1 John 3:9, John says Christians cannot sin

[Danielwright2311]

There are lot’s of people who believe these... but their actions proved otherwise and still continue to live a very sinful life and seldom participate in church.

It’s possible for these people to believe by the their “lips” and not with their “hearts”. I dont think that’s the kind of belief that the Lord is looking for.

Then they dont belive, if they did there actions would show it, as belief moves you to do good for others.

Show me one person who believes in Jesus, truly believes and does bad to others, there is none.

Just because you say you belive does not prove anything.

 

[Danielwright2311]

I am not following your logic. You said you believe John, yet you dispute the very quote that John wrote. I must ask, is there an echo in the room. For it seems that every post you respond with the same "Well guess what? Jesus is the one who saves and he said diffrent then you so will listen only to him and not others."

I belive Jesus over any one, if you belive any one over Jesus, then you dont belive in Jesus.

 

[mark kennedy]

1 John 3:9 says, "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

What do you say? Do you agree, or disagree? Take the poll.




cc: @Saint Steven

The key here is the 'seed' that remains.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I have not gotten personal, why have you? I think it is better to address the topic rather than the other person. Also it is required by forum rules. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't respect you.
....."I expect you to do the digging." That ain't the way it works, the person who makes an assertion has the burden of providing the evidence. I always do. I can just imagine a college professor or a pastor saying e.g. "[The Nicolaitans] even raped each other's wives on a daily basis. Now all of you go research and prove that."

Read my posts. Believe them, or don't. I've shown you Semitic writing styles and how John is NOT contradicting himself from 1 John 1:8 vs. 1 John 3:9. If one is cleansed of all sin, are they to still call themselves a sinner, or what Jesus calls them, a son? John 8:34-36. You disregarded all of it as "zero evidence." If I were you, I'd take more classes, or get my money back. By disregarding Semitic writing styles to interpret the writings of Jews, you're not a credible scholar.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Then they dont belive, if they did there actions would show it, as belief moves you to do good for others.

Show me one person who believes in Jesus, truly believes and does bad to others, there is none.

Just because you say you belive does not prove anything.

Hitler was RCC.

 

[FaithWithObedience]

Then they dont belive, if they did there actions would show it, as belief moves you to do good for others.

Show me one person who believes in Jesus, truly believes and does bad to others, there is none.

Just because you say you belive does not prove anything.

One person I can think of arrested / tortured / killed his rival theologians.

 

[Der Alte]

begin

<1CL>Read my posts. Believe them, or don't. I've shown you Semitic writing styles and how John is NOT contradicting himself from 1 John 1:8 vs. 1 John 3:9. If one is cleansed of all sin, are they to still call themselves a sinner, or what Jesus calls them, a son? John 8:34-36. You disregarded all of it as "zero evidence." If I were you, I'd take more classes, or get my money back. By disregarding Semitic writing styles to interpret the writings of Jews, you're not a credible scholar.<end>

end

You saying "Semitic writing styles," is not "evidence" and it does not make it so. I remind you I studied Hebrew at the graduate level, I have Hebrew lexicons and grammars in my "library." Nothing about any "semitic writing style" which supports your assertion. Here are some links to Hebraisms. Again nothing that supports your assertions. If you got this notion from one or more of your pastors or teachers maybe you should go back to them and find out where they got their information.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...braisms.html&usg=AOvVaw2zhgKgNO-qQMO2n-RakPQT

Full text of "Hebraisms in the authorized version of the Bible"

 

[Der Alte]

Hitler was RCC.

Purportedly. He was a "Catholic" in the sense that he was not a "protestant." Being baptized as an infant does not mean that someone was a practicing anything as an adult.

 

[1stcenturylady]

<1CL>Read my posts. Believe them, or don't. I've shown you Semitic writing styles and how John is NOT contradicting himself from 1 John 1:8 vs. 1 John 3:9. If one is cleansed of all sin, are they to still call themselves a sinner, or what Jesus calls them, a son? John 8:34-36. You disregarded all of it as "zero evidence." If I were you, I'd take more classes, or get my money back. By disregarding Semitic writing styles to interpret the writings of Jews, you're not a credible scholar.<end>
You saying "Semitic writing styles," is not "evidence" and it does not make it so. I remind you I studied Hebrew at the graduate level, I have Hebrew lexicons and grammars in my "library." Nothing about any "semitic writing style" which supports your assertion. Here are some links to Hebraisms. Again nothing that supports your assertions. If you got this notion from one or more of your pastors or teachers maybe you should go back to them and find out where they got their information.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjRp5Wt4affAhUMRqwKHYqtAFEQFjALegQIChAB&url=http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html&usg=AOvVaw2zhgKgNO-qQMO2n-RakPQT

Full text of "Hebraisms in the authorized version of the Bible"

I've got the first of your links, but even it is not complete, but is like kindergarten. And frankly, I can't be impressed with one man's credentials, if he can't get into the mind of a Jew, just knows his language.

 

[Der Alte]

I've got the first of your links, but even it is not complete, but is like kindergarten. And frankly, I can't be impressed with one man's credentials, if he can't get into the mind of a Jew, just knows his language.

Both links worked just fine for me, just now. How do you know that either writer couldn't get into the mind of a Jew? Do you have this capability? Here are a few more links

Language of the New Testament in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.

https://unora.unior.it/retrieve/han...2014. Hebraisms in English Bible versions.pdf

Hebraisms in the authorized version of the Bible : Rosenau, William, 1865-1943 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Author of the book, Hebraisms in the NT
Rosenau, William:
By: Cyrus Adler, I. George Dobsevage
American rabbi; born at Wollstein, Germany, May 30, 1865. He attended successively the gymnasium of Hirschberg (Silesia), the public schools of Philadelphia, the University of Cincinnati (B.A. 1888), Hebrew Union College (rabbinical diploma, 1889), and Johns Hopkins University (Ph.D. 1900). Rosenau was rabbi of Temple Israel, Omaha, Neb., from 1889 to 1892, when he became rabbi of Congregation Oheb Shalom, Baltimore, Md. In 1896 and 1897 he was second vice-president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis; and since 1903 he has been corresponding secretary of that body. Rosenau has been attached to the faculty of Johns Hopkins University as instructor in rabbinica (1898-1903), as fellow in the department of Semitics (1900-3), and (since 1903) as associate in rabbinica. From 1900 to 1903 he was a member of the Baltimore board of education.
Rosenau has contributed to the American Jewish press, and was for four years associate editor of "The Jewish Comment." He is the author of: "Semitic Studies in Colleges" (1896); "Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of the Bible" (1903); and "Jewish Ceremonial Institutions and Customs" (Baltimore, 1903).