Post by logic on Sept 26, 2009 12:42:00 GMT -5
Does my defense hold water?
I want to get a second opinion before I post this to a forum so I don't make a fool of myself and the theology which I hold
Your the one who is saying something exists (sin) when there is no proof.
That isn't very loving.
Love unsuspiciously ]believes all things that is not palpably false, all that it can with a good conscience believe to the credit of another.
Love also hopes what is good of another (1Corinth 13:7)
If Jesus did it (stay sinless), another (wo)man may also.
Jesus proved that mankind may live a sinless life.
There is no argument here.
Hearing and seeing are often in antithesis.
Job 42:5 I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear: but now my eye sees you
IOW, I have now such a discovery of thee as I have never had before. I have only heard of thee by tradition, or from imperfect information.
Job did not know God as he does now.
Job was only speaking from the knowledge of which he possessed. This is not sinful. It would only be sinful if he knew better than what he spoke.
Sin is always intentional, therefore Job was blameless.
Job 42:6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Since Job was innocent when he spoke from only the knowledg which he had, the knowledge of what he now learns does not become held against him. However, when he learns the truth of God in a brighter light, his repentance is only implying that he will not say what he had before, knowing what he knows now.
Job 42:7 After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz mthe Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
If Job did sin, The Lords anger would also burn against him also.
God claimed that Job has spoken of Him what is right, as his friends didn't.
This means that he spoke only of that which he had knowledge of; he did not understand what he was to learn. One is only accountable to the knowledge of which he has.
If Job spoke against what he knew, then he would be guilty, but he didn't.
No, you need to prove that which you say exists (sin) when there is no mention of it.
It's not that Enoch was translated that he did not sin, but that there is no mention of sin to prove.
I want to get a second opinion before I post this to a forum so I don't make a fool of myself and the theology which I hold
Some one wrote:Can you prove they didn't?
That is the better question and since you are suggesting a view that is contrary to the totality of Scripture's description of man, the burden of proof lies on you.
Can you prove able sinned?
Can you prove Enoch sinned?
Can you prove Job sinned?
Can you prove Enoch sinned?
Can you prove Job sinned?
That is the better question and since you are suggesting a view that is contrary to the totality of Scripture's description of man, the burden of proof lies on you.
I am actually sure that they sinned.
Love unsuspiciously ]believes all things that is not palpably false, all that it can with a good conscience believe to the credit of another.
Love also hopes what is good of another (1Corinth 13:7)
If they had ONE thought that was not for God's glory, it was sin. If they had one doubt about God's goodness, they sinned.
Jesus proved that mankind may live a sinless life.
There is no argument here.
As for Job, yes he did sin and that is why he said the following, "I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you;
therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:5-6 ESV
therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:5-6 ESV
Job 42:5 I have heard of you by the hearing of the ear: but now my eye sees you
IOW, I have now such a discovery of thee as I have never had before. I have only heard of thee by tradition, or from imperfect information.
Job did not know God as he does now.
Job was only speaking from the knowledge of which he possessed. This is not sinful. It would only be sinful if he knew better than what he spoke.
Sin is always intentional, therefore Job was blameless.
Job 42:6 Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
Since Job was innocent when he spoke from only the knowledg which he had, the knowledge of what he now learns does not become held against him. However, when he learns the truth of God in a brighter light, his repentance is only implying that he will not say what he had before, knowing what he knows now.
Job 42:7 After the Lord had spoken these words to Job, the Lord said to Eliphaz mthe Temanite: “My anger burns against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
If Job did sin, The Lords anger would also burn against him also.
God claimed that Job has spoken of Him what is right, as his friends didn't.
No need to repent unless there had been something to repent of and seeing as he said the following words, "Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand" v.3 prior to his repentance, I would say he did sin.
If Job spoke against what he knew, then he would be guilty, but he didn't.
As for the other two, you would have to show that they DIDN'T sin from Scripture and Scripture alone to sway me.
Enoch is not the norm at all, nor is Elijah, yet even Elijah sinned in his cowardice and was still taken up in a chariot of fire.