Free

Originally posted by josephw
Jesus quoted from the law and the prophets.

Do you read and hold as valid any of those books of the Old Testament? How about Genesis? What about God's Words in the OT as He spoke to the prophets?

While Jesus was an advocate of the Law, you don't seem to realize that Jesus made a distinction between the Law and what man believed to be the Law. Read Matthew 5. Consider what Jesus thought of the Scribes and Pharisees and the role that they played.

Any chance we can get back to the topic at hand?

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; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

How about addressing the points I keep bringing up regarding the passage above and which you keep ignoring? It's as if you're afraid that you may have to come to actually believing this teaching of Jesus. How tragic might that be.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"The problem with that is that you do not actually know the teachings of Jesus, you only know what were reported to be his teachings by others."

lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact? C'mon, how many teachings in ancient history that's attributed to someone can anyone definitively say were "actual"? Does ever h if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.[/b]

For example, Jesus taught that one can be set free from committing sin, while Paul seems to indicate otherwise. Paul's view seems to be informed by an admission on his part that he found it to be impossible. So you have a self-declared "disciple" who doesn't fit the definition of disciple set forth by Jesus that so many seem to put stock in rather than their nominal leader.
-------------------------ToOne--------------------------------

How do you know that Jesus was not refering to one aspect of sinful behaviour (wilfully committing sin ) and Paul is refering to unintentional sin ( eg- less serious sin resulting from our imperfections) . This may seem unlikely at first until you consider that in Jewish language and theology there is no overall word for "sin" per se. Sin is broken up into various catagories of seriousness.

Until you can address this question then you have no idea if your argument is based on anything accurate. What's more since 95% of your entire argument is based on this passage don't you think it's prudent that you examine the language in more detail? You must have quoted this passage 100 times or more - why are you so disinterested in looking further into it?

Never mind , don't let such flies in the ointment bother you any .........just carry on as if the problem isn't there , you always do.

In some ways you are more stubborn and more inflexible than the very fundamentalists you seem to despise.

🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While Jesus was an advocate of the Law, you don't seem to realize that Jesus made a distinction between the Law and what man believed to be the Law. Read Matthew 5. Consider what Jesus thought of the Scribes and Pharisees and the role that they played.

Any chance we can get back to the topic at hand?

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jew ...[text shortened]... have to come to actually believing this teaching of Jesus. How tragic might that be.

How about addressing the points I keep bringing up regarding the passage above and which you keep ignoring?
------------------ToOne---------------

ditto!

Originally posted by knightmeister
For example, Jesus taught that one can be set free from committing sin, while Paul seems to indicate otherwise. Paul's view seems to be informed by an admission on his part that he found it to be impossible. So you have a self-declared "disciple" who doesn't fit the definition of disciple set forth by Jesus that so many seem to put stock in rather than rn and more inflexible than the very fundamentalists you seem to despise.

🙄

This is yet another really weak argument given in desperation. For one, it seems unlikely that there was no generic word for sin. For another, even if there isn't, if whoever translated it was even the least bit competent, don't you think he would have known this and adjusted the translation accordingly?

FWIW, from Wiki:
"But in the biblical Hebrew, the generic word for sin is het. It means to err, to miss the mark. "

You just come up with one child's argument with another. No matter how many I answer and no matter how many times I answer the same arguments you continue to bring them up. If you've never noticed, this is how children behave. They want what they want to be true and are unable to look beyond their own desires and use reason. Isn't it time that you "grow up"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Do you seriously think that anyone is completely unaware of this fact?

But you continuously assume - here and in other threads - that the teachings of Jesus as reported in the canonical Gospels are accurate representations of his teachings but that all other new testament writings are not.
As a Christian you must either accept that there is a possibility of error, even significant error in any of the wittings of the new Testament, or you must assume the are all 'inspired by God', or you must have a very good reason for picking some books and not others (as you are doing). Do you accept the non-canonical Gospels?

This is an illogical conclusion. For one, insofar as I know, Paul rarely if ever quotes Jesus, but rather provides his own extrapolations of the OT and the teachings of Jesus. For another, it seems you seem to equate "earlier" reports with "more accurate" which if you think about it, isn't even necessarily true with recent history.
It is quite clear to me that large portions of the gospels were made up to try to fit the theology of the time. If we are going to be prepared to doubt some new Testament writings then I think it makes more sense to doubt the Gospels than to doubt Paul.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you continuously assume - here and in other threads - that the teachings of Jesus as reported in the canonical Gospels are accurate representations of his teachings but that all other new testament writings are not.
As a Christian you must either accept that there is a possibility of error, even significant error in any of the wittings of the new Tes tament writings then I think it makes more sense to doubt the Gospels than to doubt Paul.

"But you continuously assume - here and in other threads - that the teachings of Jesus as reported in the canonical Gospels are accurate representations of his teachings but that all other new testament writings are not.
As a Christian you must either accept that there is a possibility of error, even significant error in any of the wittings of the new Testament, or you must assume the are all 'inspired by God', or you must have a very good reason for picking some books and not others (as you are doing). Do you accept the non-canonical Gospels?"

You really need to make a distinction between quotes of the teachings of Jesus and commentary and extrapolations made by others. Most people I've spoken to do. If you were reading a book about a recent historical figure that had quotes of the teachings of that person as well as commentary and extrapolations of those teachings, would you conclude that all the commentary and extrapolations were part of that person's teachings? You seem to be doing that here.

Your first statement is an assumption on your part - and a false one at that. On numerous occassions I have said something akin to "The words attributed to Jesus, by and large, ring true to me and I find them largely coherent." I've even said something like, "Whether or not Jesus actually said them is irrelevant." So I do not "continuously assume - here and in other threads - that the teachings of Jesus as reported in the canonical Gospels are accurate representations of his teachings." This is purely an assumption on YOUR PART.

"It is quite clear to me that large portions of the gospels were made up to try to fit the theology of the time. If we are going to be prepared to doubt some new Testament writings then I think it makes more sense to doubt the Gospels than to doubt Paul."

Like I said earlier, "For one, insofar as I know, Paul rarely if ever quotes Jesus, but rather provides his own extrapolations of the OT and the teachings of Jesus." I really don't understand why you'd consider commentary and extrapolations of the OT and the [quoted] teachings of Jesus to be teachings of Jesus. You seem to be doing that here.

Do you consider the OT as being the teachings of Jesus also? If you read Matthew 5, it's evident that Jesus doesn't. It seems unlikely that Jesus would consider the teachings of Paul that are incongruous with His own to be either.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is yet another really weak argument given in desperation. For one, it seems unlikely that there was no generic word for sin. For another, even if there isn't, if whoever translated it was even the least bit competent, don't you think he would have known this and adjusted the translation accordingly?

FWIW, from Wiki:
"But in the biblical Hebre ...[text shortened]... able to look beyond their own desires and use reason. Isn't it time that you "grow up"?

So you would say definitively that "het" was the word Jesus used in the passages you quote? How do you know it was het and not some of the other hebrew words for sin?

If it is not "het" your argument is in trouble , so I would have thought that instead of commenting on my "childishness" you check out your translations. All I am asking here is for some fair and openminded questioning.

As far as I understand it there are hebrew words for wilfully committing sin but I don't think it's "het"

http://www.theopedia.com/Greek_and_Hebrew_words_for_Sin

It seems clear to me that there are many Jewish catagories for sin and Jesus was probably using the strongest catagory in these passages rather than the weaker versions of sin.

How do you that Jesus isn't refering to Pesha and St Paul refering to Cheit? That would resolve the so-called "split" between Jesus and Paul. Isn't it true that it's you that has arrived at your own interpretation to fit your position? Your entire position depends on an assumption does it not?

"The generic Hebrew word for any kind of sin is avera (literally: transgression). Based on verses in the Hebrew Bible, Judaism describes three levels of sin. There are three categories of a person who commits an avera. The first one is someone who does an avera intentionally, or "B'mezid." This is the most serious category. The second is one who did an avera by accident. This is called "B'shogeg," and while the person is still responsible for their action it is considered less serious. The third category is someone who is a "Tinok Shenishba", which is a person who was raised in an environment that was assimilated or non-Jewish, and is not aware of the proper Jewish laws, or halacha. This person is not held accountable for his or her actions.

Pesha (deliberate sin; in modern Hebrew: crime) or Mered (lit.: rebellion) - An intentional sin; an action committed in deliberate defiance of God; (Strong's Concordance :H6588 (פשע pesha', peh'shah). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H6586); rebellion, transgression, trespass.
Avon (lit.: iniquity) - This is a sin of lust or uncontrollable emotion. It is a sin done knowingly, but not done to defy God; (Strong's Concordance :H5771 (avon, aw-vone). According to Strong it comes from the root (:H5753); meaning perversity, moral evil:--fault, iniquity, mischief.
Cheit - This is an unintentional sin, crime or fault. (Strong's Concordance :H2399 (חַטָּא chate). According to Strong it comes from the root khaw-taw (:H2398, H2403) meaning "to miss, to err from the mark (speaking of an archer), to sin, to stumble."
Judaism holds that no human being is perfect, and all people have sinned many times. However, certain states of sin (i.e. avon or cheit) do not condemn a person to damnation; only one or two truly grievous sins lead to anything approaching the standard conception of hell. The scriptural and rabbinic conception of God is that of a creator who tempers justice with mercy. Based on the views of Rabbeinu Tam in the Babylonian Talmud (tractate Rosh HaShanah 17b), God is said to have thirteen attributes of mercy:"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
While Jesus was an advocate of the Law, you don't seem to realize that Jesus made a distinction between the Law and what man believed to be the Law. Read Matthew 5. Consider what Jesus thought of the Scribes and Pharisees and the role that they played.

Any chance we can get back to the topic at hand?

John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jew ...[text shortened]... have to come to actually believing this teaching of Jesus. How tragic might that be.

"How about addressing the points I keep bringing up regarding the passage above and which you keep ignoring? It's as if you're afraid that you may have to come to actually believing this teaching of Jesus. How tragic might that be."


Let's debate, not argue.
Believe me, I'm not ignoring your points, and I'm certainly not afraid of learning the truth.
It seems to me though, that we are really not listening to each other.

Let me make it perfectly clear. I believe everything Jesus said. What we don't agree on though, is what He meant, or how to make the application of Jesus' words in life.

"So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Free indeed. That is my point! Only Jesus can make one free.
What we don't agree on is HOW He does it.

Perhaps we can discuss that.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"How about addressing the points I keep bringing up regarding the passage above and which you keep ignoring? It's as if you're afraid that you may have to come to actually believing this teaching of Jesus. How tragic might that be."


Let's debate, not argue.
Believe me, I'm not ignoring your points, and I'm certainly not afraid of learning the tr one free.
What we don't agree on is HOW He does it.

Perhaps we can discuss that.[/b]

Please re-read what each of us posted on the first page of this thread. You say, "I'm not ignoring your points", yet you haven't addressed most of them. Note that you're the one who went off on a tangent about what parts of the Bible I may or may not believe in which has nothing to do with the words of Jesus in this passage.

Let's try this. Let's look at the passage in question and look at what the words actually say. Try putting aside any preconceived notions you may have. If you're not afraid, you'll do this. Thus far you've avoided addressing the words in this passage. Open your eyes so that you may see.

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; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Who are slaves? Everyone who commits sin.

Who will Jesus make free? Slaves.

If a slave has been made free, can he continue to commit sin? No, because by definition "Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin." He would therefore still be a slave and not have been made free.

If you don't agree with the answers I have provided to these questions, then please provide answers of your own to each question.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please re-read what each of us posted on the first page of this thread. You say, "I'm not ignoring your points", yet you haven't addressed most of them. Note that you're the one who went off on a tangent about what parts of the Bible I may or may not believe in which has nothing to do with the words of Jesus in this passage.

Let's try this. Let's look ...[text shortened]... these questions, then please provide answers of your own to each question.

I don't want to go through all of that.

It's really all quite simple. Keep the law and you will be judged by the law.

Walk in Grace and you will be free.

Originally posted by josephw
I don't want to go through all of that.

It's really all quite simple. Keep the law and you will be judged by the law.

Walk in Grace and you will be free.

"Keep the law and you will be judged by the law. Walk in Grace and you will be free."

Is that your interpretation of the following passage:
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; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Jesus speaks not of "walking in grace". Instead, Jesus explicitly states that everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. Furthermore the slave, i.e., everyone who commits sin, does not remain in the house forever.

Evidently looking at a four verse passage of the words of Jesus and taking the time to understand what He is saying is more trouble than it's worth. It's easy to say things like "I believe everything Jesus said", but it is meaningless unless you understand what He said.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Please re-read what each of us posted on the first page of this thread. You say, "I'm not ignoring your points", yet you haven't addressed most of them. Note that you're the one who went off on a tangent about what parts of the Bible I may or may not believe in which has nothing to do with the words of Jesus in this passage.

Let's try this. Let's look ...[text shortened]... these questions, then please provide answers of your own to each question.

I think what josephw was asking is HOW does the Son make us free?

If Jesus does not do something to set us free then he is just a person who gives us instruction. He's like the man who says "don't be depressed!" to which the response might be "duh! as if I never thought about that!".

Do you not think that the Jews for many generations knew that they should "stop committing sin" or had they just "forgotten"?

So Jesus's amazing revelation to the world is that we should "stop sinning" ?????

I think there was a bit more to it than that...........

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"Keep the law and you will be judged by the law. Walk in Grace and you will be free."

Is that your interpretation of the following passage:
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."[/b ...[text shortened]... erything Jesus said", but it is meaningless unless you understand what He said.

Evidently looking at a four verse passage of the words of Jesus and taking the time to understand what He is saying is more trouble than it's worth.

----------------ToO------------------------------

It's simple isn't it? Stop sinning. If you are unhappy - be happy! If you smoke - stop smoking! If you are de-motivated - be motivated!

Ever had anyone come up to you and say " don't be depressed" ? It's banal really.

Is this the message which God incarnated himself for and went to the desert for 40 days to discover? Is this God's great revelation to the world? ---- stop sinning----??????🙄

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"Keep the law and you will be judged by the law. Walk in Grace and you will be free."

Is that your interpretation of the following passage:
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."[/b erything Jesus said", but it is meaningless unless you understand what He said.

"Evidently looking at a four verse passage of the words of Jesus and taking the time to understand what He is saying is more trouble than it's worth."

Don't be insulting. To tell you the truth, what is "more trouble than it's worth" is trying in vain to get you to stop playing that one note song all the time. YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.

Apparently you fail to see the forest from the trees.

In the passage(s) you quote, you are so focused on the words you want to see that you can't see Jesus' point. Jesus clearly states that one who sins is a slave to sin, but you fail to see the obvious.

In the same passage Jesus states that it is HE that MAKES one free.
He says nothing about one MAKING ones self free by keeping the law or doing anything else.

You will never be free of sin by keeping the law.

(Jesus kept the law perfectly. He was sinless. The lamb of God without blemish. He died a substitutionary death on our behalf. The wages of sin is death. Believing that Jesus paid yours and my sins debt on the cross is what MAKES US FREE. KEEPING THE LAW does not MAKE us free. Jesus makes us free of the PENALTY for sin which is death, because He paid the price for our sins.)
(If keeping the law, which is NOT SINNING, makes one free, then Christ died in vain)

But you don't get! I wish you did, but you don't.

Originally posted by josephw
"Evidently looking at a four verse passage of the words of Jesus and taking the time to understand what He is saying is more trouble than it's worth."

Don't be insulting. To tell you the truth, what is "more trouble than it's worth" is trying in vain to get you to stop playing that one note song all the time. YOU CAN'T HEAR ME.

Apparently you fail to free, then Christ died in vain)

But you don't get! I wish you did, but you don't.

Jesus is not speaking of being made "free from the penalty for sin" in this passage. Jesus is speaking of being made free from committing sin. Jesus not only doesn't mention "penalty for sin", He explicitly says "committing sin."

I tried earlier to give you a chance to prove your assertion. I'll give it to you once again, though I suspect you'll decline once again. It's only three questions. That's all I'm asking.

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; how is it that You say, 'You will become free'?"
Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son does remain forever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed."

Who are slaves? Everyone who commits sin.

Who will Jesus make free? Slaves.

If a slave has been made free, can he continue to commit sin? No, because by definition "Everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin." He would therefore still be a slave and not have been made free.

If you don't agree with the answers I have provided to these questions, then please provide answers of your own to each question.

Why are you so reluctant to actually look at the words Jesus is speaking?