Fallacy of the excluded middle?

shnarkle

Well-known member
Some professing Christians have noted that during the 'end times', only those who take the mark of the beast can engage in commerce e.g. "buying and selling". They will then proceed to point out that we're living in the end times, but for some unknown reason they don't seem to notice that they're continuing to buy and sell.

Moreover, they don't seem to know the mark God's elect receive which precludes them from engaging in this Satanic commercial system. Here it is:

“And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. “ Ezekiel 9:4

The irony of ironies is seen in the fact that there is no exhaustive list of abominations to be found anywhere in the New Testament. When God makes his New Covenant, he places His laws within the new creation which precludes them from committing any of these abominations. They cannot sin because God explicitly points out that this is why he places His law within their hearts. (Jeremiah 31:31-34;Ezekiel 11:19;36:25-27; Hebrews 8:9,10)

That list can only be found in the Old Testament which Christians claim is no longer relevant. They're more interested in the mark of the beast and seem hell bent on taking it as well, most notably God's prohibition against engaging in dishonest or inequitable commercial activities which is exactly what the global elite have been using for quite some time.

The Federal Reserve openly admits on their website that they're engaging in legalized fraud by writing a check on an empty bank account, and then turning right around and collecting interest on that very same loan.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Some professing Christians have noted that during the 'end times', only those who take the mark of the beast can engage in commerce e.g. "buying and selling". They will then proceed to point out that we're living in the end times, but for some unknown reason they don't seem to notice that they're continuing to buy and sell.

Moreover, they don't seem to know the mark God's elect receive which precludes them from engaging in this Satanic commercial system. Here it is:

“And the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. “ Ezekiel 9:4

The irony of ironies is seen in the fact that there is no exhaustive list of abominations to be found anywhere in the New Testament. When God makes his New Covenant, he places His laws within the new creation which precludes them from committing any of these abominations. They cannot sin because God explicitly points out that this is why he places His law within their hearts. (Jeremiah 31:31-34;Ezekiel 11:19;36:25-27; Hebrews 8:9,10)

That list can only be found in the Old Testament which Christians claim is no longer relevant. They're more interested in the mark of the beast and seem hell bent on taking it as well, most notably God's prohibition against engaging in dishonest or inequitable commercial activities which is exactly what the global elite have been using for quite some time.

The Federal Reserve openly admits on their website that they're engaging in legalized fraud by writing a check on an empty bank account, and then turning right around and collecting interest on that very same loan.
That's a good point. In thousands of debates I've had virtually (online) with atheists I don't recall that ever having been mentioned. First of all you have to recognize something that believers and unbelievers alike seem to generally miss, which is that the "end times" began upon the founding of the world (Greek katabole; a casting or throwing down of seed, which, perhaps somewhat ironically is the exact same definition of the so-called F-bomb. 1 Peter 1:20; Hebrews 11:11)

So, just because something hasn't yet happened doesn't mean that it won't happen in the end times because it started thousands of years ago and continues until its conclusion.

I don't think any Christian would claim the "Old Testament" is no longer relevant. The Law of Moses is no longer in effect but it and the remainder of the Hebrew scriptures are most certainly relevant.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
That's a good point. In thousands of debates I've had virtually (online) with atheists I don't recall that ever having been mentioned. First of all you have to recognize something that believers and unbelievers alike seem to generally miss, which is that the "end times" began upon the founding of the world (Greek katabole; a casting or throwing down of seed, which, perhaps somewhat ironically is the exact same definition of the so-called F-bomb. 1 Peter 1:20; Hebrews 11:11)
Casting or throwing down doesn't fit with the founding of the world, but the casting down or overthrow of the foundations of the world. When we read that the earth was "tohu va bohu", i.e. "void and formless" one has to wonder how or why people would associate that with the earth, whereas "became" is right in line with the overthrow of the earth.
So, just because something hasn't yet happened doesn't mean that it won't happen in the end times because it started thousands of years ago and continues until its conclusion.
The bible distinguishes between the progression to the end as well as the end itself.
I don't think any Christian would claim the "Old Testament" is no longer relevant.
I run into them all the time.
The Law of Moses is no longer in effect
What do you mean by this? Here again, you can ask a dozen Christians what they mean by this, and get a dozen or more completely different answers.
but it and the remainder of the Hebrew scriptures are most certainly relevant.
Not sure how a document that has no effect is going to be relevant.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Casting or throwing down doesn't fit with the founding of the world, but the casting down or overthrow of the foundations of the world.

Uh - well, hmm. I'm not really sure exactly what you mean there. Not being conversant with various doctrines I have to sometimes try and guess where a concept may or may not have scriptural relevance. A doctrinal proposition can be interpreted as such incorrectly, of course as can my own interpretation. I don't know if that makes any sense to you. It's sort of like something being lost (or gained) in translation.

Katabole has to do with conception. The world was founded upon the blood of Abel. The conception of Cain marked the beginning of the world, not the creation of the Earth. So, God formed a plan regarding salvation immediately after the fall of Adam. That probably doesn't make any sense to you just as what you said doesn't make any sense to me. I can explain but you may not be interested.

God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential.

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day. So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty.

This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured in able to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.

So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.

But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.

So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.

1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.

One final point of consideration regarding mankind. From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. You may recall that sacred means belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession. Sacred life. A sort of gesture of justice. Soul (blood, life) for soul.

Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.

When we read that the earth was "tohu va bohu", i.e. "void and formless" one has to wonder how or why people would associate that with the earth, whereas "became" is right in line with the overthrow of the earth.

I'm sorry. I just don't get what you are saying. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "became" and overthrow of the earth?

The bible distinguishes between the progression to the end as well as the end itself.

Okay. In what way?

What do you mean by this? Here again, you can ask a dozen Christians what they mean by this, and get a dozen or more completely different answers.

Paul referred to the law as a tutor to Christ, a more perfect law. The law introduced the concept of sin, explained it, thus preparing those awaiting the Messiah. Paul said he wouldn't know sin if not for the Law. In this way Christ fulfilled the law. It was no longer applicable to Christians because they now had the more perfect solution. It isn't that it is irrelevant, because it still instructs but as an example.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Not sure how a document that has no effect is going to be relevant.

Historical. Christ demonstrated what we were meant to be. (Galatians 3:19-24; Romans 3:20; 10:4; Hebrews 9:23; 10:1)
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Uh - well, hmm. I'm not really sure exactly what you mean there. Not being conversant with various doctrines I have to sometimes try and guess where a concept may or may not have scriptural relevance.

I'm sorry. I just don't get what you are saying. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "became" and overthrow of the earth?
I'm not referring to any doctrines, but to the text itself which most translations present something along these lines: "And the earth was void and formless" Sorry, but the earth is not void and formless. That's not the definition or description of the earth. The use of "was" makes no sense, but to say that the earth "became" void and formless at the "Katobole" or overthrow of the "the world that then was" (2 Pet.3:5,6) fits perfectly.

The Noun, katabole, occurs in Matt. 13:35; 25:34. Luke 11:50. John 17:24. Eph. 1:4. Heb. 4:3; 9:26; 11:11. 1Pet. 1:20. Rev. 13:8; 17:8; and the corresponding Verb (kataballo) occurs in 2Cor. 4:9. Heb. 6:1; and Rev. 12:10. A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Cor. 4:9, and Rev. 12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.

Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Heb. 6:1, where, instead of "not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation already laid, of repentance, &c., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left -- and progress made unto the perfection. Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption", or "ruin".

The remarkable thing is that in all occurrences (except Heb. 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Gr. kosmos), and therefore the expression should be rendered "the disruption (or ruin) of the world", clearly referring to the condition indicated in Gen. 1:2, and described in 2Pet. 3:5, 6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isa. 45:18), but became so, as stated in the Hebrew of Gen 1:2 and confirmed by 2Pet. 3:6, where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Gen. 1:1), perished, and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word "were created (Gen. 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2Pet. 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2Pet. 3:13.

"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the ages. In Gen. 1:1 we have the founding of the world (Heb. 1:10 = themeliou), but in Gen. 1:2 we have its overthrow.

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Gen. 1:2, that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste and desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Pet. 3:7).


Okay. In what way?
Let me give you an example from Matthew's gospel. In Mt. 24:3 we read: "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Here the word translated as "end" is sunteleia" which refers to the meeting together of all that marks the consummation of the age and is distinguished from "telos" which is the actual end as in vss. 6,12, 13.
Paul referred to the law as a tutor to Christ, a more perfect law.
I don't mean to be snide or anything, but the law was not a tutor to Christ. Moreover, the law you're referring to is "the law that was added because of transgressions" and should never be conflated with the laws that were meant to be kept or observed.
The law introduced the concept of sin, explained it, thus preparing those awaiting the Messiah. Paul said he wouldn't know sin if not for the Law. In this way Christ fulfilled the law. It was no longer applicable to Christians because they now had the more perfect solution. It isn't that it is irrelevant, because it still instructs but as an example.

Do you see where I'm coming from?
Yes, and I also see that you're conflating the law that was to be observed and kept with the law that was instituted to deal with transgressions of that law meant to be kept. Moses gathers the people and sets before them blessings for those who keep the law and curses for those who disregard or disobey the law. The curse or penalty of the law is "the handwriting or ordinances that were against us", and should never be conflated with those laws that are for our benefit, e.g. " The Sabbath was made FOR man...etc."

Here's the proof: "Take this Book of the Law, and put it beside the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there as a witness against you;" Deuteronomy 31:26

Carefully note that the law that was placed INSIDE the Ark of the Covenant on TABLES of STONE was FOR our BENEFIT while the scroll or BOOK was placed BESIDE the Ark and as a witness AGAINST us.

When someone transgressed God's law, this book was retrieved and consulted to see what was to be done to rectify the situation. Under the New Covenant, this is no longer required due to the fact that the new creation no longer sins thus no sacrifice is necessary. Sacrifice has become redundant. The author of Hebrews confirms this when he points out that there are only those redeemed under the first testament (Heb. 9:15). He goes on to point out that "there remains no more sacrifice for sin"(Heb. 10:26). There can only be two options: 1. those who do sin have no recourse to Christ's sacrifice, or 2. the sacrificial system has become redundant because the new creation was not created to sin, but to fulfill all righteousness.
Historical. Christ demonstrated what we were meant to be. (Galatians 3:19-24; Romans 3:20; 10:4; Hebrews 9:23; 10:1)
Still not following, but I suspect this is because of the problem most Christians have with conflating the commandments that are for our benefit with those laws that were added to deal with transgressions of those laws meant to be kept.

The other issue is of course that of the covenants which most Christians claim they are not under the first testament or covenant, but the first testament is explicitly for those who sin while the second is one where Christ reigns over the righteous, sinless new creation. see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 11:19; 36:25-27; Hebrews 8:9,10 as well as Luke's claim that the oracles of God which were given to the children of Israel and which they failed to keep were then given to the New Testament church. "This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:" Acts 7:38

God has only one standard by which he will judge the living and the dead, and there is no getting around the fact that only the "doers of the law shall be justified" Romans 2:15

The fact that they're not justified by the law, but by the faith of Christ according to God's promise and sovereign will only spotlights the fact that they cannot sin.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
I'm not referring to any doctrines, but to the text itself which most translations present something along these lines: "And the earth was void and formless" Sorry, but the earth is not void and formless. That's not the definition or description of the earth. The use of "was" makes no sense, but to say that the earth "became" void and formless at the "Katobole" or overthrow of the "the world that then was" (2 Pet.3:5,6) fits perfectly.

Two problems as I see it. First you are misinterpreting katabole as meaning overthrowing when it means planting or conceiving. The earth was void and formless because there was no productive land. It was a water planet. But that hasn't anything to do with the world. The world came about much later, when Adam and Eve conceived their firstborn.

The Noun, katabole, occurs in Matt. 13:35; 25:34. Luke 11:50. John 17:24. Eph. 1:4. Heb. 4:3; 9:26; 11:11. 1Pet. 1:20. Rev. 13:8; 17:8; and the corresponding Verb (kataballo) occurs in 2Cor. 4:9. Heb. 6:1; and Rev. 12:10. A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Cor. 4:9, and Rev. 12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.

Laying down, casting down, throwing down as in seed. Planting, not harvesting; beginning, not ending; throwing, not overthrowing.

Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Heb. 6:1, where, instead of "not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation already laid, of repentance, &c., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left -- and progress made unto the perfection. Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption", or "ruin".

That isn't how I see it. The foundation already laid was not to be repeated. Don't reinvent the wheel.

The remarkable thing is that in all occurrences (except Heb. 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Gr. kosmos), and therefore the expression should be rendered "the disruption (or ruin) of the world", clearly referring to the condition indicated in Gen. 1:2, and described in 2Pet. 3:5, 6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isa. 45:18), but became so, as stated in the Hebrew of Gen 1:2 and confirmed by 2Pet. 3:6, where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Gen. 1:1), perished, and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word "were created (Gen. 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2Pet. 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2Pet. 3:13.

"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the ages. In Gen. 1:1 we have the founding of the world (Heb. 1:10 = themeliou), but in Gen. 1:2 we have its overthrow.

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Gen. 1:2, that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste and desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Pet. 3:7).

Wow. That's way out there in all directions. To me it's almost like you are speaking another language. That isn't to say that it's a fault of anyone, it just isn't easy for me to easily comprehend. You've obviously put some thought into this and I would have to have more time on my hands than I do to wrap my brain around it. Instead, at least for now, what does the one exception (Heb. 11:11) have to do with it? How does it fit with whatever it is you are saying. Put simply, how do you reconcile the discrepancy?

Let me give you an example from Matthew's gospel. In Mt. 24:3 we read: "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Here the word translated as "end" is sunteleia" which refers to the meeting together of all that marks the consummation of the age and is distinguished from "telos" which is the actual end as in vss. 6,12, 13.

I don't mean to be snide or anything, but the law was not a tutor to Christ.

Not snide at all. I'm flexible so doing a comparison of translations of Galatians 3:24 I see the terms guardian, trainer, schoolmaster, tutor, guide, teacher, pedagogue, disciplinarian used. Are any of those preferable to you?

Moreover, the law you're referring to is "the law that was added because of transgressions" and should never be conflated with the laws that were meant to be kept or observed.

What was the transgression?

Yes, and I also see that you're conflating the law that was to be observed and kept with the law that was instituted to deal with transgressions of that law meant to be kept. Moses gathers the people and sets before them blessings for those who keep the law and curses for those who disregard or disobey the law. The curse or penalty of the law is "the handwriting or ordinances that were against us", and should never be conflated with those laws that are for our benefit, e.g. " The Sabbath was made FOR man...etc."

Do you mean that there is a difference between not observing the Sabbath and not committing murder or adultery? Because I think that's absolutely right. But only the Jews who were read and accepted the law of Moses was under it, or accountable to in that specific way. Not the nations around them. All have inherited sin, but only the Jews were selected to be instructed in that regard. But the sacrifices they performed to rectify those sins were temporary. The Jews rejected the messiah so the arrangement of salvation was transferred to the gentile, as well as the formerly practicing Jew in the Christian congregation. So, what sacrifice does the Christian have? A permanent one. A gentile or non practicing Jew becoming a Christian is forgiven, not through temporary sacrifices repeatedly, but the more perfect and permanent sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I see the terms guardian, trainer, schoolmaster, tutor, guide, teacher, pedagogue, disciplinarian used. Are any of those preferable to you?
None of these indicate the idea of instruction. The Greek doesn't indicate instruction either. The schoolmaster simply makes sure the lessons are learned.

Under the Old Covenant, God called the children of Israel to stand before him that he may 'prove them', but they insisted that whatever God willed, they would do. That deal proved to be a cosmic failure. The new deal doesn't work that way, and those Christians who claim that nobody is perfect because we can only do our best are living under the parameters of the Old Testament. Under the New Testament, it is not by "will or effort" Romans 9:16, but according to God's promise through the faith OF Christ by the power of his holy spirit.

The sacrificial system was put in place to motivate the children of Israel to refrain from sin. Nobody wants to take their prized lamb and sacrifice it if they can help it. When Christ sacrifices himself, no one who comprehends the consequences of Christ sacrifice can ever sin again.

Moreover, Christ is life itself. One of the best analogies I've ever heard was of ranches out in Australia that are well over 2500 acres and to fence them would be prohibitively expensive so they sink a well in the center which precludes the cattle from wandering far enough to make it to the property line before they die of thirst. The well is Christ, the property line is the sacrificial system which requires one to transgress the law which is death.

So the property line doesn't prevent them from crossing into death, but the living water that no child of God can ever stray far enough from to sin.
What was the transgression?
Transgressions. it's in the plural to indicate any and all transgressions that could occur. I explained this already.
Do you mean that there is a difference between not observing the Sabbath
We need to compare apples with apples. The commandment is to KEEP the Sabbath whereas the "law that was added because of transgressions" deals with those who TRANSGRESS the Sabbath.
only the Jews who were read and accepted the law of Moses was under it, or accountable to in that specific way. Not the nations around them.
Correct which is why Christians routinely condone adultery as defined by Christ himself.
All have inherited sin, but only the Jews were selected to be instructed in that regard.
And they were to be a shining light on a hill to draw the rest of the world to the righteousness of God's will found in his law.
But the sacrifices they performed to rectify those sins were temporary.
Correct, and they should never be conflated with God's commandments which were meant to be kept and are kept under the New Covenant.
The Jews rejected the messiah so the arrangement of salvation was transferred to the gentile,
They were having trouble keeping God's commandments as well which is also rectified in the New Covenant. I provided you with those proof texts as well.
as well as the formerly practicing Jew in the Christian congregation. So, what sacrifice does the Christian have? A permanent one. A gentile or non practicing Jew becoming a Christian is forgiven, not through temporary sacrifices repeatedly, but the more perfect and permanent sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
Correct, but Christ's sacrifice also conforms the new creation into the image of Christ in whom there is no sin. Christ's sacrifice doesn't just do away with the sacrificial system, it does away with sin itself. No sin = no need for further sacrifice. Again, I provided the texts for your edification.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
None of these indicate the idea of instruction. The Greek doesn't indicate instruction either. The schoolmaster simply makes sure the lessons are learned.

Okay. A very subtle distinction, but would you agree with trainer instead of tutor and the others mentioned? If not, what exactly is your estimation of what the Greek does say?

Under the Old Covenant, God called the children of Israel to stand before him that he may 'prove them', but they insisted that whatever God willed, they would do.

So that I can have a fuller understanding of your proposition could you supply scriptural references for this?

That deal proved to be a cosmic failure. The new deal doesn't work that way, and those Christians who claim that nobody is perfect because we can only do our best are living under the parameters of the Old Testament. Under the New Testament, it is not by "will or effort" Romans 9:16, but according to God's promise through the faith OF Christ by the power of his holy spirit.

Ah! I think I'm beginning to understand at least where you are coming from. What are your thoughts on Romans 6:7; 7:6?

The sacrificial system was put in place to motivate the children of Israel to refrain from sin.

As I mentioned that isn't entirely in line with how I have come to understand it, though I wouldn't entirely disagree. Sin means literally to miss the mark set by someone. Showing up for work a half hour late is a sin against your employer. Adam eating of the fruit was a sin against his creator, Jehovah God. But there is also what I call inherited sin. I use the analogy of a child who's father has been put in prison for something and though the child isn't directly being punished for his father's crime he/she experiences the result of it nevertheless. The circumstance changes the child's environment.

Nobody wants to take their prized lamb and sacrifice it if they can help it. When Christ sacrifices himself, no one who comprehends the consequences of Christ sacrifice can ever sin again.

But what about inherited sin given the scriptures I mentioned above in Romans 6 and 7? Also, could you define what you understand to be sin, please?

Moreover, Christ is life itself. One of the best analogies I've ever heard was of ranches out in Australia that are well over 2500 acres and to fence them would be prohibitively expensive so they sink a well in the center which precludes the cattle from wandering far enough to make it to the property line before they die of thirst. The well is Christ, the property line is the sacrificial system which requires one to transgress the law which is death. So the property line doesn't prevent them from crossing into death, but the living water that no child of God can ever stray far enough from to sin.

That's a very good analogy.

Transgressions. it's in the plural to indicate any and all transgressions that could occur. I explained this already.

We need to compare apples with apples. The commandment is to KEEP the Sabbath whereas the "law that was added because of transgressions" deals with those who TRANSGRESS the Sabbath.

Interesting. What are your thoughts on God's 7th day, the 7th day of creation, as it continues to this day, like for example, Genesis 2:2; Psalm 95:11, Hebrews 4:1-5? Do you see it that way? Also, what about circumcision? Newborn males were circumcised by the Aaronic priests on the 8th day following birth even if it fell upon a sabbath, correct ? (John 7:22-23)

Correct which is why Christians routinely condone adultery as defined by Christ himself.

They do?! I've not witnessed this. Specifically how do they condone adultery?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Okay. A very subtle distinction,
This is no subtle distinction at all. The commandments are meant to be kept. God says to "KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS", and then when they do NOT keep them, there is "the law that was added because of transgressions" of the law that was supposed to be kept. The distinction is between KEEPING the law, and TRANSGRESSING the law. There is nothing subtle about it.
but would you agree with trainer instead of tutor and the others mentioned? If not, what exactly is your estimation of what the Greek does say?
Here's what Thayer's Greek lexicon has to say on the subject:

παιδαγωγός, παιδαγωγου, ὁ (from παῖς, and ἀγωγός a leader, escort), from Herodotus 8, 75 down; a tutor (Latinpaedagogus) i. e. a guide and guardian of boys. Among the Greeks and Romans the name was applied to trustworthy slaves who were charged with the duty of supervising the life and morals of boys belonging to the better class. The boys were not allowed so much as to step out of the house without them before arriving at the age of manhood; cf. Fischer under the word in index 1 to Aeschines dial. Socrates; Hermann, Griech. Privatalterthümer, § 34, 15ff; (Smith, Dict. of Greek and Rom. Antiq. under the word; Becker, Charicles (English translation, 4th edition), p. 226f). They are distinguished from οἱ διδάσκαλοι: Xenophon, de rep. Lac. 3, 2; Plato, Lysias, p. 208 c.; (Diogenes Laërtius 3, 92. The name carries with it an idea of severity (as of a stern censor and enforcer of morals)


Here's what Vine's Exposition usefully observes as well:

"schoolmaster" (RV, "tutor,"), but here the idea of instruction is absent. "In this and allied words the idea is that of training, discipline, not of impartation of knowledge. The paidagogos was not the instructor of the child; he exercised a general supervision over him and was responsible for his moral and physical well-being. Thus understood, paidagogos is appropriately used with 'kept in ward' and 'shut up,' whereas to understand it as equivalent to 'teacher' introduces an idea entirely foreign to the passage, and throws the Apostle's argument into confusion." * [* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 163,164] Cp. epitropos, "a steward, guardian, tutor."

Have you ever heard someone say, "I'm going to teach them a lesson." ? When someone sins or transgresses God's law (sin is defined as transgressing the law), the "law that was added because of transgressions" is retrieved from "BESIDE"(Deuteronomy 31:26) the Ark of the Covenant to see what "penalty" or "curse" is prescribed. Depending on the transgression there could be a number of sacrificial offerings required as well as restitution.

This was a "witness against us" (Deuteronomy 31:26; Col.2;14), and what was supposed to prevent or at least reduce the incidence of transgressions. It was supposed to motivate them to live a sinless life. It didn't, but instead it pointed to Christ's sacrifice which ushers in the New Covenant which is NOT based upon one's ability to keep the law, but upon God's sovereign will and promise which cannot come back to him void. Again, I provided you with references from Jeremiah and Ezekiel proving this fact.
So that I can have a fuller understanding of your proposition could you supply scriptural references for this?
“And Moses said unto the people, Fear not: for God is come to PROVE you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not.” Exodus 20:20

Notice an existential fact of reality, i.e. When God is before your face, you CANNOT SIN! Write that down before you forget it! One cannot have God much closer than when his spirit comes to indwell with the God begotten new creation child of God.

The children of Israel balked. They "stood afar off" and insisted that Moses represent them and offer an amendment to God's covenant, i.e. whatever God requires, we will gladly do. Note it is what THEY WILL do, i.e. according to "their will and effort" Romans 9:16 This was and continues to be a recipe for disaster.
Ah! I think I'm beginning to understand at least where you are coming from. What are your thoughts on Romans 6:7;
The dead CANNOT SIN.
" ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God."

This fruit denotes a systemic process within God.

"5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death."

Notice the past tense??? The only fruit that brings death is sin.

"6 But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter."

Again, note that the present tense indicates a new way of serving, one which doesn't entail sin at all.

"7 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."

Now that one is no longer under the penalty of the law, they are not free to covet, but free from covetousness. The liberty one has in Christ is not the liberty to choose to sin, but the liberty from sin.
As I mentioned that isn't entirely in line with how I have come to understand it
Why do you think that's the case? What are you referring to specifically?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
, though I wouldn't entirely disagree. Sin means literally to miss the mark set by someone. Showing up for work a half hour late is a sin against your employer. Adam eating of the fruit was a sin against his creator, Jehovah God.
It was a sin against God's image as well. Adam denied God's image. The Mosaic law (this is the law that Christ came to fulfill) distinguishes between missing the mark intentionally as well as unintentionally. Both are defined as sin, but only unintentional sins can be remedied by sacrifice. The remedy for intentional sin was never sacrifice but instead "teshuva" or repentance and restitution. It is no coincidence that this is what Christ begins his gospel with. There is one exception in Numbers 5, or 6.
But there is also what I call inherited sin. I use the analogy of a child who's father has been put in prison for something and though the child isn't directly being punished for his father's crime he/she experiences the result of it nevertheless. The circumstance changes the child's environment.
Perhaps to make things clear for those following along, the sin Adam commits is one of denying God's image. He no longer views himself as created in the image of God, but instead believes that he is not like God at all and must know good and evil. He no longer identifies as God's image, but instead identifies himself as separate from God. This is the first recorded case of identity politics, and God humors Adam by pointing out that his separate identity will die along with the body.
But what about inherited sin given the scriptures I mentioned above in Romans 6 and 7?
What about it? Paul quite clearly points out that those who are no longer under the law are no longer slaves to sin. They've been liberated from sin, and therefore there is no further need for sacrifice which is explicitly stated to be the case under the New Testament. e.g. "there remains no more sacrifice for sin" Heb. 10:26
Also, could you define what you understand to be sin, please?
I'm not using it in any other way other than its commonly accepted biblical usage.
Interesting. What are your thoughts on God's 7th day, the 7th day of creation, as it continues to this day, like for example, Genesis 2:2; Psalm 95:11, Hebrews 4:1-5? Do you see it that way?
What are you referring to here? I'm familiar with those passages, but I don't know what you're trying to ask me here.
Also, what about circumcision? Newborn males were circumcised by the Aaronic priests on the 8th day following birth even if it fell upon a sabbath, correct ? (John 7:22-23)
Correct. What's your point?
They do?! I've not witnessed this. Specifically how do they condone adultery?
By marrying after they've been divorced. This is how Christ defines adultery. Contrary to the popular opinions of Christians, Christ does not have a problem with divorce. It's a sad fact of life that hard-hearted people make grievous mistakes by getting married. Hard-hearted people should never get married in the first place which is why those who do are granted by God's grace the option to divorce, but this is not to be used as an opportunity to get married again, and those who do get married again, are deemed by Christ to be adulterers. Christ goes so far as to point out that this is regardless of who seeks the divorce to begin with. Both parties must never marry ever again. Christ defines those who do as adulterers.

Regardless of one's religious denomination, there is no statistical variation between one denomination and another as well as between any and all denominations and the secular world. Christians are just as much adulterers as the rest of this fallen world except the rest of this fallen world didn't enter into any covenants with God, therefore they're outside the law while Christians are still under the curse of the law and Christ's own judgment.
 
Top