lmbarre

Romans 7 is perhaps the clearest description of Paul's concept of "Sin." My question is: are there any in this forum that share or reject Paul's view? Why so?:


1 As people who are familiar with the Law, brothers, you cannot have forgotten that the law can control a person only during that person's lifetime.
2 A married woman, for instance, is bound to her husband by law, as long as he lives, but when her husband dies all her legal obligation to him as husband is ended.
3 So if she were to have relations with another man while her husband was still alive, she would be termed an adulteress; but if her husband dies, her legal obligation comes to an end and if she then has relations with another man, that does not make her an adulteress.
4 In the same way you, my brothers, through the body of Christ have become dead to the Law and so you are able to belong to someone else, that is, to him who was raised from the dead to make us live fruitfully for God.
5 While we were still living by our natural inclinations, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were working in all parts of our bodies to make us live lives which were fruitful only for death.
6 But now we are released from the Law, having died to what was binding us, and so we are in a new service, that of the spirit, and not in the old service of a written code.
7 What should we say, then? That the Law itself is sin? Out of the question! All the same, if it had not been for the Law, I should not have known what sin was; for instance, I should not have known what it meant to covet if the Law had not said: You are not to covet.
8 But, once it found the opportunity through that commandment, sin produced in me all kinds of covetousness; as long as there is no Law, sin is dead.
9 Once, when there was no Law, I used to be alive; but when the commandment came, sin came to life
10 and I died. The commandment was meant to bring life but I found it brought death,
11 because sin, finding its opportunity by means of the commandment, beguiled me and, by means of it, killed me.
12 So then, the Law is holy, and what it commands is holy and upright and good.
13 Does that mean that something good resulted in my dying? Out of the question! But sin, in order to be identified as sin, caused my death through that good thing, and so it is by means of the commandment that sin shows its unbounded sinful power.
14 We are well aware that the Law is spiritual: but I am a creature of flesh and blood sold as a slave to sin.
15 I do not understand my own behaviour; I do not act as I mean to, but I do things that I hate.
16 While I am acting as I do not want to, I still acknowledge the Law as good,
17 so it is not myself acting, but the sin which lives in me.
18 And really, I know of nothing good living in me -- in my natural self, that is -- for though the will to do what is good is in me, the power to do it is not:
19 the good thing I want to do, I never do; the evil thing which I do not want -- that is what I do.
20 But every time I do what I do not want to, then it is not myself acting, but the sin that lives in me.
21 So I find this rule: that for me, where I want to do nothing but good, evil is close at my side.
22 In my inmost self I dearly love God's law,
23 but I see that acting on my body there is a different law which battles against the law in my mind. So I am brought to be a prisoner of that law of sin which lives inside my body.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death?
25 God -- thanks be to him -- through Jesus Christ our Lord. So it is that I myself with my mind obey the law of God, but in my disordered nature I obey the law of sin.

Vorkosigan

Why is this topic germane to BC&H? If you want to argue that Paul had a specific idea about sin and then discuss its relevance to Xtian history, feel free. But this is nothing...

sotto voce

One of the most persistent problems in dealing with students who do not properly understand Paul is the propensity to read him in single sentences, which is just the opposite of what is needed with him. Websites tend to start each verse with a new line, to convenience those looking for a single verse reference, but it is best to read Paul (and indeed the whole Bible) as continuous prose without even verse numbers to distract.

It is also useful to bear in mind that chaptering, paragraphing, headings and sub-headings in translations are non-original, and are potentially misleading.

aa5874

Romans 7 has exposed the absurdity and contradictions of the Christian Faith.

Remember if Jesus did exist he could have ONLY been human.

Examine the Romans 7.1-3

Now, if the Husband ACTUALLY RESURRECTS, by whatever means, the wife is still legally OBLIGATED to him.

And further, Jesus in the Gospels LIVED under the Law, so his supposed death and resurrection are IRRELEVANT.

If Jesus did NOT really die, then his life under Jewish Law SIMPLY continued.

If Jesus did exist he could have Only been human and thousands of Jews DIED in the 1st century BEFORE the Jesus story and had ZERO effect on Existing Jewish Laws.

Now, a dead Jew cannot even follow any Law but if it is claimed the Jew resurrected then that very Jew is OBLIGATED to follow the very same Jewish Laws once he ACTUALLY did come back to life by any means.

It is completely ILLOGICAL and ABSURD that a dead Jew or any dead Jew could have ABOLISHED the Existing Jewish Laws simply because it was Erroneously claimed the once dead Jew resurrected by a Pauline writer.

Romans 7 is most RIDICULOUS. It is absolutely UNHEARD of that the dead can ABOLISH the Laws of the Living and still do so after they have come back to life by whatever means.

How utterly IDIOTIC it would be if an American died and ALL the Laws of America were abolished and even after it was said the American came back to life?

The earliest Jesus story in the Canon has ZERO to do with Universal Salvation or to Abolish Jewish Laws and it would appear that the Pauline writers did NOT ever realize that.

PhilosopherJay

Hi barre,

There are two obvious later interpolations in this text. They are "of Christ" in line 4 and "through Jesus Christ our Lord" in line 25. Once these words, which make no sense within the passage, are taken out, then the writer's meaning become clear.
This is a Platonic discourse on self-control probably written by Philo or a close follower of Philo. It is about the penis vs. the mind/self. Sin and slavery are equated with the penis and the body, while freedom and self are equated with the mind/spirit. The expression "one who was raised from the dead," just refers to anybody who has accepted God and doesn't follow his body's (penis') desires. We may see this as advocating a type of mental castration, separation of mind (self) from penis/body. The writer sees this state as being dead in body, but reborn in God. What is interesting also is the ongoing analogy of the self/mind being a wife married to the male penis/body. The wife (self/mind) becomes free after the husband (penis/body) dies.


Here is the original text without the interpolations:

1 As people who are familiar with the Law, brothers, you cannot have forgotten that the law can control a person only during that person's lifetime.
2 A married woman, for instance, is bound to her husband by law, as long as he lives, but when her husband dies all her legal obligation to him as husband is ended.
3 So if she were to have relations with another man while her husband was still alive, she would be termed an adulteress; but if her husband dies, her legal obligation comes to an end and if she then has relations with another man, that does not make her an adulteress.
4 In the same way you, my brothers, through the body have become dead to the Law and so you are able to belong to someone else, that is, to him who was raised from the dead to make us live fruitfully for God.
5 While we were still living by our natural inclinations, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were working in all parts of our bodies to make us live lives which were fruitful only for death.
6 But now we are released from the Law, having died to what was binding us, and so we are in a new service, that of the spirit, and not in the old service of a written code.
7 What should we say, then? That the Law itself is sin? Out of the question! All the same, if it had not been for the Law, I should not have known what sin was; for instance, I should not have known what it meant to covet if the Law had not said: You are not to covet.
8 But, once it found the opportunity through that commandment, sin produced in me all kinds of covetousness; as long as there is no Law, sin is dead.
9 Once, when there was no Law, I used to be alive; but when the commandment came, sin came to life
10 and I died. The commandment was meant to bring life but I found it brought death,
11 because sin, finding its opportunity by means of the commandment, beguiled me and, by means of it, killed me.
12 So then, the Law is holy, and what it commands is holy and upright and good.
13 Does that mean that something good resulted in my dying? Out of the question! But sin, in order to be identified as sin, caused my death through that good thing, and so it is by means of the commandment that sin shows its unbounded sinful power.
14 We are well aware that the Law is spiritual: but I am a creature of flesh and blood sold as a slave to sin.
15 I do not understand my own behaviour; I do not act as I mean to, but I do things that I hate.
16 While I am acting as I do not want to, I still acknowledge the Law as good,
17 so it is not myself acting, but the sin which lives in me.
18 And really, I know of nothing good living in me -- in my natural self, that is -- for though the will to do what is good is in me, the power to do it is not:
19 the good thing I want to do, I never do; the evil thing which I do not want -- that is what I do.
20 But every time I do what I do not want to, then it is not myself acting, but the sin that lives in me.
21 So I find this rule: that for me, where I want to do nothing but good, evil is close at my side.
22 In my inmost self I dearly love God's law,
23 but I see that acting on my body there is a different law which battles against the law in my mind. So I am brought to be a prisoner of that law of sin which lives inside my body.
24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body doomed to death?
25 God -- thanks be to him -- So it is that I myself with my mind obey the law of God, but in my disordered nature I obey the law of sin.

Trying to understand the passage with the interpolations produces nonsense. For example, take this sentence, "President Obama reduces unemployment to 8.6%." Its meaning is clear. Now interpolate the phrases "of Christ." and "through Jesus Christ Our Lord." We get "President Obama of Christ reduces unemployment to 8.6% through Jesus Christ Our Lord. The meaning of the sentence is now hopelessly muddled. Trying to interpret the passage with the interpolation just gives one a headache.

The interpolater is simply trying to paint the original writer as a Christian and not a Jew and that is why he adds the interpolated words. The interpolater is not concerned that it muddles the original meaning.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Romans 7 has exposed that the Pauline writer was either a Complete Idiot, Insane, a Liar or a combination of all three.

It wholly utter nonsense that a man who has died and resurrected will eliminate the Obligation of the Living from Existing Laws.

Chili

Huh? how can there be sin without a law? Or do you think now that Buddhists are sinners too?

aa5874

It is completely IDIOTIC for a Pauline writer to propose that a supposed dead man who was claimed to have resurrected could have ABOLISHED Jewish Laws for Remission of Sins in the 1st century.

Jewish Laws regarding Sacrifice for the Sins of Jews can be found in Leviticus and Josephus did EXPLAIN the tradition of Jews in the 1st century regarding Sacrifice for Sins.

Antiquities of the Jews" 3.9.3 It is WHOLLY ridiculous that a supposed resurrected Jewish man could have ABOLISHED Jewish Laws on Sacrifices for Sins when THOUSANDS of Jews were ALREADY dead before the Jesus story.

Chili

Paul is right and all he is trying to tell you that you mind is in charge of your body and not the other way around. For example, you look with your eyes but see with your mind, and touch with your fingers and feel with your mind and you likely have sex with your member but make love with your mind.

Now notice that that during crucifixion all the senses were pierced and therefore will have the stigmata to show when the body is raised again in evidence of that censonship. Then if you consider that only the bare naked ego was crucified the message conveyed opon the cross is that when the ego died the senses must be pierced., which makes crucifixion a metaphysical event since the mind is in charge of the body and not the body itself . . . and so you can walk away from it with a total reverse of perception wherein the mind is not willing and the body is strong . . . and hence verse 25 is in effect except for the wrong translation in the passage you cited which should read:
NAB Romans 7:25 "All pralse to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So with my mind I serve the law of God but with my flesh the law of sin."

Notice then that freedom is found wherein we are the benevolent animal man as naturally good. This here then is for Catholics only who are basically good and can be redeemed, while your passage claims to have a disordered nature and so is not redeemable and obviously the mind here is not in charge of the body and never is except against nature.

Chili

Sin is good as all is created in sin, and creation is good and procreation is better as life is an illusion or the fleeting Y would not be illusive, and it is good to pay attention to Paul as he knows the difference between life and eternal life, for which the final stand is required between life and eternal life, and so is wherein our temporal life must be defeated in the last stand that we call Christ-mass, which has nothing to do with baby Jesus as there was no baby or James Joyce could not have been pregnant, but only and infancy emerging from the final rout after our temporal life comes to an end. This life was created by conjecture as 'like god' in Gen.3 instead of God in who's image we were created Gen.1 and have existence as eternal beings in Gen.2, and therefore are basically good and redeemable.

The sins that the Jews were trying to deal with are all illusions and so it is no big deal for NT people to walk away from them as they pertain to the OT promise and has nothing to do with us as NT people except for those that we are supposed to remember so we will know what to tell the priest if we can remember, and otherwise confession becomes more like a tall-tale telling event and that is OK too if that is the best we can do, and feel good about it walking away from it and least of all feel bad about it or guilty and give some money instead, which so then, I suppose, is how the law becomes dead to the Romans, and that is OK too, as it did for Paul, until it became alive in him and he died. Sounds fair to me and good for Paul.