Corpus-Paul

["moon-ryul jung" <moon AT saint.soongsil.ac.kr>]

Dear Iver,
please see my comments below.

> [Moon]
>  
> > The usual reading of Rom 6:14 is that 
> > sin's dominion over us has to do with
> > our being under the Law.
> > This reading is obtained by reading "sin
> > will not be the master of you, because
> > you are not under the Law" (omitting 
> > the part "but under grace").
> 
> > From it, we can state:
> > (a)if you are not under the Law, sin 
> > will not be the master of you.
> 
> > From (a), many derive (b):
> 
> > (b) if you are under the Law, sin will 
> > be the master of you.
> 
> > It does not hold, in fact. This is a 
> > logical fallacy.

[Iver] 
> Really? It strikes me as pure logic.
> 
[Moon]

Let S1 be the set of situations in which "you are not under the Law"
hold. Let S2 be the set of situations in which "sin will not be the master
of you" holds. We have "you are not under the Law" => "sin will not 
be the master of you". It means S1 is a subset of S2 (the diagram of S1
is contained in the diagram of S2). Let C(S1) be the complement of S1,
and C(S2) be the complement of S2. C(S1) is the set of situations 
in which "you are under the Law" holds. C(S2) is the set of situations
in which "sin will be the master of you" holds. In order to have
"you are under the Law" => "sin will be the master of you", 
C(S1) should be a subset of C(S2). But when S1 is a subset of S2,
C(S1) is NOT a subset of C(S2). Therefore "you are under the Law"
=> "sin will be the master of you" does not hold. 
   
About the other issues, later.

Moon
Moon-Ryul Jung
Sogang Univ, Seoul, Korea