|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we prisoners of sin | |||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Some articles I've read present the idea that Paul was trying to bring about the "fullness of the Gentiles". IOW, get all the Gentiles to behave and then the kingdom of God will come. As you can see by Peg and cedre, Christianity is more Paul based than Jesus based. Jesus didn't leave anything in writing for anyone to follow and once the Temple was destroyed and most of the Jewish followers killed, it was the Gentile disciples of Paul who carried on, so it isn't surprising that the doctrine and dogma come out of Paul's writings and those they think are Paul's writings. The prinsoner of sin concept is Paul's not from Jesus. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Exactly. quote:Wrong. You cannot pull that from the plain reading of the text. Jesus did not imply any inherited imperfection from the imaginary first man. Remember, you took the magic out of the A&E story. Adam and Eve weren't actual individuals. Did you read all of Psalm 51? That was David wailing after he committed adultery. It is a song which David wrote to express his feelings. It is creative expression not necessarily a statement of events. David is talking about himself, not all of mankind. Just because David is wailing poor, poor, pitiful me; doesn't mean all of mankind inherited sin. It does not support Paul's idea that all mankind is incapable of not sinning.
quote:I didn't say God was the reason for "our" defects, the text implies that God is the reason for that man's defect so that people could see Jesus heal him. The text does not support Paul's idea of inherited sin or that all are unable not to sin. Jesus clearly said that neither this man nor his parents sinned. He didn't say that neither the man's sin nor his parents sin caused the defect.
quote:Sure I have. Message 324 lists them. You do realize that saying you've shown me countless scripture doesn't necessarily cancel out my saying I've shown you countless scripture. You've shown lots of scripture and I've countered the plain text reading of what you've provided. You also add to your scripture just like you did to the A&E story and the verse above. Your additions don't count as scripture. quote:Yes I'm familiar with Leviticus. I agree that some ancient peoples felt that illness was caused by sin. That's why those men asked Jesus the question they did. The Book of Job was written to counter that idea. Now take the time to understand the sacrifices in Leviticus. Don't get hung up on the word sin. The purpose of the sin offering: Mandatory atonement for specific unintentional sin; confession of sin; forgiveness of sin; cleansing from defilement. This comes from the NIV Study Bible table of sacrifices. The leper would fall under cleansing from defilement. IOW, make atonement for the one cleansing himself from his impurity. Plus it helped with unintentional sin also. Covers all bases. How does their superstition support Paul? Where does GOD say we are incapable of not sinning? Today we know that sickness has nothing to do with sin. Maybe you do, but the author of Job didn't and I don't think Jesus did.
quote:Please. Do we have to go to the ridiculous? quote:Show me the posts where I've actually contradicted scripture. Not where I've contradicted current doctrine or contradicted your additions, but where have I contradicted scripture? I don't claim that they are "nothing more" than myths. You do. I consider myths to be very important to cultures. That's how they taught local morals etc. Myths have their purpose. There are myths, songs, poems, history. Why limit your understanding of the book you supposedly cherish? Paul had authority over the Gentiles he recruited. He did not have authority over the Jews. I understand what Paul was trying to do and I find it insulting when someone presents a warped doctrine that is derived from Paul's teachings and claim it is God's. Paul did not speak for God. Since this topic was very narrow, you really don't know how I understand Paul's work. He has some good stuff. But he didn't speak for God. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Look at the basic beliefs of Zoroastrianism. Sound familiar?
Here are a few
Even in Catholicism's own writings, the religion explains that is was easier t assimilate pagan religions by attaching Christian symbolism to pagan celebrations, rituals, etc. The pine tree at Christmas, the Yule log, etc. It started as assimilation and then after Vatican II, the process was called indigenization.
Assimilation This process of assimilation is characteristic of Roman Catholicism throughout the centuries. Within Roman Catholicism, there is no policy designed to eradicate such heathen practices; rather, the general practice is to foster assimilation by replacing pagan superstitions with similar ecclesiastical institutions. An example of this policy is illustrated by a letter which Pope Gregory wrote to Abbot Mellitus on how to order things in Britain (AD 606): The temples of the idols among the people should on no account be destroyed. The idols themselves are to be destroyed, but the temples themselves are to be aspersed with holy water, altars set up in them, and relics deposited there. For if these temples are well-built, they must be purified from the worship of demons and dedicated to the service of the true God. In this way, we hope that the people, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may abandon their error and, flocking more readily to their accustomed resorts, may come to know and adore the true God. And since they have a custom of sacrificing many oxen to demons, let some other solemnity be substituted in its place, such as a day of Dedication or Festivals of the holy martyrs whose relics are enshrined there. On such occasion they might well construct shelters of boughs for themselves around the churches that were once temples, and celebrate the solemnity with devout feasting. After Vatican II, the Catholic church encouraged all cultures to include their unique music, art, dance, dress, and values in the Mass and other religious services. The Gentiles of Paul's time were already Hellenized (Greek) so odds are he plopped Jesus on their Zoroastrian concepts. There was a lot of competition in the development of Christianity. If a group wants to follow Paul's teachings I have no problem, but they need to make it clear. The mental abuse used by some groups to keep people feeling helpless is not what Jesus taught. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I'm not missing out on any vital Christian dogma. I said Paul has some good points, but I also understand that his style of writing is geared towards a specific purpose. He is trying to convince Gentiles to believe that they need to believe in Jesus and not their current god(s). To do that he has to convince them that all of mankind is in the same boat. Create a need and then fill it. To get to the good stuff we have to sift through the persuasion tactics. Remember that a lot of different ideas were buzzing around in the first century. Understand the reality of the time. Paul didn't live in a vacuum. The area was dominated by Greece and Rome. Given that the Gentiles were probably influenced by Greek Philosophers, the Zoroastrian religion, mystery religions, etc., it would not have been difficult for Paul to build on their existing beliefs and bridge those beliefs to his religion. The idea that the flesh is evil and spirit is good was apparently part of Plato's philosophy. The Intertestamental period covered about 400 years. Plato lived in this period. As I've said before, a culture can change greatly in 400 years. What Paul uses to persuade gentiles to join his cause, isn't necessarily what Jesus or the OT writings taught. The idea that mankind is unable to refrain from sinning or that mankind is not considered righteous by behaving is not what Jesus or the OT taught. Today, some clergy use Paul's method to keep people in a helpless frame of mind. This is another method of keeping people in need of the church (not God). Tear them down and then build them up so they feel indebted to the clergy for turning their life around. If the Synoptic Gospels are basically right about what Jesus taught, then Jesus did not make people feel they couldn't repent and refrain from sinning.
quote:I keep asking because Christians can't produce their own standards of behavior and provide support that those standards carry a death penalty from God on judgment day. I keep asking because Christians keep claiming that the Mosaic Law came to and end, but keep holding people up to portions of that law. I keep asking because Christians avoid the issue. You also have not provided a list. I'm watching for that thread. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Pretty much what I've been saying to you since we started discussing with the exception that I say one should read what the author has written, not necessarily taking the entire Bible into account. The Bible is a compilation of different authors, writing styles, and cultures over thousands of years. Each author has their purpose for their writing. They aren't necessarily trying to agree or disagree with another author. I'm not producing a belief, I'm reading the verse you provided as it is written and the story around the incident. You on the other hand are trying to protect a belief. You presented the verse to support a belief. Unfortunately the plain text reading of the verse with its surrounding text does not support your contention. I'm disagreeing with your reading of the verse, not the verse itself. Understand the difference.
quote:You have difficulty separating additional inspiration derived from a writing and what the author is actually saying. The truth that David is expressing is guilt. He is expressing how one feels overwhelmed when one gets caught doing something bad and one has to deal with the consequences or when a lot of bad things happen to people due to their own screw ups. He was depressed! It is not a truth that all mankind is born into "sin". Again...reality shows us otherwise. People do behave. Do you really see in the reality around you that no person is able to behave?
quote:I guess you don't really understand what they believed. Some ancient people believed that God inflicted illness, bad times, death, or war as punishment for an individual or groups sinful actions. Sin is not a thing that can do anything to people. Don't get confused by creative writing. Have you ever read the song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32)? I'm quoting this song to show that they did believe that God is the one who inflicts. They felt that God controlled everything.
39 See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. Today we know that all illness is not caused by wrong behavior. As I keep reminding you, the book of Job was written to counter your idea that bad things only happen to bad people. If you can't accept that God inflicts you could go with the Book of Job and blame it on Satan. IOW, God allowed Satan to cause the man's defect. God still gave the OK. It doesn't make God less responsible.
quote:So we've come full circle and you're back to your original contention. I still disagree with the idea that God expected humans to be "perfect" and that people today (whether believers or secular) are unable to behave. I have shown Biblical support for why I disagree with your position. There's not much more I can add unless you come up with another off the wall explanation. I look forward to the Christian Law thread. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Michamus already dealt with the Matthew verse, so I'm not going address that post.
Peg, aside from the book of Proverbs, the Bible is not a book of oneliners. The sentences do not automatically stand alone with their own meaning separate from the point of the writing. You haven't learned this. Neither I nor those who agree with my position have claimed that people do not sin. What we are arguing against is the idea that all mankind is incapable of refraining from wrong behavior. One is only a sinner while one is sinning. Once the person has repented and stopped sinning, they are no longer a sinner. IOW, one is only a driver when one is driving the car. 1 Kings 8:46 is part of King Solomon's prayer to God. Notice he said "in case they sin". Solomon is saying the same thing I've been saying. People make mistakes off and on during their life. If you read the whole prayer, you should understand that Solomon is asking God to forgive the offenses of those who sinned once they have turned back to God. IOW repented. This verse does not show that mankind is in capable of behaving. 1 John 1:8 is addressing the idea, just like the above verse, that people do sin at some time in their life. I can't say I've never behaved incorrectly. It's a learning process. Notice chapter 2:
My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense... This is the same as what Michimus mentioned concerning the Matthew verse you shared. The author is not imply that humans have no control over their behavior. Ecclesiastes 7:20 is an unknown author (tradition thought Solomon) writing about his experiences in life. It is not someone speaking for God. If your idea of being righteous is never ever making a mistake, then you would be wrong. Notice when we look at a Parallel Bible a read several translations of this one verse we can see the idea the translators are trying to bring out. The complete Jewish Bible says it the best.
For there isn't a righteous person on earth who does [only] good and ever sins. (CJB)
New American Standard Bible (1995)
Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins. King James Bible
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not. Bible in Basic English There is no man on earth of such righteousness that he does good and is free from sin all his days. Which I do not disagree with these. They are along the same lines as the first two and the Matthew verse. Psalms 143:2 is a song by David. It is not God talking, it is David talking to God. He is humbling himself before God. again, creative writing and remember David has already screwed up. He's begging for mercy, not making a factual statement about mankind. I've already shown you verses where God does consider people who are alive to be righteous. None of the verses you shared contradicts the idea that Michimus expressed and that I've been arguing that mankind is capable of becoming blameless before God with or without Jesus.
quote:No the bible makes it clear that people sin. Again, a sinner is one who is currently sinning. Once they stop the wrong they are no longer sinning or a sinner. I agree that people sin. I haven't disputed that, but we are not prisoners of sin. Mainly because sin is not a living thing that can do anything to us. Mankind is capable of repenting. In the OT God allows mankind to repent and all his errors will be forgotten and he will be considered righteous. Message 113, Message 332, Message 358 How can you follow God when you don't believe what he supposedly said or what his son supposedly said?
quote:Great we finally agree. quote:Then you go a ruin it by adding fiction again. There is no mark of sin. Job died because he was old. Paul tells you that death is the result of sin. Death is part of life and you haven't truly shown otherwise through Jesus or God. Don't go to the A&E story because you don't believe in magic. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Actually it would be the author's who contradict each other. But you are correct that applying a certain belief can cause contradictions where there aren't any. That's why you're having difficulty finding support for the idea that humans are incapable of not sinning. Remember personification? Paul personified sin, death and righteousness. Paul was also trying to persuade Gentiles to convert. When reading Paul's letters it is very import to read the whole letter. Paul does not provide answer in one line, he creates an argument. He explains the problem and then provides the answer to that problem.
14. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. 15. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16. Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17. But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. 18. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. 19. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness. 20. When you were slaves to sin, you were free from the control of righteousness. 21. What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of ? Those things result in death! 22. But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Even Paul did believed that people were capable of being righteous, but you could only achieve this by using his product, Jesus. Slaves to righteousness means right behavior. As for the wages of sin being death, Paul is talking about the resurrection, not in physical life. The resurrection idea supposedly developed more just before and into the intertestamental period I mentioned earlier. Religion changes as a culture changes. If you read the Bible as it is intended you would see how Judaism changed over roughly a thousand years. If you read up on Christian History you can see how Christianity changed throughout the milleniums. From being a Jewish sect before the destruction of the temple about 70CE to being a gentile religion after the destruction with roots in Rome. From Catholic to Protestant. Then we have the movements within Protestantism etc. Contradictions happen when we try to force an old writing to support a newer concept. Even trying to force Paul's writings to support a newer concept can be problematic as you've seen in this thread. Another problem is claiming that the authors were even trying to support each other. They each wrote for a specific purpose, audience and time. The example I've given before is the Book of Job. It was written to counter the idea that bad things only happen to bad people and good things only happen to good people. The prophets said that God punished Israel for bad behavior by having them conquered, etc. The authors were doing what they felt necessary or were inspired to write for their people and time, not ours. Those authors are not responsible for what the next author wrote, that their works were made holy, how they were compiled or used, or how people milleniums later might misconstrue their writings after translation. They did't write to be a proof text. They wrote to the people who understood the language, the culture, the humor, the slang, the hardships, etc. See the reality, not the fantasy. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Not according to God. Once we repent our transgressions are forgotten. quote:Irrelevant what they are branded. We're dealing with what they are according to God. If they repent and no longer do wrong, they are no longer sinners even if they are in jail. Once they repent God does not remember their transgressions. Ezekiel 18, read it. Ezekiel (18:21-22)
But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live: he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. ... quote:You'll have to start a new thread for that one. This thread is not about salvation and is past the cut off point. quote:Exactly! All the rest of your babbling is inconsistent and fantasy. quote:Exactly! Then the person repents again and they are safe as long as they behave. quote:Exactly! quote:Close. Righteous doesn't mean sinless. They did not inherit sin. Sin cannot be inherited. Any sins committed are forgotten, according to God. quote:The quotes from James by themselves are not a true statement. Show me in the OT that breaking one law makes one guilty of breaking all of them. If you look closer the author is trying to make a point about favoritism and mercy. His point: Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! Aside from Proverbs, the Bible is not made of oneliners. The sentences don't automatically stand alone. Read the authors complement argument which is usually summed up at the end. Then you'll know the point. He's not saying that we will actually be judged for breaking all the laws if we only transgress one. This unknown author doesn't have the authority to make that claim.
quote:Holy just means separate, not necessarily righteous. According to the God of the OT, the Jews are God's holy people. If he lets everyone be holy, then really no one is holy because then no one is separate. Holy and righteous are not the same. quote:If you make the new thread, you should provide the Biblical support for this. So you and Peg have shown by your own scriptures that we are not prisoners of sin. Good deal! "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:If you truly believe in God, then God is the highest authority. God frowns upon those who claim to speak for him, but don't really have the authority to do so. If you believe that Jesus is the son of God and had authority from God for all he said and did, then the words attributed to him carry the authority of God. Since Jesus didn't leave anything in writing all we have is what the unknown gospel writers wrote. Paul does not claim to speak for God. As far as cherry picking, I list the part of the chapter or paragraph that gets your attention and shows where I'm at in the Bible; and then I explain what I feel the author was trying to say in the paragraph, story, or book. I encourage people to read the entire book or chapter. There's not much I can do if you choose not to read the rest of the story. When you provide a scripture I go to the Bible and read the whole paragraph, story, or book to see what the author is trying to say and if that disagrees with your interpretation, then I say so. All you have to do is explain why you understand it differently given the full context of the book. Unfortunately you don't do that, you just provide another verse. I've said before that I feel all the writers were inspired, but they are inspired for their time and their audience. God isn't having them deal with the future, he is having them deal with their time, their reality. I have consistently left links or references to where I have gotten my information. Early Christian Writings, Commontaries by Edgar Goodspeed, History of Christianity, History of the Jews, etc. Just because you choose not to check out the links, doesn't mean I haven't provided the means for you to understand how I came to my conclusions. I've already made my case and you've already made my case for me by your own statements, so why the puffer fish imitation?
quote:Scripture is not a living thing, it can't say anything about itself. Let's look at the reality behind 2 Timothy since you want to understand how I determine. This commentary by Edgar Goodspeed gives the reality behind the inspiration of the author. I am only quoting the portion that addresses the verse you provided, because it takes too much space to quote the whole article and it is unnecessary since the reader can use the link to read the whole article should they choose to. According to Mr. Goodspeed, 2 Tim is not written by Paul. It was written about 100-150 CE. Christians are no longer expecting a quick return of Christ, so the church has to adjust.
Occasion. As the years went by and Christianity grew, it became more and more evident that Paul's conception of its work as a short, intensive campaign in preparation for the Lord's return must give way to a longer perspective. The church must take the long look and gird itself for a long, long conflict. It must adjust itself to an extended, perhaps even a permanent, activity in the world. So the churches must be definitely organized with responsible officers having specific qualifications and duties. According to Mr. Goodspeed the reality of the time is that Paul's writings were being misused by the Marcionites to replace the OT scriptures.
There were four elements, therefore, in the Christian situation that underlay the writing of the Pastoral Epistles: (1) the lack of efficient church organization; (2) the menace of the sects; (3) the undermining of the old Scripture; and (4) the misuse of Paul. Part of the duties of a Christian minister is to uphold the OT scriptures.
He must be prepared to meet all sorts of wickedness on the part of the schismatics; he must expect persecution but must imitate Paul's example and stand by the Scriptures and what he has been taught, 3:1-17. So the author is referring to the Hebrew Bible, not the NT. Not even Paul's writings. The Marcionites had raised Paul's writings to scripture status within their sect. So the author was defending the use of the Jewish scriptures, not the NT.
They find their appropriate setting in the middle of the second century, when Marcionism and Gnosticism confronted the church, Paul was being discredited through Marcion's adoption of him as his patron saint, the Christian use of the Jewish scripture was being undermined, and church organization needed to be standardized. Marcion's repudiation of the Jewish scripture, which had long been the Bible of the church, leads to the reassertion of its authority; the consecrating effect of its use in prayer, I Tim. 4:5; the duty of reading it publicly before the church, 4:13; and above all the great assertion of II Tim. 3:16: "All scripture is divinely inspired, and useful in teaching, in reproof, in correcting faults, and in training in uprightness." This is a denial of one of Marcion's most emphatic tenets, and much more; it is the extension to the whole of the Greek Old Testament of the doctrine of verbal inspiration, which Palestinian Judaism had applied only to the five books of the Lawa step that brought allegorical interpretation in its wake. Where have I been directing you concerning sin? The OT.
quote:Again the reality behind the Bible makes your statement false. The gospels weren't written at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (50-60CE). Plus, Paul is referring to Jewish scripture as described above. Remember, Paul was a Jew. quote:I addressed Romans 3:10-18 in Message 89 to which you didn't respond. Paul is using D'Rash which means he is combining two or more unrelated verses to create a third meaning. Read the post. Briefly that one line is pulled from a song and talking about fools, not everyone. According to PARDES, A d'rash understanding can not be used to strip a passage of its p'shat meaning, nor may any such understanding contradict the p'shat meaning of any other scripture passage. As the Talmud states, "No passage loses its p'shat." P'shat means the plain text meaning. Now if you feel my plain reading of that OT text is incorrect, then explain how you read it differently. IMO, all Paul is really trying to say is that everyone screws up. No one is any better than anyone else even though some are behaving now and others aren't. Like I've said before, he is making an argument. We need to read the whole thing to understand his eventual point. Start a thread if you want to discuss Paul's writings. quote:Read Message 10 Again, reality proves you wrong. Lying is a sin, right? Edited by purpledawn, : Removed extra word. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:And I responded in Message 396 Sin is still a religious term, not a secular term. The thread isn't about whether people sin or not. No one has denied that people sin. The thread concerns whether we are prisoners of sin or the idea that sin is a thing that possesses people. The idea that no one can be deemed righteous even though they are behaving. The idea that past sins are not forgotten by God once one has repented. The idea that sin is inherited. I think that's all the oddities that arose. Paul used the idea that we are all "sinners" as a means to equalize. Don't confuse persuasion techniques with reality. One is a sinner when one is doing something wrong. Once one has repented and stops the wrong behavior, one is no longer a sinner. Read the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15). This point has been made several times. Notice that tax collectors and sinners were gathering around Jesus. At the end of the parable Jesus said, "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent." So either you believe that there are people who do not need to repent and are not considered sinners as Jesus said or you don't. Apparently you don't and I do. Apparently you believe that Jesus reneged on that statement through Paul. The wise men who wrote the Proverbs did not consider the righteous and the sinner to be the same. See also Proverbs 11:31, and 13:22.
Proverbs 13:21 Misfortune pursues the sinner, but prosperity is the reward of the righteous. Our depressing author of Ecclesiastes would disagree that there is no difference.
9:2 All share a common destiny--the righteous and the wicked, the good and the bad, the clean and the unclean, those who offer sacrifices and those who do not. As it is with the good man, so with the sinner; as it is with those who take oaths, so with those who are afraid to take them. Even the unknown author of 1 Peter which is supposedly written about 80-110 CE shows a difference. This is written after Paul's influence.
4:18 And, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly and the sinner?" When one is behaving good, one is considered good. When one is behaving badly, one is a sinner. Once one repents and starts behaving good, they are consider good, not a sinner.
quote:If you can't comprehend what I'm saying how can you understand stories from an ancient book? I said the authors wrote for their time, not ours. I didn't say there weren't any useful lessons in the Bible, but one needs to understand what the author was trying to tell his audience in his time to know what lesson is to be learned. Even the prophecies were not written for us today. They were written for the audience of the time. That would be another thread though. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Now you just trudging out the same old stuff helter skelter with no reasonable explanations and not seriously addressing what I've presented.
This thread has pretty much run its course. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Cedre you have shown not to understand what the inspired authors of the Bible intended for us to know. Stop lumping everything I've said with Goodspeed. There are other resources which I provided. I'm not a student of Goodspeed, he's dead. His stuff happens to be online and easy for people to read should they decide to think.
Unfortunately you didn't see fit to make a credible argument against what I've present, just rants and character assassination. I waited and hoped for substance, but to no avail. And still you provide no other scholars or counter argument. I have no problem with the Bible, I have a problem with the doctrine you presented and what you claim is God's support for such thoughts. Actually I feel that you have no respect for the Bible. How can you respect the authors if you don't like what they actually say? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: Round and round we go. Been there done that argument. Go back and read the thread. You aren't paying attention. Do you not understand personification either? The claim that all mankind is a prisoner of sin, is proven false by reality and your own comments. Message 404 Sin is not a living thing to be anyone's warden. Some people may feel like they can't do anything right, but the average person does have the capacity to do what's right. Literally, there is no such thing as a prisoner of sin. Game Over! "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's lie #2, the other is in Message 411. God is not going to be happy with you. So you had a clear choice. To lie or not to lie. Why did you choose to lie about what I've written? Why did you choose to sin? Why make such blatant lies that are easy to check out? All that I've said is available to check. So show me that your lies are not lies. Link to the post where I deny sin altogether.Link to the post where I admit that I'm addicted to sin. Otherwise, you need to repent.
quote:I'm afraid alcoholic analogies are lost on me. I don't drink alcohol, never have. But by your own analogy, I'm not sinning now so I'm not a prisoner of sin. Checkmate ABE: This is why an author needs to know his audience. If the author uses a wrong analogy, slang, or turn of phrase that the audience doesn't identify with, the author can't draw them into what he's selling, arguing, teaching, etc. Edited by purpledawn, : ABE "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3485 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The doctrine that all are sinners or all are prisoners of sin is not in harmony with God's word either. You don't have to believe me, all you have to do is read the Bible as a whole, not as oneliners to support doctrine, dogma, or tradition. It's all right there in front of you. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024