Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and the Law

[Dave]

So, I do not believe that it is a commandment that we be sinless, DAVEH:    Really!?!?!?!   I realize I took your comment slightly out of context, but did you really mean to suggest that the Lord did not command us to be sinless?  Excepting DavidM, I wonder if other TTers would agree with you? I believe He is asking us to become complete in "various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character" DAVEH:    If I am understanding you correctly, Perry....you are suggesting that God has had growth,?   Logically, that is the implication IF your perception of what complete means is correct.  IOW, Mt 5:48 is suggesting that we are to grow, as God has grown.  Now that I think about it,  I tend to agree.  It almost sounds like you are  substantiating LDS theology, Perry! Dave, do you believe that you are sinless? Are you fulfilling the commandment in the way that you interpret "perfect"? DAVEH:   No Perry, I have stated before on TT that I am not sinless, nor have I achieved that lofty goal since the last time I admitted weakness.     However, I do believe I have the potential to become sinless.  I believe the Lord has indicated we can do that by keeping the commandments.  The problem is that while we can obtain that lofty goal, either in this life or the next.....we cannot alone atone for the sins we have previously (previous to becoming sinless) committed.  That is why we need a Savior, and I know that Jesus has paid for my sins with his atoning sacrifice......IF I but accept and love him.....which I do! Charles Perry Locke wrote: From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> DAVEH:   It seems to me that in whatever way God is perfect, or complete.....that is what we have the potential to become, and have been commanded to do so.   Do you agree, Perry? I do not believe that the KJV translators intended to use the word "perfect" with a dual meaning. I believe it meant one thing then, and a different thing now. We need to examine it in it's 17th century usage and context, not 2005 usage and context. I rely on Strong's and the Holy Spirit to help me understand the words in a 17th century context. Yes, I believe God would like for ALL of us to be sinless, but I also believe that is a goal that we can strive for but not attain in this earthly life (David will disagree since he is sinless, but I believe his sinlessness stems more from his semantics than from his perfection. I am not saying his semantics are wrong, I am saying I do not understand them. If I understood them, then maybe I could say I sinless, too). So, I do not believe that it is a commandment that we be sinless, flawless, perfect in the sense into which you are trying to mold it, the 2005 sense. I believe He is asking us to become complete in "various applications of labor, growth, mental and moral character" (from Strong's 5046). That is not the same as "sinless" in that we never ever ever commit any sin. I believe that becoming complete is attainable. I believe that becoming perfect (in the sense in which you are using it) is not. Dave, do you believe that you are sinless? Are you fulfilling the commandment in the way that you interpret "perfect"? Perry -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.