I cannot tell what was newly written on
this email. JD could you change colors or something to make it easier? Iz
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
4:12 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus'
Nature
In a message dated 2/16/2005 1:28:21 PM Pacific Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
historical present tense
John writes about the "historical present tense":
>this is not a grammatical distinction --
>only a philosophical one, and, hence, open
>for disageement.
It is more than a philosophical distinction, but perhaps you mean to point
out that there is no specific syntax or grammar that identifies its use. Of course this is my point. One
must interpret whether or not it is being employed from the context, but
this does not mean that it is open for disagreement. Any interpretation is open to disagreement, is it not?
Perhaps you mean to
say that the assertion alone is not proof. Did the tone of my post sound as though you and I agreed on this
matter? If the assertion (on your part) is an interpretative one
(read: "philiosophical"), the matter is open to
disagreement ----------------------------- which would
necessarily mean that "the assertion alone is not proof."
Why is it that you go out of your way to make me look poorly
written?
John wrote:
>Whether Paul is using an "editorial 'I' " or not,
>the fact is that the one in Romans 7 is serving
>Christ on one level while sin continues to be an
>issue on another level (7:25).
This is no fact. It certainly is to me The
"I" in Romans 7 is not serving Christ, but rather serving the law. ".......So then [introducing an immediate
conclusion] on the one hand I myself [geee who would that bee] WITH
MY MIND AM SERVING THE LAW OF GOD, but on the other hand, with my flesh the law
of sin [v 25] Both are happening at the same
time. And I believe one in increasing measure while, on the
other hand, the other in decreasing measure. He
says he is talking about those under law. Those who serve Christ are free
from the life of condemnation you change the
nuance of the passage [8:1] when you add words to the text. It is not a
life of condemnation that we are freed from, but comdenation itself
-- there is therefore, now, no condemnation. that
he describes in detail in Romans 7.
The last verse, Romans 7:25, answers the previous verse, "who shall
deliver
me from the body of this death?" The answer is, Jesus Christ.
Then the
following verse describes the kind of deliverance that awaits the condemned
man in Romans 7. You might want to read some more of Tom Wright on this
one. :-)
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
