Was Jesus without sin?

You indicated that you agree that it would be difficult to reconcile Gods action in punishing people who possessed a wrong belief system. The reconciliation is found in the first of the Ten Commandments.

 

Yet it doesn't reconcile itself with the idea of a moral loving God.

What kind of perfect being has a character flaw like jealousy?

 

And it should be. I'm a Catholic and certainly not a fundamentalist. We ask two different questions which shows our different understanding of salvation:

Protestant: "Have you asked forgiveness for your sins and invited Jesus into your heart? If you died tonight, do you know where you'll spend eternity?"

Catholic: "How have you responded to the grace that God has given you?"

The first entails a specific mental assent, the second a working of the heart beneath the perceivable surface. Both are found in scripture, how God works in our ignorance to woo us and how God calls us to complete revelation of himself in Jesus Christ.

The Catholic view captures more than meets the eye. We know that God is at work in the lives of every individual, to woo them into a love relationship with their Creator. He continually seeks and saves those who are lost. People's understanding and relationship with God may never reach the point of a sinners prayer, but that doesn't mean they weren't finding ways to communicate with their creator. It's the optimum result that every man and woman come to full knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, but often people, for a variety of reasons fall short of that.

Charles Dickens "Scrooge" is a good example. Here's a man who had for his whole life greedily horded his riches and mistreated his fellow man. At the end of his life he has a revelation and finds joy in giving away his wealth and helping those around him. The Protestant may ask, "When did he get on his knees and repent?" But the Catholic sees something different. We see a response to grace and an indicator of salvation. We see in Scrooge the same thing we saw in Zacchaeus in the gospels, a man who had defrauded his fellow Jews collecting taxes for the Romans. When Jesus came and called Zacchaeus out of the tree, he said, "Half my goods I'll give to the poor and if I've defrauded anyone, I'll make reparation." This is how God works.

Iriemon, I'm trying to give voice to what you already believe, that men come to truth in shades and degrees, not always by a sudden revelation. Paul says we see in a mirror dimly and that's an accurate description. We fumble, stumble, and grope our way though life and the only question is, were we groping toward the light or away from it. God sheds his grace on everyone and the Hound of Heaven seeks a love relationship with every man he created. How do we respond? Salvation or (*)(*)(*)(*)ation lies in the answer to that question.

 

Thanks for getting the thread back on topic, save me a lot of effort. I knew this one would branch off if I didn't attend to it.

If 'Sin' is: "missing the mark." The mark being God as the standard. , then that's not a very clear definition. That definition sets the standard as 'God', but fails to define 'God'. There are a variety of different definitions of 'God' in just Christian denominations alone. So the meaning of the word 'sin' shifts with the meaning of the word 'God', which makes that definition not very useful...especially for a blinded meat puppet like me. I would even argue that my original list of 667 sins (on page one) directly quoted from the Bible is more useful than that definition you gave.

With the nebulous definition of God and Sin that you gave earlier, is man truly at fault for his own failures? Man is not responsible for the set of standards laid forth for him, God is. Failure is a humbling experience for man, and only a humbled man can submit to God. This actually makes a great case for Islam; whose core dogma is submitting to God instead of being saved by God's grace, does it not?

So how did Jesus avoid sin? It would make sense, in a way, if he actually was God. Because that is the standard of being without sin. But the Bible only has accounts of a small fraction of Jesus' life, his infancy and his ministry. Everything else is omitted. And if we assume that his is the very God from the old testament, there are some very disturbing demonstrations by God that could be argued are 'sinful', if they were committed by a man like Jesus. And I don't really see the relevance of physical vs spiritual, other than it just being another shifting hurdle to define God and Sin.

And how did Jesus 'become' sin? What does becoming sin mean and how is it supposed to differ from being 'without sin'?

Jesus had to be w/o sin to be an acceptable sacrifice for atonement of sin. The OT "type" that pointed to the Lamb of God as the eternal & perpetual sacrifice for like mankind, is requiring a 'spotless lamb, w/o blemish." The spot/blemish is a type of sin. (no, BM, dont know if Jesus was w/o freckles & moles)...it was a 'spiritual 'type'. One must understand 'types' of the past pointing to future events, and the physical pointing to the spiritual.

And so, for Jesus to be an acceptable sacrifice for 'others' sins and be an atonement for mankind, He HAD to be sinless!![/QUOTE]

 

Only in your minds eye and your perception of what a "moral loving God" really is. Do you punish your children when they do wrong? "wrong" being defined by what you have taught them as being 'wrong'. Their doing 'wrong' is an act of disobedience against the instructions you have given them.

What kind of being do you perceive God to be, when a conceivable set of His rules has been set before you? Do you truly believe that your children think that all of your rules are just and full of love and compassion? Yet they depend on you and the provisions that you make for them. Are you going to allow your children to call the man down the street 'Daddy'? We are created in the image of God, therefore, we possess the same qualities as God, yet to a much smaller degree.

 

Thx for responding to my post, BW:

If one follows the spiritual history of mankind, Adam was the one who sinned (Altho Eve ate 1st, he chose to also eat, and he was head of all creation). Lets pass the literal and go to the metaphorical: Sin was passed on down from Adam as the head (not Eve), and that sinful nature is what all men following do also have because of the sin of Adam. Not a matter of keeping a score card, but as of the nature of mankind.

And just as Jesus had no earthly biological father (as in being of another man's seed) but was sown by the holy Spirit, God the Father imputed a sinless nature to His son, Jesus. The sin nature was interrupted by this action. Another reason why Jesus 'shudnt/cudnt' have children, as they would have been as He and interrupted the plan of God!

But also scripture says that , "Jesus learned obedience by the things that he suffered." Indicating that He still had a choice whether to sin or not---but it wasnt His nature as such. You could point to His close communion with His Father as keeping Him w/o sin as he walked the earth...again per scripture,

Galatians 5:16 (Paul's epistle to the gentiles)

16 "But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh."

Hope this helps...

 

Also in response:

Sin is self-seeking offences against another or God, as a result of selfishness, violating God's plan for mankind. Not acknowledging One greater than them, rebellion, etc. just as Satan (formerly called Lucifer, or 'light bearer') rebelled and tried to usurp God. Adam rebelled and disobeyed the only commandment that God gave him--just 1 commandment! And so it was the same nature of Adam's offspring . If you take as an example Cain, he gave the wrong sacrifice based on his own pride & desires; where Abel was compliant. Take the stories literally or metaphorically, but they have a 'spiritual message' within them..

NOTE: 4got to add this scripture to previous post:

"Jesus Was Tempted In Every Way, Yet Without Sin" (Hebrews 4:15)

Indicating He had a choice to sin or not to sin!

 

Faulty logic on your part due to the fact that your conclusion is based on a presumption of what I believe. Fallacy of association is also at play within your reasoning. I associate with many people, but I do not necessarily believe in what they profess or what they do.

I see no immorality in what God does. God knows more than I do, therefore, I am in no position to question the judgment of God. For you to again presume that you are in a position to make such a calling out, then that is your problem. Do I have principles? Yes! They are rooted in the 10 Commandments.

 

Since you see no immorality in what your God does, then clearly you must believe that it is moral to torture someone for all eternity for no reason more than not believing in God.

You are a sick immoral (*)(*)(*)(*). And so is your God.

 

When your children disobey, do you lock them in the basement and torture them horrifically for the rest of their lives?

That's what your "moral" God does.

 

got a link for that?

Seriously dude. You don't wanna be in heaven and we don't want you there. We're okay with it. I can tell you aren't.

 

Are you a Christian who denies that Hell exists?

 

This is actually pretty helpful in having a clearly defined concept of sin, but I have questions:

This seems logical. Typically people always say 'Eve tempted Adam' and that was the first sin. Ignoring the sexist implications of the whole concept, what exactly is the 1st sin that Adam committed and how does that single bad deed turn into Ten Commandments, and 667 verses of sin in The Bible? Is it like a seed that grows into a bush and has several different branches? Then could you say that they are all rooted in that first seed? The metaphors typically heard used for the 1st sin is either disobeying God, lustfulness, or rather vague descriptions about 'knowledge' or 'nature' or 'desire'. How would you describe what Adam's first sin was and how it manifested into man's nature?

The half-spirit half-man analogy of Jesus is clear enough. My only question would be that isn't that an unfair advantage to be half-spirit as compared to a mortal who is all man? But the answer would be that's why he had to come back. Man couldn't do it so someone had to, is that right?

 

Adam's sin was disobedience based on his pride--wanted to be as God:

And commanded by God,

Genesis 2:17 New International Version

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

And the Devil, also called the 'tempter' said,

Genesis 3:5 New International Version

"For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

NOTE: Adam (& his human lineage) died 'spiritually' that very day (altho he is said to have lived a long 'physical' life) and is why he/they/we needed a savior.


And actually, Jesus, called both Son of Man & Son of God, was 100% man & 100% God ...we dont understand that concept, but as He said, "When you see me you see the Father."

Personally, I see our and everybody's life on this earth as a 'proving ground,' as it were; and He is coming back to pickup the faithful (as, proven themselves) who have followed His words which were/are the Will of His Father.

But as we are both body & spirit having a soul (mind/will/emotions), we are not perfect as still living in the flesh, but per NT scripture, "Jesus is the author & perfecter of our faith." We, thru reading the word, following the H. Spirit (in prayer, etc), are 'being perfected..but it will not fully happen in this life as we are still in the flesh. Why we will get a 'glorified body' as is His and as He promised His followers at the Resurrection..

 

noo. I don't deny it. Do you?

 

But Jesus himself contradicted that claim with his own words because he taught people the Lord's prayer and Salvation was not taught to be found in accepting Jesus, but in forgiving those who trespass against us. He clearly stated forgiveness is conditional because God will only forgive us as we forgive others.

 

well okay. If that's what you want to believe, go for it.

 

It isn't about belief. Did Jesus teach the Lord's prayer? yes or no?

Hey, just call me a liberal again! that always works!

 

Really ? - NOT about belief ? - WOW !

I dunno , I was'nt there , tell me, what you think .

I'm not al that struck with the "Lord's Prayer " but t when you see Jesus , ask him to teach you that trick of turning water into a good vintage wine.
.

LOL ...

 

I'm not a Christian, so rejecting Hell is not a problem for me.

If you don't reject Hell, then clearly you must have no problem with the immoral torture of people for all eternity for temporal sins.

 

Then in order for a person to express his/her concern regarding 'hell' and the torture that is alleged to take place or is to take place at that location, the person showing the concern, must have some fundamental belief in the existence of that place and some fundamental conviction regarding the torture that is alleged. In other words, if you say you don't believe in hell and you still show expressions of concern about that place, then you must have some fundamental belief in that place, thus voiding the statement of non-belief.

 

That doesn't logically follow.

Apparently you've never heard of a hypothetical argument.

And again, you bog down a debate with your semantic bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and double down by trying to tell someone else that they believe the opposite of what they actually do.

Intellectual dishonesty, your name is Incorporeal.

 

Apparently you are speaking through ignorance of the subject matter,,, the subject matter in this instance is me and what I have heard of.

Your argument speaks volumes about what you believe. Have you stated that the subject of hell is a hypothetical? No? Then you are not treating it as a hypothetical. Even if you were to make an expression regarding the hypothetical nature (which you still have not), your concern over something that is merely hypothetical shows that you are afraid of (morbidly concerned about) the bogeyman.

If a fictional name is all that is required to categorize someone as being Intellectually dishonest, then welcome to the club... Questerr.

 

Have I ever once stated that I believe in Hell?

No, I have denied its existence. However, if it did exist (as you and your ilk believe it does) it would be immoral. As would the God who created it.

If you try again to say that me simply speaking about something means that I must believe it, then you sir are a lying (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

In the short time that I have had the pleasure of communicating with you, I can honestly say that I do not recall you making such a direct statement, however, I have not read the entirety of your postings. You might have, but I don't really know about such a direct statement.

Now you are speaking in hypothetical terms, prior to that posting you never expressed a statement regarding 'hell' in a hypothetical manner. On the other hand, you are expressing your bias toward something that in your opinion does not exist, therefore, you are still speaking about what could be termed in your mind as a fairy tale. Do you often show so much concern about fairy tales?

That would depend on your choice of words when you speak about something. So be real careful as to which words you select to make expressions. BTW : for clarity sake, what is "a lying (*)(*)(*)(*)" That expression does not exist in my relatively extensive vocabulary.