Discussion:
Did Jesus Sin?
(too old to reply)
b***@allvantage.com
2006-07-17 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Re: Did Jesus Sin?
We may begin with the question: Did God sin?
Well, God *knowningly* created the conditions that made sin possible
and necessitated sins. So God was complicit with sins. Or we may say
that God was an accomplice of sins.
Being an accomplice of sins is sin. So God sinned.
Hello,

Just because one makes something that can cause "sin", doesn't mean he
is an 'accomplice' of sin.

For example, what about the people that make knives? If one of their
knives is used in a murder, does that make the creator of the knife an
accomplice of murder? Of course not. The fault lies with the one who
used the instrument the wrong way, not the with the maker of the
instrument.

It is similar with God. God created all His intelligent life with a
free will. It was the abuse of that free will by rebels (Satan, Adam
and Eve) that caused sin, not the Creator of that free will.
If Jesus and God are one, then Jesus also sinned.
Concerning Jesus is God, the Bible does not teach that. For instance,
the Bible tells us that God always existed, but Jesus was created, thus
they can't be one and the same:

God always existed- Ps 90:2,

"Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the
world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (NIV)

Jesus created- Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Yes, even Jesus referred to himself as "God's Son", never "God". (see
Joh 10:36)

I hope this has helped to clear things up for you.


Sincerely, James


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************
If I took this question to the averaje church, I'd probably be yelled
out of it.
......
SherLok Merfy
2006-07-20 01:32:44 UTC
Permalink
(...)
When Thomas discovered that He had risen from
the dead, he did not cry out, "My Lord and my Emissary of God", he
My Lord and my God! (Jn 20:28)
That says only that it was amazing to Thomas, not that Jesus was God.
This is red herring.
Nonsense. Read it more closely. It says "My God". Who is he talking to or about?
He is talking to Jesus. About whom? The context should have made it clear: it is
not just TO Jesus, it is _about_ Him.
Thomas is clearly calling Jesus Himself God.
Okay, so this is that great argument I snipped.
I snipped nothing from it. You answered the same thing twice.
It doesn't say "My Lord _is_ my God!".
It makes a comparison and doesn't even contain a verb.
It's not even a sentence.

That, and your recommendation that I read 1:18 of John for evidence
that Jesus
was called God by anyone other than Jesus tell me that you hav
comprehension
difficulties. You're not alone. In 6:60, even some disciples of Jesus
(he had more than twelve for a little while) complained of difficulties
in understanding him, and the debate rayjed in the past as to whether
the blood and the bread of the Eucharist was real or symbolic. .

The thing defies understanding. God is an omnipotent being. The flesh
is not. God is omnipresent. The flesh is not. God knows everything. The
flesh does not know when to believe what it sees. So, how can God be
made flesh without making Him ignorant,
small, and weak.
SherLok Merfy
2006-07-20 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
There are three who bear witness: the Spirit and the water and
the blood. And the three witnesses bear the same witness (1 Jn 5:7-8)
Three witnesses. This meets the requirement of Dt 17:6, even though
they are not human witnesses.
That's aburd. When was the last time you got testimony from the
blood or the water? How can they be anything but figurative
witnesses? This is poetry and poetry that is very difficult to read.
If you admit that it is "very difficult to read", then why are you
so sure that it does not meet teh requirements of Dt 17:6? And if
that is not what it does, then why DID he say "there are three who
bear witness"?
You do not know how to tell the difference between poetry and prose, yet you
presume to say that you understand this book? Give me a break.
I did not say it was good poetry. It has no regular meter in English,
nor does it rhyme. Nonetheless, it is a fallacy to attribute not only
motivation, but speech to water and blood. Personification is fine in
poetry and fantasy fiction.
SherLok Merfy
2006-07-20 01:32:45 UTC
Permalink
(...)
When Thomas discovered that He had risen from
the dead, he did not cry out, "My Lord and my Emissary of God", he
My Lord and my God! (Jn 20:28)
That says only that it was amazing to Thomas, not that Jesus was God.
This is red herring.
Even it it were true that it "says only that it was amazing to
Thomas", it would not be a 'red herring'. You have the wrong name.
Red herring is a term for what is both true and irrelevant. Yes,
Thomas said it. No, it does not illustrate your case.
But it is not true that that is all it says. I already explained why it says
more, you snipped it without comment.
This says volumes about your inability to conduct logical argument.
What has your inability to do a cut and paste to do with my ability as
a logician? If your argument was so good, then why can't you remember
it?
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-21 03:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
(...)
When Thomas discovered that He had risen from the dead, he did
My Lord and my God! (Jn 20:28)
That says only that it was amazing to Thomas, not that Jesus was God.
This is red herring.
Even it it were true that it "says only that it was amazing to
Thomas", it would not be a 'red herring'. You have the wrong name.
Red herring is a term for what is both true and irrelevant.
A red herring does not have to be true. It only has to be irrelevant
and distracting. Yours is both, so yes, it is a red herring.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Yes, Thomas said it.
No, he did not. You are confusing his actual words with your own
intensely biased interpretation of them. What he _said_ was "my Lord
and my God!" It is your intense theological bias that insists on
reading that as an expression of mere amazement.
Post by SherLok Merfy
No, it does not illustrate your case.
In your previous sentence 'it' referred to what Thomas allegedly
said. Now you have shown you do not even know how to compose proper
pronoun reference in English, since in this sentence 'it' surely
refers to the Red Herring.
Post by SherLok Merfy
But it is not true that that is all it says. I already explained
why it says more, you snipped it without comment.
This says volumes about your inability to conduct logical argument.
What has your inability to do a cut and paste to do with my ability as
a logician?
Now you have turned to another red herring, my alleged "inability to
do a cut and paste". It is your questionable motive for doing the cut
that is at issue.
Post by SherLok Merfy
If your argument was so good, then why can't you remember
it?
That is a loaded question, and a particularly poor one. The issue is
not whether or not I can remember it. The issue is the dishonesty
implicit in your act, passing over the argument in silence, without
even an _attempt_ to address it.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-21 03:31:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <13Bvg.10846$***@trnddc05>, SherLok Merfy says...

[snip]
Post by SherLok Merfy
If you admit that it is "very difficult to read", then why are you
so sure that it does not meet teh requirements of Dt 17:6? And if
that is not what it does, then why DID he say "there are three who
bear witness"?
You do not know how to tell the difference between poetry and prose, yet you
presume to say that you understand this book? Give me a break.
I did not say it was good poetry.
You miss the point. It is not poetry AT ALL.
Post by SherLok Merfy
It has no regular meter in English,
nor does it rhyme.
But this is irrelevant. It wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek.
And it doesn't have the features of poetry in Greek, either.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Nonetheless, it is a fallacy to attribute not only
motivation, but speech to water and blood.
NO, it is not a fallacy. IT is a figure of speech. Why, you even name it below.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Personification is fine in
poetry and fantasy fiction.
And in MANY other places. Why do you pretend otherwise?
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-21 03:31:24 UTC
Permalink
(...)
When Thomas discovered that He had risen from the dead, he did
My Lord and my God! (Jn 20:28)
That says only that it was amazing to Thomas, not that Jesus was
God. This is red herring.
Nonsense. Read it more closely. It says "My God". Who is he talking
to or about? He is talking to Jesus. About whom? The context
should have made it clear: it is not just TO Jesus, it is _about_
Him.
Thomas is clearly calling Jesus Himself God.
Okay, so this is that great argument I snipped. I snipped nothing
from it.
Then what does your "(...)" above represent? Why are you continually
trying to hide things? You don't even have the message-id of the
message quoted -- as most posters do, and all _honest_ posters do.
You answered the same thing twice.
No, I did not.
It doesn't say "My Lord _is_ my God!".
But this is irrelevant. It still implies that Christ is God.
It makes a comparison
Oh, does it? Between what and what is the comparison made?
and doesn't even contain a verb. It's not even a sentence.
Now you are showing off your ignorance of really basic grammar! In
both Greek and English, you do NOT need a verb to have a sentence. The
single word 'yes', for example, is a common, complete sentence in
dialog. But Greek can omit the verb in many more cases than English.
That, and your recommendation that I read 1:18 of John for evidence
that Jesus was called God by anyone other than Jesus tell me that you
hav comprehension difficulties.
Fat chance. In fact, it proves that it is you that has "comprehension
difficulties". For it was you, not I, who made the gross error of
claiming that John 20:28 "is not even a sentence".

Unfortunately, your clear "comprehension difficulties" do not end
there. For you even missed what it was I recommended you read. I did
NOT say "read 1:18 of John". I said to read John 1:1-18. See the
difference?

Sorry, the "comprehension difficulties" are clearly yours. And they
are clearly numerous.

[snip]
The thing defies understanding.
Well, if it defies understanding, why are you so sure that _you_
understand it well enough to advance the following claim?
God is an omnipotent being.
This part is not at issue...
The flesh is not.
Nor this.
God is omnipresent.
Nor even this.
The flesh is not. God knows everything. The flesh does not know when
to believe what it sees.
You have confused the different senses of the word 'flesh' in Scripture.
So, how can God be made flesh without making Him ignorant, small, and
weak.
Aha! The fundamental "comprehension difficulty" emerges from its
hiding place! So _this_ is why you are convinced that Jesus is not
God! Remember your own words about how it "defies understanding" and
embrace the paradox, since it is so _clearly_ taught by Scripture in
John 1:1-18:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, AND THE
WORD WAS GOD. He was in the beginning with God; all things were
made through him, and without him was not anything made that was
made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light
shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. There
was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for
testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe
through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the
light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the
world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet
the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people
received him not. But to all who received him, who believed in his
name, he gave power to become children of God; who were born, not
of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but
of God. AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US, FULL OF GRACE
AND TRUTH; WE HAVE BEHELD HIS GLORY, GLORY AS OF THE ONLY SON FROM
THE FATHER. (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of
whom I said, 'He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was
before me.'") And from his fulness have we all received, grace upon
grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who
is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. (Joh 1:1-18
RSVA)

I put in caps the parts most relevant to the immediate issue: they
show _clearly_ that it was God Himself who became flesh. This is the
most central mystery of the Christian faith, God Incarnate who dwelt
among us. Without this, you have not Christianity, but some sort of
neo-Judaism with Hellenistic flavoring.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Burkladies
2006-07-21 03:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Yes, Jesus did. Our human bodies can lead us to sin, Jesus was human.
So Jesus
learned what his sins are and how easily we can screw something up.
Men usually fear sexual sins and Jesus had to teach that too even
though their egos were low priority on Jesus commandments.
(21st Century King James Version)1Then was Jesus led up by the Spirit
into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
2And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He afterward
hungered. Matthew 4:1-2
So Jesus understood many sins, so he could heal others and perform what
the Spirit commanded be done.
blessed be, Lady

[I have removed the quotations, which are much larger than the
posting, per normal policy. I looked at them closely to see whether
they supplied any context other than "Did Jesus sin?" to which "Yes,
Jesus did" could be responding. I am nearly certain that they did not.
--clh]
SherLok Merfy
2006-07-26 03:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Matthew Johnson quoted in the first chapter of John:
(...)
AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
(...)
AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US, FULL OF GRACE
AND TRUTH; WE HAVE BEHELD HIS GLORY, GLORY AS OF THE ONLY SON FROM
THE FATHER.
I put in caps the parts most relevant to the immediate issue: they
show _clearly_ that it was God Himself who became flesh.
(...)

It doesn't say the entire word became flesh or that it made itself
entirely flesh.
The creation of the Christ is no greater than the creation of Adam or
the Earth.

What am I to make of the Christ who would be ultimately responsible for
why Jews and Christians don't celebrate the same Sabbath day? The
argument for the change seems to be about him being raised on a
Saturday, and I can see a more likely cause in 9:14 of John.
What am I to make of a God that changes when He said He doesn't?
It seems to me that the Christ made mistakes.

When Phillip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is
sufficient for us." in Chapter Fourteen and Verse Eight of John, the
answer Jesus provided did not meet this request to see two witnesses to
the truth of Jesus' words.

In regards to Mister Matthew's judgement that my writing is neo-judaic,
that may be so. What then of people who refer to "Judeo-Christianity"?
No Hellenism, though, is in my writing, as far as I can tell. My
questions are apt to be about why so much difference (and enmity) is
between the three major monotheistic relijions if they hav books in
common.
_______
SherLok Merfy
2006-07-26 03:24:32 UTC
Permalink
Concerning whether the first epistle of John, in chapter five and verse
eight:
"And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water,
and the blood; and these three agree as one." (NKJV)

satisfies the requirements of Chapter seventeen and verse six of
Deuteronomy:
"Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony
of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the
testimony of one witness." (NKJV)
NO, [the epistle] is not a fallacy. IT is [personification].
Why can't it be both?
When did you get testimony from the blood or the water?
How did John get this testimony from inanimate objects?

If I were to take testimony of the blood and the water to a court of
law, then a lawyer worth paying would show that it was really just me,
and if he wanted to attack my credibility soundly, he would focus
attention on _what_ I claimed to be listening to.
_______
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy
Matthew Johnson
2006-07-27 03:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
(...)
AND THE WORD WAS GOD.
(...)
AND THE WORD BECAME FLESH AND DWELT AMONG US, FULL OF GRACE AND
TRUTH; WE HAVE BEHELD HIS GLORY, GLORY AS OF THE ONLY SON FROM
THE FATHER.
I put in caps the parts most relevant to the immediate issue: they
show _clearly_ that it was God Himself who became flesh.
(...)
It doesn't say the entire word became flesh or that it made itself
entirely flesh.
It is pretty obvious what the author means. True, the word, 'entirely'
isn't there, but it really isn't necesary. It doesn't even clarify
what the author means. The rest of the book leaves no doubt. You sound
like you are hedging, desperate for excuses to maintain an impossible
position.

"Became flesh" can ONLY mean that the Word, co-eternal with God, the
Word, which even _is_ God, took upon Himself an entire human nature,
body and soul, without setting aside what He already was.
Post by SherLok Merfy
The creation of the Christ is no greater than the creation of Adam or
the Earth.
Nonsense. Christ was not 'created'. Since "the Word was God (Jn 1:1)",
the Word is uncreated. But since Christ _is_ this Word, Christ is
uncreated. Only His human nature is created.
Post by SherLok Merfy
What am I to make of the Christ who would be ultimately responsible
for why Jews and Christians don't celebrate the same Sabbath day?
You are asking the wrong question. Sunday is not a 'Sabbath'.
Post by SherLok Merfy
The argument for the change seems to be about him being raised on a
Saturday,
What are you talking about? He rose from the dead on Sunday.
Post by SherLok Merfy
and I can see a more likely cause in 9:14 of John.
Cause of what?
Post by SherLok Merfy
What am I to make of a God that changes when He said He doesn't?
You're not supposed to "make" anything of Him. Let Him do the
making. And your question is another loaded question, since He does
not change.
Post by SherLok Merfy
It seems to me that the Christ made mistakes.
Then what "seems to you" is false.
Post by SherLok Merfy
When Phillip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is
sufficient for us." in Chapter Fourteen and Verse Eight of John, the
answer Jesus provided did not meet this request to see two witnesses
to the truth of Jesus' words.
Phillip did not _ask_ for two witnesses. And Christ's answer was
perfect, since it addressed the misunderstanding presumed by Phillip's
question.
Post by SherLok Merfy
In regards to Mister Matthew's judgement that my writing is
neo-judaic, that may be so. What then of people who refer to
"Judeo-Christianity"?
What _of_ them? Why would this even be relevant?
Post by SherLok Merfy
No Hellenism, though, is in my writing, as far
as I can tell.
And that is too bad. Hellenism is a _good_ thing, if not overdone.
Post by SherLok Merfy
My questions are apt to be about why so much difference (and enmity)
is between the three major monotheistic relijions if they hav books
in common.
Because it takes a LOT more than just "books in common" to establish
common ground.

In fact, I am surprised you even have to ask. After all, you have
exhibited an awful lot of hostility with your perverse interpretation
of just one book of Scripture. So you have yourself illustrated how
easy it is to have one book in common, and yet have nothing in common.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...