This is not a reasonable dismissal.
Point is that my explanation makes judicial sense. Yours does not. So dismissing your choice is based a contextual explanation that does make sense.
You didn't address τὸ δίκαιον either.
I don't have to address words not in the text. Only prove they may mean what I am saying. You conceeded all that. The context proves the case because you don't have an explanation that makes legal sense. You cannot declare the guilty righteous.
You're looking at the active definition, obviously. I've given the passive form. Care to try again?
You are confusing semantics with grammar again. To administer justice vs. to be administered justice. Look at def. #2, justify. He justified the other guy (active). He was justified (passive). Why would you assume that the first definition cannot be used in the passive? Grammar does not tell us what is impossible when an example is not acknowledged. It tells us what is possible when a speaker wants to say something. It tells the user what he can do.
1. Assume: Actual example does not exist
2. Therefore: it is impossible to say it
= begging the question.
That's a vicious circle. You don't want Paul to say what agrees with correct judicial procedure.
Therefore he can't say it.
I assume that a sinner can be justified by any means that God establishes.
God is not a either a liar or blind. Forgiveness does not need alien righteousness imputed. And your are forgetting that this is aimed at perfectly equitable justice. That does not just require a punitive penalty. It requires perfect compensation, i.e. all the evil effects of sin have to be reversed and undone as if they never happened. That's the only way to have perfect justice. Undo all the suffering caused by each sin compensated for. This is impossible of course. So God cannot be paid off. It is logically impossible.
There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.
Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.
The poison of vipers is on their lips.
Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.
That's Romans 3. I knew that was the idea you were aiming at. Just wanted you to say it. But what you are giving is is the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 3, which perhaps the only one you know. Try looking all those quotes of in their Tenach passages and see what the context is. Every one of these is about wicked Israelites (or Jews) vs. the righteous, often David, complaining about it, i.e. the class of "no one who does good" is a subset of Israel and not the whole of it. Paul's point is simple. Israel was just as evil as a nation and had just as many evil people in it as other nations. Therefore the idea that circumcision saves or that being Jewish is a ticket to heaven is disproved. That was the first century version of once saved always saved. Then it was: born a Jew and circumcised means you are saved. A lot of Jews still act like this and believe like this. It is the Jewish equivalent of Calvinism, being one of the "chosen." It's no different than Lutherans that believed they are saved because they were baptized, until you open your eyes and find at what rotten morals Lutherans have. That's the reason Paul quoted those texts, to show how rotten Jews have been.
Yes, Paul lays that down as a principle
Exactly what anti-torah Christians claim about this passage. Try reconciling that with Romans 2:6-7. No it is not just a principle. I may have quoted the KJV, but the proper translation is "the doers of the law will be righteous"
James is not Paul. I refrain from being dragged onto a tangent.
Yeh I know, you don't want to reconcile torah to Paul or anyone in the NT with anyone else in the NT.
The whole message of the gospel is that while people were sinners and guilty before God, Jesus died for them in order to make them righteous. If you think otherwise, you've misunderstood the entirety of the New Testament - not just Paul.
You are equivocating. Yes he died to make them righteous, but not declare them righteous before they are, and certainly not to declare the guilty innocent.
