Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We have been talking about Romans 8. Let's take another look:
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit
So, basically we are not talking about a "sin offering" like what we would make to God as an "I'm sorry for what I did" but one in which Jesus shows that the Law was inadequate as a standard of relationship in commuinty because all it addresses is the physical or action when it is the animating spirit that needs to be considered?
So, basically we are not talking about a "sin offering" like what we would make to God as an "I'm sorry for what I did" but one in which Jesus shows that the Law was inadequate as a standard of relationship in commuinty because all it addresses is the physical or action when it is the animating spirit that needs to be considered?
No one suggested of was an apology. Nor was it done to show the laws was inadequate.
No one suggested of was an apology. Nor was it done to show the laws was inadequate.
An apology is what a sin offereing is normally about isn't it? and yes, Paul was not just suggesting that the laws or Law was inadequate: "For what the law was powerless to do....."
Why do you refuse to see the real issue when communicating with minds ill-prepared to understand complex concepts. It is not picking one and trashing the other . . . it is reinterpreting them in the light of more advanced knowledge. Envision being a medical doctor at some primitive outpost of humanity. You have in your possession the serums and knowledge of hygiene that the primitives need to stop the disastrous effects of a plague. You must somehow convince them to use the serum and follow your instructions about changing their hygiene habits to halt the spread of the disease. Short of providing them with 13 or more years of twenty-first century education, what can you do?
Obviously, your ministry must conform to their level of understanding and cultural mores. Absolution of "sins," and casting out "devils," are the techniques of ministry that might apply. Besides when you think about it, poor hygiene and "sinful behavior" are not that inconsistent. An invading bacteria or virus is not that different from an "inhabiting devil" in its unseen character and overall deleterious effect on the person so "inhabited." Telling their modern descendants that there are "no devils" just viruses and bacteria and no real "sins" just a need to stay clean . . . would not be trashing the earlier "milk."
The early apostles were basically primitives dealing with primitives. They could not use very exotic concepts. However, the apostles that were to follow were supposed to refine their knowledge and improve on the earlier primitive concepts as the knowledge of humankind advanced. In essence, they were to be the "spiritual doctors" helping to reduce the incidence of spiritual miscarriage and increase the number of spiritual rebirths. But . . . unlike our modern medical doctors, these spiritual doctors did not progress at all as a sign of faith in God. If our medical doctors had progressed at the same rate as the spiritual doctors, they would still be trying to "remove evil spirits," hanging garlic and wolfsbane to "protect against devils," and similar idiocy. A failure to understand this basic feature of Christian scripture is a prime cause of the ridiculous distortions we have today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No one suggested of was an apology. Nor was it done to show the laws was inadequate.
Yo . . . Finn!! Did you read my explanation? Do you now understand that it is not a matter of picking one verse and trashing another???? Do you see how the religious leaders failed by abdicating their responsibility to "study to show themselves approved" before leading others???
1) All the OT Scriptures bear witness to Christ. 2)His death fulfilled the sacrificial requirement 3) He lived His life without breaking the law 4)He fulfilled the promises made in OT
An apology is what a sin offereing is normally about isn't it? and yes, Paul was not just suggesting that the laws or Law was inadequate: "For what the law was powerless to do....."
It was not an apology, and I did not say the laws was not inadequate, I said Jesus was not offered as a sin offering to show the law was inadequate (which is what you suggested earlier).
Yo . . . Finn!! Did you read my explanation? Do you now understand that it is not a matter of picking one verse and trashing another???? Do you see how the religious leaders failed by abdicating their responsibility to "study to show themselves approved" before leading others???
You said the apostles were primitives dealing with primitives, which does nothing but further proves my point. You think you know better, fine, I have nothing more to add to it.
1) All the OT Scriptures bear witness to Christ.
2)His death fulfilled the sacrificial requirement
3) He lived His life without breaking the law
4)He fulfilled the promises made in OT
In a sense these four are all applicable.
I included the last one too (not completely fulfilled), because there are still prophesies regarding the second coming etc which have not yet been fulfilled.
It was not an apology, and I did not say the laws was not inadequate, I said Jesus was not offered as a sin offering to show the law was inadequate (which is what you suggested earlier).
I agree that it was not an apology, so Paul was not talking about a normal "sin offering."
So, what is the difference between showing that the Law was inadequate and because the Law WAS inadequate?
Why do you refuse to see the real issue when communicating with minds ill-prepared to understand complex concepts. It is not picking one and trashing the other . . . it is reinterpreting them in the light of more advanced knowledge. Envision being a medical doctor at some primitive outpost of humanity. You have in your possession the serums and knowledge of hygiene that the primitives need to stop the disastrous effects of a plague. You must somehow convince them to use the serum and follow your instructions about changing their hygiene habits to halt the spread of the disease. Short of providing them with 13 or more years of twenty-first century education, what can you do?
Obviously, your ministry must conform to their level of understanding and cultural mores. Absolution of "sins," and casting out "devils," are the techniques of ministry that might apply. Besides when you think about it, poor hygiene and "sinful behavior" are not that inconsistent. An invading bacteria or virus is not that different from an "inhabiting devil" in its unseen character and overall deleterious effect on the person so "inhabited." Telling their modern descendants that there are "no devils" just viruses and bacteria and no real "sins" just a need to stay clean . . . would not be trashing the earlier "milk."
The early apostles were basically primitives dealing with primitives. They could not use very exotic concepts. However, the apostles that were to follow were supposed to refine their knowledge and improve on the earlier primitive concepts as the knowledge of humankind advanced. In essence, they were to be the "spiritual doctors" helping to reduce the incidence of spiritual miscarriage and increase the number of spiritual rebirths. But . . . unlike our modern medical doctors, these spiritual doctors did not progress at all as a sign of faith in God. If our medical doctors had progressed at the same rate as the spiritual doctors, they would still be trying to "remove evil spirits," hanging garlic and wolfsbane to "protect against devils," and similar idiocy. A failure to understand this basic feature of Christian scripture is a prime cause of the ridiculous distortions we have today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Yo . . . Finn!! Did you read my explanation? Do you now understand that it is not a matter of picking one verse and trashing another???? Do you see how the religious leaders failed by abdicating their responsibility to "study to show themselves approved" before leading others???
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
You said the apostles were primitives dealing with primitives, which does nothing but further proves my point. You think you know better, fine, I have nothing more to add to it.
You denigrate 2000+ years of human knowledge and understanding as if there is no difference between what we know today and what they knew in the 1st century and earlier. No matter how you define primitive . . . they definitely were primitives . . . if for no other reason than some of their barbaric practices and beliefs. You keep saying I know better . . . but it is not ME . . . it is Christ. He set the precedent for NOT putting new wine in old wineskins. So, Finn . . . show me ONE thing that could be considered spiritual "solid food" that has changed from the carnal "milk" of the 1st century. There has been nothing but stagnation at that primitive and barbaric level of understanding as a sign of faith in God!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
