It is possible that Jesus sinned.

[Awoon]

The church isn't found "in the bible." The church is the community, and the community was built before the bible was available. So, if you're looking for the church to be "in the bible," it's no wonder you're not finding it. The church is in the here and now. "Just [reading] what he supposedly said in the Holy Bible" ain't gonna cut it.

"Church" in Aramaic means to throw a party. No parties in the bible or buildings called church today.

 

[Awoon]

Yes, that's exactly it. I wish I was as good with words as you are.

Now you are excluding
me and including him...typical insider vs outsider. BTW I dumped Christianity after being involved for 40 yrs. I looked outside the formal Christian box and saw the light.

God told me to leave.

 

[sojourner]

"Church" in Aramaic means to throw a party. No parties in the bible or buildings called church today.

"Church" in Greek -- the language in which the NT was written -- means "assembly." The most common place of assembly (and quite possibly the model from which Christian worship [the Eucharist -- or meal of thanks] was derived) was the Roman symposium or dinner party. From the beginning, the church was formed around the table in thanks, or celebration. That's why Paul said that, though we are many, we are one body (community -- assembly -- church) because we all share one bread.

 

[sojourner]

Now you are excluding
me and including him...typical insider vs outsider. BTW I dumped Christianity after being involved for 40 yrs. I looked outside the formal Christian box and saw the light.

God told me to leave.

The light's found in all kinds of places. As I said, labels are useless. The church is established wherever two or three are gathered...

 

[Awoon]

"Church" in Greek -- the language in which the NT was written -- means "assembly." The most common place of assembly (and quite possibly the model from which Christian worship [the Eucharist -- or meal of thanks] was derived) was the Roman symposium or dinner party. From the beginning, the church was formed around the table in thanks, or celebration. That's why Paul said that, though we are many, we are one body (community -- assembly -- church) because we all share one bread.

The Romans had tables not Jesus and his bunch. They sat on pillows. Da Vinci pulled one over on Christian eyes.
The Romans probably made up the whole Christian/Jesus religion.

 

[sojourner]

The Romans had tables not Jesus and his bunch. They sat on pillows. Da Vinci pulled one over on Christian eyes.
The Romans probably made up the whole Christian/Jesus religion.

Da Vinci was wrong. Folks in the Roman Empire, (of which Palestine was part) at dinner parties, reclined at the table in order of importance, on their left elbows, eating from common platters with their right hands. Jesus and the disciples probably ate in much the same way.

 

[kellberet]

I totally agreed with your comment..

 

[nash8]

"Church" in Aramaic means to throw a party. No parties in the bible or buildings called church today.

You yourself said Jesus was, and I quote "A party man" in another thread. And I myself have had many a parties in "Churches". Some of the best parties I've had in my life have been church related events.

The Romans had tables not Jesus and his bunch. They sat on pillows. Da Vinci pulled one over on Christian eyes.
The Romans probably made up the whole Christian/Jesus religion.

They're is definitely precedent for one to concede that the state of Rome had a large part to do with what we see of Christianity today, but as for the creation of the religion as a whole, that's absolutely ridiculous. Christianity was outlawed as a formal religion within the Roman empire before constantine made it the state religion of Rome. There's over 300 years of Christianity before Rome even allowed it to be "a religion". The wisdom for me, is discerning the fundamental basis of Christianity pre-Roman dominance as opposed to post-Roman dominance.

 

[captainbryce]

"could atone for everyone else's sins"? Three facts you've missed.
1. Prior to Jesus' crucifixion he said "When he comes he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin" So there is at least one sin his crucifixion did not resolve.
2. To obey the Acts 2:38 command at least one sin had to be repented of to be saved. Which one?
3. "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom. 2:13 What is the law you must obey to be declared righteous by God?

I didn't miss any of those and I fail to see what point you're making here. None of those statements contradict what I said. So...

 

[captainbryce]

One of any sin equals all and all kinds and forms of sin?

That sounds like a good judgement alright

Your opinion is irrelevant. You are unqualified to judge "sin" because you are a sinner yourself. SO your judgement of what is "good" amounts to hypocrisy (as far as Christ is concerned).

 

[captainbryce]

And that's the end of the story.

It's only the end of the story IF you believe he was fully human. If you don't, then the story actually makes perfect sense (as written).

 

[Awoon]

You yourself said Jesus was, and I quote "A party man" in another thread. And I myself have had many a parties in "Churches". Some of the best parties I've had in my life have been church related events.



They're is definitely precedent for one to concede that the state of Rome had a large part to do with what we see of Christianity today, but as for the creation of the religion as a whole, that's absolutely ridiculous. Christianity was outlawed as a formal religion within the Roman empire before constantine made it the state religion of Rome. There's over 300 years of Christianity before Rome even allowed it to be "a religion". The wisdom for me, is discerning the fundamental basis of Christianity pre-Roman dominance as opposed to post-Roman dominance.

Paul a Christian running around the Med sea teaching an outlawed religion in Rome's face. How did he get away with that?

 

[Awoon]

It's only the end of the story IF you believe he was fully human. If you don't, then the story actually makes perfect sense (as written).

Yer correct, it's just a story.

 

[sojourner]

Paul a Christian running around the Med sea teaching an outlawed religion in Rome's face. How did he get away with that?

It wasn't outlawed when Paul was teaching.

 

[Awoon]

It wasn't outlawed when Paul was teaching.

.Tell nash 8 that.

 

[nash8]

Paul a Christian running around the Med sea teaching an outlawed religion in Rome's face. How did he get away with that?

.Tell nash 8 that.

Ok, so Rome created a religion in order to dominate political-social-economic affairs, then after the creation of it, those same Roman's outlawed the religion that they created then subsequently reinstated it as the state religion?

Is it not much more plausible to believe that a religion was created around a man who was a highly public figure, then the Roman state realized that it would be better to contort this religion to suit it's needs rather then fight it alltogether?

Secondly, it can be sufficiently argue from many perspectives that Paul's version of Christianity was nowhere near the idea of Christianity that was taught before Paul. There are so many ideals that Paul taught that were not part of the Pre-Paulinian tradition. There is a large amount of evidence that Paul had "serious beef" with the other apostles that were generally attributed to have actually traveled with Jesus himself.

Lastly, Paul actually traveled around specifically persecuting Christians, and he himself was a Roman citizen. So Paul himself is actually evidence for the idea that Rome persecuted Christians even at the earliest points in the life in Christianity.

 

[Awoon]

Ok, so Rome created a religion in order to dominate political-social-economic affairs, then after the creation of it, those same Roman's outlawed the religion that they created then subsequently reinstated it as the state religion?

Is it not much more plausible to believe that a religion was created around a man who was a highly public figure, then the Roman state realized that it would be better to contort this religion to suit it's needs rather then fight it alltogether?

Secondly, it can be sufficiently argue from many perspectives that Paul's version of Christianity was nowhere near the idea of Christianity that was taught before Paul. There are so many ideals that Paul taught that were not part of the Pre-Paulinian tradition. There is a large amount of evidence that Paul had "serious beef" with the other apostles that were generally attributed to have actually traveled with Jesus himself.

Lastly, Paul actually traveled around specifically persecuting Christians, and he himself was a Roman citizen. So Paul himself is actually evidence for the idea that Rome persecuted Christians even at the earliest points in the life in Christianity.

The one system that has lasted throughout human history is Religions....Follow the money.

 

[nash8]

The one system that has lasted throughout human history is Religions....Follow the money.

I am in no way, shape, or form arguing that. I totally agree with that assessment, and I have even made a thread that states such a theory with supporting evidence as to why.

However, I find it highly implausible that Rome created the foundations of the religion for monetary purposes. Now, contort it to suit those monetary reason's in later times, most definitely.

But why would they create a religion only to persecute it on and off for over three hundred years, then decide to make it the state religion around 400 A.D.?

Roman's despised early Christianity because of the ferment belief that Christians had for their religion, to the extent of dying for it. They saw it as a threat to the social order of things.

Only once they realized that they could contort this fervent belief towards the state of Rome did they begin to create the religion you see as Christianity today, in my opinion. There is just no way they would create a religion such as Christianity was in it's early days from what we know of the context of the culture of that time period.

 

[roger1440]

It all depends on what you qualify as sin, which is extremely subjective in my view. I would however argue that according to the gospels he most definitely sinned on a few occasions.

Sin - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

He physically flipped over the moneychangers tables according to one gospel. Taking an offensive action toward others I would qualify as a sin personally, but again subjective.

The one that I think is hard to argue personally is that he dissapeared from his parents for days.

One of the ten commandments is to obey they father and mother, and he obviously disobeyed this commandment in my opinion. I don't buy the whole "I"m in my fathers house" either, anyone can use the "God told me to" excuse and be sinless.

The only way I see that he didn't sin according to this, as if his parents still lost him after he followed every instruction they gave him exactly.

Nowhere does it say "obey".

New International Version
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

New Living Translation
"Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

English Standard Version
“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

New American Standard Bible
"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.

King James Bible
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

International Standard Version
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.

NET Bible
"Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the LORD your God is giving to you.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live for a long time in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be lengthened upon the land which the LORD thy God gives thee.

King James 2000 Bible
Honor your father and your mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you.

American King James Version
Honor your father and your mother: that your days may be long on the land which the LORD your God gives you.

American Standard Version
Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

Darby Bible Translation
Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be prolonged in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee.

English Revised Version
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

Webster's Bible Translation
Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

World English Bible
"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.

Young's Literal Translation
'Honour thy father and thy mother, so that thy days are prolonged on the ground which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee.

 

[roger1440]

One of my favorite sites is Debate.org which is conducted by rounds and follows rules of formality by which a vote is cast by viewers to determine who won the particular debate using a point system.

I came across one questioning as to whither Jesus had sinned or not recorded in multiple scriptural texts. The winner of this particular series of rounds was the con taking the position that Jesus did not sin according to the works written about him. However I felt the debate fell short. The debate can be viewed here.......

Debate Argument: Jesus Sinned! | Debate.org

Personally I think there were instances where Jesus sinned on the pro side, yet the con came up with some counterpoints to refute some of the assertions but not all. This particular debate was won by default wheras pro cut the exchange short.

Do you agree or disagree with this debate?

I just went to that site. I think both of those guys are idiots. Both of them are wrong on many points.