Exegetical Annalysis Of Romans 5:12-21: Critique Reqested


Recommended Posts


Thanks for a good line of thinking. This does give me a varied perception, maybe not completely mind changing, but definitely an adjustment to the lenses of looking back on historical and Scriptural texts. I appreciate the expansion in thinking and not attacking a mis-perceived challenge to Belief.

We, the living, have the opportunity here, to re-evaluate, further explain our "writings", something that Paul or any of the Apostle's, do not have the benefit of doing. To me, this is exactly why there is so much controversy over ancient texts in the first place. In my LHP teachings there is as much, if not more controversy over what little evidence we have from history. Far too many LHP "scholars" depend on Snorri Sturleson (1167?-1245) being the definitive, when he too was merely an educated "guess" many centuries after the facts. A third party explaining what someone "really meant", when it is honestly only the author that can fully define or restate their personal view. Your approach to this is spot on IMO.

Blessings Be Brother,

Blessings of Peace,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Would Buddah have conveyed his personal experiences with the Divine Love of God in the same manner having not been indoctrinated in the bloody barbaric system of Levitical Law?

Buddhism does not have any of the 'worship and obey or else' philosophy as Yahweh based religions have.

Did Yeshua die for my sins or merely because he and the Baptists were foolish enough to challenge temple authority at a sensitive time and when tensions were at their highest. Those who caused problems were crucified by the thousands in those days and many of those suffered worse fates, what made his death any different than that of a trouble maker.

I believe Jesus was put to death because Yahweh did not like his message of the spiritual God and his kingdom.

If someone were going to pay for the sins of all mankind how could he suffer less than anyone else . Wouldn't those that suffered on both sides of him have paid for their own sins if suffering and pain and death was the solution. So it would seem that death and suffering are not part of the retribution process at all.

I believe the Christian Kerygma ('he died for your sins') was setup by Yahweh to create a new religion for gentile followers.

Jesus message I believe was simple, it was about finding the kingdom of God. All I believe that is authentic from the Gospels are the sayings. The whole 'dying for sins' or the alleged connections with Yahweh were all made up. I believe Jesus and Buddha talked about the same thing, but Jesus spoke in terms of Father and God while Buddha did not. Just a case of a 'rose' by another name.

So if suffering, pain and agony and death are not the key to forgiveness of sins what is?

I believe God does not require or is even capable of forgiving sins. I believe God is not some guy with a beard constantly watching, punishing and frowning over the actions of his believers.

How could anyone possibly feel free under such a yoke and voluntarily choose to worship such a God? No, Jesus spoke of freedom, he said: the truth will set you free. Find the truth about Yahweh and the truth about the spiritual God and his kingdom.

Edited by hyperreal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With respect to Romans 5:12-21 two comments:

1. It is my opinion that death has always been an aspect of life, all living things die. My opinion is that the idea that Adam would become mortal due to sin is simply a lie.

2. It is my opinion that the idea that the children (or other relatives) should be held responsible for a person's sin is not justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

With respect to Romans 5:12-21 two comments:

1. It is my opinion that death has always been an aspect of life, all living things die. My opinion is that the idea that Adam would become mortal due to sin is simply a lie.

..based on what?

2. It is my opinion that the idea that the children (or other relatives) should be held responsible for a person's sin is not justice.

The Old and New Testaments in the Bible would agree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen the bible as anything more than a collection of writings that were chosen by Judaism and the church from many documents and endorsed by the church in 398AD as scripture. They favoured Paul (IMO) because they were one of the few writings that that supported their viewpoint. However, I do not see that viewpoint in any of the teachings of Jesus. I also see Paul as the maverick and independent of the disciples in Jerusalem. I believe Pauls position is explained well in the first two chapters of Galatians:-

Galatians 1 11-21.

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. (someone we have no evidence except for a contradictory story that he ever met Jesus).

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother's womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. (this again asserts that his take on things did not come from the disciples who were remaining in their jewish practices)

21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. (unknown by the churches of Judea he says).

From my point of view grace has always been and God has always been approachable. Jesus (from what doubtful sourses as the gospels) in my point of view brought the message that the kingdom of God can live within one and is to come. Blessed are the peace makers for they will become the sons of God is a far cry from being washed in my blood so that one can appraoch and be acceptable to God.

Even in the OT (some 800yrs before) we have Isaiah saying ""I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; and I will not remember your sins. Put Me in remembrance; let us contend together; state your case, that you may be acquitted." Isaiah 43:25-26

It seems all God want was straight dealing and not a sacrifice :- see Micah 6 6-8:-

6 With what shall I come before the LORD

and bow down before the exalted God?

Shall I come before him with burnt offerings,

with calves a year old?

7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams,

with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?

Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,

the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.

And what does the LORD require of you?

To act justly and to love mercy

and to walk humbly with your God.

Isaiah 1:11:- "The multitude of your sacrifices--what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

Hosea 6:8 :- For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

Do not judge or you will be judged mentioned in Matthew and Luke also supports this idea that God wants mercy and not sacrifices. A far cry (IMO) from the message that God wanted Jesus killed because he could not have mercy in any other manner.

I am sorry but the more I go into it the more I believe Paul was on his own..

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

I agree interpretation has much to do with one's preunderstanding. In the case of Romans I'm sure Paul's preunderstanding led him to write what he did. In one case in particular though I doubt his preunderstanding was correct. As for his assumption that Adam's sin brought all manking into sin and death, I would love to know where he got that idea from. Did it come from one of his supposed revelations from Christ? :sarc:

My problem with alot of Paul's teachings are that they appear to be his and his alone. Many have no connection to Judaism whatsoever. The idea that mankind is damned because of Adam's sin is not a Jewish belief. It is contradictory to the many passages in the Bible that claim everyone is responsible for their own actions and no one can pay for some one else's sin. The book of Roman's is just another example of how Paul's letters (teachings) are contradictory to those of Jesus and to the rest of the Bible. †?†

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Amulet locked this topic
This topic is now closed to further replies.