Whoever Has Sinned Against Me I Will Blot Out of My Book

Daniel.

Member
And it’s an absurd notion to think of God blotting sinners out and back in every 5 seconds when they repent. Which tells me it should not be taken at simple literal face value, it has other meaning.
2. No, I do take the statements literally--in their context.

That's why I included the citation from Hebrews : "if we go on sinning willfully" describes exactly what the Jews had been doing in the context, and it must have been what Jesus had been condemning some of those at the Church of Sardis for.

Obviously, it doesn't mean "if we sin once", since that would deny the truth that God is merciful.
Again, you failed to acquaint yourself with the passage.
The passage is not taken by anyone to be an affirmation that Moses never sinned, and it should not be strawmanned as such in the current application.
 

Daniel.

Member
Not about the possibilty that the book of like isn't a list of believers but of all men.

And again some scholars give it a different name thus a possible explanation.
1. You're grasping at straws.

2. King David, who speaks under the same inspiration which authored the Torah, does not speak in a vacuum--he loved the Torah, and would've been acquainted with the Exodus 32 reference. I even learn things about the Torah when I read the Psalms. Was that because David, not very far removed from the Torah's publication, was exposed to some traditions about Torah that may not have been included in Torah? Could be. Was that because God had supernaturally opened his eyes to behold marvelous things from His Law? Probably. Irrespectively, Occam's Razor dictates David was drawing on the knowledge he learned from Torah, but, under inspiration, referring to it with a more expansive explanatory name (see also point #3). Note: this would also conform with the precedent that God created using a process and revealed Himself to humanity by a process (eg, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." (Ex 6:3)--and to this very day there is an objection to a trinity, because, they argue, God had never explicitly revealed Himself in that way under the OT).

3. We know that only the righteous qualify for life "in the world to come"; I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, in all cases, the ones being removed are unrighteous and the ones being inscribed are righteous. No, there is no way God could be referring to "the Book of Life", which life belongs only to the righteous, in the Scripture cited.
Clearly, it's the same Book.
 
Last edited:

Simpletruther

Well-known member
1. You're grasping at straws.

2. King David, who speaks under the same inspiration which authored the Torah, does not speak in a vacuum--he loved the Torah, and would've been acquainted with the Exodus 32 reference. I even learn things about the Torah when I read the Psalms. Was that because David, not very far removed from the Torah's publication, was exposed to some traditions about Torah that may not have been included in Torah? Could be. Was that because God had supernaturally opened his eyes to behold marvelous things from His Law? Probably. Irrespectively, Occam's Razor dictates David was drawing on the knowledge he learned from Torah, but, under inspiration, referring to it with a more expansive explanatory name (see also point #3). Note: this would also conform with the precedent that God created using a process and revealed Himself to humanity by a process (eg, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." (Ex 6:3)--and to this very day there is an objection to a trinity, because, they argue, God had never explicitly revealed Himself in that way under the OT).

3. We know that only the righteous qualify for life "in the world to come"; I'm sure it's just a coincidence that, in all cases, the ones being removed are unrighteous and the ones being inscribed are righteous. No, there is no way God could be referring to "the Book of Life", which life belongs only to the righteous, in the Scripture cited.
Clearly, it's the same Book.
You are grasping at straws here. This contradicts clear scripture on the topic.
And unrighteous men were killed physically as punishment in the OT which fits the idea of book of living.
 

Daniel.

Member
You are grasping at straws here. This contradicts clear scripture on the topic.
And unrighteous men were killed physically as punishment in the OT which fits the idea of book of living.
1. Not at all. What I believe makes perfect sense. I trust any reasonable reader will see it the same way.

2. No. Scripture is not contradicted under my reading of it at all--actually, this conforms with it. Jesus, the God of the OT, makes the same threat under the New Covenant (cited in the OP).

3. So just because God was so wrathful with them that He condemned them, and let them die in the wilderness rather than enter the Promise, this means there is no spiritual dimension to God's wrath? Do you see how this makes no sense?
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
This might be useful to a number of posters here.

1. Not at all. What I believe makes perfect sense. I trust any reasonable reader will see it the same way.

What you believe makes perfect sense to YOU.
What we believe makes perfect sense to US.

To say "any reasonable reader will see it the same way [as you]" is not only incredibly naive, but it assumes that everyone thinks the same way as you do.

2. No. Scripture is not contradicted under my reading of it at all--actually, this conforms with it.

You think Scripture is not contradicted under your reading.
We think Scripture is not contradicted under OUR reading.
 

Daniel.

Member
You are grasping at straws here. This contradicts clear scripture on the topic.
And unrighteous men were killed physically as punishment in the OT which fits the idea of book of living.
1. Not at all. What I believe makes perfect sense. I trust any reasonable reader will see it the same way.

2. No. Scripture is not contradicted under my reading of it at all--actually, this conforms with it. Jesus, the God of the OT, makes the same threat under the New Covenant (cited in the OP).

3. So just because God was so wrathful with them that He condemned them, and let them die in the wilderness rather than enter the Promise, this means there is no spiritual dimension to God's wrath? Do you see how this makes no sense?
I'm just believing Scripture; by chance, it clashes with your false reading of Scripture. That's not my fault.
 

Daniel.

Member
Top