Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we prisoners of sin
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 375 of 454 (506170)
04-23-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Theodoric
04-23-2009 11:37 AM


Re: Sin and Salvation
quote:
I think a strong case can be made that christianity is actually more Paul based than Jesus based. If you read Paul's writings(the ones that scholarship show to be probably written by Paul) you can see that he had little or no awareness of the life and teachings of Jesus, as expressed in the Gospels. The Gospels date to after the writings of Paul.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Theodoric, posted 04-23-2009 11:37 AM Theodoric has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 380 of 454 (506243)
04-24-2009 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 378 by Peg
04-24-2009 7:11 AM


Re: Sin and Salvation
quote:
Jesus was making clear that the blindness was not the result of some specific sin on the part of the blind man or his parents.
Exactly.
quote:
Rather, it was the result of the imperfection all of us have inherited from Adam and thus we are subject to defects such as being born blind.
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:
Jesus further words that "this happened that the work of God might be made manifest" was in reference to himself because the mans defect was an opportunity for Jesus to make manifest the works of God.
...
So rather then God being the 'reason' for our defects, God is the 'answer' to our defects.
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:
purpledawn writes:
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?
I have showed you scripture upon scripture that prove otherwise. The OT is very clear when it comes to sin. YOu have yet to show any scriptures that prove what you are claiming.
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:
when it came to sickness, the Mosaic Law stated ...
So sickness of Leprosy was related to sin becuase the effects of sin are sickness and death. Also in the Mosaic law where the SIN OFFERING for even 'unintentional' sins was a major feature. So how can a person sin 'unintentionally'??? They do so because, like the leper, they have no control over sin.
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:
you said the right words, but you failed to grasp the meaning.
You might want to reconsider what the word 'Practice' might mean to a prostitute.
Please. Do we have to go to the ridiculous?
quote:
I only seek to clarify anything that is not scriptural or that contradicts it. Everything you say contradicts scripture because everything you believe comes from sources other then the bible. The scriptures you quote are out of context and do not take all of the writings into account. You do not believe that the Apostles such as Paul are authoritative nor do you seem to believe the authority of the scriptures themselves as the word of God. Most of its stories you claim to be nothing more then myths. And you deny God his personal name... a name by which he is identified in the OT thousands of times over.
If you want to teach the scriptures, you must first believe them to be true yourself.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Peg, posted 04-24-2009 7:11 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by Peg, posted 04-25-2009 3:16 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 381 of 454 (506258)
04-24-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Woodsy
04-24-2009 8:28 AM


Zoroastrianism
Look at the basic beliefs of Zoroastrianism. Sound familiar?
Here are a few
    will bring about a final renovation of the world, and in which the dead will be revived.[5]
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Woodsy, posted 04-24-2009 8:28 AM Woodsy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by Peg, posted 04-25-2009 3:33 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 388 of 454 (506316)
04-25-2009 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Peg
04-25-2009 3:33 AM


Re: Zoroastrianism
quote:
If you throw away Gods teachings as expressed by Paul, you are missing out some vital christian understanding
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 can understand why you keep asking what christian laws actually are.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Peg, posted 04-25-2009 3:33 AM Peg has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 389 of 454 (506328)
04-25-2009 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by Peg
04-25-2009 3:16 AM


Re: Sin and Salvation
quote:
understanding doesnt come from reading one part of one verse...it comes from taking ALL of the bible into consideration...such as all those scriptures I showed which confirm the truth that mankind are born into sin which has lead to sickness and death and the requirement for an atonement which leads us back to God.
You are taking a part of 1 verse and producing a belief that is no where else in the bible.
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:
again you fail to grasp the purpose of 'inspired' writings. Within the writings are universal truths. The truth that david expresses in Ps 51 is that of being born into sin. David was not the only man to ever be born into the condition of sin... its a universal truth that God is making known to ALL mankind.
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:
again you fail to take into consideration the truth that God does not bring evil things upon anyone. He did not 'give' the man the defect so he could show his power...He 'removed' the defect to show his power.
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:
What we as a race are 'missing' is the ability to live according to Gods perfection in mind, body and spirit. Thats what independence from God has done and that is what sin is.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by Peg, posted 04-25-2009 3:16 AM Peg has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 396 of 454 (506446)
04-26-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 394 by Peg
04-26-2009 7:28 AM


Incapable of Not Sinning
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:
The bible makes the point very clearly, that all people are sinners, that is to say, all have fallen below the perfect standard that God had intended for them.
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:
Of course i agree that we can refrain ourselves from practicing or giving in to sin and Job is fine example of this.
Great we finally agree.
quote:
But we cannot assume that Job was a perfect man without the mark of sin. Job could not possibly have been sinless, but the sum total of what he did was what God required of him, considering the time when he lived and his circumstances. He pleased God; he did what God rightly expected of him. Thus he was faultless, blameless, perfect in that sense.
Also consider, Job eventually died & the scriptures tell us that death is the result of sin. So if he died, it was because of sin.
"through Adam, sin entered into the world and death spread to All men because they had all sinned" Romans 5:12.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by Peg, posted 04-26-2009 7:28 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Cedre, posted 04-27-2009 10:22 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 400 of 454 (506519)
04-27-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Peg
04-27-2009 5:04 AM


Re: contradiction?
quote:
the bible only contradicts itself when you apply a certain belief that is contradictory to what the bible says
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Peg, posted 04-27-2009 5:04 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Peg, posted 04-28-2009 3:28 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 404 of 454 (506541)
04-27-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by Cedre
04-27-2009 10:22 AM


Re: Incapable of Not Sinning
quote:
But people are still receptive to temptation and they still do become the victims of occasional sinning and it is these occasional sins of people that God will hold them responsible for, but even if an individual is not so inclined to sinning, the individual has nonetheless sinned, put differently this individual has transgressed God's will and is therefore liable to any punishment set forth by God.
Not according to God. Once we repent our transgressions are forgotten.
quote:
According to human law an individual only needs to commit a murder once in order to be eligible for a life sentence, or steal once in order to be branded as a thieve, the same is true for the previous case one only needs to commit a murder once in order to be branded as a murderer. So when a person commits but one sin this individual is no less a sinner in God’s eyes’ than another who sins habitually and therefore is him/herself due for death.
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:
But now the real pressing issues that need to be tackled are: is blood an indispensable component of receiving salvation or can salvation be attained without the need for blood atonement. Below I meet these two questions head on.
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:
Ancient people including these few righteous men were judged according to their good deeds and their willingness to carry on doing this good deeds and refraining equally from those deeds they knew to be wicked or evil
Exactly! All the rest of your babbling is inconsistent and fantasy.
quote:
If after you have become righteousness you return to your sin, you are once again in danger of God’s wrath.
Exactly! Then the person repents again and they are safe as long as they behave.
quote:
Therefore when God called a certain man or woman righteous he was right in the sense that these people really strived to avoid what they knew was wrong and they also desired to obey God at all costs.
Exactly!
quote:
Now where these people completely sinless? Absolutely not, they had the sin that all men inherited from Adam’s original sin and they also had their personnel sins those committed willfully and also those committed in ignorance. However because of their righteousness — adherence to God’s commands, they found favor with the Lord and God overlooked all their past sins.
Close. Righteous doesn't mean sinless. They did not inherit sin. Sin cannot be inherited. Any sins committed are forgotten, according to God.
quote:
Thus God is very strict about sin, even those once considered righteous can quickly lose their righteousness by sinning. But what is the challenge for striving to be righteous devoid of Jesus , here it is:
James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
James 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
I can’t put it any better than James did. But just let me put in a couple more words in view of Act 17:30 as well that I cite above, god expects man to be utterly holy, Lev 11:45 ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.
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:
Does God only expect the Jews to be holy people? No he expects even the gentiles to be holy and in right standing with his laws, Job certainly was not a Jew but he pleased God with his righteousness alternatively God punished amoral gentiles or heathens.
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:
Jesus himself said the righteousness is not enough to enter heaven you need to have the Holy Spirit dwelling in you, and transforming you within. Jesus being God knows that no man can be really righteous, as I have also shown above with the ancient Hebrew’s, it is by God’s mercy that we are made whole in our righteousness as well.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by Cedre, posted 04-27-2009 10:22 AM Cedre has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 421 of 454 (506648)
04-28-2009 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 411 by Cedre
04-28-2009 5:05 AM


God is the Authority
quote:
Purpledawn and her attacks on biblical authority accepting only those words attributed to Jesus, as if those words were not penned by the same guy who wrote the rest of the book, how silly! Why should you only trust the words in red while even they were written by the author whose words you bring into question in other places of the same book?
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:
But why don’t we go to scripture to see what it says about itself.
(2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

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:
In the next passages Paul is citing from the gospels and he is calling it scripture.
1Co 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
1Co 15:4 and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures;

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:
Therefore I am compelled to believe what Paul taught in scripture and what the bible itself teaches that all men are born sinners, here again Paul is quoting from the old testament passage I gave in an earlier post of mine describing the unrighteous state of mankind. We are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners.
Rom 3:10 as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one;

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:
Interestingly purpledawn you started out denying sin altogether but in your much later posts it looks to me as if you have softened up to the idea of sin, (your conscience must have gotten to you). Well that is how God operates he comes as a thief in the night, and so by the time you become cognizant of his presence he has already stolen your heart.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 411 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 5:05 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 8:44 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 424 of 454 (506664)
04-28-2009 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Peg
04-28-2009 3:28 AM


Re: contradiction?
quote:
Im not having any problem finding support for the truth that we ARE sinners. The bible supports that statement as can be seen by those verses i quoted in msg 394
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:
and yet the bible continues to be a book that is very practical for the modern world. God is the author of the bible and there are parts of it that are still in the process of coming to fulfillment...so there is no way that it is not meant for us today.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Peg, posted 04-28-2009 3:28 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 2:38 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 425 of 454 (506667)
04-28-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 422 by Cedre
04-28-2009 8:44 AM


Re: Forget about Goodspeed, he's a creep
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 422 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 8:44 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 9:28 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 427 of 454 (506670)
04-28-2009 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 426 by Cedre
04-28-2009 9:28 AM


Re: Forget about Goodspeed, he's a creep
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 9:28 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 10:03 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 430 of 454 (506674)
04-28-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 429 by Cedre
04-28-2009 10:03 AM


Re: Forget about Goodspeed, he's a creep
quote:
If you succeed at doing this then I will confess that there is no such thing as a prisoner of sin.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 10:03 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 431 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 10:33 AM purpledawn has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 435 of 454 (506702)
04-28-2009 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Cedre
04-28-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Forget about Goodspeed, he's a creep
quote:
Purpledawn by your own admission you are addicted to sin.
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:
You just can't put the sin bottle down forever, eventually you will take a sip from it, who knows maybe even a gulp.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Cedre, posted 04-28-2009 10:33 AM Cedre has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 439 of 454 (506789)
04-29-2009 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Peg
04-29-2009 2:38 AM


Re: contradiction?
quote:
i know what your opinion is and I dont believe it...its not in harmony with Gods word.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Peg, posted 04-29-2009 2:38 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by RDK, posted 04-29-2009 7:16 PM purpledawn 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