Why folks struggle with Paul

[iouae]

When Christ tells a parable, He makes sure that the parable is simple, and makes one point and one point only. Folks generally go wrong when they try to see multiple points in Christ's parables. And even with only one point, folks had to ask Christ to interpret the parable.

With Paul's parables, Paul makes multiple comparisons. And here, folks do not realise that Paul sometimes has to stretch things a bit to get his multiple points to fit the parable.

Take for instance the comparison (com-parable) of Christ with Adam.

This is entirely a Pauline comparison. Christ never compared himself with Adam.
And Paul is within his rights to make up parables as he sees fit.

And sometimes things don't quite fit so Paul shoehorns the facts a bit to make them fit his parable.

In the Christ=Adam parable here are some less than perfect fits...

Sin did not enter the world by one man - it entered by one woman.

If sin entered the world by Adam, then sin did not enter the world by ONE but by two, viz. Adan AND Eve.

Paul blames the death of all future humans on Adam. Yet Adam played no part in the first human death, which was the death of Abel.
The first man to sin was not the first man to die. Abel, a fairly righteous man, was the first to die. There is no indication that Abel died for his sins.

Paul writes in Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul is saying basically that as Adam brought death, Christ brings life.
But where Paul is stretching it is in saying "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". We all became sinners without any help from Adam. This has led many to falsely claim that somehow sin got passed down from Adam to us in some almost genetic way.

God created dying as the default condition without access to the Tree of Life.
It did not matter if one sinned or not, outside of Eden, all were destined to die. The one thing we can blame Adam and Eve for, is that they got mankind cut off from the Tree of Life.

There cannot be sin without the law (Rom 5:13)
And there cannot be death without sin according to Paul.
So here Paul has a problem, since folks were dying even before the law was given at Sinai.
Paul acknowledges he has a problem in Rom 5:14.

I never have a problem with Paul because I recognise that Paul is prepared to bend the facts a little to fit his analogies. Unfortunately, folks get super-literal when they quote Paul. Especially when Paul seems to be criticising the law. Which Paul does not do. Paul puts the law in its place saying that the law tells us what sin is.

Then Paul tells us what the answer to the problem of sin is - belief in Christ.
Many thought the answer to sin was to try a little harder to keep the law, as if the law could ever give one life.

Since being cut off from the Tree of Life, it does not matter how good you are or how well you keep the law, that will not be a substitute for the Tree of Life.

Which may sound like I am saying one does not have to keep the law. Like Paul, I am NOT saying that. I am saying the alternative is to go cap in hand to God and ask Him for eternal life.

 

[patrick jane]

Eve came from Adam. EOT

 

[JudgeRightly]

Eve came from Adam. EOT

I agree, but I feel that this needs to be said in response to iouae...

When Christ tells a parable, He makes sure that the parable is simple, and makes one point and one point only. Folks generally go wrong when they try to see multiple points in Christ's parables. And even with only one point, folks had to ask Christ to interpret the parable.

With Paul's parables, Paul makes multiple comparisons. And here, folks do not realise that Paul sometimes has to stretch things a bit to get his multiple points to fit the parable.

Take for instance the comparison (com-parable) of Christ with Adam.

This is entirely a Pauline comparison. Christ never compared himself with Adam.
And Paul is within his rights to make up parables as he sees fit.

And sometimes things don't quite fit so Paul shoehorns the facts a bit to make them fit his parable.

In the Christ=Adam parable here are some less than perfect fits...

Sin did not enter the world by one man - it entered by one woman.

If sin entered the world by Adam, then sin did not enter the world by ONE but by two, viz. Adan AND Eve.

Paul blames the death of all future humans on Adam. Yet Adam played no part in the first human death, which was the death of Abel.
The first man to sin was not the first man to die. Abel, a fairly righteous man, was the first to die. There is no indication that Abel died for his sins.

Paul writes in Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul is saying basically that as Adam brought death, Christ brings life.
But where Paul is stretching it is in saying "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". We all became sinners without any help from Adam. This has led many to falsely claim that somehow sin got passed down from Adam to us in some almost genetic way.

God created dying as the default condition without access to the Tree of Life.
It did not matter if one sinned or not, outside of Eden, all were destined to die. The one thing we can blame Adam and Eve for, is that they got mankind cut off from the Tree of Life.

There cannot be sin without the law (Rom 5:13)
And there cannot be death without sin according to Paul.
So here Paul has a problem, since folks were dying even before the law was given at Sinai.
Paul acknowledges he has a problem in Rom 5:14.

I never have a problem with Paul because I recognise that Paul is prepared to bend the facts a little to fit his analogies. Unfortunately, folks get super-literal when they quote Paul. Especially when Paul seems to be criticising the law. Which Paul does not do. Paul puts the law in its place saying that the law tells us what sin is.

Then Paul tells us what the answer to the problem of sin is - belief in Christ.
Many thought the answer to sin was to try a little harder to keep the law, as if the law could ever give one life.

Since being cut off from the Tree of Life, it does not matter how good you are or how well you keep the law, that will not be a substitute for the Tree of Life.

Which may sound like I am saying one does not have to keep the law. Like Paul, I am NOT saying that. I am saying the alternative is to go cap in hand to God and ask Him for eternal life.

Vowels, if you were to get an overview of the entire book of Genesis, you could summarize it all with one word: substitution.

Look into that.

 

[iouae]

Eve came from Adam. EOT

Yes??

 

[iouae]

I agree, but I feel that this needs to be said in response to iouae...Vowels, if you were to get an overview of the entire book of Genesis, you could summarize it all with one word: substitution.

Look into that.

I would have summarised "Genesis" as "Beginnings" but I am sure you have a point.

 

[glorydaz]

In the Christ=Adam parable here are some less than perfect fits...

Sin did not enter the world by one man - it entered by one woman.

If sin entered the world by Adam, then sin did not enter the world by ONE but by two, viz. Adan AND Eve.

Maybe you only think you understand Paul. :think:

Genesis 5:1-2
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.​

 

[musterion]

When Christ tells a parable, He makes sure that the parable is simple, and makes one point and one point only. Folks generally go wrong when they try to see multiple points in Christ's parables. And even with only one point, folks had to ask Christ to interpret the parable.

With Paul's parables, Paul makes multiple comparisons. And here, folks do not realise that Paul sometimes has to stretch things a bit to get his multiple points to fit the parable.

Take for instance the comparison (com-parable) of Christ with Adam.

This is entirely a Pauline comparison. Christ never compared himself with Adam.
And Paul is within his rights to make up parables as he sees fit.

And sometimes things don't quite fit so Paul shoehorns the facts a bit to make them fit his parable.

In the Christ=Adam parable here are some less than perfect fits...

Sin did not enter the world by one man - it entered by one woman.

If sin entered the world by Adam, then sin did not enter the world by ONE but by two, viz. Adan AND Eve.

Paul blames the death of all future humans on Adam. Yet Adam played no part in the first human death, which was the death of Abel.
The first man to sin was not the first man to die. Abel, a fairly righteous man, was the first to die. There is no indication that Abel died for his sins.

Paul writes in Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Paul is saying basically that as Adam brought death, Christ brings life.
But where Paul is stretching it is in saying "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". We all became sinners without any help from Adam. This has led many to falsely claim that somehow sin got passed down from Adam to us in some almost genetic way.

God created dying as the default condition without access to the Tree of Life.
It did not matter if one sinned or not, outside of Eden, all were destined to die. The one thing we can blame Adam and Eve for, is that they got mankind cut off from the Tree of Life.

There cannot be sin without the law (Rom 5:13)
And there cannot be death without sin according to Paul.
So here Paul has a problem, since folks were dying even before the law was given at Sinai.
Paul acknowledges he has a problem in Rom 5:14.

I never have a problem with Paul because I recognise that Paul is prepared to bend the facts a little to fit his analogies. Unfortunately, folks get super-literal when they quote Paul. Especially when Paul seems to be criticising the law. Which Paul does not do. Paul puts the law in its place saying that the law tells us what sin is.

Then Paul tells us what the answer to the problem of sin is - belief in Christ.
Many thought the answer to sin was to try a little harder to keep the law, as if the law could ever give one life.

Since being cut off from the Tree of Life, it does not matter how good you are or how well you keep the law, that will not be a substitute for the Tree of Life.

Which may sound like I am saying one does not have to keep the law. Like Paul, I am NOT saying that. I am saying the alternative is to go cap in hand to God and ask Him for eternal life.

Your first problem is that parables were meant to hide truth from those who had already rejected truth. Paul did not use parables.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings iouae and JudgeRightly,

I should imagine that each of us would have a slightly different perspective on what you have presented, but I will briefly comment on some parts where I differ:

In the Christ=Adam parable here are some less than perfect fits...

I suppose this is what you are saying, but it is more a comparison between Christ and Adam.

Sin did not enter the world by one man - it entered by one woman.
If sin entered the world by Adam, then sin did not enter the world by ONE but by two, viz. Adam AND Eve.

Perhaps Paul’s comment is an abbreviation of what he could have stated. If Adam had not chosen to sin, thus following Eve in sin, then sin may not, or would not have been passed on to the world. Adam may have been used as the redeemer of Eve.

Paul blames the death of all future humans on Adam. Yet Adam played no part in the first human death, which was the death of Abel.
The first man to sin was not the first man to die. Abel, a fairly righteous man, was the first to die. There is no indication that Abel died for his sins.

Perhaps the word “blame” is too strong here. Because of Adam’s sin the lusts of the flesh were awakened in Adam, Eve and their descendants, and as a result Cain slew Abel.

Paul writes in Rom 5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Paul is saying basically that as Adam brought death, Christ brings life.
But where Paul is stretching it is in saying "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners". We all became sinners without any help from Adam. This has led many to falsely claim that somehow sin got passed down from Adam to us in some almost genetic way.

I agree, but it is in the sense of cause and effect, but not in a direct manner, as could be demanded for the word "made".

God created dying as the default condition without access to the Tree of Life.
It did not matter if one sinned or not, outside of Eden, all were destined to die. The one thing we can blame Adam and Eve for, is that they got mankind cut off from the Tree of Life.

I do not believe that Adam was created a dying creature. He had the potential to receive everlasting life by partaking of the tree of life, or a sentence of death if he sinned. I believe that part of the sin/judgement process was that his nature was to some extent changed, to start dying or corrupting Genesis 3:19.

There cannot be sin without the law (Rom 5:13)
And there cannot be death without sin according to Paul.
So here Paul has a problem, since folks were dying even before the law was given at Sinai.
Paul acknowledges he has a problem in Rom 5:14.

But this only proves that death and dying is hereditary to all of Adam’s descendants.

Which may sound like I am saying one does not have to keep the law. Like Paul, I am NOT saying that. I am saying the alternative is to go cap in hand to God and ask Him for eternal life.

I agree.

I feel that this needs to be said in response to iouae...Vowels, if you were to get an overview of the entire book of Genesis, you could summarize it all with one word: substitution.
Look into that.

I do not agree with the concept of substitution. Adam is one federal head, with all of mankind initially in him. Christ is the other federal head, and those that have an affectionate belief of the gospel are transferred from Adam into the other federal head, Christ. The process is by means of faith, involving a voluntary death to the flesh in baptism, and a resurrection to the new life in Christ. Thus Christ is our representative, not substitute.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[iouae]

Greetings iouae and JudgeRightly,

Hi Trevor, and its a pleasure discussing things with you because we can do so in a cordial manner.

I should imagine that each of us would have a slightly different perspective on what you have presented, but I will briefly comment on some parts where I differ:I suppose this is what you are saying, but it is more a comparison between Christ and Adam.Perhaps Paul’s comment is an abbreviation of what he could have stated. If Adam had not chosen to sin, thus following Eve in sin, then sin may not, or would not have been passed on to the world. Adam may have been used as the redeemer of Eve.

Here is my problem with that...
Only if Eve had sinned would she have needed a redeemer. She still would have been the first sinner.
I believe in equality of the sexes Lets put equal blame where it falls.

Perhaps the word “blame” is too strong here. Because of Adam’s sin the lusts of the flesh were awakened in Adam, Eve and their descendants, and as a result Cain slew Abel.

The only way Adam could affect future descendants is through setting a bad example. There is no genetic way to pass down sin.

And when God spoke to Cain, God tells Cain to rule over his own jealousy, and makes Cain responsible for Cain's sin - not a word of blaming Adam. Gen 4:7. Adam never set an example of jealousy that we know of.

I am very opposed to the idea that Adam's sin permeated creation, changed animals from herbivores to carnivores, caused thorns to be created etc.

Adam had a proclivity to sin, as did Eve, before they sinned. That's why they gave in to sin so easily. Thus they were well on the path to fallen before the "fall".

I do not believe that Adam was created a dying creature. He had the potential to receive everlasting life by partaking of the tree of life, or a sentence of death if he sinned.

I totally agree.

I believe that part of the sin/judgement process was that his nature was to some extent changed, to start dying or corrupting Genesis 3:19.

Gen 3:19
In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

This was nothing but a sentence by God for them sinning, such as "You are grounded". And sentencing someone does not change their nature.

But this only proves that death and dying is hereditary to all of Adam’s descendants.I agree.

True.
But is it because we were made mortal, and cut off from the Tree of Life BY GOD?
Is that fair, to punish the children for the father's sins?

Or is there something that changed at the fall. If so I would like you to continue this discussion telling me where the thing which changed is located (in the genes, in the air?).
I don't believe anything changed, except one woman sinned, followed by one man, followed by every single person, each sinning for themselves. Creation carried on as if nothing had happened, because nothing had happened to creation.

I do not agree with the concept of substitution. Adam is one federal head, with all of mankind initially in him. Christ is the other federal head, and those that have an affectionate belief of the gospel are transferred from Adam into the other federal head, Christ. The process is by means of faith, involving a voluntary death to the flesh in baptism, and a resurrection to the new life in Christ. Thus Christ is our representative, not substitute.

I know nothing of substitution, but Genesis sounds the last place to look.

I would be happy if someone wanted to push their point, but it sounds iffy enough that I will not bother.

Kind regards
Trevor

And to you

 

[iouae]

Maybe you only think you understand Paul. :think:

I am always delighted to learn from you Glorydaz and all others who know Paul better than I do.

Genesis 5:1-2
This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Genesis 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.​

It is still "they" and "them" which is not "one man".

And when Paul speaks of one man, and calls him Adam, we always think of one man, not the couple.
And I think Paul meant one man=Adam=one man=Christ. This analogy would not work comparing a couple to a single man.

Paul shoehorns his analogies. That's the easiest explanation.

 

[iouae]

Let us read carefully to see where Paul is forcing or shoehorning the Adam=Christ analogy.

FORGIVE ME FOR USING CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT I AM WRITING FROM SCRIPTURE (LIKE YOU CANNOT TELL )

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; YES

and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: NO.
SHOEHORN - EACH SINNED FOR THEMSELVES, ADAM'S SIN DID NOT PASS ONTO THEM AND ADAM'S DEATH PENALTY DID NOT PASS AUTOMATICALLY TO THEM. FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND EARNED THEIR OWN DEATH PENALTY.

Rom 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, SHOEHORN BECAUSE ONE MAN DID NOT STRICTLY LEAD TO THE DEATH OF ALL. EACH SINNED FOR SELF. AND GOD CUT THEM OFF FROM THE TREE OF LIFE, THUS SENTENCING THEM. ENOCH WAS REMOVED FROM THIS SENTENCE

much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
GOOD ANALOGY - GRACE SPREAD FROM CHRIST TO ALL. BUT NOT AUTOMATICALLY LIKE PAUL SAYS SIN SPREAD TO ALL. ITS SELECTIVE, DEPENDANT ON EACH PERSON ACCEPTING CHRIST. THUS GRACE IS NOT AUTOMATIC FROM ONE TO ALL, JUST AS SIN IS NOT AUTOMATIC FROM ONE TO ALL.

Rom 5:16
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.HERE IS SAYING WE GO FROM ONE TO MANY OFFENCES, BUT FROM MANY OFFENCES TO MANY JUSTIFICATIONS. THUS HERE PAUL IS ADMITTING A DEFECT IN HIS ANALOGY. THIS IS GOOD AND HONEST.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;IE. ONE CAUSED THE DEATH OF MANY - I DISPUTE THAT. THE MANY DIED FOR THEIR OWN SINS

much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)ONE LED TO THE LIFE OF MANY - SPOT ON CORRECT.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;THIS WOULD BE SO UNFAIR IF IT WERE TRUE, THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFER FOR THE FATHER'S SINS. NO, EACH SUFFERS FOR HIS OWN SINS

even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. TOTALLY CORRECT. EXCEPT THAT THE FREE GIFT DOES NOT COME AUTOMATICALLY ON ALL, BUT SELECTIVELY ON THOSE ASKING FOR IT. LIKEWISE SIN DOES NOT COME AUTOMATICALLY ON ALL.

Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. ADAM'S SIN IS NOT IMPUTED TO US, AND ADAM'S NATURE DID NOT GET PUT INTO US. THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TOO

so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.CORRECT.

Some might say I am splitting hairs.
I am saying that to understand Paul we have to realise that Paul is force-fitting his analogies/parables. Thus the fit may not be quite as true as Paul literalists insist.

 

[clefty]

Why folks struggle with Paul is because they assume he taught and lived something he did not.

I can’t post this study enough:

While Jesus was on earth, he and his disciples practiced the religion that God gave to the Israelites through Moses. The guidelines they followed were found primarily in the Torah*, which is the first five books of the Old Testament -- the writings of Moses. The Torah contains a variety of information including history, the Ten Commandments, and instructions pertaining to finance, government, family, health, farming, dress, feasts, and worship.

It was at some time after the death of Jesus that Christians stopped observing the Old Testament laws. Exactly when that change occurred is not clear in the Bible. Many people believe the change was made by Jesus himself immediately after the resurrection. However, there is compelling evidence in the book of Acts that the change did not occur until much later.

This article examines all the evidence in the book of Acts that indicates whether or not the apostles and early Christians were still following the Old Testament laws. The context of the story is important. It would be a good idea to read the whole book of Acts to understand the passages covered in this study.

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

It was to be through One man salvation came

the entirety of the OT was to that goal...Israel was to be a blessing to all nations as through it all men were to learn the Law by which they would know they sin and learn they were in sin and thus in need of salvation from that One man...

That is the gospel...repent and be saved...learn your need of salvation and Who provides it

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again iouae,

Hi Trevor, and its a pleasure discussing things with you because we can do so in a cordial manner.

Likewise.

Here is my problem with that...
Only if Eve had sinned would she have needed a redeemer. She still would have been the first sinner.
I believe in equality of the sexes Lets put equal blame where it falls.

Possibly you are correct here, but I am not sure. There is a difference between Eve who was deceived, and Adam who was not deceived and conscious that it would be breaking the Law concerning the fruit.

The only way Adam could affect future descendants is through setting a bad example. There is no genetic way to pass down sin.
And when God spoke to Cain, God tells Cain to rule over his own jealousy, and makes Cain responsible for Cain's sin - not a word of blaming Adam. Gen 4:7. Adam never set an example of jealousy that we know of.
I am very opposed to the idea that Adam's sin permeated creation, changed animals from herbivores to carnivores, caused thorns to be created etc.
Adam had a proclivity to sin, as did Eve, before they sinned. That's why they gave in to sin so easily. Thus they were well on the path to fallen before the "fall".

There is a strong link between the lusts of the flesh and sin. I also believe that like begets like. Each birth does not result in a recreation of the very good condition before Adam sinned. I do not believe that the lusts were deceitful before the fall. Eve did not sin because of her lusts initially, but she was deceived by an external tempter, and when she believed the serpent her lusts then were activated in a bad way and took over. Our deceitful lusts arise most of the time from within.
Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV): The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Ephesians 4:17-24 (KJV): 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Gen 3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
This was nothing but a sentence by God for them sinning, such as "You are grounded". And sentencing someone does not change their nature.

Adam was human nature before and after his sin, but even the effects of fear and rejection by being cast out of the garden, must have had some effects. As we get older we become conscious that we are gradually returning to the dust, like an old car when you are uncertain what part will fail next. I do not believe that Adam was the same before and after.

But is it because we were made mortal, and cut off from the Tree of Life BY GOD?
Is that fair, to punish the children for the father's sins?

The fact that God covered them with skins, rather than fig leaves introduces us to the theme mentioned in Genesis 3:15 that God would eventually turn the tide in Christ, the new federal head.

Or is there something that changed at the fall. If so I would like you to continue this discussion telling me where the thing which changed is located (in the genes, in the air?).
I don't believe anything changed, except one woman sinned, followed by one man, followed by every single person, each sinning for themselves. Creation carried on as if nothing had happened, because nothing had happened to creation.

I believe there was a change, see above.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[clefty]

Let us read carefully to see where Paul is forcing or shoehorning the Adam=Christ analogy.

FORGIVE ME FOR USING CAPS TO DIFFERENTIATE WHAT I AM WRITING FROM SCRIPTURE (LIKE YOU CANNOT TELL )

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; YES

and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: NO.
SHOEHORN - EACH SINNED FOR THEMSELVES, ADAM'S SIN DID NOT PASS ONTO THEM AND ADAM'S DEATH PENALTY DID NOT PASS AUTOMATICALLY TO THEM. FOR ALL HAVE SINNED AND EARNED THEIR OWN DEATH PENALTY.

Rom 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, SHOEHORN BECAUSE ONE MAN DID NOT STRICTLY LEAD TO THE DEATH OF ALL. EACH SINNED FOR SELF. AND GOD CUT THEM OFF FROM THE TREE OF LIFE, THUS SENTENCING THEM. ENOCH WAS REMOVED FROM THIS SENTENCE

much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
GOOD ANALOGY - GRACE SPREAD FROM CHRIST TO ALL. BUT NOT AUTOMATICALLY LIKE PAUL SAYS SIN SPREAD TO ALL. ITS SELECTIVE, DEPENDANT ON EACH PERSON ACCEPTING CHRIST. THUS GRACE IS NOT AUTOMATIC FROM ONE TO ALL, JUST AS SIN IS NOT AUTOMATIC FROM ONE TO ALL.

Rom 5:16
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.HERE IS SAYING WE GO FROM ONE TO MANY OFFENCES, BUT FROM MANY OFFENCES TO MANY JUSTIFICATIONS. THUS HERE PAUL IS ADMITTING A DEFECT IN HIS ANALOGY. THIS IS GOOD AND HONEST.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one;IE. ONE CAUSED THE DEATH OF MANY - I DISPUTE THAT. THE MANY DIED FOR THEIR OWN SINS

much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)ONE LED TO THE LIFE OF MANY - SPOT ON CORRECT.

Rom 5:18
Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;THIS WOULD BE SO UNFAIR IF IT WERE TRUE, THAT THE CHILDREN SUFFER FOR THE FATHER'S SINS. NO, EACH SUFFERS FOR HIS OWN SINS

even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. TOTALLY CORRECT. EXCEPT THAT THE FREE GIFT DOES NOT COME AUTOMATICALLY ON ALL, BUT SELECTIVELY ON THOSE ASKING FOR IT. LIKEWISE SIN DOES NOT COME AUTOMATICALLY ON ALL.

Rom 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. FOR ALL HAVE SINNED. ADAM'S SIN IS NOT IMPUTED TO US, AND ADAM'S NATURE DID NOT GET PUT INTO US. THAT WOULD BE UNFAIR TOO

so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.CORRECT.

Some might say I am splitting hairs.
I am saying that to understand Paul we have to realise that Paul is force-fitting his analogies/parables. Thus the fit may not be quite as true as Paul literalists insist.

Idolatry is a violation of the Law that has generational consequences...not so much genetically passed as the idolatrous generation raises another one through its deceptions...thus idolatry is such an abomination...not so much worshipping another god even but worshipping the True One falsely...a false counterfeit pattern easily picked up by subsequent generations...is why Israel fell...and Paul speaks on it so often...to flee it...all forms of false worship

 

[clefty]

Greetings again iouae, Likewise. Possibly you are correct here, but I am not sure. There is a difference between Eve who was deceived, and Adam who was not deceived and conscious that it would be breaking the Law concerning the fruit. There is a strong link between the lusts of the flesh and sin. I also believe that like begets like. Each birth does not result in a recreation of the very good condition before Adam sinned. I do not believe that the lusts were deceitful before the fall. Eve did not sin because of her lusts initially, but she was deceived by an external tempter, and when she believed the serpent her lusts then were activated in a bad way and took over. Our deceitful lusts arise most of the time from within.
Jeremiah 17:9 (KJV): The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Ephesians 4:17-24 (KJV): 17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, 18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: 19 Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But ye have not so learned Christ; 21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; 24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Adam was human nature before and after his sin, but even the effects of fear and rejection by being cast out of the garden, must have had some effects. As we get older we become conscious that we are gradually returning to the dust, like an old car when you are uncertain what part will fail next. I do not believe that Adam was the same before and after.The fact that God covered them with skins, rather than fig leaves introduces us to the theme mentioned in Genesis 3:15 that God would eventually turn the tide in Christ, the new federal head.I believe there was a change, see above.

Kind regards
Trevor

There was indeed a change...a curse of all things made...the ground even...relationships...everything but the Sabbath was cursed...

They were expelled after witnessing Who drew first blood...Yah killed first to cover them...a substitute passing over of His WRATH...

Yah made the changes with His curses and killing...which ALL OF THE UNIVERSE WITNESSED...now indeed Adam and Eve knew good and evil and lest they reach out and eat from the tree of life and live forever=they were thrown out of reach to the tree of life...

 

[iouae]

Idolatry is a violation of the Law that has generational consequences...not so much genetically passed as the idolatrous generation raises another one through its deceptions...thus idolatry is such an abomination...not so much worshipping another god even but worshipping the True One falsely...a false counterfeit pattern easily picked up by subsequent generations...is why Israel fell...and Paul speaks on it so often...to flee it...all forms of false worship

Yes, like the island of Haiti and their voodoo. Its a generational curse.

 

[iouae]

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
Kind regards
Trevor

My mentor once explained this to me.

No animal explains itself, it just reacts.

We have language, but otherwise we are driven by same impulses as animals.

Then we use language to try to rationalise our animal instincts. That is why I like Judge Judy, watching folks rationalise what cannot be rationalised.

JJ: So why do you think you don't owe her the money?
Defendant: I never asked her to bail me out.

 

[iouae]

Eve did not sin because of her lusts initially, but she was deceived by an external tempter, and when she believed the serpent her lusts then were activated in a bad way and took over. Our deceitful lusts arise most of the time from within.
Trevor

Its hard to quote the law, then break it, then say one did not know better

 

[iouae]

Why folks struggle with Paul is because they assume he taught and lived something he did not.

I can’t post this study enough:

While Jesus was on earth, he and his disciples practiced the religion that God gave to the Israelites through Moses. The guidelines they followed were found primarily in the Torah*, which is the first five books of the Old Testament -- the writings of Moses. The Torah contains a variety of information including history, the Ten Commandments, and instructions pertaining to finance, government, family, health, farming, dress, feasts, and worship.

It was at some time after the death of Jesus that Christians stopped observing the Old Testament laws. Exactly when that change occurred is not clear in the Bible. Many people believe the change was made by Jesus himself immediately after the resurrection. However, there is compelling evidence in the book of Acts that the change did not occur until much later.

This article examines all the evidence in the book of Acts that indicates whether or not the apostles and early Christians were still following the Old Testament laws. The context of the story is important. It would be a good idea to read the whole book of Acts to understand the passages covered in this study.

http://www.fogwhistle.ca/acts/evidence.html

It was to be through One man salvation came

the entirety of the OT was to that goal...Israel was to be a blessing to all nations as through it all men were to learn the Law by which they would know they sin and learn they were in sin and thus in need of salvation from that One man...

That is the gospel...repent and be saved...learn your need of salvation and Who provides it

I love your post.

 

[iouae]

I may get into Paul trying to explain the OC and the NC by way of a (com)parable between two mountains.

But first I would like to explain the two covenants using my own (com)parable.

Suppose you are planning to get married.
You might sit down with your spouse and write down all the rules of your marriage to be.
1) Both work equally (or one works, one stays at home)
2) Sex 3 times a week. If any partner says no, they must ...(penalty clause)
3) Each tidies up after themselves. Anything left lying around will be thrown away and the guilty party must pay for new one.
4) Y will take out the trash. If fails to do so...penalty
5) X will do the cooking and washing up. If X cannot for any reason, X must mow the lawn.
6) Neither party is allowed to shout, and whoever is not speaking to the other by sundown must...penalty
7) Y will have the final say on discipline over Y children and X will have the final say over X children.
8) We shall have ___ children.
9) We shall set aside Thursday nights from 6pm to 10pm exclusively for each other.
10) We shall put down the toilet seat, not talk flatteringly about members of the opposite sex etc.
And a million more rules.

OR
You could just decide each to do what you know the other partner would like done.
If you don't know what the other partner likes, they will tell you.

Which marriage do you think represents the OC and which the NC?