Very interesting views, but they create other dilemmas. I'm going to follow your logic throughout this reply.
No, they don't. What you think you know may be contradicted, but not with scripture,,not in the least. I've had the talk with much brighter people than both of us. It causes NO dilemmas, and it's the ONLY thing that makes sense, and I'm not the only one that has made the argument either, it's taught in Seminaries that study the book.
I guess you have a better idea than the seminary professors... but until I see your credentials I'm just considering this a regular joe type conversation.
I'm going to be honest, your talking down to me tone makes me want to give it back at you. And knowing you haven't spent one second seeing what a Historical Present is, makes 9/10s of this post useless. You can't comment on what you don't know exists.
, Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, says this in verse 4 - "Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to anotherto Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God".
We see Paul is speaking to the brethren at Rome, who he says have become dead to the law. We now have a subject, to which Paul includes himself.
Yes, the next verse says he is not in the flesh.
Do you suggest Paul didn't address the Hebrew people at all?
Do you contend that because it was rome, there were NO Jews there???/
It doesn't say they have become dead to the law. It says they were made to be dead to the law, so you MIGHT MIGHT MIGHT, blah blah blah. Paul shows where they are GOING, not proclaiming where they are.
He's writing to mostly Jewish Romans who had "adopted" some Gentiles into their faith, and taught them the Hebrew traditions that they kept. So, they could all be addressed as if they were Jews, but that doesn't change that Gentiles weren't under the law. So I do not know why you feel it relevant to name Paul as the Apostle to the Gentiles when this was a mostly hebrew tradition audience.
Al Gore would never say, 'the white man has done me wrong'. If he includes himself in the black man struggles, he is being deceptive, pulling the rug over their eyes.
GO read his speeches. No, he didn't say what you just said, but he said it as if he was black several times. That's just one of many examples in history. I am giving you real "types" of statements he made, not making it up. I'm improvising the words as I don't have any "can't forget anything I see" type skills.
CLICK HERE HIstorical present
And he sure wouldn't use 'I',
except HE DID. It's not a question. It's a fact. It happens EVERY CAMPAIGN SEASON, this isn't something that is open for discussion, until you do some research, nothing I can say will change your views, but you can see it in nearly every speech from a politician on the stump.
ANd just below he says "I was once alive apart from the law"... That's a lie. He never lived apart from the LAW. That was affecting his life before he was born, to be honest. So, Paul gives a direct and easily qualifiable use of "I" in a way you lean on to hold your position.
nor 'my' in his speech. Saying 'OUR struggles' is a lie if Al used these words; he never struggled as a black man. Now he might say I have empathy in YOUR struggles.
Sigh. make it up as you go. You didn't do any research on Historic Present Tense before you spoke, did you. That means this is all a waste of time.
Before the law was given, man was in sin, and not alive,
Really? Paul says the opposite, he says when the law came it brought death.
unless you believe everyone before the law was alive and all will be in heaven. The law was given to show man what he must do to obtain life.
This doesn't even make sense. Yo uare confusing two very different concepts into one statement. It's like saying tomatoes are a fruit and putting them in a fruit salad.
In any event, that's untrue. The law was given to show the tribes of Israel to be separate from the rest of the world. What do you think "HOLY PEOPLE" means.... a people set apart. The Gentiles NEVER lived under the law.
So, all the children of Israel and everyone else were alive before the law came? You have a lot of explaining to do with this, especially to those who lived during the flood, and the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah.
No I don't. False dilemma. I will apologize for you on your behalf. I'm sure it was unintentional.
People who lived during the flood were dead. That's a bit problematic. People in the swimming pool are DRY as well. People under the water are on fire, people standing in the street are flying, people posturing as wise are...... etc..
If every man was alive before the law, then all God had to do, was to not give the law. Every man would get to heaven without the law.
You've gotta justify your use of that "alive before the law". You may have got the wrong mushrooms on your pizza tonight....... OHHHHHHH it's a joke, just trying to lighten up the situation.
So what brought death to the Gentiles who didn't have the law? I have never lived under the law, am I alive without it?
false dilemma, it wasn't written to Gentiles. Find three scholars that claim it was written to exclusive Gentile audience.
James told us how sin is given birth, and nothing is said about the law.
Different author, different topic, different time, different people, irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Stick to what Paul said in these verses.
How was he alive part from the law, when all his life he lived under the law from the first breath UNTIL Christ came.
I don't think you are stupid nor wrong. I just don't see it the way you do.
You come on awfully presumptively and inconsiderately for someone with an open mind.
When you have dealt with He wasn't in the flesh, with he wasn't writing to Gentiles, that very few scholars make the argument he WAS speaking to Gentiles, and that there is such a thing as historical present AND that you understand it before you speak, get back to me.
