the propitiatory sacrifice of the christ

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are correct, my conclusion was too hasty considering that I did not read through all the posts. I apologize and withdraw the statement.
I do however have some questions of my own:
1. What do you mean when you talk of 'pure of heart' and 'perfect'. I personally can see an interpretation of 'pure of heart' that means that you never deliberately sin, b ize that you are arguing that it is impossible to tell, but what is your best guess?

First of all, I want to make sure you understand the issue and my position on this issue since KM has misrepresented me so often. Many Christians seem to believe that they can continue to sin and still have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". Some even maintain that it is "impossible" for a human being to not commit sin. From what I can tell, this is KM's position also.

My position is that Jesus taught otherwise. Here are some examples:

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."

Matthew 7:21-23
Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'

Matthew 5:20-48
"For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven...."
[Jesus give several examples of the commonly accepted understanding of righteousness vs. His definition]...
"Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

To be clear "perfect" is not my word, but a translation of a word attributed to Jesus. As pointed out by RC it might more accurately be translated as "complete", but I don't see much difference. The point is that Jesus said that you are to be perfect/complete in righteousness which is what I meant by "pure of heart". What is clear is that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation" and that by following the teachings of Jesus, one can be made free from committing sin.

From what I can tell, I'd guess there are very few people who would fit the description given by Jesus. But then He warned that there wouldn't be.

Matthew 7:13-14
"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
My position is that Jesus taught otherwise.

Some of those verses could be interpreted as meaning that you are freed from sin after death. Though the context may shed more light on it, let us assume that you are correct and that Jesus taught that people could become free from sin within their lifetime.
What would you expect the behavior of someone who is free from sin to be like?
What is your understanding of sin? One reason for some peoples belief that they can never evade sin is their belief that sin is so all pervasive. Some will go as far as to argue that their very existence is a sin because they are so pathetic when compared to God. Low self esteem is quite common.
If for example I notice a poster makes a typing error on this forum, have they sinned? Or is it more a matter of whether or not they deliberately do something that they know to be offensive to God (like blasphemy for example).

Originally posted by twhitehead
Some of those verses could be interpreted as meaning that you are freed from sin after death. Though the context may shed more light on it, let us assume that you are correct and that Jesus taught that people could become free from sin within their lifetime.
What would you expect the behavior of someone who is free from sin to be like?
What is your unde ...[text shortened]... ey deliberately do something that they know to be offensive to God (like blasphemy for example).

"Some of those verses could be interpreted as meaning that you are freed from sin after death."

That's a real reach don't you think? You'd have to believe that Jesus spent so much time telling people what is and isn't righteous behavior when He didn't believe people capable of it.

"If for example I notice a poster makes a typing error on this forum, have they sinned?"

C'mon. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about Christianity before having posted in these forums, I have to believe that you have a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus than this.

Are you being contrary just to be contrary?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
That's a real reach don't you think? You'd have to believe that Jesus spent so much time telling people what is and isn't righteous behavior when He didn't believe people capable of it.

No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context. You quoted:
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."
Now if you believe that Jesus's main purpose is to grant us entry to heaven then the above can easily be interpreted as Jesus freeing us from sin at the point of death so as to grant us entry to heaven - or something along those lines.

C'mon. Even if you knew absolutely nothing about Christianity before having posted in these forums, I have to believe that you have a better understanding of the teachings of Jesus than this.

Are you being contrary just to be contrary?
Not at all. There is a wide range of beliefs about what constitutes sin and a lack of agreement on it is almost certainly one of the key reasons for disagreement between you and knightmeister. The best way to clear up such issues is for each of you to explain what you understand by the term.
There is nothing more wasteful than a 20 page thread with two people arguing over something when all along they have different definitions of the key words being used.

I am getting at two critical issues here. If I make a blatant typing error in my post, then chances are I have not paid attention to detail. The result of my lack of attention is possibly annoyance to others, possibly even a misunderstanding. This is clearly not being a loving neighbor, so is it therefore sinful?
I am trying to establish just how much loving Jesus requires before my actions cease to be sinful.
I also think that someone who makes a typing error cannot rightfully be described as 'perfect' though if we are restricting ourselves to ability to avoid sin then that might be different. I am just trying to clarify what we are talking about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context. You quoted:
[b]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." over something when all along they have different definitions of the key words being used.[/b]

"No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context.

So on one hand you admit you don't want to be bothered with context, yet you can definitively say it's not a reach? That's interesting.


"Now if you believe that Jesus's main purpose is to grant us entry to heaven then the above can easily be interpreted as Jesus freeing us from sin at the point of death so as to grant us entry to heaven - or something along those lines.

Why did Jesus spend so much time telling people what is and isn't righteous behavior when He didn't believe people capable of it? Why did you take those statements out of the context of the passage that was given even if you can't be bothered with the larger context? Why did Jesus tell them that they must continue in His word? If all the have to do is profess belief, what is there to continue? Does the following sound like someone who believes that it doesn't matter of you continue to sin:
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"

Who are these people calling Jesus 'Lord, Lord'? Why would Jesus tell them to depart? When would He tell them to depart?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"To be honest I haven't been reading most of the posts between you and him, but I have no doubt that you are correct and that he is avoiding the question."

Before you draw a conclusion like that, don't you think you should read the posts in question? While it's a pain, I think you'll find it informative.

KM:

[i](BTW- I challenge you to nam ...[text shortened]... [/b]

No doubt he'll keep complaining how I won't answer his questions and that I ignore him. It's because he's been pulling this kind of nonsense for months.
-------ToOne----------------------------------------------------------

But are you able to find one example of anyone who has been able to live according to (your interpretation) of Jesus's teachings?

You keep coming out with deflections like "it's impossible to know" , but as it stands your theory about Jesus' teachings is still just a theory because you know of no-one who has lived by it or can live by it. You seem to have no problem at all judging the hearts of those within Christianity and find countless examples of people who you are able to judge as "hypocrites" - You even judge me without even knowing me - but when I challenge you to find postive examples of your theory you then say that "we can' t know" - Duh? How does that work?

Are you really , really suggesting that there are thousands or millions of people out there who are living in the way you suggest (with no need of confession or forgiveness) but we just don't realise it? If this is true then why aren't they sharing their faith with others around them so that more can be saved? Why are they hiding their light under a bushel?

The fact is that there are no known examples of your theory about Jesus's teachings being lived out and as such your theory is about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Unless there are living examples of the theory you expose then your ideas are mere curiosity.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context.

So on one hand you admit you don't want to be bothered with context, yet you can definitively say it's not a reach? That's interesting.


"Now if you believe that Jesus's main purpose is to grant us entry to heaven then the above ca ...[text shortened]... ? Why would Jesus tell them to depart? When would He tell them to depart?

Why did Jesus spend so much time telling people what is and isn't righteous behavior when He didn't believe people capable of it?------------------------ToO-------------------------------------------

He did think they were capable of it , he just didn't think they could do it without sometimes falling down and needing grace and forgiveness. He believed that his disciples were capable of righteousness but he was not so naive as to think they would never ever sin again.

He knew that despite the fact that many would have their hearts in the right place sin would still be a factor and people would not become free of it overnight. The disciples were a rag taggle bunch who were proud , ignorant , and they squabbled etc but Jesus never asked them to depart from him because they still sinned. He respected the fact that they followed him anyway despite their humanity.

They were the first living examples (of millions) of flawed human beings learning to follow Jesus and living under grace and acceptance whilst struggling to be righteous.

Can you provide examples of followers of Jesus living the way you propose - sailing off sinlessly into the sun with a Walt Disney tune in the background , presumably having no need of forgivness or grace?

YOU CAN'T

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context. You quoted:
[b]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." sin then that might be different. I am just trying to clarify what we are talking about.[/b]

Not at all. There is a wide range of beliefs about what constitutes sin and a lack of agreement on it is almost certainly one of the key reasons for disagreement between you and knightmeister. The best way to clear up such issues is for each of you to explain what you understand by the term.
There is nothing more wasteful than a 20 page thread with two people arguing over something when all along they have different definitions of the key words being used.
------------------whitey------------------------------------


I would be quite happy to do this - would you care to adjudicate? I have tried to discuss what sin is with ToO before but he is reluctant to do this.

Jesus clearly had very stringent ideas on sin (eg " if a man so much looks at another man's wife he has committed adultery" )

The implications of this are that even a stray thought of any sinful kind can be regarded as sin . This logically means that ToO's theory logically requires a level of perfection so incredible that no human could live by it.

If a man has converted then (according to ToO) he has left sin behind and has no need of the sacrifice of christ , but what happens if he has a bad day or is tired and has a little shout at his kids or glances at a woman passing him in the street? Is he hellbound then? According to ToO this would be evidence that he is not a follower. To me he just needs to confess and receive forgiveness.

The definition of sin is a massive problem for him because the only way out of his problem is to define sin differently from how Jesus defined it. Jesus defined sin as a daily tresspass for which we must ask forgiveness for (the lords prayer) - which - as I am sure you have realised by now - is contrary to ToO's theory.

Originally posted by knightmeister
No doubt he'll keep complaining how I won't answer his questions and that I ignore him. It's because he's been pulling this kind of nonsense for months.
-------ToOne----------------------------------------------------------

But are you able to find one example of anyone who has been able to live according to (your interpretation) of Jesus's teachin re living examples of the theory you expose then your ideas are mere curiosity.

"You keep coming out with deflections like "it's impossible to know" , but as it stands your theory about Jesus' teachings is still just a theory because you know of no-one who has lived by it or can live by it...but when I challenge you to find postive examples of your theory you then say that "we can' t know" - Duh? How does that work? "

So you're back to your usual games. It's a wonder that more people don't see you for what you are. I think I'll just let your own words speak for themselves as you talk out both sides of your mouth.

KM page 7: "Your argument is bunk because what is in one's heart will manifest itself in behaviour. Therefore if someone really had been able to attain a state of complete purity we would know by their deeds."

KM page 8: "You can waffle all you like about whether we can see into a person's heart or not , but you know as well as I do that a man's heart will reflect in his life (By their fruits will you know them) so we should still be able to locate them. "

KM page 9: "I agree that no-one can know another's heart , but we can know if there are people who claim to be sinless."

KM page 10: "You keep coming out with deflections like "it's impossible to know...but when I challenge you to find postive examples of your theory you then say that "we can' t know" - Duh? How does that work? "

The fact that your latest statement was in defense to the following statement by me is just all too ironic:
"No doubt he'll keep complaining how I won't answer his questions and that I ignore him. It's because he's been pulling this kind of nonsense for months."

If nothing else, hopefully TW will read this.

Let the rationalizations, unfounded accusations, flawed propositions etc. continue.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]"You keep coming out with deflections like "it's impossible to know" , but as it stands your theory about Jesus' teachings is still just a theory because you know of no-one who has lived by it or can live by it...but when I challenge you to find postive examples of your theory you then say that "we can' t know" - Duh? How does that work? "

So yo ...[text shortened]... s, unfounded accusations, flawed propositions etc. continue.[/b]

Would it kill you to stay on track?

You always try and make this personal and about me. It's just your way of trying to move the debate away from an area where you are on thin ice. Did you really think I would let you get away with it after having seen it so often before? You just can't seem to stick to the subject.

The fact remains that whatever you think of me or anyone else you are still completely unable to provide one single example of any human being who has been able to live according to your theory on Jesus' teachings.

Your reasoning is that "it's impossible to know" , but that doesn't make sense because you claim to be able to know an awful lot about what you call "Christianity" and "so-called Christians" . You have no problem making all sorts of judgements when it suits you , but when it doesn't suit you you say "it's impossible to know".

I put it to you that if your theory on Jesus was actually correct then an entire tradition of followers should have been established throughout history armed with the clear message that sinless perfection was indeed possible and that we should all aspire to it in order to gain salvation.

There is no such tradition of course. No testimonies or followers. Even you yourself are silent. Nothing . Zilch. All Because its "impossible to know"eh ?

In the light of such an empty chasm of evidence or examples what am I to make of your theory?

Did Jesus just not know humanity well enough? Have we just not been trying hard enough? Or (my theory) has ToOne got his wires crossed by trying to interpret Jesus selectively and has just got it wrong?

It's your proposition that is flawed because you cannot cite any examples of your theory in action , or being lived out , whereas I can cite millions who will testify to the grace of God to save and his unconditional love and acceptance , as well as the sacrifice of Christ for "remmision of sins" (Jesus's OWN words) and confession of sin.

Your theory is just a plastic toy phone , good for a laugh but of no practical use or application , whereas my theory is tried and tested and lived by millions. Don't you understand anything about Spirituality ? Unless it has a practical application then what's the point? Don't you get it? That's why I ask these questions - because I know your theory is built on a house of sand.

I'm still waiting for a practical example of how your theory works in practice - and you still can't give me one. I wonder why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it is not a 'reach' at all. I did say that I was taking verses as quoted and not bothering with context. You quoted:
[b]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." ...[text shortened]... sin then that might be different. I am just trying to clarify what we are talking about.[/b]

I thought that this was worth throwing in at this juncture. It made me wonder. Jesus would have known about the different defintions of sin within the Judaic tradition. I reckon Jesus was talking about Pesha and Avon when ToOne quotes him. This could mean that iniquity or committing sin is the deliberate act of sinning willfully. It's clear that the disciples did sin but that Jesus still looked kindly upon them , whereas the Pharisees were accused of iniquity and evil. But there's clearly a distinction here to be made. According to judaism it's possible for a man to have need of confession of sin but not be guilty of peisha or avon. Jesus being a Jew would have known the context of what he was saying to a Jewish audience. ...................



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:

God is merciful before someone sins, even though God knows that a person is capable of sin.
God is merciful to a sinner even after the person has sinned.
God represents the power to be merciful even in areas that a human would not expect or deserve.
God is compassionate, and eases the punishment of the guilty.
God is gracious even to those who are not deserving.
God is slow to anger.
God is abundant in kindness.
God is the God of truth, thus we can count on God's promises to forgive repentant sinners.
God guarantees kindness to future generations, as the deeds of the righteous patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) have benefits to all their descendants.
God forgives intentional sins if the sinner repents.
God forgives a deliberate angering of Him if the sinner repents.
God forgives sins that are committed in error.
God wipes away the sins from those who repent.

(WIKI)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Would it kill you to stay on track?

You always try and make this personal and about me. It's just your way of trying to move the debate away from an area where you are on thin ice. Did you really think I would let you get away with it after having seen it so often before? You just can't seem to stick to the subject.

The fact remains that what ry works in practice - and you still can't give me one. I wonder why?

In case you "missed it" like you seem prone to do. It's particularly sorry when you "miss" YOUR OWN POST as well as the post that points you to it.

KM page 9: "I agree that no-one can know another's heart , but we can know if there are people who claim to be sinless."

Let the rationalizations, unfounded accusations, flawed propositions etc. continue.
You seem to have hit all three with this latest post and are likely well into the etceteras.

I can only hope that TW is reading all this, so he can see you for what you are.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I thought that this was worth throwing in at this juncture. It made me wonder. Jesus would have known about the different defintions of sin within the Judaic tradition. I reckon Jesus was talking about Pesha and Avon when ToOne quotes him. This could mean that iniquity or committing sin is the deliberate act of sinning willfully. It's clear that the di mitted in error.
God wipes away the sins from those who repent.

(WIKI)

knightmeister a most admirable and well researched post, although i am afraid you will get more sense from talking to the wall than from think of one, one does admire you're patience!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
So on one hand you admit you don't want to be bothered with context, yet you can definitively say it's not a reach? That's interesting.

I do not have the time nor inclination to read the whole new Testament or even just the Gospels just to reply to a post. I made it quite clear that I was taking the verses at face value and I stand by my claim that on face value it is not a 'reach' to think that Jesus may have been talking about freedom from sin after death. I know it is not the only interpretation, I was merely stating that presenting the verses in isolation did not prove your point.

Why did Jesus spend so much time telling people what is and isn't righteous behavior when He didn't believe people capable of it? Why did you take those statements out of the context of the passage that was given even if you can't be bothered with the larger context? Why did Jesus tell them that they must continue in His word? If all the have to do is profess belief, what is there to continue?
You are setting up a strawman. I do not think that anyone is claiming that Jesus preached the message that we should merely ask for forgiveness then continue to sin as if nothing happened. The question at stake is whether or not he claimed that we would totally stop sinning.

Does the following sound like someone who believes that it doesn't matter of you continue to sin:
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will tell me in that day,'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in your name, in your name cast out demons, and in your name do many mighty works?' Then I will tell them,'I never knew you. Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"
Who are these people calling Jesus 'Lord, Lord'? Why would Jesus tell them to depart? When would He tell them to depart?
As far as I can tell - again without the benefit of context - he is saying that at the final judgment is when he will say it and he is referring to 'people who work iniquity'. I am afraid I am not convinced that this implies that people who do not 'work iniquity' are totally sinless.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But are you able to find one example of anyone who has been able to live according to (your interpretation) of Jesus's teachings?

You keep coming out with deflections like "it's impossible to know" , but as it stands your theory about Jesus' teachings is still just a theory because you know of no-one who has lived by it or can live by it. You seem ...[text shortened]... re are living examples of the theory you expose then your ideas are mere curiosity.

Although I don't entirely agree with ThinkOfOnes argument so far, I think he has made a good point regarding the impossibility of identifying people who are following Christs word and are sinless. I do not think you have made a counter argument at all yet you continue to demand the impossible. Further ThinkOfOne stated that such people would be few and far between yet you incorrectly claim he was "suggesting that there are thousands or millions of people out there who are living in the way you suggest".
Also, I do not buy your 'lack of evidence equals false' argument. We could just as easily apply that to Christianity could we not? Reality is not a function of its usefulness to you.