We are all sinners. Christians actually comprehend we are sinners. An unbeliever can understand right from wrong, like they have some conception of what God is all about by just looking around (without having an acceptance as Jesus as saviour)?
i guess you can talk about what you want to talk about. football, work, rock and roll. the only thing about talking about sin is it doesnt make much sense unless you talk about jewish law too.
its like being told you have a 3 point endorsement for a driving offence when you dont hold a licence and you dont know what one is.
Ooohh how exciting another thread I have not yet contributed to! I am with Sputnik on this one I don't think that unbelievers would have an understanding or comprehension of the terms 'sin' or 'sinner'. Whilst I agree Andy they may know 'right' from 'wrong' I don't think that is quite the same... Some of this is about language and the meaning we give to words, some of it is much deeper and about our (Christians)spiritual understanding of these terms. I would also say that you make a huge assumption about people having a concept of God by looking around what about atheists? Sputnik I am unsure what you mean by 'where there is no 'law' there is no 'sin'. I thought that the bible says that ignorance or unknowledge of God will not spare your judgement or is that only if you have heard but not accepted? Having just read the footnotes in my bible [NIV Life Application:nt:Rom2] it says "People are condemned not for what they don't know, but for what they do with what they know. Those who know God's written word and his law will be judged by them. Those who have never seen a bible still know right from wrong, and they will be judged because they did not keep even those standards that their own consciences dictated". So having read that it makes Andy right!? However it seems quite a glaring contradiction to say on the one hand ‘People are condemned not for what they don't know, but for what they do with what they know’ can it not be argued that our faith informs or enlightens our conscience so to say then that people would then be judged by their standards of ‘right and wrong’ is strange as they have not been ‘enlightened’ by faith so this would seem a little unfair?! I am unsure where this leaves us? Comments…..?!
great! apoc you are right in the hub of this with romans2! to me, reading romans1,2&3 makes more sense if i read it from 4 different perspectives: (1) an unbelieving jew (2) an unbelieving gentile (3) a messianic jew (believing jew) (4) a believing gentile.
before Jesus came along, jews believed they were saved by adhesion to the law & sacrifices etc, and there was little hope or direction for gentiles.
since Jesus, a believing jew must still adhere to the law and a believing gentile has recieved 'the light' so they now have 'the law' written on their hearts, tho they dont need to adhere to old jewish law. so (1), (3) and (4) can now all claim to be 'sinners' since they have now all recieved 'the law'.
but what about an unbelieving gentile (2), since Jesus? [bible:niv:romans1] says "... since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse..."
this means a gentile unbeliever might know 'right from wrong', but they aren't 'sinners' since they know no 'law'.
"...sin is not taken into account when there is no law..." [bible:niv:nt:rom5]
the word 'sin' is meaningless to a category (2) person.
Sputnik, I think I agree with this, you certainly clarified my understanding, however I would point out that from my understanding whilst the word ‘sin’ might be meaningless to a non believer the consequences of it will still apply! Lets be clear though although they may not be classified as sinners as they do not know the law they will still face judgement will they not as bible:niv:romans1 states?!! I struggle with all this, kind of puts a different perspective on the whole God is just thing. It does not seem fair that an 'unbelieving gentile' as you call them will be judged on the basis of his conscience. As much as bible:niv:romans1 says evidence of God is available to all through creation so also since Adam picked the apple has Sin, how could/can an unenlightened (non believer) be expected to distinguish between right/wrong or good/bad, can ones conscience not be affected or controlled by others including other super natural forces?
im not sure that it was an apple tree, or if eve picked it, but i agree with your point.
i guess its like you said 'enlightenment' - an encounter with 'the light' (Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit however it goes).
on nemos point, i would say that we can explain what sin is (to unbelieving gentiles), by explaining firstly who Jesus was to the jews, and then how we gentiles fit into that. the bible is full of that, paul talked about things like 'being adopted' and salvation being first for the jew, then for the gentile etc.
i guess its like tozer said (something like) "... it is not mere words that nourish the soul but God himself, and unless and until the hearer meets God in personal experience, they are none the better for having heard the word ..."
Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud, I am 23 years and I am from Sweden.
Yes, somebody who has not studied Torah cannot know the definition of עברות (aveirot; breaches against Torah).
By practising Torah non-selectively we make the world a better place to live in!
To realize that one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth – the Messiah - and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Yәhoshua, displaced his original followers (the Netzarim) and redacted the NT); is a step in that direction!
So who then was the historical Jesus? His name was Ribi Yehoshua. The research of world-recognized authorities (for example Barrie Wilson; www.barriewilson.com) in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT (a Scroll found in the Qumran-caves) practised both written and oral Torah (oral Torah in an unbroken chain since Mosheh (Moses); commanded by Mosheh in Torah; oral Torah is recorded Beit-Din (Jewish Court)-decisions of how Torah shall be applied).. As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.
For words that you don’t understand; se www.netzarim.co.il ; the link to Glossaries at the first page.
Ribi Yehoshua warned for false prophets who don’t produce good fruit = defined as don’t practise the commandments in Torah according to Halakhah (oral Torah; see the above definition). See Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
The research of Scholars in leading universities which implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee necessarily implies that if you want to follow him you need to practise his Torah-teachings. So you need to start follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – by practising Torah (including oral Torah)!
Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life here on earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!
From Anders Branderud Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Jesus knowledge of the Torah and he repeatedly affirmation of the pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal life of the soul point to him perhaps being a Pharisee. The Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer exhibit a typically pharisaic theology. For these and many other reasons, it would seem not unreasonable to think of Jesus as a Pharisee calling for the renewal of that movement which was itself already a movement of renewal within Judaism.
16 comments:
1. False
2. True
I agree with Andy. I feel that 1 is false and 2 is true, in fact I feel 2 is a wider issue, that in fact we are all sinners, not just believers.
why is (1) false?
We are all sinners. Christians actually comprehend we are sinners. An unbeliever can understand right from wrong, like they have some conception of what God is all about by just looking around (without having an acceptance as Jesus as saviour)?
the question isnt 'can an unbeliever distinguish between right and wrong'. it is about understanding the words 'sin' and 'sinner'.
i believe that (1) is true.
where there is no 'law'. there is no 'sin'.
'sin' is failure to measure up to Gods law. only when we come to believe is the law 'written on our hearts'. [bible:niv:ot:jer31].
God will judge all in the end. a jew is measured *by* the law, a gentile is measured *apart* from the law. [bible:niv:nt:rom2].
i believe that talking to unbelievers about 'sin' is meaningless.
also i believe that teaching non-messianic-believers that they are subject to the law is unecessarily confusing.
By your definition (which is where I thought you were heading but not entirely clear)
1. True
2. True
what's the bigger picture on this one then?
Shouldn't we be talking to unbelievers about Jesus not sin?
i guess you can talk about what you want to talk about. football, work, rock and roll. the only thing about talking about sin is it doesnt make much sense unless you talk about jewish law too.
its like being told you have a 3 point endorsement for a driving offence when you dont hold a licence and you dont know what one is.
Ooohh how exciting another thread I have not yet contributed to!
I am with Sputnik on this one I don't think that unbelievers would have an understanding or comprehension of the terms 'sin' or 'sinner'. Whilst I agree Andy they may know 'right' from 'wrong' I don't think that is quite the same... Some of this is about language and the meaning we give to words, some of it is much deeper and about our (Christians)spiritual understanding of these terms. I would also say that you make a huge assumption about people having a concept of God by looking around what about atheists?
Sputnik I am unsure what you mean by 'where there is no 'law' there is no 'sin'. I thought that the bible says that ignorance or unknowledge of God will not spare your judgement or is that only if you have heard but not accepted?
Having just read the footnotes in my bible [NIV Life Application:nt:Rom2] it says "People are condemned not for what they don't know, but for what they do with what they know. Those who know God's written word and his law will be judged by them. Those who have never seen a bible still know right from wrong, and they will be judged because they did not keep even those standards that their own consciences dictated". So having read that it makes Andy right!? However it seems quite a glaring contradiction to say on the one hand ‘People are condemned not for what they don't know, but for what they do with what they know’ can it not be argued that our faith informs or enlightens our conscience so to say then that people would then be judged by their standards of ‘right and wrong’ is strange as they have not been ‘enlightened’ by faith so this would seem a little unfair?!
I am unsure where this leaves us? Comments…..?!
great! apoc you are right in the hub of this with romans2! to me, reading romans1,2&3 makes more sense if i read it from 4 different perspectives:
(1) an unbelieving jew
(2) an unbelieving gentile
(3) a messianic jew (believing jew)
(4) a believing gentile.
before Jesus came along, jews believed they were saved by adhesion to the law & sacrifices etc, and there was little hope or direction for gentiles.
since Jesus, a believing jew must still adhere to the law and a believing gentile has recieved 'the light' so they now have 'the law' written on their hearts, tho they dont need to adhere to old jewish law. so (1), (3) and (4) can now all claim to be 'sinners' since they have now all recieved 'the law'.
but what about an unbelieving gentile (2), since Jesus? [bible:niv:romans1] says "... since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse..."
this means a gentile unbeliever might know 'right from wrong', but they aren't 'sinners' since they know no 'law'.
"...sin is not taken into account when there is no law..." [bible:niv:nt:rom5]
the word 'sin' is meaningless to a category (2) person.
Sputnik,
I think I agree with this, you certainly clarified my understanding, however I would point out that from my understanding whilst the word ‘sin’ might be meaningless to a non believer the consequences of it will still apply!
Lets be clear though although they may not be classified as sinners as they do not know the law they will still face judgement will they not as bible:niv:romans1 states?!!
I struggle with all this, kind of puts a different perspective on the whole God is just thing. It does not seem fair that an 'unbelieving gentile' as you call them will be judged on the basis of his conscience. As much as bible:niv:romans1 says evidence of God is available to all through creation so also since Adam picked the apple has Sin, how could/can an unenlightened (non believer) be expected to distinguish between right/wrong or good/bad, can ones conscience not be affected or controlled by others including other super natural forces?
im not sure that it was an apple tree, or if eve picked it, but i agree with your point.
i guess its like you said 'enlightenment' - an encounter with 'the light' (Jesus, or God, or the Holy Spirit however it goes).
on nemos point, i would say that we can explain what sin is (to unbelieving gentiles), by explaining firstly who Jesus was to the jews, and then how we gentiles fit into that. the bible is full of that, paul talked about things like 'being adopted' and salvation being first for the jew, then for the gentile etc.
i guess its like tozer said (something like)
"... it is not mere words that nourish the soul but God himself, and unless and until the hearer meets God in personal experience, they are none the better for having heard the word ..."
Hello! I found your website. My name is Anders Branderud, I am 23 years and I am from Sweden.
Yes, somebody who has not studied Torah cannot know the definition of עברות (aveirot; breaches against Torah).
By practising Torah non-selectively we make the world a better place to live in!
To realize that one can follow two polar-opposite masters — the authentic, historical, PRO-Torah 1st-century Ribi from Nazareth – the Messiah - and the 4th-century (post-135 C.E.), arch-antithesis ANTI-Torah apostasy developed by the Hellenists (namely the Sadducees and Roman pagans who conspired to kill Ribi Yәhoshua, displaced his original followers (the Netzarim) and redacted the NT); is a step in that direction!
So who then was the historical Jesus? His name was Ribi Yehoshua.
The research of world-recognized authorities (for example Barrie Wilson; www.barriewilson.com) in this area implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee (a Torah-practising Jewish group - who according to 4Q MMT (a Scroll found in the Qumran-caves) practised both written and oral Torah (oral Torah in an unbroken chain since Mosheh (Moses); commanded by Mosheh in Torah; oral Torah is recorded Beit-Din (Jewish Court)-decisions of how Torah shall be applied).. As the earliest church historians, most eminent modern university historians, our web site (www.netzarim.co.il) and our Khavruta (Distance Learning) texts confirm, the original teachings of Ribi Yehoshua were not only accepted by most of the Pharisaic Jewish community, he had hoards of Jewish students.
For words that you don’t understand; se www.netzarim.co.il ; the link to Glossaries at the first page.
Ribi Yehoshua warned for false prophets who don’t produce good fruit = defined as don’t practise the commandments in Torah according to Halakhah (oral Torah; see the above definition). See Devarim (Deuteronomy) 13:1-6.
The research of Scholars in leading universities which implies that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee necessarily implies that if you want to follow him you need to practise his Torah-teachings.
So you need to start follow the historical Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – by practising Torah (including oral Torah)!
Finding the historical Jew, who was a Pharisee Ribi and following him brings you into Torah, which gives you a rich and meaningful life here on earth and great rewards in life after death (“heaven”)!
From Anders Branderud
Geir Toshav, Netzarim in Ra’anana in Israel (www.netzarim.co.il) who is followers of Ribi Yehoshua – the Messiah – in Orthodox Judaism
Jesus knowledge of the Torah and he repeatedly affirmation of the pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal life of the soul point to him perhaps being a Pharisee. The Beatitudes and the Lord’s Prayer exhibit a typically pharisaic theology. For these and many other reasons, it would seem not unreasonable to think of Jesus as a Pharisee calling for the renewal of that movement which was itself already a movement of renewal within Judaism.
thanks for his interesting perspective, anders. i'm looking into some of your comments further.
i am wondering in what ways my copy of the new testament is 'anti-torah'.
there is nothing to imply that Jesus wasn't a pharisee. He is addressed numerous times as "Rabbi".
neither Jesus nor paul said that believing jews should abstain from practicing torah.
Post a Comment