Results 21 - 40 of 74
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Theo-Minor Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126327 | ||
The original question post was #126296 kalos answered in posts: 126297, 126300, and 126301. Then I responded to him in posts: 126315 and 126317. I don't know what happened with the thread, but my question, asked only once, was also posted as 126298. You responded with post: 126299. I responded with posts: 126318 and 126323. You responded with post: 126324. Again, I don't know why the thread is divided, but this is the series of posts, pretty much in order of occurrence. Theo-Minor P.S. I'm currently going through "The Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek." I will get a copy of the other once I've absorbed this one to the best of my ability. It's slow going, but it has really helped me learn to recognize the words. It's structure more than anything else that was the pain in my rear side (most particularly reconciling myself to "Sequence of tenses and moods" That got confusing at first, but I'm getting a decent grasp, I think.). |
||||||
22 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126323 | ||
Hey Tim, The other thing (and this is the crux of the problem) is that I can't wrap my mind around a present (or future) absolute negative action implying something occasionally positive. I think that's my real issue. Whether preset, future, or continuing, you still have an absolute value of the action. Actively I can see and appreciate. Those abiding in God [actively remaining and abiding now and continually] do not sin [actively perform the absolute negative of the action now and continually]. Practicing I can see, though I think it's a poor word to show what's being said. Those abiding in God [practicing (as in actively doing, not as in exercises to gain improvement like a musician would) the act of staying there now and continually] do not sin [practice (as in actively do the absolute negative of the action, not as in exercises to gain improvement of the absolute negative of the action) the absolute negative of the action]. Habitually, on the other hand, implies an occasional lapse of the substantiated action, and this is bad for two reasons. 1) It implies that we sometimes do the positive of the absolute negative, or that we do the absolute negative only "most of the time." 2) Because of the sequence of tenses, it implies that we sometimes do not abide in God, or that we just abide in Him "most of the time." Thus, Those abiding in God [make a habit of abiding in him, but occasionally absent by implication of habit] do not sin [make a habit of performing the positive action instead of doing the absolute negative of the action as the syntax requires]. Habitually makes no sense to what's actually being said. This is presumptuous in my opinion. It says what no one can guarantee is the intent of the author. Practicing is not wrong, but can be construed as habitually because of the common association of practice being a thing you do to "get better at something" versus a thing you actively do everyday. Actively carries the same implications as practicing for the same reasons. You actively do not sin, but by implication, it is something that occasionally lapses when the tense actually suggests something present, on-going, and indefinite according to what you've corrected me on (thanks, by the way). By this standard and comparison, the words habitually, actively, and practicing need to be kept out of the text, because they imply things that were neither intended nor said. If John wanted to say that we don't sin "most of the time" instead of "never at all," there's no reason he wouldn't have said, "Those abiding in God do not 'usually' sin." Waiting for follow up. :o) Theo-Minor |
||||||
23 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:9 | Theo-Minor | 126318 | ||
I'm definitely a novice at Greek study. I'm working on it, but I'm English-speaking. *laugh* See my other posts, though, regarding the implications of present tense. I'm not thick-headed, but I think I'm making a reasonable point. Theo-Minor |
||||||
24 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | Theo-Minor | 126317 | ||
Understand up front that to my mind, my argument is entirely illogical in the sense that I'm suggesting we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we truly know God. This is a dangerous view that leaves no real room for error, and it is to my benefit for mistakes to be permissable. What if I make one myself? So I'm not making this argument because I'm weird. I want occasional sin to be okay and forgiveable as much as the next person. I really believe he's telling us that we do not, will not, and cannot sin once we know and understand God in truth. The second part of this interpretation comes from the context of the passage itself. He's directly relating verse 3:6 to verse 3:5. There is no sin "in" Christ, so those of us "in him" cannot have sin. If we have sin and dwell in him then there is sin in him. Then there are passages like Hebrews 10:26: For if we willfully sin after receiving the full knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice concerning sin. As you pointed out in another, lesser, post on this topic, it's 'willful,' and I would add that it's "after receiving the 'full' knowledge of the truth." This is consistent with what John is saying. "Those that sin have not truly recognized or fully understood him." The Proverbs concur by saying that an adulterous man lacks understanding. So by this standard, if you are sinning [once or twenty times], you simply don't understand what God is about. You haven't had the revelation of the fullness of the truth. Paul says that we should not live in sin anymore, for Christ is not the minister of sin. He doesn't say, "Don't live in sin anymore, but go back and visit the old neighborhood now and again." Jesus said to the adulteress, "Go, and sin no more." That's a brutal command to give to someone if it is not an attainable goal. He didn't say, "Go, and sin only sometimes when you just can't help yourself." So we must assume it can be done. More to the point, Jesus tells us that his yoke is easy and his burden is light. John says that keeping God's commands are not a burdensome thing. So if they say it's easy, but we think it's hard, is it possible that we are not fully understanding? Is it possible that living without sin is a simple task that we have unnecessarily complicated through confusion or ignorance? Awaiting new posts ... Thanks to all that participate in this topic. It is, in my opinion, worthy of discussion because of the great impact it has on all our Christian walks. Theo-Minor |
||||||
25 | 1st John 3:4-9 Discussion on sin. | 1 John 3:4 | Theo-Minor | 126315 | ||
These commentaries make many of the same arguments I have considered. What I am personally cognizant of is that the whole discussion of "habitually, practicing, actively" versus "not once, not ever" all boils down to the tenses of the words in 3:6 and 3:9, as these commentaries also point out each in turn. To use an example I previously made, there would be no question what's being said here if the statement read, "Those abiding in God do not 'eat carrots'" Would we try to understand this sentence as stating that, "Those abiding in God do not habitually eat carrots?" Or would we simply conclude that they don't eat carrots, period? Present tense, in any other context, would not imply a habitual and reoccurent happening of the act. The verb is defined by the sytax of its own sentence. Present tense means "now." So if you are abiding in God [now], then you are not committing a sin [now]. In ten minutes, when the future becomes the present, and this static statement again takes foot in its natural environment, you will again be abiding in God [now], and not committing a sin [now]. Do you see what I'm getting at? Present tense is not a denotation of the future but of the now. But to take this dispensationally, I also recognize the contingency laid down in 1st John 2:1-2. John is definitely recognizing the "possibility" for "little children" to make a mistake. In addition, if God is a merciful God, it wouldn't be very merciful to consider a single mistake as the end of salvation. The two contrasting, and both individually concrete, views are summed up together in 1st John 5:16-18: If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not to death, he shall ask and God will, for him, give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death. I do not say that he should make request for this. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not to death. We know that no one who is born of God sins, but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him. This particular passage is ambiguous right down to its toes at face value. In short, it seems to me that John is saying (to paraphrase the larger chunks of context): "Little children, it's possible for you to not sin. That's why I'm writing to you, to show you how to accomplish this goal. If any of you fail, do not fret, for God is greater than our hearts. We have an advocate. But strive for this perfection, because those abiding in God do not sin. Anyone that still sins, no matter how great or small, no matter once or ten times, simply does not understand God and has not experienced the true revelation of our relationship with him. So again, don't fret. Some of you won't get it right away. Those of you that do ... pray for them." What we have to be careful of in scrutinizing this passage to understand why we CAN still sin instead of wrapping our minds around the idea that we canNOT sin is that we cheapen forgiveness and make sin "no big deal." Even on this site within the last couple of days, someone said something akin to: "If it's sin, then no big deal. It's one of many you will commit." It wasn't worded exactly like that, but that was the gist. Sin IS a big deal, and should not be taken lightly. Our goal is to not sin AT ALL, and to start today. I look forward to doing this conversation. :o) Thanks for some good, solid response kalos. Theo-Minor |
||||||
26 | A possible translation error? (Lk 2:2) | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126277 | ||
In short, it could be that the translation should read "... before Cyrenius was governor of Syria," or it could be that he had a second term of office, the first of which was within the bounds of the 8 BC lustrum. Translation seems to me most likely the problem. It's not logical to try to date an event on the governorship of another country. The 6 AD census of Cyrenius was a notable event. Jews would have remembered that because of the trouble it brought, as evidenced in Acts. But would the Jews have know, short of the political people, who was who as far as governorship goes in other parts of the country. To me, that would be like trying to write literature to Americans, dating the assassination of President Kennedy by the current ruler of Canada. I don't know who the ruler of Canada is right now! *laugh* The Queen, I guess. Hence, if it CAN be translated the alternate way, I think it's much more logical that he was using Cyrenius as a fixed point in time to relate the appropriate census. Thanks for you input and help. Theo-Minor |
||||||
27 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126265 | ||
Hey Tim, You missed part of what I said. It's present perfect in English (unless my grammatical terms are screwy, which I will not deny is possible. *laugh*). Regardless of the English term, the use is still the same. I said this: [As a static statement that projects into the future via Greek grammar, the idea here is this: "Those abiding in God are not sinning [from one moment to the next]"] Projecting into the future, "similar to" future perfect of a secondary indicative, but imperfect (future perfect being closer to "will sin" and very rare in Greek usage [Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek]). I'll do a post on the subject from a fresh question thread. We can discuss it. I'll experiment and see if there isn't a way to get the Greek letters onto the post. It'll be fun, entertaining, and hopefully educational. Seems you have a little Greek under your belt. Look for my post. I look forward to the discussion. Theo-Minor |
||||||
28 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126262 | ||
IBLONG2GOD ... I wasn't the least bit offended brother/sister. I think I did the same thing days ago (I've only been on here a few days myself). You just have to be careful to read the full train of thought so you know what's been said, and why it has reached its current point. It's not impossible or uncommon for your (or my) point to have already been made and reasonably disputed by someone else in a sound and competent manner. Correcting what you believe to be wrong is absolutely a good thing. Iron sharpens iron. If we don't correct each other, using the tid-bits of knowledge and understanding God has given each of us in turn, we would never grow. There are things people show me all the time that I either didn't see, or didn't think about. To: do you know what it means to walk by the spirit of the law versus the letter ... I'm asking a sincere question. Do you know the difference? You say, "I do have some insight," but also say, "I don't have absolute knowledge of it." Thus the question reiterated. At the bottom of the screen where you answer to a post, you'll see a highlighted line in a tree of posts. The highlighted post is the one you're looking at/answering to. Follow the line up to the post in this line of posts beginning with DocTrinsograce. Follow them systematically and you'll see the whole discussion. I did three full-page posts on the subject of the spirit of the law, and what it means to say that we are not under the law. Keep sharpening! Theo-Minor |
||||||
29 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126249 | ||
Hey Doc ... Listen brother, you're a wonderful fellow. Your posts have always been very polite and well thought out. I want to discuss something with you that is off this particular topic since the subject has come up. I'll try to be a brief as I can with it. You said this: "If this thing was a sin, it was probably only one of many -- and my own list of sins is assuredly far longer than yours!" In truth, brother, you are deceived in believing you are still a sinner. There is no condemnation to those that are in Christ Jesus. To believe that you have sin is to put yourself in a state of condemnation. I am genuinely and sincerely not trying to be critical. If you do a study on sin, you will find that in the New Testament, there isn't a single passage that says we must still be sinners. This is a teaching of self abasement that stemmed from the 2nd-3rd century church, and it has no foundation in a spiritual walk with Christ. The perception comes from two significant sources. 1. Romans chapter 7. I'm sure you're familiar. "What I don't want to do, I do. What I want to do, I don't do," etc. "But I realize it is not me, but sin that dwells in me." The sin dwelling within is as according to the old man, identified by the laws of sin and the flesh. Continuing on to chapter 8, it states that we are now free from the laws of sin and the flesh, subject now instead to the law of the spirit in Jesus Christ. God, because of sin, condemned sin in the flesh. It's dead. 2. The other significant passage is 1st John 1:8-10. Again, I'm sure you're familiar. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. Therefore, confess your sins to God, and he is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This passage, despite the usuage of the pronoun "we" is talking about people that come to Christ, not those that have already come. If you take this passage as a static statement that applies to all Christians for all time, you have two major problems with it. First, if Christ is the lamb of God, come to take away the sins of the world, and we still have sin, he failed miserably in his mission. Second, to view this 1st John passage as a static statement creates a paradox. We all have sin, so let's confess together, and he'll forgive and cleanse us. Now, we've confessed. So do we have sin? If we say no, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us, so we need to confess again. If we say yes, then God was not faithful to do as promised. How many times do we need to confess before he does what he promised to do? This passage is clearly talking about new Christians. After removing those two passages from the repertoire, there doesn't remain any passage to suggest we still sin. On the contrary, all the passages pertaining to sin and Christians admonishes us not to commit any, not to live in it, to flee from it, etc. There is even the controversial passage from 1st John 3:6-9 that says that we do not, will not, and cannot sin because we are born of God. References or implications to "habitually" or "practicing" are a direct result of scrutiny over the tense of the word "sin." Because of it's present perfect tense, it reads: "All those abiding in God are not sinning." Sin[ning] implies an ongoing action according to certain words studies, but in their journey to discredit a passage they can't comprehend, they fail to appreciate the appropriate syntax of present perfect tense. Sin[ning] means that you are not sinning "right now." As a static statement that projects into the future via Greek grammar, the idea here is this: "Those abiding in God are not sinning [from one moment to the next]" Please read my posts from your question yesterday. I explained "not under the law" well, I think. It is the key to understanding how not to sin. I'd love to discuss this with you further, but I don't want to be any more pushy on the matter than I've already been. I love you and all other brothers in Christ, and I want to see you free from your condemnation. Theo-Minor |
||||||
30 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126244 | ||
IBLONG2GOD ... Are you trying to criticize the quote I just quoted? This thread was not about keeping the letter of the law, but an expansion upon keeping the spirit of it. Please read the whole thread beginning with the post by docTrinesograce. The quote I quoted happens to be very good. This discussion was more or less started because kalos was making sure I knew what I was talking about and not just spouting drivel that I don't understand. Do you know what you're saying and why? Do you know what it means to keep the spirit of the law versus keeping the letter of it? Or are you just repeating what you've read without thoroughly comprehending it? (no criticism intended. It's a genuine and sincere question). Theo-Minor |
||||||
31 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126221 | ||
"The law says, Do this and you will live. Grace says, You live, so do this." That statement rules. Theo-Minor |
||||||
32 | Meaning of John 12:24-25 | John 12:24 | Theo-Minor | 126217 | ||
Hey angel - kalos ... I looked up a few words, and if either of you do any Greek study (actual study into syntax, tense, possession, etc.), you might find this interesting. The word is first singular. "die" once. Second it is of the tense "to be" or "to die." It might be worth consideration that what he is trying to say here is that he is "ready to die every day." This would fit nicely with the context going back to 15:29. He is discussing baptizing people for the dead (because they were doubting bodily resurrection; See 15:12-19), and showing how ignorant that is because they are putting themselves in jeopardy hour by hour ... over what? A faith in no resurrection? So he could be saying here: "And why do we stand in jeopardy every hour? I swear an oath by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, that I [am ready] to die every day. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what does it advantage me if the dead do not rise? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we [may] die." I had always viewed the "I die daily" in a spiritual sense, but I have, admittedly, never paid it that much attention. When the topic came up about dying to self, I don't think I've ever really used that passage. I tend, instead, to say, I'm dead to the law, or dead in Christ, or the old man was crucified with Christ, etc. This was a good note you guys posted. I learned something. Theo-Minor |
||||||
33 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126212 | ||
kalos, Right. You have to keep the law, as you say, just in the spiritual sense. But being "not under the law" does not mean do whatever you want to do. That would be open license to sin, and that's precisely the point it seems you are addressing. I agree with you. To say we are no longer under the law is not to say that we need not keep the law. Being under grace instead of under the law, walking by the spirit instead of by the letter, is a matter of method and perception. Keeping it by the letter means paying attention to every little commandment, tradition, ritual, etc., and you will inevitably fail. Keeping it by the spirit is easy, because knowing that love is the foundation of all the commandments, traditions, rituals, etc., we are able, by the spirit within us (thus the laws written on our hearts and minds), to walk according to righteousness in all the fullness of the law as originally intended. In knowing the right; in being a slave to righteousness, we can reject evil before it becomes the stumbling block the written law surely becomes. And it is all done through unfeigned love of the brethren ... for this is the word that, by the gospel, was preached to us. I think we're close to being on the same page. :oP Theo-Minor |
||||||
34 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126210 | ||
Hey ... that's all we can really ask for eh? It's a never ending process of learning, and I look forward to someone teaching me something new every day. I'm hoping you'll have some good (hopefully positive) input into what I've said. And by all means, poke holes in it if holes can be poked (just be nice *laugh*). I'm far more interested in the truth than in my pride. Theo-Minor |
||||||
35 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126209 | ||
By the by, I didn't cite the scriptures I quoted because there were too many, and it would have taken me half the day. I'll be happy to provide them if you need them, but I recognize from our brief history of posts that you are more than reasonably well read and will recognize the passages where quoted (and likely where to find them). Theo-Minor |
||||||
36 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126207 | ||
Continued .... To say that we are no longer under the law is to say that we are no longer subject to the dos and don'ts, except where brotherly love dictates the behavior befitting a disciple of Christ. Laws that have nothing to do with brotherly love are manmade. In the words of Paul, "If you are dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are you subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?" Adhering to the teachings of Christ, and of the Apostles, our commandments must be summed up by brotherly love. If they are not, they are not commandments of God. Such pointless commandments and doctrines are nothing more than stumbling blocks, and I'll give you an example taken directly from Bible study at my house last night: Ben, who was an absolute "Law is valid; must keep the commandments" advocate, is slowly but surely coming around, because none of his arguments can stand up under sound doctrine. He has finally come to a point where he has conceded that love is the law, the law means to love. There is no passage that says we still have to sin. He has acknowledged that it is possible to live without sinning under a doctrine of love. He has acknowledged that any law we have must be summed up by love, and hence, that we must have no other commandment but to love one another, for this is not only the commandment of Christ, but also the fulfillment of the law. Then after all that acknowledgment and recognition of plain scripture that, try as he would, he could not refute, he says, "I still disagree, sort of. There are other commandments we have to keep, like taking the Lord's Supper." Now, if I am following the doctrine of Christ, knowing, trusting, hoping, and believing that if I am obedient in love that I will be approved of God, and there is now this commandment laid before me ... Say I went to church this last Sunday, but didn't take the Lord's Supper. It wasn't sin to me then. But if I believe now in this "command" and put myself "under the law" according to the traditions and doctrines of men, then this new law has just identified sin in a sense that love could never identify, and this is contrary to the commandment of Christ. Now, suppose, knowing now that I have to take the Lord's Supper, that I already had plans to do something this Sunday. I'm now faced with the option of being obedient to God by going to church and taking the Lord's Supper, or going about my plans. Let's say I chose to go about my plans. I have now willfully sinned, and according to Hebrews, if we willfully sin after coming to the full knowledge of the truth, there is no more sacrifice concerning sin. So what am I to do? I have just insulted the spirit of grace through which I am saved ... and this because someone placed a stumbling block before me; that being a commandment of men, and not a commandment of God (which would be summed up by brotherly love to begin with). So because he gave me the law, put me under its grasp, sin was recognized, sin revived, I was put back into a fleshly mind, I sinned, and I died, because the wages of sin is death. Do not be fooled, God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that also will he reap. All in all, I'm not saying we should run around being scumbags. There is a great amount of freedom in the doctrine of love (thus the reason both Peter and Paul have to give the warning not to "use our freedom as an occasion for fleshly vices"), but the doctrine of love adheres absolutely to the Old and New covenants in their most thorough applications. You don't need to know, "Do not murder." You will love your neighbor as yourself and not kill him. By the standard of "do to other as you would have them do to you ..." Tell me how you would feel if someone vaunted themselves above you. It creates envy, strife, jealousy, anger, etc. So because you don't want someone else to feel that way if you are under a doctrine of love, you don't exalt yourself over someone else. It's all really simple, and it's not a hard doctrine to follow. Point of fact, it's easy to live without sin by this standard, and with this is mind, consider two separate statements: For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. We know we know God if we keep his commandments, and they are not burdensome. Modern doctrines teach perpetual sin and human imperfection, but the Bible teaches that the old man is dead, we are free from the laws that bring about death, we are perfected in Christ, and that sin is no longer our master. Questions or comments? Theo-Minor |
||||||
37 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126206 | ||
Hey kalos ... What I see is that the law (written) is a stumbling block. The law (Torah or otherwise) creates a list of dos and don'ts that most (all actually, except Jesus) people can't live up to. There are two specific purposes I see for the existence of a written law. 1) Instruction. It is to teach the loveless how to love. Thus Jesus' concluding statement to the Sermon on the Mount: "Therefore (i.e. to sum it all up), do to others as you would have them do to you (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself), for this is the law and the prophets." He later says that all the law the prophets are dependent upon the two great commandments (love God, love your neighbor) for their existence. (Master, what is the greatest commandment ...) He concludes his ministry by giving us a final commandment; one that is new. Love one another as he loved us. By this will all men know that we are his disciples. Paul says that the goal of their instruction is love from a pure heart, clear conscience, and sincere faith (or conviction). Paul says that any commandment we have, whether do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery ... "or if there be any other commandment," it is summed up by this: namely, love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no ill to your neighbor, so love is the fulfilling of the law. John says that if we love our brother, we walk in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in us. To put it all together: Love your neighbor as yourself is what the law and the prophets mean; all the law and the prophets depend upon love for their existence; love fulfills the law; the Apostles' instruction was with the goal of love in mind; if we love, there is no reason for us to stumble. Thus, if we love, which fulfills the OT Law, adheres to the commandment of Christ, meets the full expectations of the Apostles' teachings, and prevents us from stumbling since we walk in the light, we do well, having fulfilled the Royal Law by the scripture "love your neighbor as yourself." Now, as we know, all scripture is profitable for correction, doctrine, reproof, etc. This goes back to the first aspect of this item. It is profitable for teaching the loveless how to love. Those that understand real love will not kill someone else, steal from them, sleep with their wife, or even do something so small as to call them names (Rakka ... thou fool). This is simply not the attitude of love. 2) We need the law to die. Jesus had to die in order to fulfill the law. If you recall Elisha when he was being killed, he cursed everyone. When Jesus was being killed, he forgave them; love to the utmost extreme. He fed the hungry, clothed the naked, healed the sick, comforted the hurting, gave to the poor ... He was meek, mild, humble ... willing to teach, eager to do good, did not seek his own gain, was without pride ... All of these things are qualities of love. It really had nothing to do with the written law. He did it that way because love was the point. Because of the written law, he had to suffer all things in order to live up to the fullest standard of the law, which was love. The law is death. If there had been a law that could have made righteous, then righteousness would have come by the law. Because righteousness did NOT come by the law, it must be concluded that no such law existed that could have made us righteous. We have to trust in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Our own righteousness is dirt, and nothing we can do will ever measure up, because all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Because of all this ... because the law is death to us, we had to die, just like Christ had to die. In baptism, we go down in imitation of his death, and we come up in the newness of life. As the written law was nailed to the cross with Christ, so too as we nail our old man to the cross, the old man that was subject to the law died. Now, raised up in the newness of life, we are dead to the law, and hence, dead to sin. The law identifies sin. Therefore, as quoted in a previous post, Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to all those that believe. If we put ourselves back under the law, sin is suddenly reidentified, revived within us, and we die spiritually. Without a written law, there is no identification of sin. Where there is no law, there is no transgression. Theo-Minor Continued .... |
||||||
38 | Did Jesus purify the temple twice? | John 2:15 | Theo-Minor | 126202 | ||
I've had to reconcile myself to that one as well. Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell of the overturning of the tables and such as being during his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. John says it was the year before or so. The best solution I've found is similar to Ray's. John's Gospel, according to some scholars, is dated to the 90's AD. If the events took place in the 30's AD, that's a 60 year gap. In short, John was jotting down at the age 70 or 80 what he experienced at the age of 15 or 20. There are some other juicy ones you might want to wrap your brain around. Take a look at the woman that washes Jesus' feet with tears, etc. Luke's version is quite different. Then there's the "going back to Nazareth" scene that happens in the beginning of the ministry in one gospel, but towards the middle of another. In one case, he's just getting started. In the other, he's already well established and performing miracles in Nazareth. So did he go twice? The best way to look at this is to view it as a car crash. The four witnesses writing the testimony of the gospel are all seeing the same accident, but from different corners of the intersection. Matthew heard the scream of the tires, smelled the burnt rubber, and noticed a rock in the road that caused the driver to swerve and have an accident. Mark saw the car swerve, but never saw the rock. He too heard the scream of the tires, but from his corner he couldn't smell the burnt rubber. But what Mark saw that Matthew didn't was the look of panic on the driver's face as they realized they were about to wreck. John was in the corner store. He heard the tires scream, but he didn't smell the burnt rubber. He didn't see the panic on the driver's face. He didn't see the swerve or the rock in the road. But John was the first one to reach the car when he came out of the store. He ran straighaway to the car and got to hear the driver's last words before he died. Standing next to the car, he could then smell the burnt rubber, and through the driver's own account of things before he died, John learned of the rock in the road, the swerve to avoid it, and the panic the driver felt when he saw that he was bearing down on a passing vehicle. One thing all three of them saw were the smashed cars. Some of them saw it happen. Others weren't around. (remember that the sheep scattered) But they all saw the mess. They all saw the body of the one person being toted away. Then Luke arived on the scene and asked some detailed questions about what happened and did the best he could to establish some order and chronology of events, starting with the rock in the road that Matthew saw and John could verify by the driver's own words. It next moved on to the swerve that John didn't see but could relate according to the driver's words. Matthew and Mark could both testify to it directly. Then to the unique material that the driver was panicked, based on what Mark saw on the driver's face. Then he recorded the crash itself as seen by Matthew and Mark, with the addition of what audible details and testimonial details from the driver John could provide. Finally, he concludes with the fact that there is a crash. The harmony of the gospels is very akin to this in my estimation. Each has unique material not found in the others, and the details of matching scenarios are often different. This thing actually makes them credible. If they all matched perfectly, they would be suspicious of having been copied from one another. Instead, we have corroborating accounts from four different perspectives. In a court of law, this would establish the event as a fact. I hope this gives you food for thought. Theo-Minor |
||||||
39 | A possible translation error? (Lk 2:2) | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126193 | ||
YES ... this is precisely what I'm talking about. The census would have been the census BEFORE Judas the Galilean, which is the one I mentioned. Cyrenius' census is the one that "started the trouble" with Judas, and I think Matthias is the name of the co-conspirator. This one was in the 8 ADish area. The census when Jesus was born was in the 8-3 BC area; the lustrum performed by Augustus during the reign of Herod the Great. I'm sure I can find that commentary, but you'd be doing me a favor if you just quote what it is you are wanting me to look at (within the bounds of reasonable size for this forum). Theo-Minor |
||||||
40 | Why ask Why? Why ask Where? | Bible general Archive 2 | Theo-Minor | 126183 | ||
Hey Doc ... What I see focuses on the other half of the scriptures you're citing. What you have to say is right on the money, but only half correct according to what I see. For example: "If there were no law, there would be no sin (Romans 7:7). Now, day by day, when I do fail, His mercies are renewed morning by morning (2 Cor 4:16). I am reminded each time I fall down that I still need a Savior!" When Paul talks about the law identifying sin, it is precisely his point that we are not under the law anymore. If we are not under the law, sin cannot be identified, and thus we live. If we put ourselves back under the law, sin is revived and we die. Thus: Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. This is one scripture of many, and I will apologize and excuse myself from making reference citations. It's 2:30 am, and I'm typing in the dark. All in all, what I see is that we had the law, and we all needed the law in order to die. Now that we are dead, we are alive again in the resurrection through baptism (water or spiritual is a conversation for another day). But it is not we that live, but Christ that lives in us. Having become dead to the law, we are now free to be saved by the grace of Christ. Having become one flesh with him through marriage, it is not really we that stand before God on the Day of Judgment, but Christ that stands in our stead, because he and we are one person. Hence "we are the body of Christ." This is why it is his righteousness we stand on, and not that of the law. If there had been a law that could have made us righteous, then righteousness would have come by the law. But there was no such law, so our righteousness comes by Christ, by grace through faith. If we try to justify ourselves according to the law, which equates to little more than the deeds of the flesh, then we trade salvation for damnation. Christ is become of no effect to you, whosoever of you are justified by the law. You are fallen from grace. Since our salvation is by grace, to be fallen from grace is a clear indication of a loss of salvation, because we trade the justification of our marriage and oneness with Christ for our own sense of justification under the law, and therein do we perish. The law we are now subject to is brotherly love. All the law and prophets are dependant upon love for their existence; the goal of the Apostles' instruction was love from a pure heart, clear conscience, and sincere faith; there is no commandment we have that is not summed up by love; love fulfills the law; if we love one another, we walk in the light, and there is no occasion of stumbling in us. In other words, love is the point. Love is the law, and the law means to love. The OT law was designed for a single purpose: To teach the loveless how to love. When Jesus died, the written law that was contrary to us (for the written law identifies and revives sin within us) was nailed to the cross with him, giving us freedom. Freedom to sin? Absolutely not. As you say, we should keep the moral laws. But by what standard? Not by the letter. You'll fail time and again. You keep the moral law (The law of Christ) by the spirit of the law which is love. Love one another as he loved us, and in so doing, you will not stumble. There is plenty that I can say, but these posts are of limited space. What I'm getting at is that the letter of the law is not the point. Love, which is the spirit of the law (or the force that sets it in motion), is what we need to be following. Every command we have must be summed up by love. If it is not, then it is not a real commandment, because such a commandment not founded in love is contrary to scripture. I'll gladly talk about this as much as you like if you're open-minded and willing to take this to conclusion. I don't want to discuss it anymore, however, if the topic is going to be restricted, banned, or anything else, and I don't want to argue with a wall (not to suggest that you are that way). I'll concede to reasonable points, and I'll expect the same from you if we discuss it. Thanks for your reply. Theo-Minor |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |