He that is without sin

Originally posted by epiphinehas
No one is righteous before God except through faith. Just because they obey all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord does not indicate they are perfectly sinless. For example, no matter how perfectly the OT Jews obeyed God's commandments and ordinances, there was still the necessity for animal sacrifices in order to cover 'the sins of the people ...[text shortened]... s and ordinances is done out of faith, and is not an indication that a person is 'sinless'.

Why it is hard for you to believe that GOD forgive sins so there could be some without a sin before him? GOD said that, why don't you believe him?

If GOD say "your sins will not be mentioned and you will become without a sin", why don't you believe that.

Originally posted by ahosyney
(king James Version)(Luke)

(Lk-1-5)(THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

(Lk-1-6)(And they were both [b]righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.)[/b]

Interesting, because later on in the chapter verse 20 we see Zacharias doubting Gabriel's revelation that God was going to give his wife a son and was subsequently struck dumb due to his unbelief. Sinless eh?

I take the verse in question to mean that overall they lived their lives according to the commandments of the Lord and not that they were perfect. In other words, in comparison to other sinners they were very righteous BECAUSE OF THEIR FAITH IN TRYING TO ADHERE TO THE LAW OF GOD ONLY. However, in comparison to God they were not so as spoken about by the prophet Isaaiah 64:6 when he says that in comparison to God our righteousness is as filthy as rags. The prophet Jeremiah also recognized man's sinful nature in Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above ALL things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Do you know the hearts of men? Do you even know your own?

Originally posted by Dance Master MC
we have all sinned, except maybe some monks in the mountains.

Monks in the mountains? Why monks in the mountains?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems like you might be missing the entire point. Just because one has sinned, doesn't mean that one has to continue sinning. The point is to mature beyond the desire to sin and to live a life of justice, compassion, love, etc.

If you sin, does this make you a sinner? If you are a sinner, can a holy God accept you despite your sin? Can this "maturation" process snuff out your sin?

Originally posted by whodey
If you sin, does this make you a sinner? If you are a sinner, can a holy God accept you despite your sin? Can this "maturation" process snuff out your sin?

If you no longer sin, it makes you a former sinner.

Jesus seemed to believe that what matters is becoming free of sin.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Why it is hard for you to believe that GOD forgive sins so there could be some without a sin before him? GOD said that, why don't you believe him?

If GOD say "your sins will not be mentioned and you will become without a sin", why don't you believe that.

I do believe that. God forgives. However, the fact that He must forgive, having mercy on even the most righteous, is proof that no one is able to live a sinless life from beginning to end. We are not discussing justification, the question was: has anyone here lived a sinless life, or does anyone here know someone who has? Or, in other words, is it possible to be worthy of everlasting life in heaven without God's mercy?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you no longer sin, it makes you a former sinner.

Jesus seemed to believe that what matters is becoming free of sin.

I agree in part. However, if this is all that is needed why then did God command animal sacrifice for sin in the OT in an addition to repentance?

Originally posted by whodey
I agree in part. However, if this is all that is needed why then did God command animal sacrifice for sin in the OT in an addition to repentance?

Jesus came to establish a new covenant with man. Do the whys and wherefores of the old covenant matter? Perhaps God judged man as mature enough to be willing to sacrifice the self rather than animals. From what I've seen, man doesn't seem to be doing very well thus far. The success rate appears to be abysmally low.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus came to establish a new covenant with man. Do the whys and wherefores of the old covenant matter? Perhaps God judged man as mature enough to be willing to sacrifice the self rather than animals. From what I've seen, man doesn't seem to be doing very well thus far. The success rate appears to be abysmally low.

I think animal sacrifice ordered to atone for sin has to do with the blood of the animal. Let me explain. In Genesis 4:10 God says something interesting. When Abel was murdered by Cain, God said that Abels "blood" cries out from the ground. Why does God mention that his blood cries out? Then in Genesis 9:4 it says, "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, will you not eat." We see here a correlation made by God that the life is in the blood. In fact, we can tell almost everything about you from a simple blood sample. This is why drinking blood was seen as such an evil sin. In effect, you were internally comsuming the life from another entity not to mention it being an unsafe practice from a medical perspective. This can be seen a little better in Leviticus 17:10 which says "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eats any manner of blood, I will even set my face against that soul that eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon that alter to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul." So in this verse we see that God views the sacrifical aspect of blood necessary for the atoenement for the soul. In effect, sin brings death as mentioned to Adam and Eve when they first sin. Therefore, since the life is in the blood it appears that it is needed in the eyes of God to cover or wash away the sins in our lives. In fact, this type of rituralistic blood sacrifice for the atonement of sins occured right up until the time of Jesus. Then what happened? Who now continues to believe that a blood sacrifice is needed for the atonement of sins? Is it the Jews? Is it the Muslims? No, it is only the Christians who believe that Christ was the ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God who has been slain for our sins.

Originally posted by Dance Master MC
we have all sinned, except maybe some monks in the mountains.

The can still masterbait with lustful thoughts.

Originally posted by whodey
I think animal sacrifice ordered to atone for sin has to do with the blood of the animal. Let me explain. In Genesis 4:10 God says something interesting. When Abel was murdered by Cain, God said that Abels "blood" cries out from the ground. Why does God mention that his blood cries out? Then in Genesis 9:4 it says, "But flesh with the life thereof, which ieve that Christ was the ultimate sacrificial Lamb of God who has been slain for our sins.

I'd think you'd want something much less speculative to support your hypothesis. One can easily point to the same verses to support vegetarianism.

One has to wonder what's at the root of the "bad blood" between these three religious factions that share the same God. Pride seems to be a good candidate. From what I can tell, all three seem to teach similar views on pride, yet there are many that claim to be followers who fall into that trap.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'd think you'd want something much less speculative to support your hypothesis. One can easily point to the same verses to support vegetarianism.

One has to wonder what's at the root of the "bad blood" between these three religious factions that share the same God. Pride seems to be a good candidate. From what I can tell, all three seem to have similar views on pride.

To be fair its not my hypothosis.

Luke 22:19, "And Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you; this do in rememberance of me." Likewise also the cup after supper saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

John 6:54 "Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal life; and i will raise him up at the last day."

Hebrews 9:11 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building. Neither by the blood of goats, and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having otained eternal redemption for us."

If this is true then it woud seperate the three religions by leaps and bounds even though they proport to worship the same God. If it is not true then Christianity should not exist. We then should be either Jew or Muslim. It has little to do with pride.

Originally posted by whodey
To be fair its not my hypothosis.

Luke 22:19, "And Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, "This is my body which is given for you; this do in rememberance of me." Likewise also the cup after supper saying, "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you."

John 6:54 "Whoso eats my flesh, and drin ...[text shortened]... ld not exist. We then should be either Jew or Muslim. It has little to do with pride.

It seems to have everything to do with pride. At their core they all teach the same thing: truth, love, justice, compassion, etc. come before all. God is truth, God is love. Pride seems to be the most likely reason to value one above the others when they are fundamentally the same.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It seems to have everything to do with pride. At their core they all teach the same thing: truth, love, justice, compassion, etc. come before all. God is truth, God is love. Pride seems to be the most likely reason to value one above the others when they are fundamentally the same.

Sin is what seperates us from God. Would'nt you agree? Therefore, what all three religions say in regards to dealing with that sin so that we can again have right standing with God is paramount to our right standing with God. Would'nt you agree? You seem to treat the differences in their theologies regarding how we should deal with our sin as trivial even though are right standing with God is at stake. I find this troubling. After all, our right standing with God is anything but trivial, it means the difference between life and death and/or blessing and cursing.

If there were any other way to God other than sending his Son to the cross I say he does'nt do it. After all, Christ pleaded with the Father right before going to the cross, "If it be possible, take away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will but what you will." His prayer went unanswered.

Do you believe Christ died for our sins or are you saying he is one road of many?

Originally posted by whodey
Sin is what seperates us from God. Would'nt you agree? Therefore, what all three religions say in regards to dealing with that sin so that we can again have right standing with God is paramount to our right standing with God. Would'nt you agree? You seem to treat the differences in their theologies regarding how we should deal with our sin as trivial even ...[text shortened]... wered.

Do you believe Christ died for our sins or are you saying he is one road of many?

There is no God. Therefore the concept of something separating me from God makes no sense, and sin is meaningless.

Therefore I have never sinned.