Evidence of Salvation

Originally posted by RBHILL
It could be but in some way everyone sins everyday.

Why do you believe that?

Why do you believe it more than the word of Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you believe that?

Why do you believe it more than the word of Jesus?

1. because I do.

2. They will be made compleate when Jesus comes.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Originally posted by RBHILL
1. because I do.

2. They will be made compleate when Jesus comes.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

If Jesus is your Lord, I'd think you'd take His word above anything else.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If Jesus is your Lord, I'd think you'd take His word above anything else.

The WHOLE Bible is Gods world. But did you know today I sinned by going faster then the speed limit. But I have already repented of braking the law. I dishonored my prents by saying I hate them to myself. those are examples. But yes I ask God for help daily.

Originally posted by RBHILL
The WHOLE Bible is Gods world. But did you know today I sinned by going faster then the speed limit. But I have already repented of braking the law. I dishonored my prents by saying I hate them to myself. those are examples. But yes I ask God for help daily.

Read the passage again. Jesus says to continue in His word, not the word of the Bible. "The truth will make you free".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
According to Jesus you can be made free from committing sin.

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." They answered Him, "We are Abraham's descendants and have never yet been enslaved to anyone ...[text shortened]... r; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

According to Jesus you can be made free from committing sin.

---------------------------ToOne----------------------------------

But he does NOT say explicitly that we can be made sinless so that we never sin again. As a wise man said to me recently - WE JUST DON'T KNOW!

EG-If "commiting" sin and sinning are two distinct things then your premise is logically false. There are some very good reasons to think that Jesus may well have meant willful sin (committing) and not unintentiional sin. One of them is the variations of the hebrew words for sin.

Probably the biggest fly in the ointment is that Jesus taught his followers to ask God for daily forgiveness for sins. It would be illogical for him to do this if he intended that all his followers would never sin again.

In the passages you often quote I think Jesus was rebuking and warning those who deliberately COMMIT sin , rather than those who are committed to following him but still fall inadvertently into sin.

We just don't know.

So like my argument about the thief , you cannot cite this as proof of your position. Surely you see this. Don't you ever have any doubts about your interpretation of these passgaes? Could it be that they don't explicitly say what you want them to say?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Read the passage again. Jesus says to continue in His word, not the word of the Bible. "The truth will make you free".

continuing in his word means the bible.

Originally posted by knightmeister
According to Jesus you can be made free from committing sin.

---------------------------ToOne----------------------------------

But he does NOT say explicitly that we can be made sinless so that we never sin again. As a wise man said to me recently - WE JUST DON'T KNOW!

EG-If "commiting" sin and sinning are two distinct things then your pre ...[text shortened]... n of these passgaes? Could it be that they don't explicitly say what you want them to say?

"Commits" is translated from "Poieo" which translates to "to make" or "to do". See below.

So Jesus does explicitly say that one will be made free from "making" / "doing" sin. Your argument about the thief is purely speculation as to the motivation for Jesus saying what He does when Jesus does not explain His motivation. If and only if Jesus directly stated His motivation could you call that "explicit". Can you not make a distinction between what is directly stated vs. speculation?

Poieo
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4160

1. to make
1. with the names of things made, to produce, construct, form, fashion, etc.
2. to be the authors of, the cause
3. to make ready, to prepare
4. to produce, bear, shoot forth
5. to acquire, to provide a thing for one's self
6. to make a thing out of something
7. to (make i.e.) render one anything
1. to (make i.e.) constitute or appoint one anything, to appoint or ordain one that
2. to (make i.e.) declare one anything
8. to put one forth, to lead him out
9. to make one do something
1. cause one to
10. to be the authors of a thing (to cause, bring about)
2. to do
1. to act rightly, do well
1. to carry out, to execute
2. to do a thing unto one
1. to do to one
3. with designation of time: to pass, spend
4. to celebrate, keep
1. to make ready, and so at the same time to institute, the celebration of the passover
5. to perform: to a promise

Originally posted by RBHILL
continuing in his word means the bible.

You really need to consider that Jesus was telling this to Jews well before there was a Bible. To say that "'continuing in his word' means the bible" is absurd.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"Commits" is translated from "Poieo" which translates to "to make" or "to do". See below.

So Jesus does explicitly say that one will be made free from "making" / "doing" sin. Your argument about the thief is purely speculation as to the motivation for Jesus saying what He does when Jesus does not explain His motivation. If and only if Jesus directly ...[text shortened]... institute, the celebration of the passover
5. to perform: to a promise

Fair enough. This may just be a cul-de-sac. But isn't Poeio a Greek word? I thought that Jesus spoke Aramaic/Hebrew.

My limited understanding of these things is that the most accurate translations and interpretations relate back to and refer to the original as much as possible.

Can you explain why it wasn't translated as "he who (does) sins is a slave of sin" ? Why did the translators include the word "commit" ? Commit is suggestive of something else and it seems an unneccessary addition.

Anyway , I'm sure it won't be too long before someone who knows more about these things puts me straight.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Fair enough. This may just be a cul-de-sac. But isn't Poeio a Greek word? I thought that Jesus spoke Aramaic/Hebrew.

My limited understanding of these things is that the most accurate translations and interpretations relate back to and refer to the original as much as possible.

Can you explain why it wasn't translated as "he who (does) sins is it won't be too long before someone who knows more about these things puts me straight.

"Many scholars believe that Mark's Gospel was written in Aramaic, and only later translated into Greek, and some believe that other portions of the New Testament were also originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew. This may or may not be true, but it is true that the only New Testament materials we have today are all in Greek."


http://www.biblesociety.ca/about_bible/original_languages/index.html

It's as if you just desperately toss out whatever lame idea pops into your head.

Why do you work so hard to deny the teachings of Jesus instead of just accepting them?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
"The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, and the New Testament was written in Greek."

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/what-was-original-language

It's as if you just toss out whatever lame idea pops into your head.

Why do you work so hard to deny the teachings of Jesus instead of just accepting them?

You missed the most important point. It's not what the NT was written in that's important - it's what language Jesus actually spoke that is. He didn't speak Greek as far as I understand it , and being a Jew steeped in scripture and the rest of it he would have been familiar I guess with the words below , and less familiar with "poeio".

If you look at the Hebrew words below and how often they are mentioned you will see that it is most likely that Jesus used a strong version of the word that implied wickedness , badness or iniquity . It's less likely that he was refering to unintentional sin.

But......WE JUST DON'T KNOW do we


Biblical words for sin
Hebrew
The Old Testament uses 6 different nouns and 3 verbs to describe sin:

râ‛âh
This term is used more than 600 times and is most often translated as "evil" or "bad" ([Strong's #7451]). It carries the implication of something that is contrary to God's nature.

chaṭṭâ'âh
This term is used almost 300 times and is most often translated as "sin" or "offense" ([Strong's #2403]). It carries the implication of that which is deserving of punishment.

râshâ‛
This term is used more than 250 times and is most often translated as "wicked" ([Strong's #7563]). It carries the implication of something that is morally wrong.

‛âvôn
This term is used more than 200 times and is most often translated as "iniquity" [Strong's #5771]). It carries the implication of being perverse, crooked or twisted.

pesha‛
This term is used almost 100 times and is most often translated as "transgression" ([Strong's #6588]). It carries the implication of rebellion.

'âsham
This term is used more than 30 times and is most often translated as "guilty" ([Strong's #816]). It carries the implication of offense or trespass.

tâ‛âh
50 hits [Strong's #8582] A primitive root; to vacillate, that is, reel or stray (literally or figuratively); also causatively of both: - (cause to) go astray, deceive, dissemble, (cause to, make to) err, pant, seduce, (make to) stagger, (cause to) wander, be out of the way.

pâsha‛
41 hits [Strong's #6586] A primitive root (rather identical with H6585 through the idea of expansion); to break away (from just authority), that is, trespass, apostatize, quarrel: - offend, rebel, revolt, transgress (-ion, -or).

shâgâh
21 hits [Strong's #7686] A primitive root; to stray (causatively mislead), usually (figuratively) to mistake, especially (morally) to transgress; by extension (through the idea of intoxication) to reel, (figuratively) be enraptured: - (cause to) go astray, deceive, err, be ravished, sin through ignorance, (let, make to) wander.

http://www.theopedia.com/Greek_and_Hebrew_words_for_Sin

Originally posted by knightmeister
You missed the most important point. It's not what the NT was written in that's important - it's what language Jesus actually spoke that is. He didn't speak Greek as far as I understand it , and being a Jew steeped in scripture and the rest of it he would have been familiar I guess with the words below , and less familiar with "poeio".

If you look

http://www.theopedia.com/Greek_and_Hebrew_words_for_Sin

Like I said:

"It's as if you just desperately toss out whatever lame idea pops into your head.

Why do you work so hard to deny the teachings of Jesus instead of just accepting them?"

All of your arguments are purely speculative and often wildly so. It's like arguing with a child who doesn't want to admit he's wrong and keeps saying, "Well maybe...".

After a while all you can do is pat them on the head and tell them, "Well, I know you don't want it to be true, but I think that if you stop and really think about it, you'll see that it is."
At least with children they usually do.

Maybe you need to get in touch with that "inner child".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I said:

"It's as if you just desperately toss out whatever lame idea pops into your head.

Why do you work so hard to deny the teachings of Jesus instead of just accepting them?"

All of your arguments are purely speculative and often wildly so. It's like arguing with a child who doesn't want to admit he's wrong and keeps saying, "Well maybe..."

I'm surprised that you say this. I have spent the last 20 minutes on the Net trying to find out what the actual words were that Jesus may have used. It's hard work if you go about it honestly. There are so many Greek and Hebrew verbs and adjectives out there for "sin" that it's difficult to know what words Jesus may have actually used in these passages.

He may or may not have said the word Poieo (which someone has translated as "commit" for some reason) . For the word commit "SIN" , it's difficult to figure out which of the greek or hebrew (or aramaic for that matter) terms Jesus actually used. If I could find out which term he used that would be useful. It would also be good to know who translated the word "commit" and why.

You sound as if you are 100% sure that Jesus said it and meant it the way you have interpreted but you seem unable to provide any rational proof for this. You sound as if you "KNOW" that's what he said and what he meant. For you no other interpretation is possible. However , I can't see how other interpretations can be ruled out so easily. Can you tell me how it is you have come to such certainty on this?

Given the sheer number of terms and nuances (both in greek and hebrew) for the word sin , and the problems with early (mis)translations I would love to talk to someone who really knows their stuff on this. It seems to me that you have decided that these passages mean what you say they mean and that's that. Me, I can't be that certain given the evidence. You may well be right , but it's far from a done deal is it.

Fra from being childish , I am getting stuck into the adult business of searching and probing the truth. All you seem to be doing is mockery and scoring of points. Why can't we just probe into this in an adult , open minded fashion?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I said:

"It's as if you just desperately toss out whatever lame idea pops into your head.

Why do you work so hard to deny the teachings of Jesus instead of just accepting them?"

All of your arguments are purely speculative and often wildly so. It's like arguing with a child who doesn't want to admit he's wrong and keeps saying, "Well maybe. ...[text shortened]... ldren they usually do.

Maybe you need to get in touch with that "inner child".

BTW - Is there anything anyone has ever said here that has caused you to doubt your certainty?

What would it take for you to have some reasonable doubts about your position?