“it was "The works of the Law" that was the venue this spiritual "witchcraft" was being done through.”
To me it is impossible to argue, and confirms everything BobRyan has consistenetly said you are doing, Eric B, which is, that you in the end, make of the Law itself, witchcraft. If you can’t see how any other sound-minded person must see your arguments, its worthless to further debate. Don’t come with your excuse every time, “Not because the Law was bad; but because their INTENT was!”, it’s sanctimonious bigotry!
Oh; so an "excuse"? In other words; you just refuse to separate God's Law from man's attempts at observance of it ("WORKS"), and you can't refute it; so just label it an "excuse". The two go together inseparable; and are BOTH perfect and blameless.
So I guess then, by the works of the Law all man SHALL be justified; but now we have a problem that much of the rest of the NT is false.
What the Galations were doing was what they were DOING – their “INTENT” included – and it was idolatry, pagan idolatry, and NOTHING like Old Testament be it behind the times ‘Jewish’ faith.
And what the Jews were doing; while technically not "idolatry" was just bad! IS God any more pleased with them in the NT then He was in the OT when they were falling into idolatry? No; it's now; with their rigorous pitching of the Law that they are led to reject God's Messiah; and eventually; judgment falls ont he entire nation.
But, protests Eric B to my, correlating the words “bewitched” (baskainoh) in 3:10, and “paratehreoh’ in 4:10 (“Paul asked, "Who bewitched you?" And that is most significant, because to "bewitch" was in much the same way exactly what Paul accused the Galatians of doing in 4:10, "to divine" 'paratehreoh'. Now here you've given me and Bob one more clue as to of what nature the Galatians’ relapse was, namely, that is was a relapse into their former heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!”),
saying,
“Oh, no you don't! You should have checked the Greek before trying this trick. Not only is "bewitched" not "paratero"; it has no more necessarily to do with "to divine" or "idolatry" than does that word. It is "baskaino" meaning to "malign", or (by ext.) to "fascinate" (by false representations)!
This means a simple misleading by false arguments; not any actual "pagan witchcraft".”
Again, thank you, Eric B, for this handy definition of what ‘baskainoh’ can actually mean, namely, “to "malign", or...to "fascinate"”. The heathen, gentile, idolaters, were much maligned and fascinated by their “elemental no-gods” of time, “days, months, seasons and years”! Very good!
And the Judaizers were similarly "fascinated"; by their works-righteousness, and belief that God was obligated to send them the Messiah for their own selfish reasons; and ESPECIALLY "mislead by false arguments". You can't tell me they weren't "betwitched" in some fashion when they screamed and gnshed their teeth demanding Christ to be crucified; and even appealing to Caesar! All of this over "the Law".
So thank you for admitting my point!
Again, ‘baskainoh’ is a word used in the NT but this once – too unordinary a word for the Judaisers’ age old doctrine of salvation by works of the Law – and which, once more, here implies what I’ve adduced above, that this word, like ‘paratehreoh’, supposes heathen, gentile, pagan, "bewitched" and "divined" idolatry!
NEITHER necessarily supports "divined idolatry" exclusively, (you just gloss over my proof; try to turn it in your fvor, and now just reiterate your unproven assertion); and do you have any support for you statement about it being "too unordinary?" Or are you just making up your own theory? (Keep in mind; even if it did refer to divination; we see in many places where the Jews' rebellion is called such things and names associated with pagans!).
GE: First, Eric B, you insisted – persistently, unequivocally – that “the whole body” / “the entire context” / “72 verses”, etc, is “bondage under the Law”, and that therefore, even 4:8-10 MUST be, ‘bondage under the Law’. Now you admit: “Of those who once worshipped false gods; you're right; it is "gentiles". Of those being "compelled"; again; you're right, it is "gentiles".” So, half of your “whole”, already is not ‘bondage under the Law’, but is bondage under paganism. With this half of your "whole"-argument goes your whole argument.
Right here; you begin to blur what I said into your straw man. I always acknowledged that v.8 was about gentile paganism, and NEVER said it was bondage under the LAw. It was a CONTRAST of their past; with the new form of[equal] "bondage" they were falling into. But to you; it has to be all one or the other, so you can accuse me of making the Law paganism, or "the whole argument" falls. It is your recasting of my argument that falls. Not my real argument; which takes what each verse says, but within the context of the whole.
Saying this, you contradict Paul who explicitly states the Jews involved in the Galatian issue – and he mentions them and all of them specifically – “compelled NOT”!
Then you contradict Paul directly with YOUR OWN and arrogant assertion: “No; clearly the ones DOING the compelling would be JEWS!” Either you, or Paul, is lying here.
With this last part of your original bolstering again goes your "whole"-argument – twice demolished at once.
I repeat; "ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT EVERY SINGLE JEW ALIVE ACCEPTED THE GOSPEL AND THERE WERE N
THERS WHO DIDN'T?" You either ignored this point; or maybe you haven;t gotten to it yet. But even in Galatia, there would still be Jews who opposed the Gospel; and those who "accpeted Him" on a superficial level; but did not accept the Gospel, and would try to come in and corrupt it. For you to take a single mention to "Jews" and project that onto the whole race; or even all of the people in a parg9cular town is ridiculous, and you are the one piling demolished arguments on top of demolished arguments.
You blame me and BobRyan for being so hiper-pro-Jewish we can’t see them do any sin. But so are you anti-Jewish they can’t do anything but it is so wicked they take everybody with them to hell. Then you are so totally blind to the pagans also being human and sinners, they too are in effect justified in their worst perdition by the Law since the Jews – the Law – were their bewitchers.
Untrue! It is you, Eric B, who deny – and don’t only seem to be in denial – that paganism was bondage as well, or worse, than Judaism, because you insist where Paul speaks of the pagan no-gods of time, “days, months, seasons and years”, he speaks of ‘bondage under the Law’.
Here you proect you two's own tunnel vision on me. In saying the Judaizers were culpable in Galatians; I NEVER sugggested pagans were now innocent, justified, not human sinners; etc. It is your line of reasoning that suggests the Jews could not possibly go wrong under the Law. Once again: What do you think he would he be saying to them if they had fallen into Judaism? That they were OKAY?
I have said that John dealt more with paganism. And of course, the OT condemns it a lot too. I have always said that BOTH were equally under bondage; but you two are so busy trying to twist my arguments into an assult on the Law itself; that you can't see that.
GE quoting EB: (31/3/05, 02:06) “are you (GE) suggesting that Peter's "living as a Jew" was RIGHT; and here COMMENDED by Paul? No; people lived in fear of the Jews; trying to placate them...”
GE: Are you suggesting I suggested it? Then you’re mistaken. Why not be so valiant and say it is you who so hold? Because you suppose “Peter's "living as a JEW"” was wrong, whilst Paul reprimands him his "living as a Jew", WAS wrong! You suppose, however to live as a Jew, is wrong; Paul supposes to live as a Jew, is, or, should be, the right way. And in this case the right way to live as a Jew was to truly live as a Christian. That is, Eric B, what you are unable – or rather, unwilling – to see. Therefore, no, I do not suggest “that Peter's "living as a Jew" was RIGHT”; I say just what Paul said, ‘Peter, you are NOT living as a Jew now being so prejudiced towards your brethren of the Gentiles. Live as a Jew for being a Christian, should and would, before you can expect of these Gentiles to live like yourself.’ Because Paul here commends living as a Jew, because it suggests living right and Christianly. Paul here does not condemn; he commends; you’re right again, dear Eric B!
And here again; you make up your own definitions. Why would he refer to "living as a Christian" as "living as a Jew". "Living as a Jew" meant keeping the Law; and it was done "in fear of the circumsision". According to you; they lived as a Christian in fear of the Jews. Totally opposite of what actually went on. You are just picking verses out and completely ignoring the context. So now, in your version of Galatians; we have Jews justified by the Law and this made synonymous with "Christians".
GE quoting EB: “... while the "observance" is "condemned" as Bob puts it; it is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law; such as worshipping other gods.”
GE: Another blatant contradiction of yours, Eric B, of Paul’s verdict: “… ye turn again to the weak and beggarly ELEMENTS whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage: Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years – I am afraid of you lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” These, were the very “by-nature-no-gods … ye did service unto when ye knew not God”. But Eric B declares, “it is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law; such as worshipping other gods.”
Another blantant ignoring of the rest of the context on your part. Look at v.3 again:
"WE who were in bondage to the ELEMENTS". Even if you insist this was "all of mankind" as Bob says; still; this "WE" means Paul includes himself. Col.2:20 he says "Wherefore if all of you be dead with Christ from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are all of you subject to ordinances,
2:21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
2:22 Which all are to perish with the using
[here he defines what "ordinaces" he was referring to in v.16; contrary to Bob's "certificate"!]
The Law had such "tast not; handle not" ordinances; as well as the additional "commandments" added by men.
And if the "observance" is not because it is something that by its very nature conflicts with the commandments of the Law, and if, the "observance" were not such as worshipping other gods, then, Eric B, why would Paul so harshly condemn both ‘observer’ and ‘observed’? Would he condemn the poor Gentile believers for actually believing and doing “(things) that by its very nature were” in agreement “with the commandments of the Law”,
Because they cannot do these things CONSISTENTLY to be in complete "agreement with the commandments of the Law"; and they will thusn FALL SHORT. They would be bound to do the whole Law, and continue to fail miserably. Therefore; by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified; and to keep trying is to essentially reject Christ and make him of no profit. Even if Bob was right that ch. 5 was some "new issue"; we see that this is still quite a serious offense!
and in truth were far from “such (things) as worshipping other gods”? Is that what you say, Eric B, made Paul say: ‘I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain, because you want to come under bondage all over again (4:11, 9)? (Although you use terms from 5:2 – another subtle ‘trick’ (as you say) of yours to confuse!) But yes, it is indeed what you want us to believe! Bob Ryan has shown you this, but you will not have it!
It is not a trick; but rather part of the context. It is you two with the tricks to separate this and isolate v.8-10 as if they were their own complete epistle! Once again; even if ch. 5 was some totally separate issue; it still disproves your assertion that people cannot be accused of these things while tryingto keep the Law.
