No Law = No Transgression = Sin no longer exists

[squint]

Yes, I believe that the Torah of YHVH manifested in the form of a man - Yehoshua Messiah. Man and Satan tried to kill that Torah, but it/He is alive.

We are doing just great. I applaud you for being able to get further into these factual equations than just about anyone at this board.

Now it will get down to honesty time. I think you and I have tried this before, but lets see where it goes.

Do you understand that this is the factual situation for all mankind?

In other words we all have sinned?

Psalm 14:3
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psalm 53:3Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I know this may seem childish to you, this basic frailty of humanity, but to touch the Stone of Basics is important.

We don't know if Abraham's reasoning with God about the destruction of the righteous could have went lower in number. I believe Abraham was asking for Lot and his family to be spared is all, and that for Abraham.

But the important consideration is the fact that all have sinned.

yeah or nay?

???

 

[ananda]

We are doing just great. I applaud you for being able to get further into these factual equations than just about anyone at this board.

Now it will get down to honesty time. I think you and I have tried this before, but lets see where it goes.

Do you understand that this is the factual situation for all mankind?

In other words we all have sinned?

Psalm 14:3
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Psalm 53:3Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

I know this may seem childish to you, this basic frailty of humanity, but to touch the Stone of Basics is important.

We don't know if Abraham's reasoning with God about the destruction of the righteous could have went lower in number. I believe Abraham was asking for Lot and his family to be spared is all, and that for Abraham.

But the important consideration is the fact that all have sinned.

yeah or nay?

???

Psa 14:3 & 53:3 are not addressing the righteous faithful. These verses are addressing the fools (Psa 14:1, 53:1) - those who continually work iniquity/anti-Law (14:4, 53:4)!

The Psalmist describes these anti-Law fools as the ones who have gone aside and are altogether filthy, there are none among the fools that doeth good, no, not one.

These psalms contrast the fools with YHWH's people: YHWH's people (the righteous) dwells with Him (Psa 14:5-7, Psa 53:4b-6).

 

[squint]

Psa 14:3 & 53:3 are not addressing the righteous faithful. These verses are addressing the fools (Psa 14:1, 53:1) - those who continually work iniquity/anti-Law (14:4, 53:4)!

The Psalmist describes these anti-Law fools as the ones who have gone aside and altogether filthy, there are none among the fools that doeth good, no, not one.

These psalms contrast the fools with YHWH's people: YHWH's people (the righteous) dwells with Him (Psa 14:5-7, Psa 53:4b-6).

Well, let's try the short version:

This is a pretty basic orthodox, almost universal christian belief.

1 John 1:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So we have sin. Yeah or nay?

Or are you intending to make a stand right here and say you are sinless?

This is always an interesting place for some.

???

And keep in mind I take my measures of this matter here, from Jesus, not based only on the external showing of sin:

Matt. 15:
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man:

So do we speak truthfully to each others or do we LIE right here?

???

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by netzarim

I have no opinion on this section of Luke. I do not have a second witness to this Emmaus-road encounter. The event may or may not have happened. But the sentiment is not in disagreement with established Scripture.
​

And then you wonder why we can't get the Jews to believe in the Christian NT


.

If I were a Jew I would probably feel the same way. I sure wouldn't leap headlong into some of the confusions we play with here everyday.

If I am not mistaken, Netzarim throws out the book of Acts and Paul's epistles. He can correct me if I am wrong.



.

 

[squint]

If I am not mistaken, Netzarim throws out the book of Acts and Paul's epistles. He can correct me if I am wrong.
.

His tag line says as much on Paul. But the Gospel was alive before Paul in any case. And most christians mangle Paul shamefully in any case.

 

[ananda]

Well, let's try the short version:

This is a pretty basic orthodox, almost universal christian belief.

1 John 1:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

So we have sin. Yeah or nay?

Or are you intending to make a stand right here and say you are sinless?

This is always an interesting place for some.

???

And keep in mind I take my measures of this matter here, from Jesus, not based only on the external showing of sin:

Matt. 15:
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man:

So do we speak truthfully to each others or do we LIE right here?

???

I never said I had no sin on my account. I am merely stating that the righteous diligently try to follow Him in obedience.

The Greek of 1Jn 1:8 allows for the rendering of "If we say that we continually-have no sin ..."

The righteous will not purposefully sin, nor do they reject His standards of righteousness (Torah). The unrighteous fools (in Psa 14, 53) are those who purposefully do so.

 

[TannarDarr]

Might as well throw out Peter, that bad boy said Paul's works were good. So HE MUST BE A CO CONSIPIRATOR!
And might as well throw out JOHN, as his theology corroborates Paul's except there's about 50 years difference in them and the analogies changed, but the sentiments and conclusions are the same. Different time, different direct emphasis.
That leaves us with Jude, the pastorals, Revelations.. NOPE that was John, err matthew barfed and puked... And... that's about it, right?

 

[squint]

Might as well throw out Peter, that bad boy said Paul's works were good. So HE MUST BE A CO CONSIPIRATOR!
And might as well throw out JOHN, as his theology corroborates Paul's except there's about 50 years difference in them and the analogies changed, but the sentiments and conclusions are the same. Different time, different direct emphasis.
That leaves us with Jude, the pastorals, Revelations.. NOPE that was John, err matthew barfed and puked... And... that's about it, right?

Heaven forbid a give and take session with you huh?

 

[squint]

I never said I had no sin on my account. I am merely stating that the righteous diligently try to follow Him in obedience.

I am asking you if you accept the fact that we have sin as a present tense matter? John said if we say we 'have' no sin, have being present tense.

If we see Jesus' fact that evil thoughts defile us, or as He shows in

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

We can both see that a sin can transpire in heart and never be seen on the outside of the cup.

The Pharisees stumbled at this same disclosure, thinking that EVIL is only an outside matter.

The righteous will not purposefully sin, nor do they reject His standards of righteousness (Torah). The unrighteous fools (in Psa 14, 53) are those who purposefully do so.

And only a blatant patent liar will say they never have an evil thought. And I tend not to play well with liars.

s

 

[TannarDarr]

Heaven forbid a give and take session with you huh?

Seems like the only time I have a problem is when I'm in a closed environment where the other side insists I'm wrong because they changed the rules and didn't tell me. Must make me a regular villain.

A coupla times a month, I sit in a barnes and noble, with unitarians, coupla atheists, SBC, sometimes a RCC educated Priest, rabbi, methodist, and whoever else shows up with them. And we can talk for hours.

I dunno what to tell you. They haven't figured out I'm such a pariah yet, I guess.

 

[squint]

Seems like the only time I have a problem is when I'm in a closed environment where the other side insists I'm wrong because they changed the rules and didn't tell me. Must make me a regular villain.

Maybe if you actually tried to communicate it would help?

A coupla times a month, I sit in a barnes and noble, with unitarians, coupla atheists, SBC, sometimes a RCC educated Priest, rabbi, methodist, and whoever else shows up with them. And we can talk for hours.

I dunno what to tell you. They haven't figured out I'm such a pariah yet, I guess.

Yeah the internet format makes hit and run much easier doesn't it?

zzz

 

[TannarDarr]

I am asking you if you accept the fact that we have sin as a present tense matter? John said if we say we 'have' no sin, have being present tense.

If we see Jesus' fact that evil thoughts defile us, or as He shows in

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

We can both see that a sin can transpire in heart and never be seen on the outside of the cup.

The Pharisees stumbled at this same disclosure, thinking that EVIL is only an outside matter.



And only a blatant patent liar will say they never have an evil thought. And I tend not to play well with liars.

s

It's a lot more likely to find someone who NO LONGER sins (only christ did the whole life sinless), than it is to find someone who raised from the dead. If you attack one, you attack the other.

I'd be glad to take that "no sin" thought and debate you on it. IF we can have a real, conversation about it and not you just declaring it's impossible like in this thread. As long as we both have to prove our claims.... maybe we'll both learn something.

There are more than a couple biblical examples of those who were there... I'm real happy to burst another incorrect cliche.

 

[ananda]

I am asking you if you accept the fact that we have sin as a present tense matter? John said if we say we 'have' no sin, have being present tense.

If we see Jesus' fact that evil thoughts defile us, or as He shows in

Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

We can both see that a sin can transpire in heart and never be seen on the outside of the cup.

The Pharisees stumbled at this same disclosure, thinking that EVIL is only an outside matter.

And only a blatant patent liar will say they never have an evil thought. And I tend not to play well with liars.

s

I don't disagree with the idea that we have sin on our accounts.

As for Messiah in Mt 5:28, He was reasserting the validity of both the seventh and the tenth commandments, the latter which the Pharisees tried to hide.

 

[TannarDarr]

Maybe if you actually tried to communicate it would help?

How do I communicate with, "YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT JUST AGREE WITH ME" Cuz, that's what I'm gettin. You want me to play along and be a punching bag???? I want my comments to be answered before you claim victory and try to progress the argument. I"m horrible for expecting same for same in chat, eh?

Yeah the internet format makes hit and run much easier doesn't it?

zzz

Yes, it makes ad hom assertions even easier. I've yet to run from anything. I'd be banned before I ran from a chat. So, whatever you gotta do to feel good.
I gotta tell you, this has been the most hostile first day in a forum I've seen in 15 years, at least.

And, apparently when I return in KIND it's WRONG for me, but it's the norm for you.... I dunno man... how's that workin' for ya?

 

[squint]

How do I communicate with, "YOU ARE WRONG I AM RIGHT JUST AGREE WITH ME" Cuz,

Nothing I might observe is to your detriment. What's yer beef?

There ain't no beef to be had. You just ain't figured that out yet.

s

 

[squint]

I don't disagree with the idea that we have sin on our accounts.

As for Messiah in Mt 5:28, He was reasserting the validity of both the seventh and the tenth commandments, the latter which the Pharisees tried to hide.

Ok, then I'll accept a very slow and reluctant yes...

So we might then both agree that the LAW is against evil thoughts for example?

?

 

[squint]

It's a lot more likely to find someone who NO LONGER sins (only christ did the whole life sinless), than it is to find someone who raised from the dead. If you attack one, you attack the other.

I'd be glad to take that "no sin" thought and debate you on it. IF we can have a real, conversation about it and not you just declaring it's impossible like in this thread. As long as we both have to prove our claims.... maybe we'll both learn something.

There are more than a couple biblical examples of those who were there... I'm real happy to burst another incorrect cliche.

Happy to do the short cut version on that set too. Maybe in the other thread where you left off?

and why you go into 'we are automatically in contention' is beyond me...why do you put on the phony dispute before you know you have one?

???

zzz

 

[ananda]

Ok, then I'll accept a very slow and reluctant yes...

So we might then both agree that the LAW is against evil thoughts for example?

?

Absolutely YHVH's Torah is against evil thoughts.

 

[TannarDarr]

Nothing I might observe is to your detriment. What's yer beef?

There ain't no beef to be had. You just ain't figured that out yet.

s

The order of the conversation from my perspective read as you made an implication addressing me.

If I'm wrong, please help me understand. I'd rather be wrong, than think you were a doof for no reason.

 

[TannarDarr]

Happy to do the short cut version on that set too. Maybe in the other thread where you left off?

and why you go into 'we are automatically in contention' is beyond me...why do you put on the phony dispute before you know you have one?

???

zzz

see above. show me where I misintrepreted so I can get on the right page. From my perspective, and the mindset I was in and the silly stuff so far in the conversation, my interpretation could have been off. Again, I'm not too big to be wrong.