The Law

[Mountain_Climber]

I have more yet that I need to share with you, but I can't until you begin to shows signs that you grasp what I have been saying as regards sin entering the world per Romans 5:12 rather than being past as a genetic inheritance internally in man's genes. If Paul wanted you to believe that sin is literally resident in the human body he would have said at Romans 5:12 that sin entered man, but he didn't. He said very clearly that sin entered the world. And the body of a man does not constitute the world.

I have pleaded with you to see that by sin taking up a presence in the world it is in position to influence us. And sin began for us when we through not yet having wisdom fell to sin's temptations or influences in the world around us. The younger we are the more vulnerable to such temptations we are. And as everyone has to begin life as an infant that lacks in wisdom, obviously everyone will fall prey to sin before they are able to grow in wisdom. That in no way means it was necessary that God designed it to be that way, for if Adam never sinned so that sin never entered the world and from infancy we listened to God, then we would have grown in wisdom apart from sin. I mean surely that is even what you shoot for in raising and teaching your children and but for sin being in the world you could be successful with them. It would be a fool for a parent that allowed their children to first experience the ill effects of sin before teaching them about the dangers of sin. Yet sadly there are those very fools in this mentally messed up world.

The entire idea that sin itself literally takes up residence in a person so that it can even be passed by childbirth is ridiculous and unscriptural. But like with so many other false ideas men have made that idea seem scriptural. And as a result your base for understanding much of what Paul says is destroyed by that false doctrine.

I have been wanting to be able to get on to the most difficult verse in the Bible as regards whether or not Jesus had our sin in his flesh. Understanding that verse is critically dependent upon understanding that sin influences us externally. So then why would Paul say what he did at Romans 7:18 ? I explained previously in other posts that our bodies are but followers which form habits based upon what the spirit that operates in our minds permits our bodies to follow. And in the warning which Paul gives us at 1 Corinthians 15:33, that word, "morals" or "manners" as most Bibles tend to translate it is derived of the Greek primary verb, "etho", which means, "used as by habit or conventionality". And as conventionality would usually only be momentarily disrupted Romans 15:33 must be speaking about moral habits being corrupted. Moral habits would be things like good manners, though good manners doesn't fully sum it up to our present day minds. This is why the NWT chose to use the words, "useful habits", in keeping with the root verb, "etho". A wise decision on their part.

Why then does Paul say, "So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwells in me." Romans 7:17 ? Because sin has influenced him so that he is a slave to the habits he formed by the influence of sin. Whenever you are driven to do someone else's will it is as if that someone else lives in you. For many people their boss can at times be difficult to leave at work because they take him home in their head and the things he said and did or demanded of them are yet in them eating at them. So if they act grouchy because of it they can then say what I desire to act like is not what I act like, so it is no longer me but my boss who dwells in me. And that is the only view that fits totally with all of Paul's comments regarding the subject. And until you get your minds back from the mystic world you won't see these things on your own. I mean, for crying out loud, we even have a familiar expression which goes, "Don't let them get into your head." But as the tendency is to mystify everything we don't see that is what Paul is saying sin did.

The chances of you seeing things like this on your own are slim. God really has hidden his wisdom from the eyes of men so that it only can be discerned and learned spiritually. But in so doing only those who really desire it will find it while the rest will stop at the first things they learn and be content to gloat in how blessed they have deceived themselves that they are.

There is yet much else to share with you on yet other scriptures but I will wait a bit longer.

Compare my post 17, here: http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/testing-the-bible.145780/

 

[Ken Brown]

The idea that I was even referring to that particular added comment to my last post proves you have a comprehension problem. I stated that you had not retained memory of what I posted in previous posts, not the post you were responding to. I even provided you an example.

Well, then I guess you can't help it so I will do my best to ignore it but I will tell you when you use the same old logic again that I have already answered to and simply point you back to that answer. I am not going to allow you to run me in circles like you are teasing a dog with it's tail.



You have not shown anything which proves Paul is saying or ever said that God created Adam already “consigned/shut up/sold under sin by being created FLESH.” All you have presented is your own speculation as you read extra into certain things Paul did say.

I, on the other hand, showed you exactly where man was “consigned/shut up under sin” in both Paul's words and in the opening chapter of the book of Genesis. (Notice however that I struck the word sold from the quote of your comment. There is a subtle difference between being consigned or shut up under sin and being sold under sin the way Paul speaks of these things.)

Genesis 3:15-24 is where God “consigned/shut up under sin.” Paul was not ignorant. He knew God did not have to let Adam have children. So by letting Adam have children, God “consigned/shut up” all “under sin”.

[Here as follows we see very clearly when God judged man and thus cosigned mankind to be all shut up together under sin: Romans 5:18 "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Not only did God not create Adam to be consigned under sin as you claim, but God did not even make such a judgement until Adam sinned: "by the offence of one judgment came upon all men"

Further: Man could not have been created sinners at Adam's creation as you claim, because: Romans 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, ...."

It is quite obviously time for you to humbly reconsider your ideas and realize that you have not understood Paul as you claim.]



Genesis 3:6 is where Adam sold us under sin. Adam's actions sold us like slaves to his sin, and that was extremely selfish of him. That is what Paul has in mind at Romans 7:14.

At Romans 5:12 Paul points once again to that time of all being “sold under sin”, saying that it was the result of sin entering the world by one man's actions.



I forgive you for that non-sense on the basis that you have bought the lie that the tree in the garden was a test. But you also are making the mistake of thinking that Paul's words about that Old Law Covenant apply to anytime God says don't do something, which is a load of rubbish. 1Tim 1:9 “…. the law is not made for a righteous man.....” It does not say all law as you are making it out to be. Paul meant very specifically that Old Law Covenant.

Any loving Father warns his children not to do things which would hurt them. And he doesn't do so because he knows or believes they have sin in them. In the case of the tree God was giving his children a loving warning concerning the potential harm inexperience can cause.



I will look back in my writings and pull up one of my articles on that chapter and post it for you when I can get around to it. Hopefully then you will understand that chapter.



That also proves your theory false, for Jesus was prefigured by Adam before Adam sinned.

Why though was sinless Adam a figure of Jesus? Was it that God had intended from before creating Adam that Jesus would have to step into Adam's place as the one who holds the covenant of life for mankind?

Let's see what we can find with regard to the question, 'Did God plan for Jesus to take Adam's place even before he created Adam?'

From the get-go that would make God disingenuous in what he told Adam and Eve:

Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them<(Adam and Eve), and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Obviously it was intended that Adam and Eve would remain the joint head of the human family.

But when sin entered the picture and God's justice demanded Adam's and Eve's disobedience be punished by death:

Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Obviously God's grace chose Jesus to replace Adam at or after Adam's sin, but not before.

Shalom Mountain Climber, thank you for the responses. I have a busy day planned and I have to leave shortly, but I did what to verify something with you before I fully respond. So your answer to how Paul was thinking about how Adam is a figure of the One to come is that Adam was sinless and destined to rule mankind, and lost being a figure of the One to come when he sinned? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, thank you for the responses. I have a busy day planned and I have to leave shortly, but I did what to verify something with you before I fully respond. So your answer to how Paul was thinking about how Adam is a figure of the One to come is that Adam was sinless and destined to rule mankind, and lost being a figure of the One to come when he sinned? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

No, not quite.

My answer is that Adam was no figure for Jesus before sin entered and necessitated God's grace to step in with a remedy. And that is what the scriptures I presented prove.

It was only after Adam sinned that God's grace chose one to be like the Adam before he had sinned.
One to be like the Adam we lost to sin. And thus that perfect Adam who no longer exited became the figure of the one to come that would replace him.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

A very simple saying of wisdom attributed to Shakespeare, was, "Know thyself."

Those two small words are vitally important to us all.

I have a JW songbook and in it is a song which in part says, "healthy actions proceeded are by thought". The same is true of unhealthy actions.

Lust grows in us because somewhere along the line we have failed to dismiss an unhealthy thought which came to us usually due to the sin in the world putting the idea into our head in the first place. But if we never entertain that thought by keeping on thinking of it, then we are not tempted beyond what we can endure. Whereas if we have failed to dismiss that thought so as to keep thinking on it, the power of that sinful idea gradually grows stronger in us to the point we end up unable to resist it any longer and will even act upon it given the right circumstances. That is the essence of what James told us at James 1:12-16.

If we are honest with ourselves we must admit that we rarely do anything without a forethought. Lower animals do mostly by instinct which requires no forethought. But God did not design us like the lower animals, though we can corrupt our minds and hearts making ourselves like them. God gave us the ability to do by thought and decision. When we become corrupted so that we are having lustful thoughts it is because we failed to use that faculty to make decisions to dismiss ill thoughts which we have been influenced to have through association with others. It always begins with a thought for us unless we have corrupted our self so bad that our conscience has become dead.

 

[Ken Brown]

No, not quite.

My answer is that Adam was no figure for Jesus before sin entered and necessitated God's grace to step in with a remedy. And that is what the scriptures I presented prove.

It was only after Adam sinned that God's grace chose one to be like the Adam before he had sinned.
One to be like the Adam we lost to sin. And thus that perfect Adam who no longer exited became the figure of the one to come that would replace him.

Shalom Mountain Climber, I had just a minute at lunch and I thought I would try to get clarification on what you are saying. I'm sorry, I just am having trouble getting my head around what you are saying about what Paul meant concerning Adam being a figure of the One to come. You said this previously:

...for Jesus was prefigured by Adam before Adam sinned.
Why though was sinless Adam a figure of Jesus?

And now you say:

My answer is that Adam was no figure for Jesus before sin entered

I guess I'm having a brain cramp because it appears you are saying opposite things. I thought you believed Paul meant that because Adam was perfect/sinless and was to have dominion, that made him a figure of the coming One. But now with this post I'm not sure. Could you please clarify this for me one more time? Thanks, and Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, I had just a minute at lunch and I thought I would try to get clarification on what you are saying. I'm sorry, I just am having trouble getting my head around what you are saying about what Paul meant concerning Adam being a figure of the One to come. You said this previously:

...for Jesus was prefigured by Adam before Adam sinned.
Why though was sinless Adam a figure of Jesus?

And now you say:

My answer is that Adam was no figure for Jesus before sin entered

I guess I'm having a brain cramp because it appears you are saying opposite things. I thought you believed Paul meant that because Adam was perfect/sinless and was to have dominion, that made him a figure of the coming One. But now with this post I'm not sure. Could you please clarify this for me one more time? Thanks, and Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Admittedly that does sound as though I am contradicting myself. Indeed I think you are right that I am. Thank you. It is a joy to find every error that they may be corrected. So let me see if I can straighten that out with God's help for my mind.

Before Adam sinned there is no fore-thought of God indicated in the scriptures nor even necessary that Jesus would be used to replace Adam. The why of it is that it was not necessary because that first untainted Adam already filled that role. And had he remained faithful to polishing that image he bore of God in the likeness of God's heavenly Son, no replacement would need be sought of God. (inserted comment: Here we need to understand that just as Abel's blood cried out from the ground, Adam's innocent unborn offspring's blood cried out likewise, thus, the replacement for Adam being sought of God's great loving mercy.)

Depending only on the will of the Father for his direction (as opposed to an independent will of his own), that first Adam would have polished that image to the point of absolute incorruptibility, even as we see of God's heavenly Son whom the first Adam was created the likeness of. In that case we would not have been left without a role model to teach us the uncorrupted righteousness of God.

So are you getting that?

The first Adam, before he chose to defect from the role, was the first human Son of God in God's image and in the likeness of God's heavenly Son. By virtue of that fact in and of itself the untainted Adam was a figure of the replacement Adam we came to know later through God's merciful love of us.

When he defected from that role due to the serpent's manipulation of things, then God's love called the one in whose likeness he was created to directly step in and replace him.

Being a figure of something does not mean a replacement of that something. It merely means being like it. That Greek word translated as figure at Romans 5:14 is "tupos", meaning, " a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar".

And so we error to read into that word that Paul was saying that Jesus was "foreshadowed" by that first untainted Adam. Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement by virtue of God's love of us and his supplying back to us our need for a living image of his righteousness to pattern ourselves after.

Thank you indeed. Every tiny error we can catch and correct is nothing but good.

Ps/ You and I working together this way will be able to produce a book well written by virtue of having the tiny defects weeded out before it goes to print. Very much appreciated.

 

[Ken Brown]

Admittedly that does sound as though I am contradicting myself. Indeed I think you are right that I am. Thank you. It is a joy to find every error that they may be corrected. So let me see if I can straighten that out with God's help for my mind.

Before Adam sinned there is no fore-thought of God indicated in the scriptures nor even necessary that Jesus would be used to replace Adam. The why of it is that it was not necessary because that first untainted Adam already filled that role. And had he remained faithful to polishing that image he bore of God in the likeness of God's heavenly Son, no replacement would need be sought of God. (inserted comment: Here we need to understand that just as Abel's blood cried out from the ground, Adam's innocent unborn offspring's blood cried out likewise, thus, the replacement for Adam being sought of God's great loving mercy.)

Depending only on the will of the Father for his direction (as opposed to an independent will of his own), that first Adam would have polished that image to the point of absolute incorruptibility, even as we see of God's heavenly Son whom the first Adam was created the likeness of. In that case we would not have been left without a role model to teach us the uncorrupted righteousness of God.

So are you getting that?

The first Adam, before he chose to defect from the role, was the first human Son of God in God's image and in the likeness of God's heavenly Son. By virtue of that fact in and of itself the untainted Adam was a figure of the replacement Adam we came to know later through God's merciful love of us.

When he defected from that role due to the serpent's manipulation of things, then God's love called the one in whose likeness he was created to directly step in and replace him.

Being a figure of something does not mean a replacement of that something. It merely means being like it. That Greek word translated as figure at Romans 5:14 is "tupos", meaning, " a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar".

And so we error to read into that word that Paul was saying that Jesus was "foreshadowed" by that first untainted Adam. Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement by virtue of God's love of us and his supplying back to us our need for a living image of his righteousness to pattern ourselves after.

Thank you indeed. Every tiny error we can catch and correct is nothing but good.

Ps/ You and I working together this way will be able to produce a book well written by virtue of having the tiny defects weeded out before it goes to print. Very much appreciated.

Shalom Mountain Climber, hopefully it will be a good book. Call me a stick in the mud, but I still need some clarification, and I think I grasp how you believe Paul felt about Adam being a figure of the One to come. It's just that you state:

Being a figure of something does not mean a replacement of that something.

And this:

Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement

I can fully agree with you that there was something similar between Adam and the One coming (Adam was the likeness of the one coming), but I'm still confused by your two contradictory statements (Being a figure does not mean a replacement, and was destined to come as his replacement). Could you clarify that for me? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, hopefully it will be a good book. Call me a stick in the mud, but I still need some clarification, and I think I grasp how you believe Paul felt about Adam being a figure of the One to come. It's just that you state:

Being a figure of something does not mean a replacement of that something.

And this:

Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement

I can fully agree with you that there was something similar between Adam and the One coming (Adam was the likeness of the one coming), but I'm still confused by your two contradictory statements (Being a figure does not mean a replacement, and was destined to come as his replacement). Could you clarify that for me? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

That is very simple when you grasp that it was only after Adam sinned that God's mercy stepped in for Adam's as yet unborn offspring and did that predestining.

It was only after Adam sinned that the blood of all the as yet innocent offspring in Adam's loins began to be heard by God's heart crying out as did Abel's blood for mercy and justice on his behalf.

But that is one more place that fanatical minds can go astray, for they imagine it was yet something which was actually alive crying out to God as though the persons still maintained a sort of conscious awareness. It must be understood that it was only in the compassion of God's heart that these voices of those innocent ones existed.

False religion and the pride of the mind's of men have sown us up rather tightly so that we do not easily see these simple truths. But once we dump all that pride out of our self and accept that we know nothing, then and only then does the road become clear to hear and understand.

There are many things I would yet love to be able to share with you and others. For example i would like to show the connections evident in the Hebrew language supporting what I have learned about the animals under the Old Law picturing men, even as Peter came to understand at Acts 10:9-14 and Acts 11:5-8.

I understand that you or the many would think I am pulling these ideas out of unsubstantiated thin air, but I am not. And that Greek word for "figure", "tupos", meaning, " a die (as struck), i.e. (by implication) a stamp or scar", is actually born from the thought of man being stamped with God's image in the likeness of his heavenly Son. That is why, Adam having sullied that image before passing it to us, we are to be, "changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord", by means of the image Jesus bears. Not that we take on literal spirit bodies but that the image of our person or personality gets stamped to conform to God's just as does the Son's.

The clean and unclean animals and those spotted and so not able to be offered as a sacrifice as well as those without spot and so able to be offered in sacrifice all are picture images of men. But due to a combination of man's tendency to have pride in thinking he knows after having thought he learned something and the frustration that can easily go along with finding out one did not know after all that, produces a resistance to seeing so that what was learned wrong resists being corrected of God.

You are probably not ready to understand that but that in itself is no sin. What would make it a sin is to never get onto humbling one's self completely so that they can begin to learn, for that is the sin of stubbornness. And stubbornness is the bed partner of the pride which God opposes.

Added: The thought came to me that what might also be of help to you is a discussion of phrases in the New Testament such as, "foreordained before the foundation of the world", and , "from the foundation of the world." And so forth.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, I had just a minute at lunch and I thought I would try to get clarification on what you are saying. I'm sorry, I just am having trouble getting my head around what you are saying about what Paul meant concerning Adam being a figure of the One to come. You said this previously:

...for Jesus was prefigured by Adam before Adam sinned.
Why though was sinless Adam a figure of Jesus?

And now you say:

My answer is that Adam was no figure for Jesus before sin entered

I guess I'm having a brain cramp because it appears you are saying opposite things. I thought you believed Paul meant that because Adam was perfect/sinless and was to have dominion, that made him a figure of the coming One. But now with this post I'm not sure. Could you please clarify this for me one more time? Thanks, and Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Now I see what you are doing. As my mind and heart are innocent of such conduct, I had to think about it before I could see that you were playing a deliberate twisting game taking excerpts of my comments away from their context so that you can claim to understand them any way that suites your fancy.

You would not like it if I did that to you. It is not me you mock in doing that sort of thing, but God.

Anyone can take other peoples words away from their context that way and twist the point behind those words. And most who would do that would also pretend to be innocent.

Well have fun while you can. Even if God doesn't call you to accounting we all have only so long to live in this life. You go right ahead and use it any way that makes you happy.

 

[Ken Brown]

Now I see what you are doing. As my mind and heart are innocent of such conduct, I had to think about it before I could see that you were playing a deliberate twisting game taking excerpts of my comments away from their context so that you can claim to understand them any way that suites your fancy.

You would not like it if I did that to you. It is not me you mock in doing that sort of thing, but God.

Anyone can take other peoples words away from their context that way and twist the point behind those words. And most who would do that would also pretend to be innocent.

Well have fun while you can. Even if God doesn't call you to accounting we all have only so long to live in this life. You go right ahead and use it any way that makes you happy.

Shalom Mountain Climber, I honestly thought I was understanding your explanation until you started making obvious errors and contradictions, which you even admitted to, and even thanked me for pointing out, but you didn't address your last contradiction of you saying "being a figure of something doesn't mean a replacement of something," and "Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement." You make it appear that being a "figure" doesn't mean a replacement, but then you go on to say that the coming One is a "replacement" of the original "untainted" Adam. And now you accuse me of deliberately twisting your comments and taking them out of context...shame on you.

Mountain Climber, as I told you before, this understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come" will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt as to who understands Paul and who doesn't. And I wanted it to be very CLEAR as to how you understand Paul.

I have one more question for you before I give you the understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come." Paul makes that statement at the end of Rom 5:14, and at the beginning of the next verse he states (KJV), "But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift..." Do you know what he meant by that statement? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. And hang in there, you might really like how this book turns out.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, I honestly thought I was understanding your explanation until you started making obvious errors and contradictions, which you even admitted to, and even thanked me for pointing out, but you didn't address your last contradiction of you saying "being a figure of something doesn't mean a replacement of something," and "Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement." You make it appear that being a "figure" doesn't mean a replacement, but then you go on to say that the coming One is a "replacement" of the original "untainted" Adam. And now you accuse me of deliberately twisting your comments and taking them out of context...shame on you.

Mountain Climber, as I told you before, this understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come" will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt as to who understands Paul and who doesn't. And I wanted it to be very CLEAR as to how you understand Paul.

I have one more question for you before I give you the understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come." Paul makes that statement at the end of Rom 5:14, and at the beginning of the next verse he states (KJV), "But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift..." Do you know what he meant by that statement? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. And hang in there, you might really like how this book turns out.

I honestly believe you have a comprehension handicap. I am sorry if that offends you but I do believe that.

Perhaps it is not perfect wording to say it as I did but in the circles I have been in people know how to use context to help them understand. But you take things out and away from their context rather than to do that. And it seems that anyone conversing with you must find the one and only one way that you are capable of understanding.

Look once again at that comment: "Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement."

In other words, Paul merely meant the Adam who existed before that Adam had sinned, that unblemished Adam was the likeness of the one whom after that sin (by way of God's merciful grace concerning that sin as to how it affected Adam's offspring) God predestined to come.

I have told you many times now that it was because that first unblemished Adam held our covenant of life between he and God so that when he died all in his loins died with him, so that we needed a replacement for him. And it was nothing but pure mercy from that point forward that God even allowed us to be born and provided that replacement.

Your insistence on continuing to debate a verse and a word that you have already been shown to clearly not have the implication you are trying to attach to it is proof to me that you are merely unwilling to reason any other way than what you desire to see.

You would need at this point to turn to the verses which speak of that predestining as it is apparent to me you have no understanding of them either and they are the ones which do speak to the concept you are trying to force upon Paul's words in Romans chapter 5.

I have to believe you are intelligent enough to know that so the fact that you don't do that tells me you are bent on just deliberately seeing if you are able to frustrate the spirit in me. In that it is not my spirit alone that you grieve but also God's spirit, for I speak only by him, not always with perfection, but sufficient by him.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

What many do not realize and some even balk at, is that when we allow ourselves to sin it matters not what nationality we are in the flesh, we place our self under the condemnation of the Old Law, “for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Romans 5:13 (Compare: Romans 3:19-20)

Paul thus tells us that wherein we were servants to sin we were delivered from that bondage which existed under that Old Law's authority, and we were given to a New Teaching (indeed to a New Covenant) and that by being obedient from the heart to that New [Covenant] Teaching we were set free from sin:

Romans 6:
17 But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered;
18and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye presented your members [as] servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members [as] servants to righteousness unto sanctification.

<><><><><><><>

Paul tells us that while we were in bondage to the Old Law's condemnation of sin due to our being as slaves of the sin which it had to condemn, we were free (literally, “exempt”) from righteousness:

Romans 6:
20 For when ye were servants of sin, ye were free in regard of righteousness.

<><><><><><><>

Paul brings it to our attention that we should now be ashamed of the sin which held us in bondage under that Old Law so that we will be determined in ourselves to cease it and not return to it. And we should therefore be having good fruits in our lives as proof of that:

Romans 6:
21 What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death.
22 But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life.

<><><><><><><>

I separated this last verse away so as to speak separately concerning it for a reason. It contains mention of a truth that many stretch all out of proportion and use to lull themselves and others into a false sense of security. Eternal life is a free gift purely because we had nothing to offer with which to purchase it and so God had to send his son to purchase it for us. But some use it as if it means we can have no good works at all and yet be granted that free gift of salvation. That idea makes a mockery of all we just learned in this chapter just as it does the entire scriptures. And so for some the free gift may need to be addressed in a separate discussion concerning how if we no longer sin but have no good works we only will qualify for a resurrection of judgment wherein we must produce those good works or be put to death everlastingly. Only those with good works will be part of the resurrection to God's gift of eternal life. And we all need to know that.

Romans 6:
23 For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

There is no exception to that. If we continue to sin we reap the wages of sin.

<><><><><><><>

Romans chapter 7 will be next.

 

[Ken Brown]

I honestly believe you have a comprehension handicap. I am sorry if that offends you but I do believe that.

Perhaps it is not perfect wording to say it as I did but in the circles I have been in people know how to use context to help them understand. But you take things out and away from their context rather than to do that. And it seems that anyone conversing with you must find the one and only one way that you are capable of understanding.

Look once again at that comment: "Paul merely meant that Adam was the likeness of the one who after that first Adam defected, was destined to come as his replacement."

In other words, Paul merely meant the Adam who existed before that Adam had sinned, that unblemished Adam was the likeness of the one whom after that sin (by way of God's merciful grace concerning that sin as to how it affected Adam's offspring) God predestined to come.

I have told you many times now that it was because that first unblemished Adam held our covenant of life between he and God so that when he died all in his loins died with him, so that we needed a replacement for him. And it was nothing but pure mercy from that point forward that God even allowed us to be born and provided that replacement.

Your insistence on continuing to debate a verse and a word that you have already been shown to clearly not have the implication you are trying to attach to it is proof to me that you are merely unwilling to reason any other way than what you desire to see.

You would need at this point to turn to the verses which speak of that predestining as it is apparent to me you have no understanding of them either and they are the ones which do speak to the concept you are trying to force upon Paul's words in Romans chapter 5.

I have to believe you are intelligent enough to know that so the fact that you don't do that tells me you are bent on just deliberately seeing if you are able to frustrate the spirit in me. In that it is not my spirit alone that you grieve but also God's spirit, for I speak only by him, not always with perfection, but sufficient by him.

Shalom Mountain Climber, you may honestly believe I have a comprehension handicap and I'll accept your view of me without taking any offense. That being said, it would behoove you to answer my last question:

Paul makes that statement at the end of Rom 5:14, and at the beginning of the next verse he states (KJV), "But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift..." Do you know what he meant by that statement?

Do you have any understanding of Paul in his statement at the beginning of v15? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, you may honestly believe I have a comprehension handicap and I'll accept your view of me without taking any offense. That being said, it would behoove you to answer my last question:



Do you have any understanding of Paul in his statement at the beginning of v15? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

That is rather elementary don't you think?

In plain English, The offense by one man had the power to bring death to many but God's grace which is through one man has far greater power to give life to many.

You can try to add meaning to that just as you have other of Paul's words, but you are only fooling yourself and those who were never meant to understand anyway.

For one thing is for certain, everyone that should be saved will be saved. And the scriptures clearly say that some have been destroyed never to rise again and more will be destroyed never to rise again, matter not how twisters of the word try to get around it. and it says that in both the Old and the New testament in many different places, especially the Psalms.

 

[Ken Brown]

That is rather elementary don't you think?

In plain English, The offense by one man had the power to bring death to many but God's grace which is through one man has far greater power to give life to many.

You can try to add meaning to that just as you have other of Paul's words, but you are only fooling yourself and those who were never meant to understand anyway.

For one thing is for certain, everyone that should be saved will be saved. And the scriptures clearly say that some have been destroyed never to rise again and more will be destroyed never to rise again, matter not how twisters of the word try to get around it. and it says that in both the Old and the New testament in many different places, especially the Psalms.

Shalom Mountain Climber, interesting. Your "plain English" is looking at what Paul wrote after he said what he said at the beginning of verse 15. Let's look at what Paul said and "see" what he was saying:

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come. But not according to the offense, rather, the free gift....

Do you see Mountain Climber? The figure/type/similarity between Adam and Moshaich was not according to the offense, but rather it was according to the free gift they BOTH gave mankind. That is precisely how Paul was thinking concerning how Adam is a figure of the coming One, the figure was not according to the offense, rather, the figure or type was according to the free gift. Isn't that about as plain as the English can be made for the beginning of verse 15? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. Now, can you take this simple explanation and properly explain the rest of what Paul was saying in Romans 5?

 

[JesusBeliever]

Dear Ken and Mountain_Climber, I really wish you could both drop the personal jabs and putdowns. I still hear valid points coming from both of you but the personal jabs and putdowns are hard to be intreated and they make me hesitant to join in, lest I just be exposing myself to the same and also be tempted to dish out a few of my own. It is not the Lord's way regardless of who has the right or wrong perspective or interpretation. And we'd all do well to remind ourselves and each other of James 3:13-18 from time to time.

 

[Ken Brown]

Dear Ken and Mountain_Climber, I really wish you could both drop the personal jabs and putdowns. I still hear valid points coming from both of you but the personal jabs and putdowns are hard to be intreated and they make me hesitant to join in, lest I just be exposing myself to the same and also be tempted to dish out a few of my own. It is not the Lord's way regardless of who has the right or wrong perspective or interpretation. And we'd all do well to remind ourselves and each other of James 3:13-18 from time to time.

Shabbat Shalom JB, I will take your advice and try to do better in wording what I say, but I will still earnestly contend for the Truth. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

P.S. It may be helpful to me if you could give me an example of where I placed a personal jab and putdown, and that is what I will try to correct for your sake.

 

[JesusBeliever]

Shabbat Shalom JB, I will take your advice and try to do better in wording what I say, but I will still earnestly contend for the Truth. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

P.S. It may be helpful to me if you could give me an example of where I placed a personal jab and putdown, and that is what I will try to correct for your sake.

Honestly with you it is more how you come across sometimes. You come across as being condescending to Mountain_Climber. One such example is when you said the following:

Mountain Climber, as I told you before, this understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come" will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt as to who understands Paul and who doesn't. And I wanted it to be very CLEAR as to how you understand Paul.

I have one more question for you before I give you the understanding of what Paul meant when he said, "who (Adam) is a figure of Him that was to come." Paul makes that statement at the end of Rom 5:14, and at the beginning of the next verse he states (KJV), "But not as the offence, so also [is] the free gift..." Do you know what he meant by that statement? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. And hang in there, you might really like how this book turns out.

The word that comes to mind is Innuendo and I felt you needed to know that Mountain_Climber isn't the only one feeling it. And this is probably a good time to mention that I'm actually more in agreement with your interpretation (thus far) but because of your approach I've been hesitant to say it. Not wanting to be perceived by Mountain_Climber as taking sides with you against him. Coz like I mentioned he makes valid points as well that I am learning from, despite us not being in total agreement.

This is probably a good time to also share a verse that I was pondering just prior to receiving notification of your reply:

"This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic (schismatic) after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Tit 3:8-11

It was the word heretic that drew my eye to these verses as I acknowledged that I've heard this word before but never really knew what it meant except that it's something no one wants to be called. So I decided to look it up and was surprised to learn that it wasn't anything like I had imagined it meant. Sorry to all those who already know the definition of the word, but I even had to look schismatic up and as a result found myself saying that this could apply to anyone of us, even me! The Greek word is apparently related to "making a choice" and this is exactly what this discussion between you and Mountain_Climber was causing me to do, to debate with my own mind and heart about whether I choose your side or his side, your interpretation or his interpretation. And this has also helped me to understand why I felt I couldn't do either. Coz my heart sensed that doing so would just be adding weight to the schism already between you and Mountain_Climber, making it worse for all parties.

But in saying all this please know that my intent is not to sit in judgment of you and Mountain_Climber, because I would just be condemning myself in doing so, having been guilty of this definition myself. I honestly see a sincere intent to contend for the faith in both of you, which is why I had the courage to ask what I did. Knowing that a gentler approach would be beneficial to everyone, including the Lord!

Sincere Regards

 

[Mountain_Climber]

Shalom Mountain Climber, interesting. Your "plain English" is looking at what Paul wrote after he said what he said at the beginning of verse 15. Let's look at what Paul said and "see" what he was sayingo you see Mountain Climber? The figure/type/similarity between Adam and Moshaich was not according to the offense, but rather it was according to the free gift they BOTH gave mankind. That is precisely how Paul was thinking concerning how Adam is a figure of the coming One, the figure was not according to the offense, rather, the figure or type was according to the free gift. Isn't that about as plain as the English can be made for the beginning of verse 15? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. Now, can you take this simple explanation and properly explain the rest of what Paul was saying in Romans 5?

No sir, that explanation does not keep with the way it is written in the Greek. I said it before and I will say it again, regardless of who doesn't like it, the truth is that you are forcing your own independently derived ideas on the scriptures and it is for your benefit that you see that and so cease doing it. So you can count on my being honest enough to tell you, also for your sake.

The Greek word "gar" assigns the reason for what was just finished said: G1063 - gar -- a primary particle; properly, assigning a reason (used in argument, explanation or intensification; often with other particles)

The word, "for", is that word, "gar":

Romans 5:15 "But not as the trespass, so also is the free gift. For if by the trespass of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God, and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound unto the many."

And so it is that you are violating the Greek by associating, "but not as the trespass, so also is the free gift", back to verse 14 to set Paul's meaning.

 

[Ken Brown]

Honestly with you it is more how you come across sometimes. You come across as being condescending to Mountain_Climber. One such example is when you said the following:
The word that comes to mind is Innuendo and I felt you needed to know that Mountain_Climber isn't the only one feeling it. And this is probably a good time to mention that I'm actually more in agreement with your interpretation (thus far) but because of your approach I've been hesitant to say it. Not wanting to be perceived by Mountain_Climber as taking sides with you against him. Coz like I mentioned he makes valid points as well that I am learning from, despite us not being in total agreement.

This is probably a good time to also share a verse that I was pondering just prior to receiving notification of your reply:

"This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretic (schismatic) after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." Tit 3:8-11

It was the word heretic that drew my eye to these verses as I acknowledged that I've heard this word before but never really knew what it meant except that it's something no one wants to be called. So I decided to look it up and was surprised to learn that it wasn't anything like I had imagined it meant. Sorry to all those who already know the definition of the word, but I even had to look schismatic up and as a result found myself saying that this could apply to anyone of us, even me! The Greek word is apparently related to "making a choice" and this is exactly what this discussion between you and Mountain_Climber was causing me to do, to debate with my own mind and heart about whether I choose your side or his side, your interpretation or his interpretation. And this has also helped me to understand why I felt I couldn't do either. Coz my heart sensed that doing so would just be adding weight to the schism already between you and Mountain_Climber, making it worse for all parties.

But in saying all this please know that my intent is not to sit in judgment of you and Mountain_Climber, because I would just be condemning myself in doing so, having been guilty of this definition myself. I honestly see a sincere intent to contend for the faith in both of you, which is why I had the courage to ask what I did. Knowing that a gentler approach would be beneficial to everyone, including the Lord!

Sincere Regards

Shabbat Shalom Again JB, and thank you for the further clarification. I'm not certain if you fully understand where the difference of opinion arose between Mountain Climber and myself, but it might help if I review that with you. This issue is not at all a minor or foolish issue, as the essence and interpretation of Grace depends heavily upon what Paul means here in Romans 5.

Here are a few of the words that I have politely rendered to Mountain Climber, and with each quote there is an embedded link to the post:

"I like what you have said, and it does appear you are climbing a mountain"
"I can see a different attitude in how you think and I appreciate it."
"I am again intrigued by your beliefs."
"you are impressing me, as I have a friend that views the abomination much as you do."
"I really like how you think and how you express yourself. You have done a lot of thinking about what you believe...it really shows."
"I'm not sure we are that far apart here"
"I think that maybe you might have misunderstood something very important."
"you are unique."
"I'm glad you are in agreement with the opening paragraph, as I know how difficult it is to accept."

JB, it is at this point that Mountain Climber says that I am so full of myself and that I am worse than the others, and "One thing you can take to the bank is that matter not how well you are able to deceive others, you will never be able to deceive me because you have finally met a true son of God, brother of Christ."

Then I responded with:
"for a surety, I would never deceive you as I am convinced that those who know the Truth must be sincere. I see that in you, and I see that you would never knowingly try to deceive me, yet, you are opposing a truthful teaching."

And Mountain Climber came back with this:
"be patient, as I am going to put an end to this foolishness once and for all if it be at all possible."

Mountain Climber calls me a Hebrew Muslim, he wants to give me a "quarter teaspoon" of his knowledge, he wants me to figure it out for myself using the premise he has revealed to me, he questions whether or not I know Paul and cannot be wrong, to him I am a child with no memory retention, he doesn't do patience with ignorance, he wants to forgive me for my nonsense, and he wants to share more with me but wants me to first grasp what he has been saying (show signs that I understand his vaulted knowledge). These are all comments that he made to me while I was being polite and courteous.

It was at this point that I decided to test his knowledge and understanding of Paul, and this is where and why Romans 5:14-15 was introduced. Was I wrong to do this JB? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

P.S. Are we not to "test" the spirits to see whether or not they are of Elohim? Do you not "test" someone's spirit with the Truth?