Author Topic: How do you know what sin is without law?  (Read 7183 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 38,574
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #45 on: July 30, 2014, 12:20:34 AM »
If only there was something that continued to give guidance after the New Testament books had been written...

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,630
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #46 on: July 30, 2014, 12:20:59 AM »
I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

What sorts of sins did you have in mind? You mentioned homosexuality earlier, what others?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #47 on: July 30, 2014, 12:21:50 AM »
If only there was something that continued to give guidance after the New Testament books had been written...

Some sort of authority we could submit ourselves to...
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #48 on: July 30, 2014, 12:24:12 AM »
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. :)  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #49 on: July 30, 2014, 12:24:41 AM »
It is an intriguing question you pose and I can't say that I have a definitive answer, so take what I write as me thinking out loud and so it might be disjointed.

Christ certainly gives hierarchical importance to the law. He lists the greatest and the second greatest commandments and states the rest of the law hangs on those. Christ gives us a deeper understanding of the law. He instituted the Church to bear the Law of Christ. The law has been perfected through Christ. Christ elucidated this new law in His Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps it would be accurate to say that sin could be defined as that which fails to meet the mark by which Christ, the lawgiver, set forth in that sermon.

Yes.  I appreciate what you said here. 

I appreciate disjointed too when in context because it is a tough question.  (This is what happens when you are up all night waiting for a goat to kid, then it never does... I sat bored, thinking, and a flicker of a light bulb went off above my head..... Oh boy.  LOL)

Yes I fully agree that commands Jesus gave are law!    (as well?)

Can't say I've ever had quite that experience, but I have been up all night waiting for my wife to kid. That was NOT a boring experience! :laugh:

Haha, YES!  Been there done that!   :o   :)  Then it was several days of broken sleep with a bright eyed infant!
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #50 on: July 30, 2014, 12:27:19 AM »
I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

What sorts of sins did you have in mind? You mentioned homosexuality earlier, what others?

Also things like taking the Lord's name in vain.  If Torah (law) is gone, and we know it is still considered a sin, it was not proclaimed by Christ to be one.  The only way for it to be sinful is to recognize Torah (law) as authority.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #51 on: July 30, 2014, 12:34:10 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,630
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #52 on: July 30, 2014, 12:35:56 AM »
I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

What sorts of sins did you have in mind? You mentioned homosexuality earlier, what others?

Also things like taking the Lord's name in vain.  If Torah (law) is gone, and we know it is still considered a sin, it was not proclaimed by Christ to be one.  The only way for it to be sinful is to recognize Torah (law) as authority.

Your approach is not only sola scriptura, but even narrower, basing it on whether Christ did or didn't say something.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #53 on: July 30, 2014, 12:39:14 AM »
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. :)  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.

Really, I won't say anything here about Paul and his eradication of "law" except for one thing.  Every time Paul said "law" he didn't always mean Torah.   Paul spoke of 7 laws.
1. The Law of Christ.  1 Corinthians 9:21
2. The Law of Sin & Death.   Romans 8:2
3. The Law of Righteousness. Romans 9:31
4. The Law of The Spirit of Life.  Also in Roman 8:2
5. The Law of Faith.  Romans 3:27
6. The Law of Sin.  Romans 7:23-25
7. The Law of God.  Romans 3:31  - Romans 7:22-25  and Romans 8:7

There is the thing to research. :)  Paul debate hungry folks here!!!  Peter said his writings were difficult!
This has nothing to do with this thread though.  It also has nothing to do with Paul.


How do you know what sins are sins if there is not a law that defines them?  
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #54 on: July 30, 2014, 12:41:42 AM »
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #55 on: July 30, 2014, 12:42:35 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #56 on: July 30, 2014, 12:46:08 AM »
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. :)  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.

Really, I won't say anything here about Paul and his eradication of "law" except for one thing.  Every time Paul said "law" he didn't always mean Torah.   Paul spoke of 7 laws.
1. The Law of Christ.  1 Corinthians 9:21
2. The Law of Sin & Death.   Romans 8:2
3. The Law of Righteousness. Romans 9:31
4. The Law of The Spirit of Life.  Also in Roman 8:2
5. The Law of Faith.  Romans 3:27
6. The Law of Sin.  Romans 7:23-25
7. The Law of God.  Romans 3:31  - Romans 7:22-25  and Romans 8:7

There is the thing to research. :)  Paul debate hungry folks here!!!  Peter said his writings were difficult!
This has nothing to do with this thread though.  It also has nothing to do with Paul.


How do you know what sins are sins if there is not a law that defines them?  

No, YiM.  I've repeatedly contended that you are conflating types of law, and here you list seven types of law (!) and say they are irrelevant to the discussion.  On the contrary, it is directly relevant (as ZZ said) because you don't seem to understand any of them.  This thread isn't going to go anywhere until we get that squared away. 

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #57 on: July 30, 2014, 12:51:01 AM »
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #58 on: July 30, 2014, 12:59:08 AM »
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?



I bolded what you wrote in red above. 

What law are the Jews referring to when they say "our law"?  Quote it here. 

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #59 on: July 30, 2014, 01:00:15 AM »
Yesh, what does St. Paul mean when he refers to "the law of the Spirit", and "the law of Christ" in the NT?

That's for a future Paul thread. :)  I'm just trying to figure out how we can still sin certain sins (according to many Christian churches), when the law is gone and the NT has nothing written about those sins.

See, I disagree. I think it's for this thread. You keep asserting there is no law without the Torah, and I don't think that's true. So I'm asking you, what do you think St. Paul means when he refers to "the law of the Spirit" and "the law of Christ"? It's directly relevant.

Really, I won't say anything here about Paul and his eradication of "law" except for one thing.  Every time Paul said "law" he didn't always mean Torah.   Paul spoke of 7 laws.
1. The Law of Christ.  1 Corinthians 9:21
2. The Law of Sin & Death.   Romans 8:2
3. The Law of Righteousness. Romans 9:31
4. The Law of The Spirit of Life.  Also in Roman 8:2
5. The Law of Faith.  Romans 3:27
6. The Law of Sin.  Romans 7:23-25
7. The Law of God.  Romans 3:31  - Romans 7:22-25  and Romans 8:7

There is the thing to research. :)  Paul debate hungry folks here!!!  Peter said his writings were difficult!
This has nothing to do with this thread though.  It also has nothing to do with Paul.


How do you know what sins are sins if there is not a law that defines them?  

No, YiM.  I've repeatedly contended that you are conflating types of law, and here you list seven types of law (!) and say they are irrelevant to the discussion.  On the contrary, it is directly relevant (as ZZ said) because you don't seem to understand any of them.  This thread isn't going to go anywhere until we get that squared away. 

Mor, the law of God is Torah.
I am not conflating Torah.  Torah defines sin.

Paul's using the word "law" (whatever they have to do with this discussion), was simply him speaking of different type of "laws", and the way things work.  The only way Paul fits into this thread is if you believe he said the Law of God (Torah) no longer applies.

Then the argument stands.  If the law of God (Torah) does not apply anymore, then show me where taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin?

What ZZ was asking is another draw into Paul and arguing about Paul.

I'm speaking TORAH LAW only.  (God's law (Torah) and the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21))

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #60 on: July 30, 2014, 01:01:46 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2014, 01:02:21 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline ZealousZeal

  • Cosmic Knowledge Fish
  • Section Moderator
  • Protokentarchos
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,980
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #61 on: July 30, 2014, 01:03:04 AM »
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?



You're looking at this one specific incident and seeking abolished/fulfilled, and you need to think bigger. Look at the aggregate. When Christ said He didn't come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, what does that mean to you? How do you interpret it?
You want your belt to buckle, not your chair.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #62 on: July 30, 2014, 01:06:12 AM »
I think this one is a tough one Mor.   And possibly for many Christians.

I look at this only in a way that I can.

First we have to understand that Jesus did not abolish the law.  He said he didn't come to do that, but to fulfill the law.

OK.

Quote
He was put on the spot by the Pharisees, "Our law says..." - "what do you say"
"I say who ever is without sin let him be the one to cast the first stone at her".

OK.

Quote
He either would have abolished (or broke/done away with), or fulfilled the law.

OK.  But you need to define what you think it means "to fulfill".  You have already done this with "abolish".  You need to do it with "fulfill".  So far, it's like you can't find it, and so through process of elimination, you find the one thing you don't really understand and think "Well, this must be the fulfillment because I understand everything else and how it fits together".  That may be correct, but you don't understand it even if it is, and so your argument suffers.  But I'm not even certain you're right.  

Quote
So you have to ask yourself, did Christ lie when he said he didn't come to abolish the law?  If Christ didn't lie, then what did he do when asked about the law?

I asked you.

Quote
Well he never told them not to stone her whatsoever.  In fact, he gave his permission for those without sin to cast the first stone.

But the law makes no such stipulation.  It doesn't say that only the sinless can perform the execution.  That ought to trouble you if you are so insistent on the law.    

Quote
No, I am not saying Jesus was a sinner because he didn't cast a stone.  Jewish law has witnesses to condemn somebody.   The Torah says (Deuteronomy 19:15): "One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand." Thus, two witnesses provide conclusive proof of reality, but one witness does not.

There were no more witnesses to condemn her.  "Where are they that condemn you" - "No where sir" - "Then neither do I condemn you".

Nice try, but they had already furnished a town full of witnesses when they brought her to Jesus.  If they weren't so insistent on trying to trap him, they would've likely passed him by as he was drawing in the sand and would've killed her themselves.  But their egos got in the way.  Plus, if Jesus, according to you, allowed the execution to proceed, he had already accepted their testimony as true.      

Quote
Romans 1-2 does show sins.
 

Like what?  What do you get out of those two chapters?

Quote
I'm sure I'll start a thread on Paul later at some point.  I think the problem here is the obvious which is why people keep quoting Paul.  If you recognize sins within the Torah (which are not in the NT), then you are following Torah law.  If the Torah is out, these sins wold not apply.
 

Not exactly.  Not necessarily.  You are conflating "laws".  

Quote
1 John 3:4 directly shows that St. John believed sin was breaking the Law (or Torah).

No, YiM.  "Law" and "Torah" are not the same.  All Torah is Law, but not all Law is Torah.  

Quote
It DOES create a quagmire... I know.   See if we recognize sins in the Torah (law), then it creates a paradox.  

Maybe for you.  I'm just fine.  

Quote
What about anywhere in the New Testament about taking the Lord's name in vain?  This is written in the law (Torah) not to.  If the law is no longer applies, is taking his name in vain still a sin?  

Again, you are conflating "laws".  Your problem is that you think "Honour your father and mother" has equal weight when compared with "Do not boil a kid in its mother's milk".  You can believe that if you want, but neither Christ nor the Twelve believed or taught any such thing.    

Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?



I bolded what you wrote in red above. 

What law are the Jews referring to when they say "our law"?  Quote it here. 

Mor, with respect, this is bible 101.

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
 
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #63 on: July 30, 2014, 01:07:57 AM »
Mor, the law of God is Torah.
I am not conflating Torah.  Torah defines sin.

Paul's using the word "law" (whatever they have to do with this discussion), was simply him speaking of different type of "laws", and the way things work.  The only way Paul fits into this thread is if you believe he said the Law of God (Torah) no longer applies.

Then the argument stands.  If the law of God (Torah) does not apply anymore, then show me where taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin?

What ZZ was asking is another draw into Paul and arguing about Paul.

I'm speaking TORAH LAW only.  (God's law (Torah) and the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21))



OK, so you are a Jew with a Jesus fetish.  You are not willing to take Paul at his word and try to understand his argument, you are trying to fit Paul into your own argument.  That much is clear from everything I've bolded.  

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #64 on: July 30, 2014, 01:08:49 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.

There is no "law of the heart".  Jeremiah 17:9

Paul said "The law of Christ written in their hearts".

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #65 on: July 30, 2014, 01:13:09 AM »
Mor, I bolded your quote above:

The Jews said to him "Our law says she should be stoned to death, what do you say?"
Jesus said "I say whoever is without sin, let him be he first to throw a stone at her."

Do you believe Jesus Christ abolished or fulfilled the law here?



I bolded what you wrote in red above. 

What law are the Jews referring to when they say "our law"?  Quote it here. 

Mor, with respect, this is bible 101.

Leviticus 20:10 - And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
 
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."



Well, YiM, since this is Bible 101, allow me to point out that neither of the verses you have posted say anything about the executioners needing to be sinless.  Furthermore, they specify that both the adulterer and the adulteress need to be executed.  

So what Jesus ought to have done, by your logic, is kill the woman (since he was sinless) and then go find the guy and kill him too.  Instead, he doesn't bother with the man at all, sets the woman free, and admonishes the crowd.    

That's not fulfillment the way you are defining fulfillment.  That's laziness, weakness, disobedience, transgression, but it's not fulfillment.  

This is your problem with Jesus, not our problem with law.    

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #66 on: July 30, 2014, 01:15:35 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.

There is no "law of the heart".  Jeremiah 17:9

Paul said "The law of Christ written in their hearts".



Oh dear Lord with the semantics!  Fine! let me rephrase:

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law written in the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a pen-written law to tell us it's wrong.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #67 on: July 30, 2014, 01:30:30 AM »
Mor, the law of God is Torah.
I am not conflating Torah.  Torah defines sin.

Paul's using the word "law" (whatever they have to do with this discussion), was simply him speaking of different type of "laws", and the way things work.  The only way Paul fits into this thread is if you believe he said the Law of God (Torah) no longer applies.

Then the argument stands.  If the law of God (Torah) does not apply anymore, then show me where taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin?

What ZZ was asking is another draw into Paul and arguing about Paul.

I'm speaking TORAH LAW only.  (God's law (Torah) and the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21))



OK, so you are a Jew with a Jesus fetish.  You are not willing to take Paul at his word and try to understand his argument, you are trying to fit Paul into your own argument.  That much is clear from everything I've bolded.  

The labels on OC.net are amazing.
To understand Paul's writings, you have to understand Judaism.  

I guess this is a simple case of those who want to follow God, or those who want to follow God the way the church tells them to.

To say I have a Jesus fetish is immensely disrespectful.

"Take Paul at his word"....  The difficult writings to understand...  I guess Peter just said that on hand formed parchment for no reason.

Nevermind Mor.    Just remember your words are forever recorded on the internet.  How many labels or names have I called or applied to you?

Words are forever recorded on the internet (I'm sure you are aware).  People seeing many of our debates will see me continually cite scriptures while you are often disrespectful (along with others on the forum save a few).   Is this the representation of Eastern Orthodoxy you want?

I quoted scriptures 7 times showing how Paul used the word law differently (where it didn't alway apply to Torah).  He particularly used the word "law" meaning many different things.  This is why he is difficult to understand.  There are also contextual things.   But Paul said he believed in the whole law (Acts 24:14).



I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #68 on: July 30, 2014, 01:58:05 AM »
The labels on OC.net are amazing.
To understand Paul's writings, you have to understand Judaism.  

You also have to understand the gospel.  You might--might--understand Judaism, but you definitely don't get the gospel. 

Quote
I guess this is a simple case of those who want to follow God, or those who want to follow God the way the church tells them to.

To say I have a Jesus fetish is immensely disrespectful.

No, it's an accurate description of someone who espouses Judaism but has an attachment to Jesus beyond "Messianic Judaism" but less than "Episcopalian". 

Anyway, you're going to criticise my statement as disrespectful while making a distinction between "those who want to follow God" and "those who want to follow God the way the church tells them to"?  LOL. 

Quote
"Take Paul at his word"....  The difficult writings to understand...  I guess Peter just said that on hand formed parchment for no reason.

Peter said that Paul's writings contained things difficult to understand, "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures".  Sound familiar? 

But it's not like Peter didn't have a solution to that problem.  You and Peter just have different solutions.  I'll stick with his. 

Quote
Nevermind Mor.    Just remember your words are forever recorded on the internet.  How many labels or names have I called or applied to you?

Words are forever recorded on the internet (I'm sure you are aware).  People seeing many of our debates will see me continually cite scriptures while you are often disrespectful (along with others on the forum save a few).   Is this the representation of Eastern Orthodoxy you want?

People seeing many of our debates will see you continually citing some Scriptures and ignoring others and not knowing how they all fit together coherently.  And they will see me make sense.  And you will start off with this "disrespect" canard and end with a photo-essay about people venerating icons, women with cheek skin exposed leading men into sin, and all manner of ignorance.  That is the result of unstable minds twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction.   

Quote
I quoted scriptures 7 times showing how Paul used the word law differently (where it didn't alway apply to Torah).  He particularly used the word "law" meaning many different things.  This is why he is difficult to understand.  There are also contextual things.   But Paul said he believed in the whole law (Acts 24:14).

I see your Acts 24.14 and raise you a Romans and a Galatians.  All of both.  Every single letter.

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #69 on: July 30, 2014, 02:19:59 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.

There is no "law of the heart".  Jeremiah 17:9

Paul said "The law of Christ written in their hearts".



Oh dear Lord with the semantics!  Fine! let me rephrase:

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law written in the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a pen-written law to tell us it's wrong.

The law of CHRIST written in their heart.   The law of Christ 1 Corinthians 9:21
21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

In a moment where Paul is talking about putting himself in the shoes of others to help them better understand, Paul states that his is NOT outside the law, but under the law of Christ.  So he is in the law of God and the law of Christ at the same time.  What do you think this means?  They are the same thing.  The law of God is the law of Christ, and the law of Christ is the law of God.

Christ is the fulfillment of the Torah, the law of God, and Christ.

\
SO...
You know what?  Jesus kept Sabbath too...(law)  and Passover (Nisan 14 like St. Polycarp)(law)...  And the Feast of the Tabernacles(law)... and the feast of unleavened bread(law).  (you know the everlasting feasts).   He also went to the festival of lights.

Do you see how bringing in Paul correlates to my other threads?
Now if we abandon the law (Torah) and God's everlasting feasts that his only son practiced, we take on the re-birth of the sun God feasts (soltice/Christmas).   Worship on the "venerable day of the Sun".   Celebrate "Eostre" on the SUNday after Nisan 14.  

Then it goes on to break his commandments (Torah - Law):
Commandment 3 - "do not make an image in the likeness of anything in heaven, or on the Earth, or in the sea below.  Do not bow down to them."
Commandment 4 - "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."

Let's go on to Christ's law (which is also God's law):
Bishops are called Master - Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
(Of course, nobody can explain what he actually meant here if I am wrong)

Looks like God's law (and Christ's) which is the same thing is transgressed.  Is it not?
Looks like the traditions of men wind up violating law.

It's a complete law.  Otherwise you would not have sin if Torah was abolished, which Christ as God wrote, and kept.  

Paul's writings which Peter said are difficult to understand, I don't think it's really TOO fair to get into.  If the churches can't follow the law of God, nor the law of Christ, nor the example of Christ (in everlasting feasts that he kept), nor the examples of the apostles (in everlasting feasts that they kept), how in the world can churches understand difficult writings of Paul where he interchanged the word law?

Have two schlugs of Constantine's Mithra Arch and call me lame...  Is it not obvious something is seriously wrong when a church can't follow the scriptures?  I know why the RC church did everything in their power to keep people from them.
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #70 on: July 30, 2014, 02:20:42 AM »
The labels on OC.net are amazing.
To understand Paul's writings, you have to understand Judaism.  

You also have to understand the gospel.  You might--might--understand Judaism, but you definitely don't get the gospel. 

Quote
I guess this is a simple case of those who want to follow God, or those who want to follow God the way the church tells them to.

To say I have a Jesus fetish is immensely disrespectful.

No, it's an accurate description of someone who espouses Judaism but has an attachment to Jesus beyond "Messianic Judaism" but less than "Episcopalian". 

Anyway, you're going to criticise my statement as disrespectful while making a distinction between "those who want to follow God" and "those who want to follow God the way the church tells them to"?  LOL. 

Quote
"Take Paul at his word"....  The difficult writings to understand...  I guess Peter just said that on hand formed parchment for no reason.

Peter said that Paul's writings contained things difficult to understand, "which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures".  Sound familiar? 

But it's not like Peter didn't have a solution to that problem.  You and Peter just have different solutions.  I'll stick with his. 

Quote
Nevermind Mor.    Just remember your words are forever recorded on the internet.  How many labels or names have I called or applied to you?

Words are forever recorded on the internet (I'm sure you are aware).  People seeing many of our debates will see me continually cite scriptures while you are often disrespectful (along with others on the forum save a few).   Is this the representation of Eastern Orthodoxy you want?

People seeing many of our debates will see you continually citing some Scriptures and ignoring others and not knowing how they all fit together coherently.  And they will see me make sense.  And you will start off with this "disrespect" canard and end with a photo-essay about people venerating icons, women with cheek skin exposed leading men into sin, and all manner of ignorance.  That is the result of unstable minds twisting the Scriptures to their own destruction.   

Quote
I quoted scriptures 7 times showing how Paul used the word law differently (where it didn't alway apply to Torah).  He particularly used the word "law" meaning many different things.  This is why he is difficult to understand.  There are also contextual things.   But Paul said he believed in the whole law (Acts 24:14).

I see your Acts 24.14 and raise you a Romans and a Galatians.  All of both.  Every single letter.
We'll do it soon, I'm sure!
I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #71 on: July 30, 2014, 02:25:19 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.

There is no "law of the heart".  Jeremiah 17:9

Paul said "The law of Christ written in their hearts".



Oh dear Lord with the semantics!  Fine! let me rephrase:

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law written in the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a pen-written law to tell us it's wrong.

The law of CHRIST written in their heart.   The law of Christ 1 Corinthians 9:21
21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

In a moment where Paul is talking about putting himself in the shoes of others to help them better understand, Paul states that his is NOT outside the law, but under the law of Christ.  So he is in the law of God and the law of Christ at the same time.  What do you think this means?  They are the same thing.  The law of God is the law of Christ, and the law of Christ is the law of God.

Christ is the fulfillment of the Torah, the law of God, and Christ.

\
SO...
You know what?  Jesus kept Sabbath too...(law)  and Passover (Nisan 14 like St. Polycarp)(law)...  And the Feast of the Tabernacles(law)... and the feast of unleavened bread(law).  (you know the everlasting feasts).   He also went to the festival of lights.

Do you see how bringing in Paul correlates to my other threads?
Now if we abandon the law (Torah) and God's everlasting feasts that his only son practiced, we take on the re-birth of the sun God feasts (soltice/Christmas).   Worship on the "venerable day of the Sun".   Celebrate "Eostre" on the SUNday after Nisan 14.  

Then it goes on to break his commandments (Torah - Law):
Commandment 3 - "do not make an image in the likeness of anything in heaven, or on the Earth, or in the sea below.  Do not bow down to them."
Commandment 4 - "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."

Let's go on to Christ's law (which is also God's law):
Bishops are called Master - Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
(Of course, nobody can explain what he actually meant here if I am wrong)

Looks like God's law (and Christ's) which is the same thing is transgressed.  Is it not?
Looks like the traditions of men wind up violating law.


It's a complete law.  Otherwise you would not have sin if Torah was abolished, which Christ as God wrote, and kept.  

Paul's writings which Peter said are difficult to understand, I don't think it's really TOO fair to get into.  If the churches can't follow the law of God, nor the law of Christ, nor the example of Christ (in everlasting feasts that he kept), nor the examples of the apostles (in everlasting feasts that they kept), how in the world can churches understand difficult writings of Paul where he interchanged the word law?

Have two schlugs of Constantine's Mithra Arch and call me lame...  Is it not obvious something is seriously wrong when a church can't follow the scriptures?  I know why the RC church did everything in their power to keep people from them.

That didn't take long, did it?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #72 on: July 30, 2014, 03:00:17 AM »
Yesh, I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about.  Are you saying that if one does not have a law to punish adulterers, he is condoning adultery?  Or that we should not punish any sinner because we are sinners?

It's like I'm seeing a paradox.

If we call taking the Lord's name in vain a sin, yet have done away with the law, there is nothing in the New Covenant condemning it.

It's not really about "what we should or shouldn't do".  It's a question of paradox.  If we recognize taking the name in vain, the only thing condemning it is Torah (law) - yet people claim it no longer applies.

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law of the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a written law to tell us it's wrong.

There is no "law of the heart".  Jeremiah 17:9

Paul said "The law of Christ written in their hearts".



Oh dear Lord with the semantics!  Fine! let me rephrase:

But we all agree taking the Lord's name in vain is a sin.  We just don't go around stoning people for doing so.  That's what is likened as "law written in the heart" as St. Paul taught.  We don't need a pen-written law to tell us it's wrong.

The law of CHRIST written in their heart.   The law of Christ 1 Corinthians 9:21
21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

In a moment where Paul is talking about putting himself in the shoes of others to help them better understand, Paul states that his is NOT outside the law, but under the law of Christ.  So he is in the law of God and the law of Christ at the same time.  What do you think this means?  They are the same thing.  The law of God is the law of Christ, and the law of Christ is the law of God.

Christ is the fulfillment of the Torah, the law of God, and Christ.

\
SO...
You know what?  Jesus kept Sabbath too...(law)  and Passover (Nisan 14 like St. Polycarp)(law)...  And the Feast of the Tabernacles(law)... and the feast of unleavened bread(law).  (you know the everlasting feasts).   He also went to the festival of lights.

Do you see how bringing in Paul correlates to my other threads?
Now if we abandon the law (Torah) and God's everlasting feasts that his only son practiced, we take on the re-birth of the sun God feasts (soltice/Christmas).   Worship on the "venerable day of the Sun".   Celebrate "Eostre" on the SUNday after Nisan 14.  

Then it goes on to break his commandments (Torah - Law):
Commandment 3 - "do not make an image in the likeness of anything in heaven, or on the Earth, or in the sea below.  Do not bow down to them."
Commandment 4 - "Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy."

Let's go on to Christ's law (which is also God's law):
Bishops are called Master - Matthew 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
(Of course, nobody can explain what he actually meant here if I am wrong)

Looks like God's law (and Christ's) which is the same thing is transgressed.  Is it not?
Looks like the traditions of men wind up violating law.

It's a complete law.  Otherwise you would not have sin if Torah was abolished, which Christ as God wrote, and kept.  

Paul's writings which Peter said are difficult to understand, I don't think it's really TOO fair to get into.  If the churches can't follow the law of God, nor the law of Christ, nor the example of Christ (in everlasting feasts that he kept), nor the examples of the apostles (in everlasting feasts that they kept), how in the world can churches understand difficult writings of Paul where he interchanged the word law?

Have two schlugs of Constantine's Mithra Arch and call me lame...  Is it not obvious something is seriously wrong when a church can't follow the scriptures?  I know why the RC church did everything in their power to keep people from them.

Really Yesh? I made a simple point in order to understand what you're trying to say. My dear brother, you have a major problem of being too fixated on the same subjects in every single thread.

I don't want to be rude to you, as you seem to have shown you get too sensitive to it.  But I hope you understand our frustration in this.

God bless you
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #73 on: July 30, 2014, 08:41:28 AM »
Before we descend back down into the endless rabbit hole of icons, Mithras and the evils of Christmas, I would like to make a few observations.

1. Just because St. Paul is difficult to understand does not make it permissible to disregard his writings.  St. Paul's epistles take up a good portion of the NT and for good reason; he addresses many thorny theological issues. Even though St. Peter admits they are difficult to understand, he never says they are not important.

2. To take your example of using the Lord's name in vain, that would be a clear violation of the Greatest Commandment to "love the Lord your God with all your soul, heart and mind."  I cannot imagine a scenario where using His precious and holy name in a flippant or coarse manner is loving Him.

So the questions now: are we loving the Lord our God when we celebrate the birth of Christ into the world or when we gather to worship on His day of resurrection? Are we esteeming others greater than ourselves when we say "Master, bless" to our bishop? Are we loving our neighbor as ourself when we venerate the icon of a saint who has persevered and kept the faith and now intercedes on behalf of the Church in the presence of God?

As Christ said, He did not abolish, but He did fulfill the law. He completed the law. What exactly does that mean? Think of an author. When he finished a book, the story is ended. There is no more that needs to be said on the topic, there is no more reading that needs to be done. The author does not destroy the story, he resolves it.  Likewise, Christ did not destroy the law and the obligations it held people to, He resolved them. That story has ended and a new one began. Attempting to carry over the law to the sequel ruins the point of the sequel.
God bless!

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #74 on: August 02, 2014, 02:53:41 PM »
I see your Acts 24.14 and raise you a Romans and a Galatians.  All of both.  Every single letter.

I raise this with the words of Christ, our God.

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets: I have not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
18 For verily I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one yod or one point shall in no way pass from the law, till all be accomplished. 19 Whoever therefore shall make void one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens; but whoever shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of the heavens,

Source from Codex Sinaiticus.  (But you can cross reference Textus Receptus)

Let me ask you two questions.
Has Heaven and Earth passed away?
Has all the prophecies been fulfilled including the Revelation of St. John?

It is very obvious out of the words of God that nothing will pass from the law.


I'll also raise you with the words of St. Peter   (2 Peter 3:15-17)
15 and regard the longsuffering of our Lord salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom that is given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which things are some hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteady wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Do you then, beloved, knowing it before, beware lest being led away by the error of the lawless you fall from your own steadfastness,

Source Codex Sinaiticus  (but you can cross reference Textus Receptus)

Here is another question, if sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), are you teaching error of the lawless?  You can't point to the law you are under, nor what sin is, as the only law the apostles and Jesus used were Torah.

I believe the things you are "raising me on", are Paul's words, where he is teaching of different types of laws (not all God's law), and not always referring to the "law" of Torah. 

Can anybody show me words from Jesus Christ that eradicated the Torah or law?
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us not to keep the feasts of Leviticus 23?
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us to no longer keep the Sabbath day?
Can anybody show me where any apostles told us not to keep the Sabbath day?

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline Theophania

  • Ecumenical Dissipation Association *OF* America
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #75 on: August 02, 2014, 03:31:51 PM »
Does St. Paul count or do you only listen to him when he's giving you advice on how to handle the womenfolk?

Quote
He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace
It's common knowledge that you secretly want to be born in early 17th century Russia.  As a serf or a royal, I know not.  Chances are serf.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #76 on: August 02, 2014, 03:35:27 PM »
Christ forbid you eat only clean food!

(see what I did there^)
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2014, 03:58:50 PM »
I see your Acts 24.14 and raise you a Romans and a Galatians.  All of both.  Every single letter.

I raise this with the words of Christ, our God.

You don't want to deal with Paul, but you'll deal with Jesus and Peter and John.  Never mind that we don't really have "Jesus", but what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and, oddly enough, Paul) say he said.  

Quote
Let me ask you two questions.
Has Heaven and Earth passed away?
Has all the prophecies been fulfilled including the Revelation of St. John?

From God's perspective, yes.  From ours, no.  

Quote
It is very obvious out of the words of God that nothing will pass from the law.


I'll also raise you with the words of St. Peter   (2 Peter 3:15-17)
15 and regard the longsuffering of our Lord salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom that is given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which things are some hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteady wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Do you then, beloved, knowing it before, beware lest being led away by the error of the lawless you fall from your own steadfastness,

Source Codex Sinaiticus  (but you can cross reference Textus Receptus)

LOL.  When Paul talks about "law", you say it could mean any one of seven or so types of "law", but when Peter talks about "the lawless", it can only refer to those who do not keep the Torah.  That's ludicrous.  People like you allege that the Roman Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the people; while that's plainly not the case, who could blame them for doing so if everyone read Scripture the way you do?  It's like giving a baby a loaded rocket launcher.    

Quote
Here is another question, if sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), are you teaching error of the lawless?

See above.

Quote
You can't point to the law you are under, nor what sin is, as the only law the apostles and Jesus used were Torah.

"A new commandment I give unto you..." (John 13.34)

I can play your games too.  I just have to stop caring about truth.  

Quote
I believe the things you are "raising me on", are Paul's words, where he is teaching of different types of laws (not all God's law), and not always referring to the "law" of Torah.  

Can anybody show me words from Jesus Christ that eradicated the Torah or law?

Luke 22.20; John 19.28-30.

Quote
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us not to keep the feasts of Leviticus 23?

Where did he say to keep them?  

That is besides the fact that we keep them.  In fact, the Feast of Tabernacles is this coming Wednesday.  

Quote
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us to no longer keep the Sabbath day?

Are you kidding?  One of the main allegations against Jesus in the Gospels is that he did not keep the Sabbath, and in response he's constantly having to teach them how the Sabbath of the law as they received it, practiced it, and taught it is not the Sabbath as God intended it.  The only time we know for sure he kept the Sabbath as they would have had him keep it was when he was dead in the tomb, and even then he was tearing up Hades.    

Moreover, Matthew 19.16-22; Mark 10.17-22; Luke 18-18-23.  Out of all the commandments he enjoins, the Sabbath is not one of them.  

Quote
Can anybody show me where any apostles told us not to keep the Sabbath day?

Where do they bid us keep it when, as I've just shown, even Jesus did not impose this?  
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 03:59:35 PM by Mor Ephrem »

Offline Skydive

  • BANNED for rules violations
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #78 on: August 03, 2014, 11:04:41 AM »
The law is not gone. The law is eternal. The moral standard of God is or should be eternal. Though as the Talmud says not all the regulations of the Old Law have intrinsical moral value, and that they were circumstantial. The talmud especially references 'animal sacrifices' in this direction. The same Talmud (I think the Jerusalem Talmud) says that the Messiah will renew the Law and bring it to its final stage. To us that is the Gospel. You have dived yourself in a dead-end here = the law... no matter how much you struggle if you, you cannot make sense of this.. you are split between two religions... if you want to be a christian but cannot see how the gospel is the fulfilled law than you are on a rabbit hole. The same goes if you study Judaism to understand Christianity. If Judaism would understand and comprehend Christianity than they would no longer be Jews but make the transition to Christians... Though as everyone clearly says they are still Jews and reject Christianity.. At least from our point of view...

Offline yeshuaisiam

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,695
  • A pulling horse cannot kick.
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #79 on: August 03, 2014, 10:55:36 PM »
I see your Acts 24.14 and raise you a Romans and a Galatians.  All of both.  Every single letter.

I raise this with the words of Christ, our God.

You don't want to deal with Paul, but you'll deal with Jesus and Peter and John.  Never mind that we don't really have "Jesus", but what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and, oddly enough, Paul) say he said.  

Quote
Let me ask you two questions.
Has Heaven and Earth passed away?
Has all the prophecies been fulfilled including the Revelation of St. John?

From God's perspective, yes.  From ours, no.  

Quote
It is very obvious out of the words of God that nothing will pass from the law.


I'll also raise you with the words of St. Peter   (2 Peter 3:15-17)
15 and regard the longsuffering of our Lord salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom that is given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles speaking in them of these things, in which things are some hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unsteady wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Do you then, beloved, knowing it before, beware lest being led away by the error of the lawless you fall from your own steadfastness,

Source Codex Sinaiticus  (but you can cross reference Textus Receptus)

LOL.  When Paul talks about "law", you say it could mean any one of seven or so types of "law", but when Peter talks about "the lawless", it can only refer to those who do not keep the Torah.  That's ludicrous.  People like you allege that the Roman Catholic Church kept the Bible away from the people; while that's plainly not the case, who could blame them for doing so if everyone read Scripture the way you do?  It's like giving a baby a loaded rocket launcher.    

Quote
Here is another question, if sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4), are you teaching error of the lawless?

See above.

Quote
You can't point to the law you are under, nor what sin is, as the only law the apostles and Jesus used were Torah.

"A new commandment I give unto you..." (John 13.34)

I can play your games too.  I just have to stop caring about truth.  

Quote
I believe the things you are "raising me on", are Paul's words, where he is teaching of different types of laws (not all God's law), and not always referring to the "law" of Torah.  

Can anybody show me words from Jesus Christ that eradicated the Torah or law?

Luke 22.20; John 19.28-30.

Quote
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us not to keep the feasts of Leviticus 23?

Where did he say to keep them?  

That is besides the fact that we keep them.  In fact, the Feast of Tabernacles is this coming Wednesday.  

Quote
Can anybody show me where Jesus told us to no longer keep the Sabbath day?

Are you kidding?  One of the main allegations against Jesus in the Gospels is that he did not keep the Sabbath, and in response he's constantly having to teach them how the Sabbath of the law as they received it, practiced it, and taught it is not the Sabbath as God intended it.  The only time we know for sure he kept the Sabbath as they would have had him keep it was when he was dead in the tomb, and even then he was tearing up Hades.    

Moreover, Matthew 19.16-22; Mark 10.17-22; Luke 18-18-23.  Out of all the commandments he enjoins, the Sabbath is not one of them.  

Quote
Can anybody show me where any apostles told us not to keep the Sabbath day?

Where do they bid us keep it when, as I've just shown, even Jesus did not impose this?  

Read the story of William Tyndale and tell me the RC church wanted people to have the bible.   They killed people so it would not get into their hands.

You are wanting to make Peter's writings difficult like Paul's?  You are reading Paul's writings at face value and unlearned.  Paul used the word "law" a lot, not referring to Torah.


Look at history:
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in
obedience to the commandment.

This was after the death of Christ. So at least between the death and resurrection of Christ, we see
His followers still observing the Sabbath.

Did Christ teach you to abandon law?

Matthew
28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

What did Jesus teach?
Matthew 23:1-3
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 “The teachers of the law and the Phariseessit in Moses’ seat.
3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what
they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

The reality of this situation is Paul is argued because his writings are difficult to understand as Peter stated.  It's easier to look at them screaming "ah-ha" and then denouncing God's Law that Christ commanded you to follow.

I have already started into Paul, I don't see why I am being accused of ignoring him.

Here's the problem: If you want to either call the teachings of Christ wrong, or Paul a liar, then you must make the two work together.   Paul's writings are difficult to understand.  He makes many mentions of the word law, and you have to take the scriptures around what he is saying to try to understand what law he is talking about.

But if you BELIEVE in Christ that he wants us to follow the pharisees teaching of Torah as he commanded, then Paul must work out or you must throw out Paul.  If you believe Paul canceled the law of the Torah, then Paul is rejecting the teachings of Jesus, or you must throw out Jesus.

My understanding:
Jesus taught = Obey those in Moses's seat who taught Torah and don't be like them because they don't practice what they preach (Torah).
Paul taught = Obey those in Moses's seat, feed "milk and later meat" to pagan gentiles.

What I think I hear you saying:
Jesus taught = ... ... ...
Paul taught = No more law or Torah applies.

Christ clearly denounced the oral law of the Jews that they were formulating - the fanaticism, but he clearly taught many times on the Sabbath.  His apostles and others taught on the Sabbath.  His apostles rested on the Sabbath as did he.  You even have examples of EO saints keeping feasts early on (Such as St. Polycarp who kept Passover on Nisan 14, who claimed the Apostle St. John did as well)

For us to REALLY delve into Paul, we would have to take each of his scriptures, line by line, and dissect them.  It would be a really long thread and study.

I learned how to be more frugal and save money at http://www.livingpress.com

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,204
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #80 on: August 03, 2014, 11:35:02 PM »
So it's okay for pagans to eat pork now, but later they should consider kosher and circumcision?

If we tackle each scriptures line by line, which ones will be according to St. Paul's writings and which ones will be according to Yesh's?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 11:36:02 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #81 on: August 04, 2014, 12:06:09 AM »
You are reading Paul's writings at face value and unlearned



My uneducated self will take on the rest of your brilliance later. 

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,716
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #82 on: August 04, 2014, 06:22:26 AM »
From the Gospel According to St. Mark:

23 And it came to pass again, as the Lord walked through the corn fields on the sabbath, that his disciples began to go forward, and to pluck the ears of corn.

24 And the Pharisees said to him: Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?

25 And he said to them: Have you never read what David did when he had need, and was hungry himself, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?

27 And he said to them: The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.

28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath also.


From the Acts of the Apostles:

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

3 Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them?


4 But Peter began and declared to them the matter in order, saying:

5 I was in the city of Joppe praying, and I saw in an ecstasy of mind a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners, and it came even unto me.

6 Into which looking, I considered, and saw fourfooted creatures of the earth, and beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air:

7 And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter; kill and eat.

8 And I said: Not so, Lord; for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth.

9 And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common.

10 And this was done three times: and all were taken up again into heaven.

11 And behold, immediately there were three men come to the house wherein I was, sent to me from Caesarea.

12 And the Spirit said to me, that I should go with them, nothing doubting. And these six brethren went with me also: and we entered into the man's house.

13 And he told us how he had seen an angel in his house, standing, and saying to him: Send to Joppe, and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter,

14 Who shall speak to thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, and all thy house.

15 And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning.

16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

17 If then God gave them the same grace, as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; who was I, that could withstand God?

18 Having heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance unto life.


From the Gospel According to St. Matthew:

12 At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat.

2 And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days.

3 But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him:

4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only?

5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

6 But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple.

7 And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.

8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath.

9 And when he had passed from thence, he came into their synagogues.

10 And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath days? that they might accuse him.

11 But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?

12 How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the sabbath days.



From the Gospel According to St. Luke:

6 And it came to pass on the second first sabbath, that as he went through the corn fields, his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.

2 And some of the Pharisees said to them: Why do you that which is not lawful on the sabbath days?

3 And Jesus answering them, said: Have you not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was hungry, and they that were with him:

4 How he went into the house of God, and took and ate the bread of proposition, and gave to them that were with him, which is not lawful to eat but only for the priests?

5 And he said to them: The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue, and taught. And there was a man, whose right hand was withered.

7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched if he would heal on the sabbath; that they might find an accusation against him.

8 But he knew their thoughts; and said to the man who had the withered hand: Arise, and stand forth in the midst. And rising he stood forth.

9 Then Jesus said to them: I ask you, if it be lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil; to save life, or to destroy?

10 And looking round about on them all, he said to the man: Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth: and his hand was restored.

11 And they were filled with madness; and they talked one with another, what they might do to Jesus.



From Galatians:

16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ; we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.


From the Acts of the Apostles:

26 And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.


Notice they were not called Moses-ites, or Jews, but Christians.

Do you think that was a mistake? Do you think Jesus was only the servant of Moses?

If you want to be Jewish, Yesh, be Jewish, but the reason people play around with this half-and-half business of "messianic Judaism" is that they want to replace the Orthodox Church (and the Roman Catholic Church, and everything that came after) with a play-pretend version they imagine to have been the 'real' first church and Orthodox Christianity. There is a reason the vast majority of Jews and the vast majority of Christians ignore them.

From Wikipedia:

"Messianic Judaism is a syncretic[1] religious movement that arose in the 1960s and 70s.[9] It blends evangelical Christian theology with elements of religious Jewish practice and terminology."

It's not an ancient anything. You can do what you want, but don't fool yourself into thinking that you're doing something else.
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist/works Warning: stories have mature content.

"Some people only feel good when they are praising the Lord." - Coptic bishop

Mark 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.

Offline Ekdikos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #83 on: August 04, 2014, 08:56:09 AM »

But here's the deal.
1 John 3:4 (KJV) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

That is not good translation...

Πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνομίαν ποιεῖ, καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνομία.

Everyone commiting sin, commits lawlesness, and sin is lawlessness.
It does not refer Law of Moses, but it identify lawlesness and sin...
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 08:58:39 AM by Ekdikos »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #84 on: August 04, 2014, 01:36:52 PM »
Or, Everyone who compounds error is compounding the breakdown of custom ...

Alright, I recant that translation. However, King James's men often aren't the chaps to be looking to for disinterested translation, either.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #85 on: August 04, 2014, 01:46:00 PM »
Yeshuaism -- jumping in here, without having studied all the brilliant repartee, and I just want to make sure you've considered another apostle's discussion of sin.

St. John the Theologian writes in his first ecumenical epistle that --

To abide in love is to abide in God and God in us, and that, in whomever God abides, in that one is found no sin.

(My clumsy paraphrase, obviously.)

It just seems to me that considering this truth could save you a lot of trouble ...
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Ekdikos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #86 on: August 04, 2014, 03:31:17 PM »
Or, Everyone who compounds error is compounding the breakdown of custom ...

Alright, I recant that translation. However, King James's men often aren't the chaps to be looking to for disinterested translation, either.
KJV is 400 years old...But to be honest I dont think those chaps would take seriously our friend and his exegetical gymnastics.
I just wanted to point him, New Testament was written in Ancient Greek not in Jacobean English... and KJV translation is bit misleading here. If he has fetish for Jacobean English NKJV offers correct translation of verse.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2014, 03:36:48 PM by Ekdikos »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,135
  • Monahos.net: "Lawful Evil"; OC.net: "Chaotic Evil"
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #87 on: August 04, 2014, 04:00:24 PM »
New King James Version has no relation to Jacobean English, for your information. It renders in the broadest new American psuedo-English. The name is only a brand trademarked for marketing purposes.

(Nor does it hew to the Byzantine text-type, although this was the promise and it was partially fulfilled in the first printing. But that's a whole other subject unrelated to anything here.)

KJV is 400 years old ...

Which put it right during an era of great sectarian strife in Great Britain, strife that would become the English civil war. In no way were King James and the bishop of London mere disinterested observers of the religious scene -- and even if they were, they already represented a particular sectarian tradition in contrast to Rome, Luther, certainly Orthodoxy. They also represented a particular political view, one of Divine Right, of which Henry VIII is the egregious example.

The fame of the translation is worthy, for several reasons, and indeed I can hardly admit any English version as worthy, but to compare it with the Greek (as you so well showed us) is to become aware of a myriad of problems.

(None of this was directed at you personally but at any interested reader.)
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Ekdikos

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 397
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #88 on: August 04, 2014, 04:11:15 PM »
Thanks for aditional info. Of course, King James VI&I, and his translators were trying to adjust translation a bit, in interest of Anglican Church theology... Just hope Jeshuaheis, understands they were quite radical in jettisoning Law. ;D

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 35,766
  • I am the Provisional Supreme Church Authority
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: How do you know what sin is without law?
« Reply #89 on: August 04, 2014, 05:54:45 PM »
Read the story of William Tyndale and tell me the RC church wanted people to have the bible.   They killed people so it would not get into their hands.

You are literate, and look at the mess you make of it.  Can you imagine what the illiterate would do?  And that's besides the fact that I don't believe you. 

Quote
You are wanting to make Peter's writings difficult like Paul's?  You are reading Paul's writings at face value and unlearned.  Paul used the word "law" a lot, not referring to Torah.

The only reason you think Paul's letters are difficult is because Peter said there are "some things" which are difficult in them.  Note well: not "all things" are difficult in them, and "difficult" does not mean "absolutely impossible to figure out".  It just means it's not always easy.  Well, most of Scripture is like that, it's hardly a Pauline quality. 

The word "law" is used a lot not just by Paul, but by the rest of Scripture.  We know what is being referred to based on context.  The difference between you and me is that, for me, the context of Scripture is Scripture, and for you, the context of Scripture is whatever strange concepts you have in your head. 

Quote
Look at history:
Luke 23:56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in
obedience to the commandment.

This was after the death of Christ. So at least between the death and resurrection of Christ, we see
His followers still observing the Sabbath.

Did Christ teach you to abandon law?

You want to base yourself on what a handful of Jesus' followers did in the hour or two after he died?  People who go through as much trauma as they did will often hang on to routines or traditions as an anchor of stability in an otherwise tumultuous time.  And how much more tumultuous can it get when the sun goes dark at noon and the earth quakes and, most of all, your beloved dies? 

Look at what they did after his resurrection, however.  And after Pentecost.  I gave you some verses.  You ignored them, of course. 
 
Quote
Matthew
28:18-20
18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

What did Jesus teach?

I've already shown you one instance where Jesus himself claims he's giving a new commandment and another where he removes the Sabbath from among the commandments he says ought to be followed in order to gain eternal life.  Why do you ignore Jesus?  Just ignore him completely and be a Jew if you want, but why bastardise Christianity to suit your whims? 

Quote
Matthew 23:1-3
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2 “The teachers of the law and the Phariseessit in Moses’ seat.
3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what
they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

That's rich.  You quote this to me while depending on its opposite to justify why you abandoned Christ's Body when you saw some strange things at a WCC gathering. 

Quote
The reality of this situation is Paul is argued because his writings are difficult to understand as Peter stated.  It's easier to look at them screaming "ah-ha" and then denouncing God's Law that Christ commanded you to follow.

I have already started into Paul, I don't see why I am being accused of ignoring him.

Here's the problem: If you want to either call the teachings of Christ wrong, or Paul a liar, then you must make the two work together.   Paul's writings are difficult to understand.  He makes many mentions of the word law, and you have to take the scriptures around what he is saying to try to understand what law he is talking about.

But if you BELIEVE in Christ that he wants us to follow the pharisees teaching of Torah as he commanded, then Paul must work out or you must throw out Paul.  If you believe Paul canceled the law of the Torah, then Paul is rejecting the teachings of Jesus, or you must throw out Jesus.

Can you try and restate this?  I really can't figure out what this means. 

Quote
My understanding:
Jesus taught = Obey those in Moses's seat who taught Torah and don't be like them because they don't practice what they preach (Torah).
Paul taught = Obey those in Moses's seat, feed "milk and later meat" to pagan gentiles.

What I think I hear you saying:
Jesus taught = ... ... ...
Paul taught = No more law or Torah applies.

Keep thinking. 

Quote
Christ clearly denounced the oral law of the Jews that they were formulating - the fanaticism, but he clearly taught many times on the Sabbath.  His apostles and others taught on the Sabbath.  His apostles rested on the Sabbath as did he.  You even have examples of EO saints keeping feasts early on (Such as St. Polycarp who kept Passover on Nisan 14, who claimed the Apostle St. John did as well)

Do you read the NT?  Yes, Christ and his disciples attend synagogue on the Sabbath.  They are also routinely accused of disrespecting and breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus is unapologetic over it.  Where do you ever see Jesus actually resting on the Sabbath apart from right after he died? 

Where does Christ "clearly denounce the oral law of the Jews...the fanaticism"?  Where are you getting that?  And what does it mean?  What was he denouncing? 

As for the St Polycarp nonsense, give it a rest.  You only quote the one that suits your whim.  You don't quote the others because even at that early stage there was much more variety in terms of "Sabbath worship" than you want to admit.  How many times do I have to refer you to actual books?  I didn't earn the degree pictured above by looking up some Geocities and Angelfire websites by Americans pretending to be long lost Christians of the past, I read books by people who are the very-much-not-lost Christians of that very community they long for but will not join. 

Quote
For us to REALLY delve into Paul, we would have to take each of his scriptures, line by line, and dissect them.  It would be a really long thread and study.

I'm ready.  Are you?