything of the OT. Show me that Jesus taught what you're saying.

quote:

---

The only means of salvation from the condition of death, is for sin to be done away with. God has made this possible thru the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

​

Anyone who wants to benefit from that salvation MUST put their faith in Jesus Christ and must follow him. This goes for Gentiles too...they must submit to Christian law and the teaching of Christs Apostles. Gods laws and mans are quite different and just because a gentile follows the laws of their land does not mean that they have a righteous standing with God. They must follow Gods laws in order to obtain that. Remember that it is 'Faith' in God that counts a person as righteous, not works of any law.

​

To show faith in God, one must adopt HIS laws....or better put, live as he directs.

---

See you contradict again. The only means of resurrection for the dead is for sin to be done away with. But people still sin. Remember, that's why they keep saying the Lord's prayer according to either you or cedre, I don't remember. Again sin is not a thing that can be expelled. After Jesus died people still sinned. Plus sin is breaking God's law, which you said has nothing to do with having a spot in the resurrection. Make up your mind. You said it is a gift. So behavior is irrelevant. Is it an unconditional gift or not?Apparently not since you also say that to show faith one must adopt God's laws or Christian laws, you still haven't been able to clearly show God's laws or Christian laws that a believer is held accountable to.What I'm reading is that following God's law does not make one righteous or get one on the list for resurrection, only faith in Jesus Christ can get one on the list. BUT, to show faith in God, one must adopt his laws or live as he directs. So we still have to follow "the law" even though it doesn't get us a spot, but yet it does. See the contradiction? Again, make up your mind.I've already shown you several times in the OT that we are counted righteous for following God's law and the law of the land. You only have Paul saying otherwise. Show me that Jesus taught this.

quote:

---

If you read the bible you will see plenty of expamples where the death penalty was enforced. Jesus stopped a group of Jews from stoning a woman in his day, so the practice was alive and well in 33CE. Does your source state what era he is talking about?

---

Then where does that leave John 18:3? It's really irrelevant today since there are no death penalties in the US for crimes other than extreme murder that I know of. We in the US don't fear being stoned. That was an ancient civilization. Physical death is not a threat for lying or adultery.

quote:

---

the Apostles of Christ clearly explained how Jesus was this one. This also explains why the Mosaic law MUST come to an end. Once the Prophet arrived the people would have to listen to him... Moses was not longer the means to reconciliation with God. Reconciliation was now to be thru the Seed that was promised by God.

---

But it didn't come to an end. The Jews still follow the Mosaic laws and the Oral laws.So what are God's Christian Laws that when followed allow one to show faith in God and win a spot in the resurrection?
Do you have that list to share yet?Show me that Jesus supports what Paul taught the Gentiles.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

But the bible gives us a way to determine true followers of god with passages like this ones:

​

Mar 16:17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues;
Mar 16:18 they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

---

Actually what you have is a later addition to the book of Mark. Edgar Goodspeed's research reveals that the ending was probably closer to the ending of Matthew since Matthew copied from Mark. If you really believe what you quoted then the majority of people and clergy claiming to be Christian would not fit the bill including yourself. So reality would show that statement to be false. That statement even contradicts Paul's teaching which you prize so much and have valued over what Jesus supposedly taught. If you truly understand what Jesus supposedly taught you would also know that the verse you shared probably would not have come from Jesus.Every time you write you show that you don't understand your own God and the man you claim as your savior. Your belief seems to sway with the verse of the moment. In reality your arguments don't hold water.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Jesus believed the imperfection of man, as seen by all his ailments stemmed from sin. Otherwise why would he cure a person and say that the persons 'sins were forgiven'?

---

Jesus didn't have to believe anything all he had to do was look around. Yes he knew people screwed up. That doesn't take a revelation. He did not suggest that all ailments came from sin. Jesus did not teach that we inherited sin from A&E. Remember the point of the Book of Job. Bad things can happen to good people through no fault of their own.Do you also remember that other pesky little foundational myth about Noah and the flood. God saved one man, righteous in his time, and his family. That was God's chance to wipe the slate clean and start over if he felt that "sin" was inherited or he wanted man to be "perfect" and never make mistakes. The idea that God expected all of humanity to be "perfect" or never ever make mistakes, is not viable.

quote:

---

Yes people still sin, and sin is still in the world of mankind. That does not mean that it will continue indefinitely. God's judgment has not been executed yet. But Jesus, by way of illustration, showed that the sinful world will come to its conclusion. This means that any who are deliberately practicing what God deems as bad, will be judged accordingly. So it IS conditional. It depends on a persons willingness to at least 'try' to live by Gods standards. ...

​

When all unrepentant sinners (weeds) are evicted, then those left over (fine seed) will be given the opportunity to return to the perfect condition that God had originally purposed.

---

Which is exactly what I've been saying. God expects us to repent and stop the wrong behavior. Notice the verse says: everything that causes sin and all who do evil. It does not say that those who do no believe will be counted with those who do evil. The verse is based on actions. By your own meaning: Any who are deliberately practicing what God deems as bad will be judged accordingly. It is conditional. It depends on a persons willingness to at least try to live by God's standards.So we are still required to live by God's standards. (You haven't listed them yet, BTW) The Mosaic Law is the only list of standards supposedly from God in the Bible beside the summary by Jesus.Since Christians have taken up the Jewish Bible, they are still going to be judged accordingly to God's laws in the Bible. Unrepentant Christians will suffer the same consequences as anyone else doing intentional wrong.Gentiles on the other had are not required to follow the Mosaic Laws, but that parable tells me that Gentiles who are righteous in their age will not be plucked with those doing evil. I've already shown you several times that righteousness is granted based on behavior. It has also been granted on faith. But, if I remember correctly, those granted on faith also had an action that went with it. Abraham stopped worship other God's, Rahab helped the Hebrew spies. Can faith without action be deemed righteous?

quote:

---

I have shown many of them but you have overlooked them. Just open the Christian scriptures and you will find them.

---

IOW, you don't really know what the specific Christian laws are either.

quote:

---

purpledawn writes:

​

What I'm reading is that following God's law does not make one righteous or get one on the list for resurrection, only faith in Jesus Christ can get one on the list.

right, and a person with faith in Jesus will 'follow' Jesus. Faith is based on knowledge of Jesus and the way of true worship that he established. That 'Way' is found in the Christian Greek scriptures and those with faith will use those scriptures to worship God in the way God desires to be worshiped.

---

You're contradicting the story of the weeds and what you just said above.Jesus didn't teach worship, he taught repentance and right behavior. The Jews he taught already knew the Jewish way of worship.

quote:

---

Abraham lived before the Mosaic Law existed and yet he was called by God as a 'Righteous' one. God even went so far as to call him 'my friend' ..... So how cam following the Mosaic Law constitute a person as righteous? Other examples of righteous ones who did not live by the Mosaic Law are Abel, Enoch, Rahab. All righteous and none lived by the Mosaic Law.

---

Read what I wrote. I've already shown you several times in the OT that we are counted righteous for following God's law and the law of the land. Those before the Mosaic law were following the laws of the land, tribe, nation, etc.

quote:

---

About Pilate telling the Religious Leaders to exectute Jesus and they saying that they had no right to exectute anyone.

---

IOW history and the NT authors disagree on what Judaism was and wasn't allowed to do. So it is a draw as far as history goes.In today's world death is not a penalty in the US for crimes other than extreme murder cases. So no fear of death for adultery, lying, stealing, etc. Of course that is irrelevant since you've provided the parable that shows believers are not exempt from the consequences of final judgment. If they are breaking the laws you won't or can't list, then they will suffer the consequences the same as anyone else doing wrong.Peg, you have just shown that neither believers nor nonbelievers are prisoners of sin. Each has the capability to stop wrong behavior and to do right behavior based on the laws and principles available to them.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Remember Jesus strong warning of those who would 'expel demons in his name, and perform powerful works in this name' and yet he will say to them "get away from me you workers of lawlessness." Matthew 7:21-23

---

And yet in Mark 9 we have: Really the point to Matthew 7:21-23 is what we've been discussing, right and wrong behavior. That section deals with "knowing them by their fruit", which is their behavior. If they are doing the miracles, but are also stealing or lying to people then they didn't know what Jesus was about. Doing "miracles" doesn't gain them anything in the resurrection. Right behavior does. Jesus isn't saying that miracles are evil, just that they should practice what they preach.That's why it is wise to pay attention to what is happening in real life and not just the words that come out of a preacher's or evangelist's mouth.The words mean nothing if there isn't a reasonable practical application. Saying that one is required to follow Christian "law" but not being able to clearly direct a person to that "law", leaves the words meaningless.God clearly laid out the laws to Moses. Why would we today have to deal with less. What God expects from the average person should be clearly spelled out, no confusion, no reliance on another person to interpret or explain. Otherwise it's not a fair playing field.Claiming that it will "come to you" once a person believes is hogwash. It doesn't stand the test of practical application.

quote:

---

that scriptures shows that the Jewish mindset was that sin and imperfection (sickness/death) are linked.

​

Jesus reply shows that he DID believe that our sin in inherited, hence why he said it was neither his parents nor himself who had sinned. Nobody in this life has a choice. We are born into this condition.

---

No it does not show that sin is inherited. It shows that God can make or allow bad things to happen due to no fault on the part of the person. Neither the man no his parents sinned. Remember the book of Job. That was the point of that writing. It was countering the idea that bad things happen only to people who sin.Again reality shows us that people can choose to do right or wrong.
The OT showed that people could do right and wrong.
The NT showed that people could do right and wrong.You have not shown that people do not have the power to make a choice between right and wrong.Why do you feel Paul cancels out evidence from the OT, the NT, and reality?

quote:

---

And if you really want a list of christian laws, i will be happy to gather the information for you. ( i might start a new thread though)

---

A new thread with the list of Christian laws would be great. Also include why each is a law, as opposed to those that were not brought forward by Christians.

quote:

---

RE mosaic laws...they are valuable because they give us a clear guide as to how God expects us to behave. But the requirements of that law are no longer required ie animal sacrifices, capital punishment, observance of festivals, the sabbath etc. Christians did not continue to practice those aspects of the Mosaic law.

---

this is what we'll have to discuss in your new thread. The Jewish disciples of Jesus did continue to follow the Mosaic Laws and the Gentiles that Paul taught were never subject to the Mosaic Laws. That's why you would need to show in your new thread why any of the Mosaic Laws are now laws for Christian who never were subject to the laws of Moses.

quote:

---

and i have shown you over and over that righteousness was on 'Faith' in God. Faith motivates one to obedience. If a gentile has no faith in God, then he will not be moved to obey God and therefore will not receive of Gods favor.

---

But it isn't the only way. I've shown support for that statement from God. Some people may need faith in God to do what is right, some don't. Even your beloved Paul said: Gentiles didn't need faith to do what is right. Again I'm not talking about the resurrection, I'm only addressing the topic of the thread which speaks of being a prisoner of sin and the idea that people don't have a choice not to sin in this physical life or they inherit a sinful nature which makes it impossible for them not to sin in this physical life. Scripture shows otherwise. Don't confuse real day to day behavior with making the cut for some future resurrection. People are capable of behaving correctly whether they believe in a god or not. You haven't shown me otherwise.

quote:

---

why get your jewish history from modern day people? How are they better equipped to explain how life was in the first century, then those who where actually there?

​

Personally i dont care what modern day scholars have to say about the jews back then. Im more interested in how the Jews back then saw the world they lived in.

---

Because modern day scholars and historians are the ones who would have more access to the ancient writings still available to us than the average person. Unfortunately, except for Paul, the authors of the NT weren't Jewish. So what Jews "of the time" are you relying on?

quote:

---

I think its firmly established that we have no control over sin, death, illness, wickedness & suffering ... therefore we are prisoners.

---

No you haven't firmly established that all people have no control over their actions. Death, illness, and suffering are not part of this discussion. Don't add. All we have to do is watch the people around and see that people do have control over their actions.You only have Paul claiming people have no control. Even later authors don't support the idea that people have no control. Reality doesn't support the idea that people have no control. What's the point in them telling people to behave or giving them laws to follow if they don't have control over their actions?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

neither the man nor his parents were without sin

---

You're adding again. Read what is written. According to Jesus, sin did not cause the problem, God did.

quote:

---

at Romans 3:22 Paul said: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, . . . through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned."

​

All of us, whether natural Jews or non-Jews, descended from the sinner Adam. Thus all of us came under the rule of sin, and all of us are facing the wages that sin pays to its servants, which is death.

---

So we're back to the beginning. I know what Paul said, what I've been saying is that Jesus and the OT do not support what you're claiming Paul is saying and I've shown you countless verses. Sin can't rule! Please stop the catch phrases and deal with practical application. Notice what Jesus told her at the end of what you quoted? Practice sin no more. It is clear he felt she had the power not to sin.

quote:

---

it was those practicing the law that were going to stone that woman because she was a deliberate breaker of the law. Yet Jesus told all of them that, even though they were obviously practicing law, they were also sinners.

---

Good grief! Jesus said repent and be baptized. I've made it plain that people are capable of sinning. You and cedre claim that people are not capable of not sinning. That's what you haven't shown. This story doesn't support that position. Actually you should be careful what you quote. This verse the way it is written actually would make Jesus a sinner, which you and cedre claim he was sinless.Since Jesus didn't condemn her either, the implication is that he also was not without sin (I'm sure you'll argue with that). A sinner is one who hasn't repented of a sin committed. Once one stops sinning they are no longer a sinner. Only those wishing to keep people under their thumb would constantly keep people in a place of guilt. This story is not evidence that Jesus feels that all mankind is incapable of refraining from wrong behavior.

quote:

---

Dont you see that even though we may attempt to live by law, we are still bound to die as a result of sin.

​

Do you know anyone who has not died?

---

Humans die. It's a fact of life. No one has shown that believing in Jesus keeps anyone from dying a physical death. So the fact that we all die is irrelevant to the discussion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz