Nothing Short Of Perfection

[leibowde84]

I apologize for my long absence. After several trips away from home, I came home only to fall ill. I'm much better now.

I'd like to respond to leibowde--correct, no living person other than Christ attained perfection. At the rapture, believers receive flawless bodies without the propensity to sin--very much like Christ, as the scriptures tell us. Your statement that no one is perfect underscores the need for us to become perfect at the rapture to enter Heaven, a place where any imperfection on your part or mine will dull the enjoyment of Heaven for its guests.

Can you point to where it states this in scripture?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you point to where it states this in scripture?

Where it states in scripture that all persons are sinners save Christ? Where it states in scripture that Heaven is without pain or sorrow? For you and I to not cause pain and sorrow to others, we would have to be...?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As for others on this thread, I've had ample time to reflect. The real issue with salvation/perfection is that Jesus's gift on the cross offers us assurance as well as salvation. Since no one is perfect, and since Christ died a horrible death by torture and then rose from the dead to give us perfection, those who trust in Jesus will go to Heaven assuredly... Christ has switched places with sinners.

Assurance is truth, otherwise why did Paul field questions like those in Romans 6:1-2...

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

Only people who knew Paul promoted assurance/eternal security would have asked the question, "What? Saved people can just sin and sin because their sins past and future are covered?"

 

[leibowde84]

Where it states in scripture that all persons are sinners save Christ? Where it states in scripture that Heaven is without pain or sorrow? For you and I to not cause pain and sorrow to others, we would have to be...?

That we get new perfect bodies before going to heaven for the reasons you claim.

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball said : I apologize for my long absence. After several trips away from home, I came home only to fall ill. I'm much better now.
I’m sorry you were ill Billiardsball. I hope you are, or will be, feeling healthy again soon.


2) Billiardsball said : “The real issue with salvation/perfection is that Jesus's gift on the cross offers us assurance as well as salvation.”

1) First, I am glad that you seem to have abandoned your latest claim that the biblical text is perfect and inerrant.

2) I am also glad that we can agree that the superlative offering of Jesus’ entire life, from child to adult, including the sacrifice of his life on the cross and his subsequent bodily resurrection, becomes part of the assurance mankind may have, that he was divine and that his message was a true message and that he has power to make good on any covenants and promises that he offers mankind.


3) Billiardsball said : “Christ died a horrible death by torture and then rose from the dead to give us perfection…”

This statement seems to be a simple restating of your original failed theory that mankind is “given” moral perfection without any rational mechanism as to how this can occur.

For example, the early Christian religion embraced repentance as part of the means of mankinds moral improvement towards moral maturity. However, If your religion dismisses and abandons the early Christian mechanism of repentance, then your religious theory will need to come up with some other rational mechanism whereby moral improvement towards ultimate “perfection” can occur. What mechanism does your theory use instead of the Christian doctrine of repentance?

4) Also, you mention that mankind will be given bodies in a manner similar to Jesus' body that Jesus received when he was resurrected by God, his Father. I agree that the resurrection, which was promised mankind, historically, entailed a resurrection into material bodies. Does your statement mean that you believe Jesus is still embodied, or did he somehow lose his resurrected body in your theological model?

5) Also, you mentioned that mankind will be resurrected into “…flawless bodies without the propensity to sin” (post #140). Does this mean that you believe God will also save the original sinful spirit that a man has in his current body, or, in your theory, will God likewise, create a new “flawless spirit without the propensity to sin”. That is, will he save the current sinful spirit, or will he create another spirit and save that new and different spirit in your theory?


Thanks for the additional information, and, again, I am glad you are feeling better.


Clear
τωτζσιφυω

 

[BilliardsBall]

That we get new perfect bodies before going to heaven for the reasons you claim.

Yes. Have you considered the rapture, the judgment of the righteous and the wedding feast of the Lamb?

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) Billiardsball said : I apologize for my long absence. After several trips away from home, I came home only to fall ill. I'm much better now.
I’m sorry you were ill Billiardsball. I hope you are, or will be, feeling healthy again soon.


2) Billiardsball said : “The real issue with salvation/perfection is that Jesus's gift on the cross offers us assurance as well as salvation.”

1) First, I am glad that you seem to have abandoned the latest silly claim that the biblical text is perfect and inerrant.
2) I am also glad that we can agree that the superlative offering of Jesus’ entire life, from child to adult, including the sacrifice of his life on the cross and his subsequent bodily resurrection, becomes part of the assurance mankind may have, that he was divine and that his message was a true message and that he has power to make good on any covenants and promises that he offers mankind.


3) Billiardsball said : “Christ died a horrible death by torture and then rose from the dead to give us perfection…”

This statement seems to be a simple restating of your original failed theory that mankind is “given” moral perfection without any rational mechanism as to how this can occur.

For example, the early Christian religion embraced repentance as part of the means of mankinds moral improvement towards moral maturity. However, If your religion dismisses and abandons the early Christian mechanism of repentance, then your religious theory will need to come up with some other rational mechanism whereby moral improvement towards ultimate “perfection” can occur. What mechanism does your theory use instead of the Christian doctrine of repentance?

4) Also, you mention that mankind will be given bodies in a manner similar to Jesus' body that Jesus received when he was resurrected by God, his Father. I agree that the resurrection, which was promised mankind, historically, entailed a resurrection into material bodies. Does your statement mean that you believe Jesus is still embodied, or did he somehow lose his resurrected body in your theological model?

5) Also, you mentioned that mankind will be resurrected into “…flawless bodies without the propensity to sin” (post #140). Does this mean that you believe God will also save the original sinful spirit that a man has in his current body, or, in your theory, will God likewise, create a new “flawless spirit without the propensity to sin”. That is, will he save the current sinful spirit, or will he create another spirit and save that different spirit in your theory?


Thanks for the additional information, and, again, I am glad you are feeling better.


Clear
τωτζσιφθω

Hi Clear,

Thanks for your kind words and for your concern. This is one of those colds and fevers that has led to weeks of coughing. I'm getting old.

I must reiterate, I don't think you should use terms like the "early Christian religion" to embrace early Christian writers a century or two or three removed the text not only in time but in substance. If Paul and Jesus said X, that is the "early Christian religion" to me.

I also want to emphasize I certainly believe in inerrancy. How do you support the truths of prophecy without inerrancy. Here's an example of a true prophecy I happened to catch in readings today:

"And I will pursue them with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence; and I will deliver them to trouble among all the kingdoms of the earth—to be a curse, an astonishment, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them," - Jeremiah 29:18

Here God is prophesying through Jeremiah and Jeremiah's scribe that the Jewish people will be a wonder as well as despised in the diaspora. There is STILL endemic anti-Semitism worldwide despite heightened awareness, say, of the WWII Shoah. There is STILL the remark/truism that the Jewish people are accomplishing astonishing achievement in the arts, in the sciences, for all humanity. God's prophesy has come true for MILLENNIA here. How can we find the text errant when its prophecies are the highest, firmest truths we know in history?

As for perfection coming and being measured, is love in a box? Is there a love meter a scientist can use to measure the relative weights of love, loving and hate?

But was there a more perfect person than Jesus Christ?

 

[leibowde84]

Yes. Have you considered the rapture, the judgment of the righteous and the wedding feast of the Lamb?

Can you provide a quote where it says that we will get new perfect bodies?

 

[Clear]

Billiards replied : " I certainly believe in inerrancy. "

OK, lets revisit your theory of "inerrancy" in biblical text. I very much agree that much of the text represents an accurate witness. However, I had assumed that you had read my prior posts discussing the lists of various types of errors in the biblical text that were made by the creators of the text itself (i.e. the masoretes, Sopherim and others who created the Jewish Massoretic bible)

For example, I gave examples concerning errors in posts, 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132. Most of these examples of errors were admissions of errors that originate from the very individual groups who create the bible which you theorize is "inerrant". The creators of the text are telling you there are errors in the text they created, AND they are giving you lists of errors in their text. To then try to elevate and embellish this text to a status of "inerrant" is irrational.

If textual Inerrancy means that the text has no errors, then how does one deal with the factual reality that the text has obvious and objective error?
How does one who either pretends error doesn't exist or ignores the reality of error in the text, maintain a rational and logical discussion with others who are aware of errors in biblical text?
What happens to the value of one's witness and claims when others realize the "inerrantists" live in a different "reality" than the rest of the world and their "witness" is not true?

Also, when speaking of the difference between early Christianity and your personal religion, remember, certain witnesses of "early Christianity" are not separated from early Christians such as the apostles. Clement is a colleague of the apostle Peter, Papias is a hearer of John. Early Christianity simply tells us what the earliest Christians believed. This does not mean that their doctrines were correct or incorrect.

Your religion and your theories are not the same as early Christian religion. Also, remember that the early christians did not interpret Paul or Jesus as YOU interpret Paul or Jesus.

This is not saying your religion is either better or worse than early christian religion, (though I personally believe early Christianity was much more logical and rational than your religious theories and your interpretations.).

Clear
τωειεισεω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Can you provide a quote where it says that we will get new perfect bodies?

Already had from Revelation... no more sorrow, crying and no more death. What will be the conditions of your perpetually undying body?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Billiards replied : " I certainly believe in inerrancy. "

OK, lets revisit your theory of "inerrancy" in biblical text. I very much agree that much of the text represents an accurate witness. However, I had assumed that you had read my prior posts discussing the lists of various types of errors in the biblical text that were made by the creators of the text itself (i.e. the masoretes, Sopherim and others who created the Jewish Massoretic bible)

For example, I gave examples concerning errors in posts, 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132. Most of these examples of errors were admissions of errors that originate from the very individual groups who create the bible which you theorize is "inerrant". The creators of the text are telling you there are errors in the text they created, AND they are giving you lists of errors in their text. To then try to elevate and embellish this text to a status of "inerrant" is irrational.

If textual Inerrancy means that the text has no errors, then how does one deal with the factual reality that the text has obvious and objective error?
How does one who either pretends error doesn't exist or ignores the reality of error in the text, maintain a rational and logical discussion with others who are aware of errors in biblical text?
What happens to the value of one's witness and claims when others realize the "inerrantists" live in a different "reality" than the rest of the world and their "witness" is not true?

Also, when speaking of the difference between early Christianity and your personal religion, remember, certain witnesses of "early Christianity" are not separated from early Christians such as the apostles. Clement is a colleague of the apostle Peter, Papias is a hearer of John. Early Christianity simply tells us what the earliest Christians believed. This does not mean that their doctrines were correct or incorrect.

Your religion and your theories are not the same as early Christian religion. Also, remember that the early christians did not interpret Paul or Jesus as YOU interpret Paul or Jesus.

This is not saying your religion is either better or worse than early christian religion, (though I personally believe early Christianity was much more logical and rational than your religious theories and your interpretations.).

Clear
τωειεισεω

1. The Masoretes are etc. on extant record were not there, and never claimed to be there, when the text was written! Someone saying "I found an error, don't worry, I'll redact it," is contributing to the mindset I'm reproving.

a. How is it that prophecy is inerrant despite the manipulations of the text you are citing?

b. If the text is an accurate witness, and God says the text is pure and perfect, why do you doubt that witness? Why do you believe God who created the world in six days and controls everything from weather patterns and officials in office to Heaven and Hell is incapable of preserving an inerrant text through both emmanuenses and redactors? Why is your God in that box?

2. My witness is true and honest. I have investigated every claim of errancy brought to my attention or read by me online or off and for decades.

a. Each claim of errancy is simply disproven, often by reviewing context and the original languages.

b. As an original language scholar, you would admit how many apparent errors come in the local language that are redacted/disspelled in the source languages.

3. I of course recall that early Christians were more than valid sources--often I quote a Tertullian or Irenaeus and so on. Feel free to limit yourself to those sources, which you don't, via quoting people centuries after Christ to "prove" that some heretical stance is "what early Christians believed".

a. This last is way off the mark as we both know the promulgation of heretical views and their staying power in history was because godly "early" Christians were protecting others from heresy! I try to keep to scripture so we get horse's mouth theology while you are obviously careful to only quote sources that prove your case while missing opposing viewpoints from the early church. Atheists do this tactic as well--they love to find a Marcion or some heretical viewpoint to "prove" their "truths".

4. Figure out which portions of the Bible are worth banking on, which aren't. Both our destinies lie therein. I took a lot of personal abuse for converting from Jewish family and friends. Either Jesus is the Christ who perfects and saves or He is not--thus the OP.

Repeating for those late to the party--Jesus Christ died and rose, suffering a horrible death by torture, so that trusting Him we are saved. We are imperfect and needed a perfect Savior. Christ died FOR us, that is, paid a penalty, ransomed us, redeemed us.

I'm not perfect now, and will not be until I "pass over".

 

[Clear]

1) Clear said (#149) " I gave examples concerning errors in posts, 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132. Most of these examples of errors were admissions of errors that originate from the very individual groups who create the bible which you theorize is "inerrant". The creators of the text are telling you there are errors in the text they created, AND they are giving you lists of errors in their text. To then try to elevate and embellish this text to a status of "inerrant" is irrational.
Billiardsball said (#151) " The Masoretes are etc. on extant record were not there, and never claimed to be there, when the text was written!

You do realize that it was the Masorites who created the Masoretic Bible text and they created the Masorah with its lists of errors in their text? Their text is the main authoritative text for Rabbinic Judaism.

As yet another example of error, their list describes an error in Isaiah 9:3 which, in the KJV reads : Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy...” Many other bibles have exactly the opposite “Thou hast multiplied the nation and increased their joy...”. These opposing textual renderings cannot both represent inerrancy. This is a VERY well known error (google it).

How does one claim inerrancy in texts that have hundreds of such obvious and objective and well-known errors? Name a single bible translation that does not have such errors in their text and translation.


2) Billiardsball said (#151) "How is it that prophecy is inerrant despite the manipulations of the text you are citing?
Give forum members an example of a single manuscript of significant size that is inerrant and lets discuss it.


3) Billiardsball said (#151) "If the text is an accurate witness, and God says the text is pure and perfect, why do you doubt that witness?
Forum members already have been given multiple examples of textual error types. The list of actual errors would take up pages on the forum. Ancient texts are not “inerrant” as I have proven. Give me a reference where God clearly says a specific ancient biblical manuscript text itself is “pure and perfect”.


4) Billiardsball said (#151) "My witness is true and honest. I have investigated every claim of errancy brought to my attention or read by me online or off and for decades. Each claim of errancy is simply disproven, often by reviewing context and the original languages.

I think your claim is well meaning but the witness itself is patiently and obviously untrue and naive and it creates suspicion in other claims you make. When Christians make inflated, unrealistic, and embellished claims regarding any principle, then the realization that a christian is willing to make irrational and embellished claims tends to undermine confidence in such claims. The habit of making, multiple untrue claims cause increasing doubt and suspicion in the christian religion rather than producing real and firm and lasting confidence leading to faith. Individuals do not often mind if there is imperfection in a christian, but they do want honesty.

The best Christian witness is not a flamboyant brag that is so easily proven to be incorrect as the claim to inerrancy, but rather, the best witness should be true and consistent with reality.

For example, you claim errancy is disproven by review of context and “original language” when it is obvious to readers that you do not even understand enough Greek or Hebrew to have studied the simple language errors I have described in posts 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132 of this thread. For example, what would you do with the error in Genesis 1:31?


5) Billiardsball said (#151) "As an original language scholar, you would admit how many apparent errors come in the local language that are redacted/disspelled in the source languages.
Can you give me an example of an actual textual error of the type I have described in posts 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132 of this thread that your suggested method can actually fix?. And to dispel any myths before they begin, I do not consider myself to be a scholar in anything, certainly not in "original language".


6) Billiardsball said (#151) "I of course recall that early Christians were more than valid sources--often I quote a Tertullian or Irenaeus and so on. Feel free to limit yourself to those sources, which you don't, via quoting people centuries after Christ to "prove" that some heretical stance is "what early Christians believed".

You have always been welcome to use ANY of the earliest texts where Christians describe their beliefs to support your theories such as perfection without repentance. In fact, I wish you would pay MORE attention to early christian history and their worldviews as you create your personal religious theories.

However, you’ve been unable to mount any significant historical rebuttal at all using any of the earliest texts. The reason you are unable to use early christian texts to support your specific prior theories it that the early Christian interpretations are, in the main, quite antagonistic to your theories.

For example, the fact that the earliest Judeo-Christian textual witnesses, written by Christians are unsupportive and critical of your theory of perfection without repentance demonstrates to all readers that your theory is not the same doctrine as historical christians believed and described. As I’ve demonstrated, the vast multitude of Earliest Christian texts amply demonstrated that your religion is different than and heretical to the religion of the earliest Christians.

If you disagree on this point, we could use your specific theory that “repentance is unnecessary in early Christian religion” as an example. You can gather ANY of the earliest Christian texts to support your position and I will gather early Christian texts to show their belief on this point and we can compare texts and time periods.


7) Billiardsball said (#151) " I try to keep to scripture so we get horse's mouth theology while you are obviously careful to only quote sources that prove your case while missing opposing viewpoints from the early church.
If readers have followed the two threads they have already seen that your personal interpretations of scriptures were incorrect, error-laden, unhistorical and that and you often pay too little attention to historical context in making personal interpretations and creating religious theories.

As an example of your errors in interpretations of scriptures, do we need to revisit the fiascos of your attempts to use scriptures accurately in the "God in Mormonism" thread? Do you remember Ephesians 1:13 & 14 and some of the other scriptures you tried to interpret? Such fiascos demonstrate that your ability to use and interpret scriptures accurately is faulty if you will not start paying more attention to accurate meanings.

Though you may complain that early christians disagree with your theories, I might point out that you and early the christians do not disagree so much on the text itself, but instead, your personal interpretations and your personal theories are inconsistent with the descriptions of early christians, their scriptural interpretation and their doctrinal worldviews.

8) Billiardsball said (#151) "I took a lot of personal abuse for converting from Jewish family and friends. Either Jesus is the Christ who perfects and saves or He is not--thus the OP.
While I can empathize and also have experienced similar difficulties, I must point out that any sacrifice you or I have made in our conversion to christianity is yet another irrelevant point. Many individuals are abused for becoming muslims or for becoming athiests or for becoming some other religion (or for leaving religion). This is irrelevant if historical truth is the subject of discussion.

In any case, I wish you a good spiritual journey as you start to discover early Christian worldviews

Clear
τωτωφιτωω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Clear,

I appreciate your desire to teach and instruct, but you need to repent regarding this doctrine of inerrancy we are discussing.

You do realize that it was the Masorites who created the Masoretic Bible text and they created the Masorah with its lists of errors in their text? Their text is the main authoritative text for Rabbinic Judaism.

I was Bar Mitzvah using a Masoretic Bible. The Masorites had the role to “count” texts that were pre-existing before them. They were “counting” not “writing and redacting” scriptures as they copied scrolls already extant. Are you claiming the Masora were there in the days of Moses, redacting Moses (circa 1450 BCE)? To when would you date the earliest efforts of the Masorites, please?

How does one claim inerrancy in texts that have hundreds of such obvious and objective and well-known errors? Name a single bible translation that does not have such errors in their text and translation.

In context, your quote above cites English texts when I’ve already mentioned several times how a look at the source languages or context clears most “errors”.

Give forum members an example of a single manuscript of significant size that is inerrant and lets discuss it.

Any of 66 books of inerrancy I would call a sizable tract. You?

Give me a reference where God clearly says a specific ancient biblical manuscript text itself is “pure and perfect”.

I believe we’ve discussed the purity of words “refined seven times, the dross removed.” I hope you will realize when Jesus said to live by every word God utters which words He was speaking of…! Do you truly believe the Lord commanded us to live (and die, and resurrect) by every recorded errant word of God?

I have investigated every claim of errancy brought to my attention or read by me online or off and for decades. Each claim of errancy is simply disproven, often by reviewing context and the original languages.
**
I think your claim is well meaning but the witness itself is patiently and obviously untrue and naive and it creates suspicion in other claims you make.

Why did you accuse me of lying [“patently, not “patiently” and obviously untrue”]?

And to dispel any myths before they begin, I do not consider myself to be a scholar in anything, certainly not in "original language".

Then we’re done discussing the original languages, so let’s move on.

You have always been welcome to use ANY of the earliest texts where Christians describe their beliefs to support your theories such as perfection without repentance. In fact, I wish you would pay MORE attention to early christian history and their worldviews as you create your personal religious theories.

However, you’ve been unable to mount any significant historical rebuttal at all using any of the earliest texts. The reason you are unable to use early christian texts to support your specific prior theories it that the early Christian interpretations are, in the main, quite antagonistic to your theories.

Do you ever go back to read what you write? The Christian texts ARE earlier than the “early Christian interpretations”. Do you agree? Disagree? I’m keen on quoting the Holy Bible—and inerrancy and accuracy are great reasons to do so. But Paul wrote before early Christians commented on Paul’s writings. Do you disagree with this statement?

As an example of your errors in interpretations of scriptures, do we need to revisit the fiascos of your attempts to use scriptures accurately in the "God in Mormonism" thread? Do you remember Ephesians 1:13 & 14 and some of the other scriptures you tried to interpret? Such fiascos demonstrate that your ability to use and interpret scriptures accurately is faulty if you will not start paying more attention to accurate meanings.

If you say so, but my life benefit and reward will be rich because even if I interpret wrongly, I’m attempting to honor holy writ.

While I can empathize and also have experienced similar difficulties, I must point out that any sacrifice you or I have made in our conversion to christianity is yet another irrelevant point. Many individuals are abused for becoming muslims or for becoming athiests or for becoming some other religion (or for leaving religion). This is irrelevant if historical truth is the subject of discussion.

Not at all, sir. I gave my life to Jesus Christ but first I gave my assent to the impeccable truths of His Word. Spend some more time evangelizing our Savior—or at least commending Him if you don’t want to go afoul of forum rules here—and less time saying His followers are lying, and naïve, and irrelevant and insincere and the rest, and then I’ll know you are His because His followers affirm and love one another, so that the whole world will know who He is.

PS. Is this errant? “God so loved the world that whoever trusts Him will have eternal life, and never perish.”

Thanks!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Can you provide a quote where it says that we will get new perfect bodies?

Please notice what faithful Job looked forward to according to Job 33:25
Job looked forward to the time when he would be resurrected back to healthy physical life on earth forever released from the aging process.
Jesus will fulfill God's promise to father Abraham - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18 - that all nations of earth will be blessed. Blessed with the benefit of healing - Revelation 22:2

 

[leibowde84]

Please notice what faithful Job looked forward to according to Job 33:25
Job looked forward to the time when he would be resurrected back to healthy physical life on earth forever released from the aging process.
Jesus will fulfill God's promise to father Abraham - Genesis 12:3; Genesis 22:18 - that all nations of earth will be blessed. Blessed with the benefit of healing - Revelation 22:2

But, that only speaks to bodily improvements at best. There is nothing specifically pointing to a "new body" in any of the citations you have provided thus far.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But, that only speaks to bodily improvements at best. There is nothing specifically pointing to a "new body" in any of the citations you have provided thus far.

There are No remains left of Job. Some people were annihilated with bombings, so there are No remains for them either.
It is God's memory. All things will be new - Isaiah 43:19 - even deserts blooming like flowers - Isaiah 35:1
All who are in God's memory will have a resurrection. Not in an old sick body but in a healthy one.
Every one Jesus' resurrected was resurrected healthy.
Every one Jesus' cured became whole or healthy.
What Jesus did while on earth is a small preview, or coming attraction, of what Jesus will do on a grand global scale during his 1,000-year governmental rulership over earth.
See how healthy people will be according to chapter 35 of Isaiah. No one will say, " I am sick...." - Isaiah 33:24

 

[BilliardsBall]

I agree, but part of URA's misunderstanding is parsing OT and NT promises. The patriarchs WERE promised a long life in the Millennium. After the Millennium, Jehovah's Witnesses believe most people will live on the new Earth but Christians understand Heaven comes to Earth as in Revelation, "They will dwell with Him and be His people."

Leib, consider 1 John 3:3, "All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure." If you think, as I do, Jesus Christ was perfect/sinless/pure, then the Bible says when He returns He will make those who've trusted Him like Him/perfect/sinless/pure. What would you call someone utterly without sin? Perfect. Therefore, I use the terms perfect/imperfect when sharing the gospel, occasionally using the terms sin/sinless, which are more jargon terms that most misunderstand and misuse. Does that make sense to you?

Thank you.

 

[leibowde84]

There are No remains left of Job. Some people were annihilated with bombings, so there are No remains for them either.
It is God's memory. All things will be new - Isaiah 43:19 - even deserts blooming like flowers - Isaiah 35:1
All who are in God's memory will have a resurrection. Not in an old sick body but in a healthy one.
Every one Jesus' resurrected was resurrected healthy.
Every one Jesus' cured became whole or healthy.
What Jesus did while on earth is a small preview, or coming attraction, of what Jesus will do on a grand global scale during his 1,000-year governmental rulership over earth.
See how healthy people will be according to chapter 35 of Isaiah. No one will say, " I am sick...." - Isaiah 33:24

Why do you make the assumption that there are no remains left of Job? Why wouldn't you just assume that we haven't found them yet, just like the vast majority of other people who have long passed.

 

[Clear]

To Forum members :

The writers and redactors – what they did

When the Israelites leaving Babylon started the process of adopting their new language which came to be square script “Hebrew”, this long process was not merely a change of alphabet but involved changes in grammar and the addition of pointing, vowels and rules of speech and grammar and idiom and it happened over a substantial period of time. A good example of the problems a misunderstanding of a single and simple idiomatic use of language using the word “sin” as an example is found in posts #57 and #67 in this very thread (and some context in posts in between these two posts).

Even the basic language the Jews were adopting was in flux as we know from their texts. For example, the Jewish greek translation of 300 b.c. demonstrates their Hebrew source did not yet have final letter forms, yet they had the dagesh forte. By Jesus’ time he could speak of the “yot” as part of their evolving alphabet. However, the eastern schools (e.g. babylonian) and the western (e.g. Jerusalem) schools were not united in their different and competiing proposals for how this new language would form and be pointed. Thus we see in early texts, different forms.

For example, in some early texts, the vowels are above the letters (mainly eastern) and in other texts, the vowel are below the text (mainly western). Even by Jesus time, the individuals called "Scribes" (in english texts) were not merely low-level "copiers" of text, but served as grammatarians as well. Thus in the greek new testament the word for scribe is γραμματευς grammateus. (Thus they felt they had a right to interpret their writings) The adoption of this new language we now know as the square script Hebrew was still in flux for many years.

There were many, many errors caused by this flux and change in language of a nation. The addition of matris lectiones caused it’s own sets of errors. The confusions caused by this evolution of the text into pointed script with full vowel pointing took place over a long period of time and along different lines in the eastern schools versus the western schools.

This fluidity of language and its unsettled rules caused problem for several centuries. It also was causing problems for the Massorites who are still in the process of adding full vowel pointing in the middle ages. The Massorites tell us this and there are also many lists of errors having to do with spelling and the creation of inaccurate phrases.

For example, David Christian Ginsberg, the foremost scholar of the Massorah of the last century gives us examples. For example, in more than 1500 (one thousand, five hundred) cases in just the printed psalter alone, they used vav (ו ) to express the vowel shurek and cholem or kibbutz, and the yod (י) they used to designate chirec, tzere, and segol. One problem is that the redactors were inconsistent in the use of these substitutes. Because there are fifteen hundren examples in the psalter alone, one can imagine the list if I attempted to post it. However, there are examples on almost every page of the first printed psalter. (Ginsberg gives 4 pages, single spaced in his example list in his book on the Massorah).

Lists of Omissions divided into three classes. Omissions of whole verses. Omissions of half of a verse, and omissions of single words.

The point is that these errors are the types of errors that one expects with any translation from one language to another language, or with inability to accurately translate idiom, and with the formation of a new language in flux and when grammatical rules and even the vowels are in flux.




Billiardsball;


Clear said (#149) "I gave examples concerning errors in posts, 103, 104, 115, 121, 122, and 132. Most of these examples of errors were admissions of errors that originate from the very individual groups who create the bible which you theorize is "inerrant". The creators of the text are telling you there are errors in the text they created, AND they are giving you lists of errors in their text. To then try to elevate and embellish this text to a status of "inerrant" is irrational.
Billiardsball said (#151) "The Masoretes are etc. on extant record were not there, and never claimed to be there, when the text was written!
Clear replied : You do realize that it was theMasoriteswho created theMasoreticBible text and they created theMasorahwith its lists of errors in their text? Their text is the main authoritative text for Rabbinic Judaism. As yet another example of error, their list describes an error in Isaiah 9:3 which, in the KJV reads :Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy...” Many other bibles have exactly the opposite “Thou hast multiplied the nation and increased their joy...”. These opposing textual renderings cannot both represent inerrancy. This is a VERY well known error (google it). How does one claim inerrancy in texts that have hundreds of such obvious and objective and well-known errors? Name a single bible translation that does not have such errors in their text and translation.
Billiardsball replied : #153 I was Bar Mitzvah using a Masoretic Bible. The Masorites had the role to “count” texts that were pre-existing before them. They were “counting” not “writing and redacting” scriptures as they copied scrolls already extant.

This new theory of yours that the writers and redactors of the text merely “counted letters” is irrational and historically inaccurate.

Yes, they counted letters as well as wrote new text and redacted prior text. It made the inerrantists feel good to create the myth that counting was the ONLY thing they did, but the scholars and textual historians, who knew better, never bought into it. If we retreat into the “land of denial and closed eyes” by creating and then repeating myths and creating even more theories to create an alternative history to live in, then we cannot have rational, logical and meaningful communication with individuals who have accepted authentic history. Also, if we invent and live in alternate history and try to teach this to others, then our claims as Christians become historically irrelevant to the extent that they are untrue.

For example, even in this thread, after readers have seen for themselves, objective errors in the masoretic text, what happens to your credibility and the strength of your claim to “inerrancy” when they can see for themselves that the ancient text has error? Throwing away credibility is not good. Though you complain that I am introducing them to uncomfortable truths, still, at some point, upon simple study of the scriptures, they would have found out these things on their own.

Billiardsball said ; Why did you accuse me of lying [“patently, not “patiently” and obviously untrue”]?......Spend some more time evangelizing our Savior
Billiardsball, I don’t believe that offering an erroneous theory that ancient biblical texts are perfectly inerrant is “evangelizing” our Savior.

It is, instead, false advertising of texts and is bound to disappoint those who buy into it. You say you are “attempting to honor holy writ”. I think your motive itself is fine and honorable, but the method of offering false advertising is misguided and honors neither the text nor the God who tells us we must not bear false witness.

You could simply tell individuals that you are aware that there are errors in all texts but that the many textual witnesses are yet valuable as they offer recurring, constant witnesses regarding Gods’ relationship to man and of his love and regarding the Savior Jesus’ superlative life and sacrifice. You could teach individuals about praying and developing a personal witness as God reveals himself to them and witnesses to them that he loves them and will guide them if they will but seek him.


Billardsball said : “…and less time saying His followers are lying, and naïve, and irrelevant and insincere and the rest, …”
Billiardsball; You are interpreting my words incorrectly. Sit back, relax and be at peace. As to "his followers", Christians are, in the main, quite honest and good and are attempting to achieve a relationship with the God they love and who loves them and they are as honorable as any in their attempts to be obedient to God.. I am not speaking of them in my post. I am speaking about you in this case.

However, I am not saying that you are personally attempting to consciously lead people astray. I am saying that that your theory is patently and obviously false as I’ve already demonstrated to forum readers. Your theory is historically, naïve and it is irrelevant to reality.

IF you are sinning by teaching a false theory of “inerrancy” out of ignorance of truth, then I think it is "שגגח", which refers to a sin or error committed through ignorance. This is not the same as "חטא" which is an error or sin that is done with knowledge of the truth (and thus carries intent to deceive). As, as a self-proclaimed mesianic Jew, you should understand this difference. Other forum members can make their own judgments as to why you continue to teach inerrancy, when they can see, with their own eyes that it is incorrect.

Meanwhile, I think that if you would limit your testimony to things you actually do know; that is, things you have seen and experienced, then your witness will have better credibility.


What do you make of the error in Genesis 1:31?


I hope your spiritual journey is good and wonderful Billiardsball

Clear
τωφιεισεω

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I agree, but part of URA's misunderstanding is parsing OT and NT promises. The patriarchs WERE promised a long life in the Millennium. After the Millennium, Jehovah's Witnesses believe most people will live on the new Earth but Christians understand Heaven comes to Earth as in Revelation, "They will dwell with Him and be His people."
Thank you.

What Scripture says heaven comes to earth ? ______________They are two separate distinct locations or places. Heaven was Not on earth in Eden. Eden was on earth.

If one wants to know what a Catholic believes he goes to a Catholic.
If one wants to know what a Jew believes he goes to a Jewish person.
If one wants to know what a Buddhist believes he goes to a Buddhist.
So, if one wants to know what a Jehovah's Witness believes he can go to www.jw.org