The Christian Bible (1991) has a different take on this passage than I believe I've ever seen before. Probably the main interpretation I've ever seen of this, has to do with literal, physical, earthly death - sort of a penalty for either a certain sin in "certain" situations (?) or continued, willful sinning. As I said, this translation (especially the included commentary) has a different, interesting POV. What do you think?
I Jn. 5:16,17 Whoever notices his brother or sister doing something that is wrong that doesn't have to lead to Death [in the Fiery Destruction], must request [pray to God] and so give Life to this person (that is, to those doing something that is wrong that doesn't have to lead to Death (in the Fiery Destruction fo the Second Death)]; I'm not saying that he should ask concerning that [Mark 3:29,30, John 3:18, 8:24; I Jn 2:22-23; 2 Jn 1:9], All injustice is wrong, but there is wrongdoing that doesn't have to lead to Death [in the Fiery Destruction].
Several observations; capitalization of Fiery Destruction; praying to God FOR SOMEONE ELSE can give Life to a person; some wrongdoings (sins?) lead to Death, others don't; and that death is noted as being the Second Death...
Quotewrong that doesn't have to lead to Death
Wrong=sin. Wages of sin is death.
I read several things in that part of the verse.
1- There are sins that
always lead to death.
2- There are sins that may or may not lead to death depending on praying.
If sins can be forgiven by prayer then "the wages of sin is death" should be "the wages of
unforgiven sin is death"
Bit weird, but OTOH Jesus didn't pray for others for no reason.
Quote from: jabcat on June 07, 2010, 07:21:57 PMProbably the main interpretation I've ever seen of this, has to do with literal, physical, earthly death - sort of a penalty for either a certain sin in "certain" situations (?)
Mmm, there are sins that were punished with stoning to death and sins that required less severe punishment. But that was OT.
John is NT so I wonder why OT laws are in the NT.
Yeah, I wondered if it has at least something to do with the fact that John was primarily addressing the Jewish Christians - and prior to what some describe as Paul's "more progressed revelation" ... :dontknow:. Maybe not, I don't know, but something that crosses my mind.
"Jewish Christians" do they exist?
Are they similar "Muslim Jews"?
Assume:
OT=1
NT=2
Then Jewish Cristians = 1.5
Isn't that a divided Kingdom?
Two classes of people. Two sets of laws/rules.
Did Jesus die more for some than for others.
Nah. That doesn't feel ok to me.....
That's an old discussion, with many extremes. I'm not talking about extremes, i.e., 2 gospels, etc. I'm just questioning the primary audiance and where they were in their walk/understanding. Yes, the "Jewish Christians" were groups like the Nazarenes. They believed in Jesus as the Savior, but still carried with them some of their old customs. Some even still worshiped in the temple, physically still circumcized, etc. There's still today "Messianic Jews", who still honor some of their traditions and identify in varying ways with Judaism, but have embraced Jesus as Savior. Not saying that's right or wrong, just observing/noting.
And some say as Paul's epistles were later, he was further along in what salvation through Jesus meant. Again, just some thoughts.
Or maybe that has absolutely nothing to do with it :dontknow:
Quote from: jabcat on June 07, 2010, 10:35:22 PMYes, the "Jewish Christians" were groups like the Nazarenes. They believed in Jesus as the Savior, but still carried with them some of their old customs.
How will they be judged at the White Throne?
I understand you don't want to imply there are 2 or more Gospels. But I think unwillingly you do. At least I see it that way.
Jesus made a set of rules. But for some reason, some people are allowed another set of rules.
Don't ask me for proof but my feeling is that average Messanic Jew might closer to the right way of living that the average Christian.
I'll try to explain may views in a general way.
Son was a high authority. So His words certainly carry a lot of weigth.
But Father is far from a nobody too. His laws are of some authority too.
So what if we strip of Moses laws and add the remaining laws to what Jesus thaught we might have the correct mix???????
As one example I'm fairly sure Saturday is still Sabbath not Sunday.
Jesus added things. He replaced the whole sacrifice system. But for me that's different from nullifying the whole OT.
We are still not allowed to murder and commit adultary to name just two examples.
I'll shut up now because this goes way off-topic.... :winkgrin:
Well, I think that's part of the ongoing issue, part of the schizms within the body. Paul had some different things to say than did Peter and John, and some would say even than Jesus to some extent. My belief is the scriptures reconcile with each other, we (I) just often don't know how to do it. So we end up with 30 or 40 thousand different groups. All saying Jesus is their Savior, but with all kinds of variations of interpretation. That's why to me, as long as someone's trying to get their revelation and guidance from the scriptures and are open to the Holy Spirit's teaching out of those scriptures, that even if they're different than me, or see some things differently than me - and their bottom line above all else is Jesus, Him crucified and rose again to take away our sins - (which is imputed to those who have been given faith to believe in this lifetime, and the rest later) - then they're saved and are my brother and sister. :soap: :bigGrin:
Anyway, soooooo...I believe the bottom line judgment for all will be, is Jesus your Lord and Savior. There appear to be some other types of judgments though, based on works - which I personally don't believe is about "being saved or not", but has to do with faithfullness and rewards, etc. ("Well-done good and faithful servant"). But, although Jesus is the only gospel, there are many flavors, traditions, customs - and I personally don't have the answers to every detail of that, and I look carefully at anyone who claims they do :laughing7:. I believe we're in that age that Gary A. describes as "a mixture of truth and error", and that many of us have our own pieces to add to the puzzle. Someday it's going to come together and make a perfect picture. :thumbsup:
So Tony, what do you think of the original observations in the OP beyond what you've noted already? I.e., 2nd death instead of earthly death, some sins (what ones?) unto death, some not, etc...For me the bottom line is that whatever that process is, it's ultimately restorative and will result in God as All in All. :2c:
We got a bit off-topic.
Or not. If the verse really says some sins can be forgiven other not we need to establish what sins.
Is it related to "...but blasphemy against the HS shall not be forgiven"
Generally I think the person that you sin against can forgive you you sin.
Say you steal from someone and that person forgives you; is that sin no longer existing for God?
But OTOH it breaks the 10 commandments so you also sinned against Father.
And basicly every sin on earth is against the commandments. But still the verse you quoted sins can be forgiven by humans.
I think I simply conclude the verse says that Father will simply 'forget' some types of sins if someone prays for you. So those sins won't be held against you if you are judged to be cast into LoF or not.
:dontknow:
Good nite.
This is from the TM homepage under the Bible Threatenings Explained by JW Hansen. He sees it differently than the Christian Bible, which interprets as having to do with the 2nd death. I need to look at the reference scriptures noted in the CB and see how they tie in to their interpretation of it having to do with the Second Death/LoF.
Hansen does not only see it as earthly, but indeed having to do with the Jews and the Law. Hmmm...
""If a man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. All unrighteousness is sin; and there is a sin unto death.--I John v:16,17.
"The sin unto death" has often been supposed to be the "unpardonable sin," so called, as though any sin could be unpardonable by a God whose mercy is without limit and without end. The apostle was merely alluding to the various offences under the Jewish law, some of which were unto death, or capital offences, while others were less heinous. The latter were to be interceded for, but the former were to be regarded as beyond intercession. On this passage Bishop Horne correctly says:
"The Talmudical writers have distinguished the capital punishments of the Jews into lesser deaths and such as were more grievous; but there is no warrant in the Scriptures for these distinctions, neither are these writers agreed among themselves what particular punishments are to be referred to these two heads. A capital crime generally was termed a sin of death (deut. xvi:6); or a sin worthy of death (Deut. xxi:22), which mode of expression is adopted, or rather imitated, by the apostle John, who distinguishes between a sin unto death, and a sin not unto death (I John v:16). Criminals, or those who were deemed worthy of capital punishment, were called sons or men of death (I Sam. xv:32; xxxi:16; II Sam. xix:28, marginal reading), just as he who had incurred the punishment of scourging was designated a son of stripes (Deut.xxv:16; I Kings xiv:6). A similar phraseology was adopted by Jesus Christ, when he said to the Jews: "Ye shall die in your sins" (John viii:21-24). Eleven different sorts of capital punishment are mentioned in the sacred writings."
I really enjoyed reading your posts. Very good. Very gratifing. I have to get one of those Christian Bibles. Praise God and bless you both. :thumbsup: :bigGrin: