a thought

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I apologize once more if I have come across to you as you describe. I am not seeking to find fault at all. I just would like to understand where you are coming from and how you got there. I would love to be helpful to you and others.

I am nothing but a country bumpkin coming from the mountains of West Virginia. The Lord has seen fit to use me in ways that I could never imagine.

God bless you brother, much to be gained from how you've responded here. Grace and peace.

 

[twin1954]

And where do you get that interpretation from? I ask you this because grammatically it makes no sense. And if you're willing to follow this; I can demonstrate that interpretation makes no grammatical sense.

Let's play a little game here and do some word replacement and see what contextually makes the most sense.

1 John 3: (Jesus version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus; for we shall see Jesus as Jesus is.

3 And every man that hath Jesus hope in him purifieth himself, even as Jesus is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in Jesus is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in Jesus sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Jesus, neither known Jesus.

1 John 3: (Believer version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew believers not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when believers shall appear, we shall be like believers; for we shall see believers as believers (are). is.

3 And every man that hath believers hope in him purifieth himself, even as believers is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that believers was manifested to take away our sins; and in believers is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in believers sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen believers, neither known believers.

1 John 3: (mixed version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus?; for we shall see Jesus? as ? is.

3 And every man that hath ? hope in him purifieth himself, even as ? is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in believer is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in ? sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen ?, neither known ?.

Greek version with grammatical notations:
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us (plural), that we (plural) should be called the sons (plural) of God: therefore the world knoweth us plural not, because it knew Him (personal / possessive - singular) not.

2 Beloved, now are we (plural) the sons (plural) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we (plural) shall be: but we (plural) know that, when He (aorist subjective - singular) shall appear, we (plural) shall be like Him (personal / possessive - singular); for we (plural) shall see Him (personal / possessive - singular) as He (present indicative active - singular) is.

Aorist subjective = the "he" is attached to the verb "appear" so thus is subjective to the conjunctions "that when"; or as they are translated in the KJV "shall". It's "subjective" to it's own occurrence because it has not occurred yet.

3 And every man (singular) that hath this (demonstrative pronoun, accusative - singular) hope in him (personal / possessive - singular) purifieth himself (reflective pronoun - singular), even as He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) is pure.

A demonstrative pronoun points to a specific thing. The demonstrative pronoun of the word "this" is relating to "hope". They are both in the accusative case. The accusative expresses the object or goal of the verb. The verb in this portion of the verse is "has". This could be correctly translated "has hope in this" or "has hope in Him" The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun.

Or "And every one having His hope in him purifies himself, even as He is pure." That would probably be the most accurate translation that makes the easiest sense in English.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye (plural) know (perfect indicative active) that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) was manifested to take away our (aorist subjective active - singular - not the best translation of this verse) sins (plural); and in Him (Demonstrative pronoun singular) is no sin (singular).

Here is what a word for word Greek translation looks like:

And you (plural) know that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) appeared so that the sins (plural) He (aorist subjective active - singular) might take away; and sin (singular) in Him (demonstrative pronoun - singular) not there is.

Now as mentioned before a demonstrative pronoun is pointing to a specific thing.
The subject of the sentence is "you".
The object is "He".
"Know", "appeared", "take", "is" are verbs.
"You", "Him" and "sin" / "sins" are nouns.

"You know" are connected together.
"He appeared" are connected together.
"sins He take (away)" are connected together.
"sin Him (not) is" are connected.

Those are the "word clauses" in the sentence. The verb and nouns that are connected to each other.

Notice - "and sin in Him not there is". "Him" is singular. That can not be a reference to believers, because believers are plural. We know this because "you" in the beginning of the sentence is plural. Also, it would make no contextual sense to be speaking of one believer.

6 Whosoever abideth (present participle active) in Him sinneth (present indicative active) not: whosoever sinneth (present participle active) hath not seen (perfect indicative active) Him, neither known (perfect indicative active) Him.

Now verse 6 is interesting because all of the nouns (including "sins") are all in the singular. Whosoever is singular. Him is singular and "sin" is singular.

Present participle active = We commonly put an "ing" on in the English. This makes it a "contemporary action".

Present indicative active = Actions that are current facts.

Perfect indicative active = Actions that are current facts seen as a whole on a continuum that transverses a time period.

So, in conclusion:
The "and in Him is no sin" at the end of verse 5 is talking about Jesus Christ, not believers; because grammatically speaking to say that it is talking about believers makes no contextual sense; to that verse or the rest of the passage.

I will get back to you on this tomorrow. To many other responsibilities today.

 

[twin1954]

And where do you get that interpretation from? I ask you this because grammatically it makes no sense. And if you're willing to follow this; I can demonstrate that interpretation makes no grammatical sense.

Let's play a little game here and do some word replacement and see what contextually makes the most sense.

1 John 3: (Jesus version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus; for we shall see Jesus as Jesus is.

3 And every man that hath Jesus hope in him purifieth himself, even as Jesus is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in Jesus is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in Jesus sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen Jesus, neither known Jesus.

1 John 3: (Believer version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew believers not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when believers shall appear, we shall be like believers; for we shall see believers as believers (are). is.

3 And every man that hath believers hope in him purifieth himself, even as believers is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that believers was manifested to take away our sins; and in believers is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in believers sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen believers, neither known believers.

1 John 3: (mixed version)
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Jesus not.

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when Jesus shall appear, we shall be like Jesus?; for we shall see Jesus? as ? is.

3 And every man that hath ? hope in him purifieth himself, even as ? is pure.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye know that Jesus was manifested to take away our sins; and in believer is no sin.

6 Whosoever abideth in ? sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen ?, neither known ?.

Greek version with grammatical notations:
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us (plural), that we (plural) should be called the sons (plural) of God: therefore the world knoweth us plural not, because it knew Him (personal / possessive - singular) not.

2 Beloved, now are we (plural) the sons (plural) of God, and it doth not yet appear what we (plural) shall be: but we (plural) know that, when He (aorist subjective - singular) shall appear, we (plural) shall be like Him (personal / possessive - singular); for we (plural) shall see Him (personal / possessive - singular) as He (present indicative active - singular) is.

Aorist subjective = the "he" is attached to the verb "appear" so thus is subjective to the conjunctions "that when"; or as they are translated in the KJV "shall". It's "subjective" to it's own occurrence because it has not occurred yet.

3 And every man (singular) that hath this (demonstrative pronoun, accusative - singular) hope in him (personal / possessive - singular) purifieth himself (reflective pronoun - singular), even as He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) is pure.

A demonstrative pronoun points to a specific thing. The demonstrative pronoun of the word "this" is relating to "hope". They are both in the accusative case. The accusative expresses the object or goal of the verb. The verb in this portion of the verse is "has". This could be correctly translated "has hope in this" or "has hope in Him" The word "this" is a demonstrative pronoun.

Or "And every one having His hope in him purifies himself, even as He is pure." That would probably be the most accurate translation that makes the easiest sense in English.

4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

5 And ye (plural) know (perfect indicative active) that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) was manifested to take away our (aorist subjective active - singular - not the best translation of this verse) sins (plural); and in Him (Demonstrative pronoun singular) is no sin (singular).

Here is what a word for word Greek translation looks like:

And you (plural) know that He (demonstrative pronoun - singular) appeared so that the sins (plural) He (aorist subjective active - singular) might take away; and sin (singular) in Him (demonstrative pronoun - singular) not there is.

Now as mentioned before a demonstrative pronoun is pointing to a specific thing.
The subject of the sentence is "you".
The object is "He".
"Know", "appeared", "take", "is" are verbs.
"You", "Him" and "sin" / "sins" are nouns.

"You know" are connected together.
"He appeared" are connected together.
"sins He take (away)" are connected together.
"sin Him (not) is" are connected.

Those are the "word clauses" in the sentence. The verb and nouns that are connected to each other.

Notice - "and sin in Him not there is". "Him" is singular. That can not be a reference to believers, because believers are plural. We know this because "you" in the beginning of the sentence is plural. Also, it would make no contextual sense to be speaking of one believer.

6 Whosoever abideth (present participle active) in Him sinneth (present indicative active) not: whosoever sinneth (present participle active) hath not seen (perfect indicative active) Him, neither known (perfect indicative active) Him.

Now verse 6 is interesting because all of the nouns (including "sins") are all in the singular. Whosoever is singular. Him is singular and "sin" is singular.

Present participle active = We commonly put an "ing" on in the English. This makes it a "contemporary action".

Present indicative active = Actions that are current facts.

Perfect indicative active = Actions that are current facts seen as a whole on a continuum that transverses a time period.

So, in conclusion:
The "and in Him is no sin" at the end of verse 5 is talking about Jesus Christ, not believers; because grammatically speaking to say that it is talking about believers makes no contextual sense; to that verse or the rest of the passage.

I think you are stretching the Greek a little. Here is an actual word for word translation:

And we know that/because He/that One was shown/manifested in order that/ to the sins to bear away. And sin in Him not is.

If you would like I can give you the Greek and the translations of each word.

Now we must look at the 2 conjunctions, Kia, And. They, in both places they are used, connect what was said before with what is being said. Interpretation of the Greek most often relies on the context.

So what was said before in verses 1-4.

1 John 3:1-4 (KJV) 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There are 3 subjects that the Apostle is pointing to: believers, sin and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First he speaks of who we are in Christ. Then he talks about what should be the outcome of faith in Christ. Then he speaks of what sin is in the objective sense of the word. He is not telling us that sin is only the transgression of the Law, for as Paul tells us in Rom. 14:23 that whatever is not of faith is sin.

Now the word Kai or And that connects the thoughts of sin being a transgression of the Law and our standing in the law in Christ. We are sinless as far as the law is concerned. In Him is no sin. Verse 7, though, really gets to the point of the whole subject of sin and the believer.

1 John 3:7 (KJV) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Oh is not saying the believer must keep the law for that is impossible. What he is saying is that we no longer walk in this world relishing sin. He is setting up his next statement of fact; that we who are born of God cannot sin.

To answer your points I would say first that exchanging the words as you did is not really a good way to do grammar. The Lord Jesus is where John starts His epistle and is his subject throughout. Everything is in the context of Christ and His work.

Concerning verse 5 you are a little off. The words He and Him are different words in the Greek. The first He is a demonstrative pronoun. The second Him is a simple personal pronoun which is in the Dative case. It is used to express the indirect object of the verb. In this sentence Him would be the indirect object of the verb “is”. Actually Him would be the indirect object of “ not is”. Therefore who or what is the direct subject? Of course it is sin.

Now the whole sentence cannot stand alone. It must be understood in its context to provide the actual expression of thought. So we ask the questions who, what, when and where. Who is John talking about in the context? The answer would be believers since we are the subject from verse 1, well actually from 2:1, though the division of verses is not in the Greek. We are the object of his discourse as can be clearly seen.

He was manifested to take away our sins is the clause that comes before in Him is no sin. Again we find the word and which joins the 2 clauses together. He came to do something and having done it the result is in Him is no sin. It wouldn’t agree with the context to make “Him” be the object of the phrase. John is simply reminding us that in Him we have no sin. He took it away.

I will leave it there. Looking forward to your response. I know that I have made it more complicated than it should be but bear with me.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I think you are stretching the Greek a little. Here is an actual word for word translation:

And we know that/because He/that One was shown/manifested in order that/ to the sins to bear away. And sin in Him not is.

If you would like I can give you the Greek and the translations of each word.

Now we must look at the 2 conjunctions, Kia, And. They, in both places they are used, connect what was said before with what is being said. Interpretation of the Greek most often relies on the context.

So what was said before in verses 1-4.

1 John 3:1-4 (KJV) 1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There are 3 subjects that the Apostle is pointing to: believers, sin and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First he speaks of who we are in Christ. Then he talks about what should be the outcome of faith in Christ. Then he speaks of what sin is in the objective sense of the word. He is not telling us that sin is only the transgression of the Law, for as Paul tells us in Rom. 14:23 that whatever is not of faith is sin.

Now the word Kai or And that connects the thoughts of sin being a transgression of the Law and our standing in the law in Christ. We are sinless as far as the law is concerned. In Him is no sin. Verse 7, though, really gets to the point of the whole subject of sin and the believer.

1 John 3:7 (KJV) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

Oh is not saying the believer must keep the law for that is impossible. What he is saying is that we no longer walk in this world relishing sin. He is setting up his next statement of fact; that we who are born of God cannot sin.

To answer your points I would say first that exchanging the words as you did is not really a good way to do grammar. The Lord Jesus is where John starts His epistle and is his subject throughout. Everything is in the context of Christ and His work.

Concerning verse 5 you are a little off. The words He and Him are different words in the Greek. The first He is a demonstrative pronoun. The second Him is a simple personal pronoun which is in the Dative case. It is used to express the indirect object of the verb. In this sentence Him would be the indirect object of the verb “is”. Actually Him would be the indirect object of “ not is”. Therefore who or what is the direct subject? Of course it is sin.

Now the whole sentence cannot stand alone. It must be understood in its context to provide the actual expression of thought. So we ask the questions who, what, when and where. Who is John talking about in the context? The answer would be believers since we are the subject from verse 1, well actually from 2:1, though the division of verses is not in the Greek. We are the object of his discourse as can be clearly seen.

He was manifested to take away our sins is the clause that comes before in Him is no sin. Again we find the word and which joins the 2 clauses together. He came to do something and having done it the result is in Him is no sin. It wouldn’t agree with the context to make “Him” be the object of the phrase. John is simply reminding us that in Him we have no sin. He took it away.

I will leave it there. Looking forward to your response. I know that I have made it more complicated than it should be but bear with me.

I am only addressing verse 5 right now. You still have that contextually wrong. The second portion of that verse "in him is no sin" is NOT talking about a believer. You have taken that portion of that verse out of context.

Let's start with the word "and" (kia) because as you say, it's used both places here: (I'm still talking about verse 5).

Your quote:
"They, in both places they are used, connect what was said before with what is being said. Interpretation of the Greek most often relies on the context."

(This is quoting you; which what you are saying here isn't exactly clear? Except "Interpretation of the Greek most often relies on context.")

If you are saying "and" (kia) is used in two places in verse 5; that is true.
If you are saying "they" is used in both places in verse 5; that is not true.
If you are saying (kia) is somehow related to the word "they" in verse 5; that is not true either.

Kia is translated as: "and" 8,173x; "also" 514x; "even" 108x; "both" 43x; "so" 18x; "likewise" 13x; not translated at all 350x; miscellaneouslly translated 31x

This word "and" (which is a conjunction) connects what is said before, to what is being said. That is true, because that is what conjunctions do.

Conjunctions though do not automatically make the phrases they are connecting, say the same thing as the phrase before them.

For example #1: I am going to the store to buy milk and butter. Of the milk and butter, I am performing the same action. I am purchasing them.

For example #2: I am going to class today and I am selling my science book. Now the assumption is that I'm selling my science book in class, yet "going to class" and "selling my science book" are different actions. It is not the same as the first example, where I am performing the same action. Maybe I'm going to English class and History class and selling my science book at the book fair in the student union.

So "and" in verse 5.

Verse 5 starts with an "and"; which connects it to verse 4. Verse 4 is talking about sin being transgression of the law. "And you know He was manifest to take away our sins..."

Just like the example of going to class and selling the book. Sin is the transgression of the law; connected to this "And you know...(X,Y and Z)." The two phrases are related, but it's not the same action. One action is talking about transgressing the law and the other action is taking about "what you know" concerning what Christ did as it relates to you transgressing the law.

So following what you just said here "And" is connected to the phrase before it: "And you know He was manifest to take away our sins; AND in HIM is no sin" So if "and" is talking about the phrase before, than "in him is no sin"; can only be talking about Jesus. You yourself just made that point!

Now back up to verse 4. Verse 4 was just talking about transgressing the law. You know He was made manifest to take away sins. His relationship to the law is that "in Him is no sin". That is why the second half of verse 5 says that. It is making the point that Jesus was without sin. There is no other way to interpret the second half of that verse without taking it out of context. You are wrong when you say that is referring to believers. That is categorically wrong.

It is not only a wrong interpretation for grammatical reasons; it is also categorically false. "In believers is no sin" is fundamentally a false statement.

Now what you said about "he" and "him" being different Greek words. Why are they different Greek words? You didn't address that. The "he" in these passages is attached to the verb; so of course your Strong's number base is going to be the number of the verb.

The "he" in Greek constructs that are attached to verbs is composed of 2 different Greek words.

One of those words is simply a pronoun "he", "she", "it". It is not gender specific. It gets its gender specifics from the context of the sentence. As you said, context is important.

The other Greek word means "that", or "this" or "one" (that one / this one); which is where we get "dative", "demonstrative", "possessive" pronoun. Something is "dative case" when it is attached to the verb. But "dative" does not negate "demonstrative possessive" either. They are two different terminologies for the same thing.

That "one he" is attached to the verb of what "he" does.
"...that he appears...",
"...that he takes away....",
"...that he sings...",
"...that he - fill in the blank...".

"And...." (your conjunction - which you just said, connects back to the phrase before it) "....in Him is no sin."

So, if you can not admit that your interpretation of the second half of verse 5 is not correct; than there is no reason to continue with this conversation.

 

[twin1954]

Your refusal to even consider what I said and your attempt to deflect by asking whether I was referring the word “they” or the word “and” is certainly evidence that you will not even think on anything that you disagree with. Your attempts to make it seem as though I am willfully ignorant of simple grammar is not only nonsense but uncalled for. I have shown you how I have arrived at my interpretation of the passage and you simply dismiss it among a mess of nonsense.

Check your Greek. If you don’t know Greek check with a reputable person on the Greek. I stand by my translation, which is actually mine, and challenge you to disprove it honestly.

Moreover you ignore the fact that John was writing post resurrection. The Apostles preached the resurrection more than anything else. So what did the resurrection mean?

It means that the Lord Jesus Christ bore in His body, 1Pet. 2:24, the sin ofallHis elect and put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, Heb. 9:26. Having gone to the grave bearing sin He rose again without sin, Heb. 9:28, and now because He has purged our sin, Heb . 1:3, all who are in Him are without sin. When the Apostles preach the forgiveness of sins that is what they, the Apostles in case you have trouble understanding, were speaking of. He went to the grave bearing our sin and rose again because the grave couldn’t hold Him, He no longer bore sininHis own body on the tree. The Father was satisfied, justice was satisfied, the Law was satisfied and all who believe Him are satisfied. The grave could no longer hold Him because sin was put away and Herose from the grave as a manifestation to all that the sin He bore on the cross and into the grave are no longer there. They were as far from Him as the Eastos from the West. He purged our sin, made it o longer exit, and rose without sin in Him or all those who are in Him.

That is what John is pointing us to. He isn’t repeating the montra thatChrist had no sin but encouraging us that in Him we have no sin.

I suspect that you will only peruse this post so I will say goodbye.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Your refusal to even consider what I said and your attempt to deflect by asking whether I was referring the word “they” or the word “and” is certainly evidence that you will not even think on anything that you disagree with. Your attempts to make it seem as though I am willfully ignorant of simple grammar is not only nonsense but uncalled for. I have shown you how I have arrived at my interpretation of the passage and you simply dismiss it among a mess of nonsense.

Check your Greek. If you don’t know Greek check with a reputable person on the Greek. I stand by my translation, which is actually mine, and challenge you to disprove it honestly.

Moreover you ignore the fact that John was writing post resurrection. The Apostles preached the resurrection more than anything else. So what did the resurrection mean?

It means that the Lord Jesus Christ bore in His body, 1Pet. 2:24, the sin ofallHis elect and put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, Heb. 9:26. Having gone to the grave bearing sin He rose again without sin, Heb. 9:28, and now because He has purged our sin, Heb . 1:3, all who are in Him are without sin. When the Apostles preach the forgiveness of sins that is what they, the Apostles in case you have trouble understanding, were speaking of. He went to the grave bearing our sin and rose again because the grave couldn’t hold Him, He no longer bore sininHis own body on the tree. The Father was satisfied, justice was satisfied, the Law was satisfied and all who believe Him are satisfied. The grave could no longer hold Him because sin was put away and Herose from the grave as a manifestation to all that the sin He bore on the cross and into the grave are no longer there. They were as far from Him as the Eastos from the West. He purged our sin, made it o longer exit, and rose without sin in Him or all those who are in Him.

That is what John is pointing us to. He isn’t repeating the montra thatChrist had no sin but encouraging us that in Him we have no sin.

I suspect that you will only peruse this post so I will say goodbye.

I did read your entire post - wooooo you are so mad at me aren't you?

Show me one..... no, no - show me ANY teacher, preacher ANYONE who would agree with your translation!

ANY ONE!!!!

You are the first person I have ever encountered in 30 years of being a Christian who has ever said the last phrase in 1 John 3:5 "... and in Him is no sin" was referring to a believer.

And now you're pizzed at me because I point out your error.

So just to prove to you that I did read your entire post. I'm going to go through what you wrote here:

"It means that the Lord Jesus Christ bore in His body, 1Pet. 2:24, the sin ofallHis elect and put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, Heb. 9:26. Having gone to the grave bearing sin He rose again without sin, Heb. 9:28, and now because He has purged our sin, Heb . 1:3, all who are in Him are without sin. When the Apostles preach the forgiveness of sins that is what they, the Apostles in case you have trouble understanding, were speaking of. He went to the grave bearing our sin and rose again because the grave couldn’t hold Him, He no longer bore sininHis own body on the tree. The Father was satisfied, justice was satisfied, the Law was satisfied and all who believe Him are satisfied. The grave could no longer hold Him because sin was put away and Herose from the grave as a manifestation to all that the sin He bore on the cross and into the grave are no longer there. They were as far from Him as the Eastos from the West. He purged our sin, made it o longer exit, and rose without sin in Him or all those who are in Him."

2 Peter 2:24:
Note verse 22!
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(Now are you going to try and tell me that verse refers to a believer too?)

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

What does it mean to be judged by God? What exactly did Jesus do with sin? Does He just sweep it under the carpet and pretend it's not there?

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body....

Do you know what that means? Do you know what the penalty for sin is? "My God, my God; why have You forsaken me?" Do you know why Jesus said that? (Because the penalty for sin is to be forsaken by God.) The penalty for the sin is atoned for; but this does not mean someone who's a believer "poof" is suddenly sinless. (Although you confess to already knowing that.)

Hebrews 9:26:
Note verses 27 & 28
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

There's that word "bear" again; along with the word "judgment". How did Jesus "get rid of sin"? Did He wave a magic wand and make it go "poof"? Bury it under a bunch of dirt, in a grave somewhere? No, it cost Him something. The last enemy to be overcome is death. (1 Corinthians 15:26). That's why He died. Jesus said "It is finished." before He died. If sin had actually killed Him; we'd all be in trouble!

Hebrews 1:3:
Another verse you took out of context. No where in that verse does it say a believer is without sin. "Purge" in this verse actually means "to bear". Just as we've seen before. What does that mean? It has to do with payment; not just "make it go away".

So why did Jesus actually rise from the dead? Was it because "death" was trying to "hold onto Him"? Do you realize that when He died, His soul and human spirit went into heaven? His body "rested" in the tomb on the Sabbath.

Nothing was "holding Him back". He'd made a promise to those who would believe that He'd right this world of death that humanity had brought upon ourselves. He proved He had the power to do this by rising from the dead. Make no mistake; the "fight" between God and all the forces, ramifications and evil of this fallen world is not an equal one. Evil exists simply as the "equal and opposite reaction" to God's action to create. It certainly does not contain all the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and eternity that God does.

Satisfactory sacrifice:
The Father was satisfied. What exactly was the Father satisfied with? Why did the Father love the Son? (Because He was obedient.) He did what the Father wanted and He did it without transgressing the law. The law wasn't "satisfied" with Jesus. The law had nothing to say to Jesus, because He didn't disobey it. The only purpose of the law is to show someone their sin and point them to their need for the Redeemer.

How do you understand that you need Christ? Are you personally convicted that you deserve His wrath? Have you ever feared incurring that wrath at any point that you might have died?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. I started praying all the more for God to save me, although I could not really articulate what it was I needed saving from. All I knew was that if I got killed in that war, I was in deep trouble. I wasn't sure why; but I knew I was. I could give someone a theological answer; but I couldn't really explain what it meant. I didn't want God to be mad at me and I knew I couldn't legitimately be mad at God, because first off, I knew He wasn't to blame for any of this and besides, I needed His help too much. I knew I was not going to survive if He didn't rescue me; (and that didn't necessarily mean preventing me from getting killed) I didn't actually care about that. I just didn't want to find myself on the wrong end of eternity. That's how I knew I needed the Redeemer.

 

[twin1954]

I did read your entire post - wooooo you are so mad at me aren't you?

Show me one..... no, no - show me ANY teacher, preacher ANYONE who would agree with your translation!

ANY ONE!!!!

You are the first person I have ever encountered in 30 years of being a Christian who has ever said the last phrase in 1 John 3:5 "... and in Him is no sin" was referring to a believer.

And now you're pizzed at me because I point out your error.

So just to prove to you that I did read your entire post. I'm going to go through what you wrote here:

"It means that the Lord Jesus Christ bore in His body, 1Pet. 2:24, the sin ofallHis elect and put it away by the sacrifice of Himself, Heb. 9:26. Having gone to the grave bearing sin He rose again without sin, Heb. 9:28, and now because He has purged our sin, Heb . 1:3, all who are in Him are without sin. When the Apostles preach the forgiveness of sins that is what they, the Apostles in case you have trouble understanding, were speaking of. He went to the grave bearing our sin and rose again because the grave couldn’t hold Him, He no longer bore sininHis own body on the tree. The Father was satisfied, justice was satisfied, the Law was satisfied and all who believe Him are satisfied. The grave could no longer hold Him because sin was put away and Herose from the grave as a manifestation to all that the sin He bore on the cross and into the grave are no longer there. They were as far from Him as the Eastos from the West. He purged our sin, made it o longer exit, and rose without sin in Him or all those who are in Him."

2 Peter 2:24:
Note verse 22!
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
(Now are you going to try and tell me that verse refers to a believer too?)

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

What does it mean to be judged by God? What exactly did Jesus do with sin? Does He just sweep it under the carpet and pretend it's not there?

24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body....

Do you know what that means? Do you know what the penalty for sin is? "My God, my God; why have You forsaken me?" Do you know why Jesus said that? (Because the penalty for sin is to be forsaken by God.) The penalty for the sin is atoned for; but this does not mean someone who's a believer "poof" is suddenly sinless. (Although you confess to already knowing that.)

Hebrews 9:26:
Note verses 27 & 28
27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

There's that word "bear" again; along with the word "judgment". How did Jesus "get rid of sin"? Did He wave a magic wand and make it go "poof"? Bury it under a bunch of dirt, in a grave somewhere? No, it cost Him something. The last enemy to be overcome is death. (1 Corinthians 15:26). That's why He died. Jesus said "It is finished." before He died. If sin had actually killed Him; we'd all be in trouble!

Hebrews 1:3:
Another verse you took out of context. No where in that verse does it say a believer is without sin. "Purge" in this verse actually means "to bear". Just as we've seen before. What does that mean? It has to do with payment; not just "make it go away".

So why did Jesus actually rise from the dead? Was it because "death" was trying to "hold onto Him"? Do you realize that when He died, His soul and human spirit went into heaven? His body "rested" in the tomb on the Sabbath.

Nothing was "holding Him back". He'd made a promise to those who would believe that He'd right this world of death that humanity had brought upon ourselves. He proved He had the power to do this by rising from the dead. Make no mistake; the "fight" between God and all the forces, ramifications and evil of this fallen world is not an equal one. Evil exists simply as the "equal and opposite reaction" to God's action to create. It certainly does not contain all the attributes of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and eternity that God does.

Satisfactory sacrifice:
The Father was satisfied. What exactly was the Father satisfied with? Why did the Father love the Son? (Because He was obedient.) He did what the Father wanted and He did it without transgressing the law. The law wasn't "satisfied" with Jesus. The law had nothing to say to Jesus, because He didn't disobey it. The only purpose of the law is to show someone their sin and point them to their need for the Redeemer.

How do you understand that you need Christ? Are you personally convicted that you deserve His wrath? Have you ever feared incurring that wrath at any point that you might have died?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. I started praying all the more for God to save me, although I could not really articulate what it was I needed saving from. All I knew was that if I got killed in that war, I was in deep trouble. I wasn't sure why; but I knew I was. I could give someone a theological answer; but I couldn't really explain what it meant. I didn't want God to be mad at me and I knew I couldn't legitimately be mad at God, because first off, I knew He wasn't to blame for any of this and besides, I needed His help too much. I knew I was not going to survive if He didn't rescue me; (and that didn't necessarily mean preventing me from getting killed) I didn't actually care about that. I just didn't want to find myself on the wrong end of eternity. That's how I knew I needed the Redeemer.

I have never been nor am I now mad or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed at you. Why would you think that I would be? If you challenge me I respond but never in anger, especially on the internet. I learned years ago, through martial arts, to control my volatile anger. Getting angry never does any good or changes anything. I honestly don’t even get road rage anymore. I do laugh often, though, at what some people come up with.

There are several men that I could name that would agree with my interpretation of 1John 3:5. But you probably have never heard of them so what would be the point? Just because it has always been interpreted a certain way does not make the interpretation correct. It simply could have been always wrong. My translation and interpretation are legitimate according to all of the several Greek Grammars I own.

Now I have to wonder about your theology because of some statements you have made in this thread. They truly concern me. Especially concerning the work of Christ. You don’t seem to be putting Scripture together with Scripture. I know you wouldn’t take my help, though it is offered. But I do pray that you would listen to one of the knowledgeable men here on the subject. JM would be a great help to you on this.

I am truly sorry we can’t interact with each other so I will quit beating a dead dog.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I have never been nor am I now mad or [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed at you. Why would you think that I would be? If you challenge me I respond but never in anger, especially on the internet. I learned years ago, through martial arts, to control my volatile anger. Getting angry never does any good or changes anything. I honestly don’t even get road rage anymore. I do laugh often, though, at what some people come up with.

There are several men that I could name that would agree with my interpretation of 1John 3:5. But you probably have never heard of them so what would be the point? Just because it has always been interpreted a certain way does not make the interpretation correct. It simply could have been always wrong. My translation and interpretation are legitimate according to all of the several Greek Grammars I own.

Now I have to wonder about your theology because of some statements you have made in this thread. They truly concern me. Especially concerning the work of Christ. You don’t seem to be putting Scripture together with Scripture. I know you wouldn’t take my help, though it is offered. But I do pray that you would listen to one of the knowledgeable men here on the subject. JM would be a great help to you on this.

I am truly sorry we can’t interact with each other so I will quit beating a dead dog.

Name these people who agree with your translation. It doesn't matter if I've never heard of them. I can look them up on the Internet.

Unless your interoperation is held by so few that I wouldn't actually be able to find them on the Internet

So go ahead - name names!

"My translation and interpretation are legitimate according to all of the several Greek Grammars I own."

Well, tell me what those Greek Grammars you own are; because I'm a big research nerd and I'm going to check your facts!

Come on - name names!

And now I'm curious what you think is wrong with my understanding of Christ; since you say it causes you such "concern"?