Imputed Righteousness???

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And I be found (καὶ εὑρεθῶ) in him (ἐν αὐτῷ), not having (μὴ ἔχων) mine own righteousness, the one out of law, (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου ) but (ἀλλὰ) the [righteousness] through Christ's faith/faithfulness ( τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), the righteousness out of God (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) based upon the faith ( ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει):
Can you list a few of the possible meanings of "the righteousness of God".

For example, are "the sacrifices of God" the sacrifices God does? Or are they something else?
Psa 51:17
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

Not exactly .
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Com...estion4-original-manuscripts-of-the-bible.cfm

Well, God did not reveal the full Gospel to OT saints, but RM 8:9 indicates that all believers are indwelt by the HS.

The righteousness of God is Christ's righteousness or moral perfection/being perfectly loving.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And I be found (καὶ εὑρεθῶ) in him (ἐν αὐτῷ), not having (μὴ ἔχων) mine own righteousness (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην) , the [righteousness] out of law, τὴν ἐκ νόμου) i.e. the righteousness out of my faithfulness to the law; but rather (ἀλλὰ) the [righteousness that is] through Christ's faith/faithfulness (τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), the righteousness out of God (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) based upon the faithfulness [of Christ] ( ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει):

I don't see this as inherently claiming that we receive Christ's own righteousness by receiving Christ's own faith. Let's assume Paul is saying "but rather the righteousness that is through Christ's faith."
Having hypothermia through a sudden unexpected severe temperature drop is not the same thing as hypothermia being a sudden unexpected severe temperature drop. A sudden unexpected severe temperature drop is a mechanism by which we can develop hypothermia.It is not our hypothermia per se.
Receiving an aneurism through a severe blow to the head is not he same as a severe aneurism being a severe blow to the head,. A severe blow to the head is a mechanism by which we can develop an aneurism. It is not my aneurism per se.
And having a righteousness that is "through Christ's faith" is not the same as having a righteousness that is "Christ's faith", which God has reckoned to us as righteousness. Christ's faith is a means by which we can develop righteousness. It is not our righteousness per se.

So, even if we grant that Paul means "Christ's faith" rather than "Christ's faithfulness", the text does not quite end up equating Christ's faith to our righteousness.

To me, the most coherent reading of the sense is -
9 And I be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, the [righteousness that is] out of [my faithfulness] to the law; but rather the [righteousness that is] through Christ's faithfulness [to God, to His promises and to men], the righteousness [that] God prescribed which rests upon the faithfulness [of Christ].

Correct, the text equates or credits repenting faith (like Abraham's) with Christ's faithful righteousness,
which Jesus called oneness with the righteous Father in JN 17:22-26.

5:12 Through this) Διὰ τοῦτο just as (ὥσπερ) through one man (δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) the sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) into the cosmos (εἰς τὸν κόσμον) entered (iεἰσῆλθεν) and (καὶ) through the sin (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας) the death (ὁ θάνατος) even so (καὶ οὕτως) into all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους) the death (ὁ θάνατος) went through (διῆλθεν) upon which (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) all sinned (πάντες ἥμαρτον·)

I interpret this to mean - Because of what was just said (we can say that) just as through one man the sin (of that man) entered into the world, and through the sin (of that man) the physical death (threatened entered into the world); even so the threatened physical death began to work in all men, as a result of which all (who sinned) sinned.

eph' + dative relative pronoun refers back to a basis already stated and upon which the following clause was subsequently built.

Luk 11:22
But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour upon which (eph' hEi) he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
eph' hEi refers back to a basis upon which the strongman trusted. All his armour was the cause of the strong man's confidence.

Rom. 5:12 ... even so the death threatened began to work in all men, as a result of which (eph' hOi) all (who sinned) sinned.
eph' hOi refers back to a basis upon which all who sinned sinned. Death working in all men was the cause of all men sinning.

Everyone was at the mall to see the magician. Well, we say that, but we mean that most people at the mall were there to see the magician.

The local radio station advertised a free magic show at the mall, upon which everyone in town headed to the mall.
The radio advertising a free magic show caused everyone to head to the mall. But not everyone literally. The advertisment caused all those who heard it and who headed to the mall, to head to the mall. And there were others at the mall who had no idea there would be a magician there.

Death/mortality/a limited lifespan passing to all men caused all those who sinned out of a sense of mortality, to sin because of their sense of mortality. But not necessarily every single person who sinned, sinned for that reason. And not every single person necessarily sinned at all.

Thanks, as always. It's such a pleasure to read some depth in analysis of the Text vs. the passing on of traditions.

This will be brief based upon my need to go out for a while. Because I must go out for a while, this will be brief. See 2Cor5:4.

My concern is based upon all the Scripture that says the flow is sin > death and not death > sin.

Death came into the kosmos through sin & death spread within mankind because/based upon all men sinned.

Even chiastically:

Sin entered
All sinned

Are you saying that Abraham was indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

That David was indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

Indwelt for the Church involves the Holy Spirit taking up permanent residency.

OT saints had moments when the Holy Spirit would work in them,,,, but could leave.
OT did not have the control like we do. That is why they needed Law to constrain them,
and why God overlooked things like David having a harem.


......

5:12 Through this (Διὰ τοῦτο just as (ὥσπερ) through one man (δι᾽ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) the sin (ἡ ἁμαρτία) into the cosmos (εἰς τὸν κόσμον) entered (iεἰσῆλθεν) and (καὶ) through the sin (διὰ τῆς ἁμαρτίας) the death (ὁ θάνατος) even so (καὶ οὕτως) into all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους) the death (ὁ θάνατος) went through (διῆλθεν) upon which (ἐφ᾽ ᾧ) all sinned (πάντες ἥμαρτον·)

I interpret this to mean - Because of what was just said (we can say that) just as through one man the sin (of that man) entered into the world, and through the sin (of that man) the death (threatened entered into the world); even so the death threatened began to work in all men, as a result of which all (who sinned) sinned.

eph' + dative relative pronoun refers back to a basis already stated and upon which the following clause was subsequently built.

Luk 11:22
But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein (eph' hEi) he trusted, and divideth his spoils.
eph' hEi refers back to a basis upon which the strongman trusted. All his armour was the cause of the strong man's confidence.

Rom. 5:12 ... even so the death threatened began to work in all men, as a result of which (eph' hOi) all (who sinned) sinned.
eph' hOi refers back to a basis upon which all who sinned sinned. Death working in all men was the cause of all men sinning.

Everyone was at the mall to see the magician. Well, we say that, but we mean most people at the mall were at the mall to see the magician.
Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

What did the fear of death subject people to the bondage of? Sin? Or something else? I'm open to suggestions.

I'm not sure how the chiastic argument is supposed to work. Is it A and A' are both causes, B and B' are consequences? And I'm not sure how one determines some argument was intended to be chiastic?

The soul that sins will die seems to describe the process from a physical temporal perspective. Obviously the soul that dies will sin makes no sense physically.
Physical death being commanded upon all because of Adam's sin leading to acts of sin because of realising one is mortal, makes sense. If one has a limited lifespan the pressure is on to achieve comfort and security while one can, and moral shortcuts become convenient. "The soul that knows it is condemned to die will sin" makes some sense, to me at least.

What sins did still-borns and victims of infant death commit to be subject to death?

That is what Paul implies in RM 8:9-11, but perhaps he did not mean for us to take him literally, and
why in the world would you object to that interpretation but then say the HS came and went?!

And let us also consider 1PT 1:10, which says the Spirit of Christ/HS was in the OT prophets.

And would the HS be in the spiritual descendants of the father of saving faith but not be in Abraham? (RM 4)
(David is mentioned in that chapter too :^)

.
The passage below is deliberately misquoted to emphasize a point. Watch for the
revision.

"Sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all will sin (Rom 5:12)

No; it doesn't say "all will sin" it actually says "all have sinned" which is grammatically
past tense indicating that Adam's entire posterity were joint principals with him in the act
of eating the forbidden fruit.

So then, nobody comes into this world 100% innocent; not even Christ because he is
one of Adam's paternal grandsons. And in point of fact, had not Christ died on the cross,
he would've eventually died of something else

FAQ: If Jesus was a joint principal with Adam in the act of eating the forbidden fruit,
then how can it be said he was a lamb without blemish or spot? (1Pet 1:18-19)

REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for. (2Cor 5:21, 1Pet 2:22, Heb
4:15, 1John 3:9).

FAQ: How can Rom 5:12 be valid when the Bible says a man's posterity isn't held
responsible for his mistakes? For example:

"The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father,
nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will
be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."
(Ezek 18:20 & Deut 24:16)

REPLY: The secret to this is simply timing. According to Deut 5:2-4 & Gal 3:17, the laws
of God aren't retroactive.
_

Am I beginning to understand that you see no difference between an OT believer and the New Creation in Christ?

The word "new" in new creation, means something new and never existed before.

grace and peace ..............

Sorry. I was busy with yardwork yesterday and housework today. What did I miss?

You missed some loose stones next to the garden that you were supposed to remove.

The difference I see is in the revelation, which progressed from Mosaic law to Messianic prophets to NT fulfillment,
but not in the spiritual dynamic or how God relates to humanity, except how it was affected by that degree of revelation.
The fullness of times involving the atonement and resurrection of Christ was indeed new revelation.

My point was that I think we missed by your other discussion ending. At least I did. Posters referencing TDNT and L-N and getting down to seriously looking at definitions and application are a rarity. Some get to Strong's and even Thayer's periodically from some websites, but most seem to be arguing from having been taught a certain tradition.

Anyway, just wondering what made you both stop. Maybe you were done. Yardwork and housework make sense.

What you see in your subjective thinking is to over ride what the Bible tells us?

You need to find a good teacher.
Then you may begin putting the pieces together for yourself...

This a one good teacher whom I was blessed to sit under in my early years in Christ.

I appreciate his attitude that had become a part of my own.

No, I am not ignoring that professional translators consider the ,meaning that was intended to be conveyed by the literal words in a text, but they need to justify from the use of the language that the meaning they are ascribing exists in the word's use outside of the Bible. They should not invent a Bible specific meaning that is nowhere found outside of the Bible.

I have also spoken with a professional translator for Wycliffe, and he told me that once a professional translator produces a translation, Wycliffe vets it for theological conformity that matches the Wycliffe theological perspective. So, in translations you are reading without checking them against the original language texts, you are getting a curated opinion of what the Lord had recorded for our edification.

Personally, I am not prepared to go all in on someone else's opinions without knowing howthey arrived at those opinions.