Every jot and tittle

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Actually it does. That is because you don't, cant or won't understand...

Click to expand...

I asked you why sin would not be a persons master(and they would not be sins slave) because they are not under law but under grace

You responded:
Because when you sin (transgressing the law), the wage is death and without grace you remain guilty.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with overcoming sin/sin not being your master and you not being sins slave for you are not under law but under grace

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

He says it right there in the scripture you quoted. You break the law you pay the consequence...death. The law is good and holy and righteous...but...

Click to expand...

It is hard to believe you are not intentionally evading. Look at the language in the Romans 7 text - over and over again it, through various images, puts the Law in the role of empowering sin.

Wanting it to be otherwise changes nothing.

Yes, if you break the Law you pay the consequences - we all know that. But that one truth does not give you license to sweep other material from the passage under the rug.

Let me try to pin you down: Please explain the followings words of Paul - don't tell me about other stuff - explain exactly what you think Paul is saying here:

or while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

not under law said:

I asked you why sin would not be a persons master(and they would not be sins slave) because they are not under law but under grace

You responded:
Because when you sin (transgressing the law), the wage is death and without grace you remain guilty.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with overcoming sin/sin not being your master and you not being sins slave for you are not under law but under grace

Click to expand...

Really LOL? You are blind...the law just condemned you, yet now you have grace...you don't understand that? I CAN'T HELP YOU SORRY...

expos4ever said:

It is hard to believe you are not intentionally evading. Look at the language in the Romans 7 text - over and over again it, through various images, puts the Law in the role of empowering sin.

Wanting it to be otherwise changes nothing.

Yes, if you break the Law you pay the consequences - we all know that. But that one truth does not give you license to sweep other material from the passage under the rug.

Let me try to pin you down: Please explain the followings words of Paul - don't tell me about other stuff - explain exactly what you think Paul is saying here:

or while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Click to expand...

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT WITHIN THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE...

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

Really LOL? You are blind...the law just condemned you, yet now you have grace...you don't understand that? I CAN'T HELP YOU SORRY...

Click to expand...

Yes the law condemned you, now you have grace, but that doesn't answer the question. Its good to move beyond head theology and be able to discern the message contained in the letter

not under law said:

Yes the law condemned you, now you have grace, but that doesn't answer the question. Its good to move beyond head theology and be able to discern the message contained in the letter

Click to expand...

it is the core of his message

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law...

Click to expand...

This objection of yours deserves a reply because, without thinking things through, one can easily see a contradiction between these two claims:

1. The Law is not sin, it is a good thing that grants knowledge of sin (we agree on this)
2. The Law empowers sin (you evade dealing with this, despite your protests to the contrary).

There is no contradiction - both are true. The Law does reveal sin, of course. But that in no way logically precludes the possibility that it can also empower sin. This may seem counterintuitive, but we need to go with what Paul actually says. And he certainly does say that the Law arouses sin - to deny this is to bear false witness).

So it is clear: Paul says both these things. But the still looms - why in the world would God give a Law that empowers sin?

A satisfactory answer has already been given to you:

- The Law of Moses was given to Israel in order to effectively lure "sin", understood as a power or even a personal force, to take up residence in Israel. He arguably makes this case most strongly in Romans 5 and Romans 7.

- With sin thus localized in Israel, it is then focussed onto the one faithful Israelite - Jesus;

- Sin has essentially been "tricked" or "lured" onto Jesus, enabling God to condemn sin, not Jesus (see Romans 8), on the cross.

- The Law has completed its mission as "flypaper for sin" and can now be retired.

If I said to you: ''If you think of a pink elephant God will condemn you to hell'' What is the first thought that would come into your head if you believed me? You would be desperate not to think of such a creature, it would petrify you. Why? Because you would have to believe a law of God existed that stated that. It wouldn't be long, before morning, noon and night you would be consumed by thoughts of the creature, no matter how much you wanted to avoid such thoughts. That is basic human nature. However, as you know no such law of God exists, with such a penalty for transgression you will not even think of such a silly creature will you.
Imagine someone who is in earnest about their religion. They are not half hearted about it, they are full of zeal for it. They have dedicated their life to it. The Ten Commandments is the pinnacle of the law, it has to be obeyed or you are condemned. So if they do not obey for example: Thou shalt not covet they are condemned to hell, the letter is everything. What will happen:
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.
Rom7:7&8

Yeshua HaDerekh said:

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT WITHIN THE ENTIRE CONTEXT OF THE PASSAGE...

Click to expand...

Not an answer! I asked you a clear question. You can invoke the context if you want. Again:

Please explain the followings words of Paul - don't tell me about other stuff - explain exactly what you think Paul is saying here:

or while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.

Unsubscribed, no point discussing things with a wall.

expos4ever said:

I carefully read this post. I find nothing here that I believe I have not already addressed. Again, for others who may be reading: If Jesus is only concerned specifically with the addition of man-made traditions to Levtical food laws, why is He challenging the very premise of the Levitical food laws, which is that foods that go into the man defile him?

And what is your interpretation of this text (if you have already addressed this, please point me to the particular post):

But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. For the upteenth time he addressed the rabbinical tradition - not the written law - that addressed washing of hands. The Levitical law never addressed washing one's hands before eating. The Levitical food law does address clean/unclean food - which is not addressed in the passage. You have eisegeted the passage instead of exegeting it.

Why do you presume the law no longer exists? This verse certainly does not say so. If you are in jail and are released from it, do you believe that the jail no longer exists? Of course not, so in the same way believers are released from the law but the law still exists. As it states, we were formerly bound to the law but we died to it when we came to faith in Christ so that we no longer bound to serve the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. For example, we not only refrain from committing adultery when engage in the physical act but as believers we exceed the law when we refrain from committing adultery with our eyes. The indwelling Spirit enables us to die to the letter of the law but not committing adultery with our flesh and He also enables us to live in the newness of the Spirit by not committing adultery with our eyes.

expos4ever said:

This has already been addressed in detail by me, if not by others. You, conveniently, do not continue on into Romans 8. Interested readers, please see post 51 for the details.

But I offer the following as a complementary argument to post 51. Here the end of Romans 7 and the beginning of Romans 8:

Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from [r]the body of this death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life [a]in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.....

Note the "wretched man I, yes, am". Present tense. You are arguing that from the use of the present tense in verse 25 ("I myself with my mind am serving the law of God"), we can infer the Law of Moses is still in force. Well, there is a problem with this. Is Paul still "wretched" at the end? Of course not! He has been set free from his wretched state. So here is the clincher: Even though Paul uses the present tense in declaring he is wretched, he does not want us to think he is still wretched. Likewise, we cannot assume that because he "serves the Law of God" - present tense - that he is still doing so by the time we get to Romans 8.

The use of the present tense is arguably confusing, but the overall logic of the passage places the Romans 7 stuff in the past.

Click to expand...

Incorrect again. The believer's state of "wretchedness" is determined by v.25 which you have quoted but ironically fail to understand. In this verse, Paul states that he has the choice whether to serve the law with his mind (which he should do) OR serve the law of sin with his flesh (which he should not do). Guess which choice would cause him to live in wretchedness??

That is why the very next verse in Rom 8:1 states "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh [present tense], but according to the Spirit [present tense]." All believers have the choice whether to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit. If one habitually chooses to live according to the flesh, the result is wretchedness or more precisely, spiritual death as spelled out in Rom 8:13.

Oldmantook said:

Incorrect. For the upteenth time he addressed the rabbinical tradition - not the written law - that addressed washing of hands. The Levitical law never addressed washing one's hands before eating. The Levitical food law does address clean/unclean food - which is not addressed in the passage. You have eisegeted the passage instead of exegeting it.

Click to expand...

I have already fully addressed this. There is no point to repeat what has already been written - readers will just have to evaluate the relative merits of both of our arguments.

Oldmantook said:

Why do you presume the law no longer exists? This verse certainly does not say so. If you are in jail and are released from it, do you believe that the jail no longer exists?

Click to expand...

I don't believe I ever said the law no longer exists. I am only repeating Paul - the Jew has been "released" from the Law and no longer serves it. Instead, all Christians - Jew or Gentile - now look to the Holy Spirit, not the Law.

And in case you are making this argument:

- adultery is sin;
- adultery is against the Law of Moses;
- therefore, unless you believe the Law of Moses is still in force, you have to deny that adultery is sin.

....it is not a valid argument for the obvious reason that the Spirit tells us that adultery is sin.

Oldmantook said:

Incorrect again. The believer's state of "wretchedness" is determined by v.25 which you have quoted but ironically fail to understand. In this verse, Paul states that he has the choice whether to serve the law with his mind (which he should do) OR serve the law of sin with his flesh (which he should not do). Guess which choice would cause him to live in wretchedness??

That is why the very next verse in Rom 8:1 states "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh [present tense], but according to the Spirit [present tense]." All believers have the choice whether to live according to the flesh or according to the Spirit. If one habitually chooses to live according to the flesh, the result is wretchedness or more precisely, spiritual death as spelled out in Rom 8:13.

Click to expand...

Nothing to add to what I wrote - let the reader evaluate our respective positions.

expos4ever said:

I have already fully addressed this. There is no point to repeat what has already been written - readers will just have to evaluate the relative merits of both of our arguments.


I don't believe I ever said the law no longer exists. I am only repeating Paul - the Jew has been "released" from the Law and no longer serves it. Instead, all Christians - Jew or Gentile - now look to the Holy Spirit, not the Law.

And in case you are making this argument:

- adultery is sin;
- adultery is against the Law of Moses;
- therefore, unless you believe the Law of Moses is still in force, you have to deny that adultery is sin.

....it is not a valid argument for the obvious reason that the Spirit tells us that adultery is sin.

Click to expand...

Of course I believe the Mosaic law is still in force. Have you not understood my argument all along? You should read more carefully. In obeying the law, we exceed it by also living according to the Spirit of the law. It is both - not one or the other. Comprende??

expos4ever said:

Nothing to add to what I wrote - let the reader evaluate our respective positions.

Click to expand...

Indeed. The one thing I agree with you.

Here is a text from Ephesians 2:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

What is this Law of Commandments? I suggest it is obvious that it is the Law of Moses precisely because the Law of Moses was exclusive to the people of Israel. And abolishing it would remove the very thing that separates Jews from Gentiles.

And what else could it possibly be? If not the Law of Moses, what?

Man-made additions to the Law? Well, if that is so, prithee explain how man-made additions separate Jew from Gentile. As much as I suspect you will try to dodge this question, it must be addressed since Paul so clearly connects the abolition of this "Law of commandments" to the breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentile.

expos4ever said:

Here is a text from Ephesians 2:

Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called “Uncircumcision” by the so-called “Circumcision,” which is performed in the flesh by human hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

What is this Law of Commandments? I suggest it is obvious that it is the Law of Moses precisely because the Law of Moses was exclusive to the people of Israel. And abolishing it would remove the very thing that separates Jews from Gentiles.

And what else could it possibly be? If not the Law of Moses, what?

Man-made additions to the Law? Well, if that is so, prithee explain how man-mKO ade additions separate Jew from Gentile. As much as I suspect you will try to dodge this question, it must be addressed since Paul so clearly connects the abolition of this "Law of commandments" to the breaking down of the barrier between Jew and Gentile.

Click to expand...

Do you ever read my replies or Scripture for that matter? I suggest you start comprehending as this is a colossal waste of time. He do you reconcile your false view with Jesus' own words that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Thus Eph 2 must be interpreted in light of what Jesus stated about the law rather than the other way around. You have the poor habit if eisegeting the scriptures instead of exegeting them. Pray tell how do you reconcile Eph 2 with Jesus' own statement regarding the existence of the law. Shall I wait for your answer or do you have no answer as usual? If you admit that you have no answer, then I'll answer since you can't come up with one.

Oldmantook said:

He do you reconcile your false view with Jesus' own words that he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.

Click to expand...

Because, of course, fulfillment can entail abolition. If I fulfill the requirements for admission to Harvard, do I continue my efforts to gain admission? Of course not - the application process comes to an end.

Since you have just been handed your hat on this matter, I suggest you consider backing down on the snark - it only makes you look worse when you are shown to be in the wrong (as in this particular instance).

b

expos4ever said:

Because, of course, fulfillment can entail abolition. If I fulfill the requirements for admission to Harvard, do I continue my efforts to gain admission? Of course not - the application process comes to an end.

Since you have just been handed your hat on this matter, I suggest you consider backing down on the snark - it only makes you look worse when you are shown to be in the wrong (as in this particular instance).

Click to expand...

What a ludicrous example. Yes you fulfill the REQUIREMENTS for admission but the REQUIREMENTS still exist - they don't vanish just because you happened to apply. How ridiculous which demonstrates the fallacy of your argument. Care to take another shot at it??