It is possible that Jesus sinned.

[ChristineES]

Nobody said you judged anyone. Christians are always on the defensive of bible scriptures. What makes you think you have the only teaching or interpretations?

What makes you think I believe that I believe I have the only teachings and interpretations? I've never, ever done that- not here on the RF or anywhere else.

 

[nash8]

No: God-sent Divine Messengers don't sin.

End of story.

Peace,

Bruce

Naw, homie.

Pro didn't even set up the argument correctly. Sin isn't "breaking any of the 613 commandments..." Sin is separation from God. In the old Covenant, Jews kept the Law as an act of uniting with God. When Jesus refuted and broke some of the Law, the religious authorities were unable to find that he had committed any wrongdoing, based upon Jesus' interpretation of the Law, which was based, not upon adherence to the letter, but upon loving God and loving neighbor. Only by using an interpretation that falls short of the intent of the Law can one conclude that Jesus "sinned."

Further, since Jesus is God, Jesus cannot, by definition, separate from himself.

Pro was an epic fail from the start.

I like the logic, but I disagree with the conclusion. I definitely like the refutation and breaking of "the Law", with religious authorities not being able to find any wrongdoing in his actions. The powers at be, no matter what time or context it is in, hate someone who is smarter than they are and "mocks" them, especially in a loving, kind way. This is what go Jesus killed in my opinion. The pride of the elite, not being able to "fight" his logical, loving, peaceful resistance. Very similar to the resistance that Ghandi and MLK used during their movements. One Charismatic man can cause more trouble than all of the worlds armies.

My personal interpretation is that Jesus "became one with God", or in other words he reached the state of "oneness" or merger with universal conciousness that is spoken of in almost all mystical philosophies. The realization that God and the self are but one.

I don't believe he was always this way, I would even argue that he was a little brat as a child because he was so gifted he thought he was better than everyone else. So at one point in his life do I think he was seperate from God and sinned, both physically morally, and according to "the Law", most definitely. But once he reached a certain, not so much.

Yes Jesus did sin, if he didn't, then how could he ever be an example for us, he then would have one over us being the son of god and all. Sin is simply being of target, the center of the target is our true Essence, the Christ Consciousness, Jesus became the Christ, he transended from his carnal self just like you and I can. Sin isn't a dirty word, we do it it all the time, just like an archer with his bow and arrows, sometimes he misses the target, sometimes hes doesn't.

:yes:

But the point of Christian teaching is Jesus was and is God. He cant sin, yet demands sinning humans to follow him ( really it's the Christian religion that demands it, they made up the stories). Get it? A story about a God/Man that no man can follow. But he was sacrificed for mans sins so man doesn't have to follow but just have faith. None of it makes any sense.

Yeah, but being "God" from a panenthiestic view would mean that you are just a part of the universe. And can you cite a verse where Jesus demands all people for all ages follow him? And by Christian religion, do you mean the Roman state? And the atonement theory was not likely to be generally accepted til atleast after Paul, and at the most not until the 9th centurty or so. There was a thread on this exact topic a while back.

Jesus was killed for a reason. Crucification was a punishment used only for the worst of criminals of the time. Think about it, why would the son of "God" have been executed in such a manner if he was such a great person. What could he have possibly done wrong? This prompts us to think that perhaps Jesus did commit a crime or a sin, because Jesus certainly didn't die for us or anything remotely similar to this. It is not like Jesus was murdered, Jesus was tried and executed by the state. Perhaps he wasn't as good a person as many are led to believe.

LOL, oh ye of soo much faith in the elite. How many innocent men have been killed because of their opposition of the "state". Is speaking out against oppression a sin? Because if it is then I totally agree with you that he sinned. If this is the case, then MLK, Buddha, Ghandi, and all others who used non-violent means to oppose the imperial state would have been qualified as criminals just for their actions during their protests. Did Nelson Mandella deserve to be locked up for 30 years or however long it was for opposing Apartheid in South Africa?

Jesus may have been a criminal according to the state, but so were Jews during the Holocaust, does that mean that they were actually criminals?

Yes I sure do get it, but i do see a great metaphor in the story which has nothing to do with Christianity, as if they own the rights to the story lol.

I'm glad someone has the Wisdom to realize this. Frubals for you sir.

So the State always executes bad guys.

godisimaginary.com said it, I believe it, and that settles it!

Double phenominal post lol, frubals for you as well, and glad to see you've decided to hang around with us "unruly heathens" atleast for the time being.

 

[oldbadger]

Jesus was killed for a reason. Crucification was a punishment used only for the worst of criminals of the time. Think about it, why would the son of "God" have been executed in such a manner if he was such a great person. What could he have possibly done wrong? This prompts us to think that perhaps Jesus did commit a crime or a sin, because Jesus certainly didn't die for us or anything remotely similar to this. It is not like Jesus was murdered, Jesus was tried and executed by the state. Perhaps he wasn't as good a person as many are led to believe.

Hi........ so......... you do accept that Jesus did exist?

 

[Awoon]

What makes you think I believe that I believe I have the only teachings and interpretations? I've never, ever done that- not here on the RF or anywhere else.

Anyone can go and buy the same books preachers use for their interpretations of scriptures. SOOOO Christian teachings are available to anyone without committing to being a Christian. You have commented on how non Christians try to tell Christians about their teachings. Your post #30 in True Christianity thread. Well we can. The teachings of the church Fathers are online, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew are online with the translations and commentaries. Christians just don't have a monopoly of their teachings or writings.

Anyone can criticize them since no set Christian teachings are universal with historical proof.

 

[sojourner]

If Jesus was fully human, and all humans sin, then Jesus sinned.

You're forgetting that Jesus was also fully God. God cannot be separated from God. Therefore, Jesus did not sin. Remember: Sin is not an innate qualifier for humanity, because sin is not our "natural" condition. We were created to be in communion with God. So, even if Jesus were not fully God, he could still be fully human and not sin.

 

[sojourner]

But the point of Christian teaching is Jesus was and is God. He cant sin, yet demands sinning humans to follow him ( really it's the Christian religion that demands it, they made up the stories). Get it? A story about a God/Man that no man can follow. But he was sacrificed for mans sins so man doesn't have to follow but just have faith. None of it makes any sense.

It would help make sense if your theology wasn't completely damaged...:thud:

 

[sojourner]

Thats actually legitimate. The claim he was a man without sin would contradict the claim that all men have a sin nature of which all men sin.

Sin isn't our natural state.

 

[sojourner]

Jesus was killed for a reason. Crucification was a punishment used only for the worst of criminals of the time. Think about it, why would the son of "God" have been executed in such a manner if he was such a great person. What could he have possibly done wrong? This prompts us to think that perhaps Jesus did commit a crime or a sin, because Jesus certainly didn't die for us or anything remotely similar to this. It is not like Jesus was murdered, Jesus was tried and executed by the state. Perhaps he wasn't as good a person as many are led to believe.

And here's three posts of "I have no idea what I'm talking about...":help:

 

[sojourner]

I don't believe he was always this way, I would even argue that he was a little brat as a child because he was so gifted he thought he was better than everyone else. So at one point in his life do I think he was seperate from God and sinned, both physically morally, and according to "the Law", most definitely. But once he reached a certain, not so much.

This doesn't follow, though if Jesus is fully God, as we believe he is.

 

[Athan]

It is possible yes. It would be impossible to know though since it is impossible to know what would have been going through his head throughout his life.

Either he was above human and never had a sinful thought, or his sins were never recorded.

I'd say it's the former.

 

[Athan]

In my faith, we believe that Jesus did not sin but that he could have as the Gospels say that Satan tempted Him- if He was not able to sin, then Satan would not have even bothered (that's if Satan was even a literal being to begin with)

And that goes to show that God the Father knows how to pick His key players.

 

[Awoon]

It would help make sense if your theology wasn't completely damaged...:thud:

Awwwww too bad you don't enjoy it.

 

[sojourner]

Anyone can go and buy the same books preachers use for their interpretations of scriptures. SOOOO Christian teachings are available to anyone without committing to being a Christian. You have commented on how non Christians try to tell Christians about their teachings. Your post #30 in True Christianity thread. Well we can. The teachings of the church Fathers are online, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew are online with the translations and commentaries. Christians just don't have a monopoly of their teachings or writings.

Anyone can criticize them since no set Christian teachings are universal with historical proof.

But the meaning of the teachings is vitally important, and the meaning is very much tied up in the context of the Christian community and how that community makes meaning together. So, it is rather difficult (if not impossible) for those outside the community to understand the fullness of meaning that is contextualized by the community that formulates the teachings. Christians simply do have a monopoly on that context. Therefore, it's very difficult (if not impossible) for an outsider to adequately and honestly criticize them.

 

[sojourner]

Awwwww too bad you don't enjoy it.

Awwwwww too bad you don't know what you're talking about theologically.

 

[InChrist]

Anyone can go and buy the same books preachers use for their interpretations of scriptures. SOOOO Christian teachings are available to anyone without committing to being a Christian. You have commented on how non Christians try to tell Christians about their teachings. Your post #30 in True Christianity thread. Well we can. The teachings of the church Fathers are online, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew are online with the translations and commentaries. Christians just don't have a monopoly of their teachings or writings.

Anyone can criticize them since no set Christian teachings are universal with historical proof.

According to the scriptures, Christians do have a monopoly on understanding the truths of the Bible. Unless a person is spiritually born again and their mind is transformed and guided by the holy Spirit they can read the Bible or commentaries over and over again, study in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and listen to sermons endlessly, yet still not understand what the scriptures are saying because...

...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14

 

[Awoon]

But the meaning of the teachings is vitally important, and the meaning is very much tied up in the context of the Christian community and how that community makes meaning together. So, it is rather difficult (if not impossible) for those outside the community to understand the fullness of meaning that is contextualized by the community that formulates the teachings. Christians simply do have a monopoly on that context. Therefore, it's very difficult (if not impossible) for an outsider to adequately and honestly criticize them.

And now you go to confession?

 

[Awoon]

According to the scriptures, Christians do have a monopoly on understanding the truths of the Bible. Unless a person is spiritually born again and their mind is transformed and guided by the holy Spirit they can read the Bible or commentaries over and over again, study in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and listen to sermons endlessly, yet still not understand what the scriptures are saying because...

...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14

Read my comment above.

 

[Awoon]

Awwwwww too bad you don't know what you're talking about theologically.

Christianity is not about "theology," it's about Churchianties, insiders and outsiders.

Your posts prove it.

 

[ChristineES]

Anyone can go and buy the same books preachers use for their interpretations of scriptures. SOOOO Christian teachings are available to anyone without committing to being a Christian. You have commented on how non Christians try to tell Christians about their teachings. Your post #30 in True Christianity thread. Well we can. The teachings of the church Fathers are online, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew are online with the translations and commentaries. Christians just don't have a monopoly of their teachings or writings.

Anyone can criticize them since no set Christian teachings are universal with historical proof.

That is irrelevant. I mentioned that a lot of non-Christians tell me how to me how to follow my faith in a different thread and it's true. I never said that all non-Christians know nothing about my faith, I actually said the opposite in another post which you totally ignored.

Why on earth are you taking those posts so personally? I wasn't directing them at you and I wasn't even directing them at the people I quoted (which I explained).

I'll repeat some of what I said about it: 1. My mother, when she was an atheist, knew the Bible incredibly well. 2. Some atheists and other non-Christians know the Bible BETTER than some Christians.

Please, stop making judgments about me from a few posts.

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is not about "theology," it's about Churchianties, insiders and outsiders.

Your posts prove it.

You're absolutely right! Xy isn't "about" theology, although well-grounded theology helps us to understand what we are "about." And, even though Xy isn't "about theology," the question of whether Jesus could have sinned is a purely theological question. So, my comment was completely cogent to the topic up for debate, while yours here...


is not.



Even though I do agree with you, with some caveat. Xy is about relationships (IOW, "insiders and outsiders"). But I'm not the one drawing the distinction between the two -- "insiders and outsiders" -- at least not in the way it appears you're suggesting. You see, when people abide in community, they make meaning of their lives together (each individual providing one "thread," the combination of "threads" creating a "tapestry" that has meaning beyond the individual "strands." That's what I was talking about when I mentioned the "context"in which teachings are grounded. So long as "threads" are interwoven, meaning can be made of the relationship between them. One cannot stand outside a relationship, however, where her or his "strand" is not interwoven and comment on the meaning that is made within a relationship. Therefore, unless you choose be in relationship with those of us who foster the teachings, you have no hope of being able to aptly criticize the meaning that we, as Xtians, make together. It's not a matter of "we know something you don't" (as it appears your post is accusing us of). Rather, it's a matter of, "you don't want a relationship, so there's simply no meaning to be made."

It goes well beyond simply critiquing the teachings, themselves, as I've mentioned, because the teachings are teachings of relationship, or context. And that relationship must be taken under consideration if the teachings are to be adequately critiqued.