Discussion:
Did Jesus Sin?
(too old to reply)
SherLok Merfy
2006-06-19 16:01:39 UTC
Permalink
If I took this question to the averaje church, I'd probably be yelled
out of it.
He was God, right? So he can't sin.
The problem is that we hav only his word for his being God.
I'll giv you that he was an _emissary_ of God.

Deuteronomy 17:6 (KJV):
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses,
shall he that is worthy of death be put to death;
but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Exodus 20:7 (NKJV):
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain,
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

In chapter eight in the book of John, Jesus launched into a tirade of
accusations against
those Jews he was conversing with, so that they were forced to ask him
in verse fourty-
eight "Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a
demon?"

In todays terms, to hav a demon is to be crazy. In the next verse,
Jesus mentions that the Jews "dishonour me". This is tit for tat. He
was calling them murderous before they had even made accusations.

The first bit of clear nonsense is in verse fifty, where Jesus says
that "I do not seek My own glory...". That contradicts what he says in
verse fifty-eight: "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I
AM".

You might not see anything wrong with that in English, except for the
shift in tense from the past tense to the present. That capitalized "I
AM" is more than that. He seems to be saying that Jesus is a being with
the past and future always before him, and since "I AM" translates from
YHWH, this is exactly where Jesus claims to be God. It is the same as
swearing in Hebrew.

Jesus might hav been the Son of Man, perhaps the Son of God, and
certainly an emissary of God, but to _be_ God, he had to be omnicient,
omnipotent, and omnipresent. These traits are beyond the flesh, so it
is impossible for a being of the flesh to be God.

Today, if you claimed to be either Jesus or God, in a serious manner,
you would be institutionalized, and Jesus was lucky to avoid the
subsequent stoning in verse fifty-nine.

So, the next time someone tries to explain "The trinity" to you, ask
them how a being of the flesh can do anything more than represent a
being that can do anything.
qquito
2006-06-20 04:15:23 UTC
Permalink
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.

If Jesus and God are one, then Jesus also sinned.
Post by SherLok Merfy
If I took this question to the averaje church, I'd probably be yelled
out of it.
......
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-22 03:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
If I took this question to the averaje church, I'd probably be yelled
out of it.
That is the optimistic assumption..
Post by SherLok Merfy
He was God, right? So he can't sin.
Obviously.
Post by SherLok Merfy
The problem is that we hav only his word for his being God.
Oh, no. On the contrary: the reason so many in this NG express their
doubts that He was God is that He never _did_ openly call Himself
God. So we don't even have it "on his word". Rather, we have it "on the word" of
his disciples, especially those who wrote the New Testament.
Post by SherLok Merfy
I'll giv you that he was an _emissary_ of God.
That is not good enough. When Thomas discovered that He had risen from
the dead, he did not cry out, "My Lord and my Emissary of God", he
cried out:

My Lord and my God! (Jn 20:28)
Post by SherLok Merfy
Deuteronomy 17:6 (KJV): At the mouth of two witnesses, or three
witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at
the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
Uh, huh. Why did you _think_ John wrote:

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.

[snip]
Post by SherLok Merfy
In todays terms, to hav a demon is to be crazy.
No, that is not true. A few of us in this NG have actually met people
who have demons, we do not confuse the two notions. But you do. No
wonder you have trouble reading and understanding the Bible.
Post by SherLok Merfy
In the next verse, Jesus mentions that the Jews "dishonour me". This
is tit for tat.
No, it is not "tit for tat".
Post by SherLok Merfy
He was calling them murderous before they had even made accusations.
What are you talking about? It is a long way from "dishonor me" to
"murderous". Not to mention, if this latter accusation were true, then
your former would have to be false. Make up your mind!
Post by SherLok Merfy
The first bit of clear nonsense is in verse fifty, where Jesus says
that "I do not seek My own glory...". That contradicts what he says
in verse fifty-eight: "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham
was, I AM".
No, that does not contradict it at all. For God does not seek His own
glory, despite what the Heidelberg Catechism says. Unlike us, God is
humble. He already showed this humility by taking on the form of a
servant (Php 2:7).
Post by SherLok Merfy
You might not see anything wrong with that in English, except for the
shift in tense from the past tense to the present. That capitalized
"I AM" is more than that. He seems to be saying that Jesus is a being
with the past and future always before him, and since "I AM"
translates from YHWH, this is exactly where Jesus claims to be God.
This is pretty accurate.
Post by SherLok Merfy
It is the same as swearing in Hebrew.
But this is not.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Jesus might hav been the Son of Man, perhaps the Son of God, and
certainly an emissary of God, but to _be_ God, he had to be
omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
And He is all three.
Post by SherLok Merfy
These traits are beyond the flesh, so it is impossible for a being of
the flesh to be God.
No, it is impossible for a being of _mere_ flesh. But Christ has both
a full human nature and full divine nature. So of course it is
possible for Him.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Today, if you claimed to be either Jesus or God, in a serious manner,
you would be institutionalized,
And rightly so, since Jesus Christ is unique. Anyone else claiming to
be Him cannot be.
Post by SherLok Merfy
and Jesus was lucky to avoid the subsequent stoning in verse
fifty-nine.
That wasn't just 'luck'. Read the chapter again, more attentivcely
this time. And remember what John told us about Christ in Jn 2:25.
Post by SherLok Merfy
So, the next time someone tries to explain "The trinity" to you, ask
them how a being of the flesh can do anything more than represent a
being that can do anything.
Wrong question. You don't understand how a great many things happen as
they do, yet you accept that they are so. Same here: God Himself has
revealed Himself to us as Trinity, with Christ God Incarnate, so we do
not ask "how can it be so".
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
SherLok Merfy
2006-06-23 03:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Matthew Johnson wrote:
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, no. On the contrary: the reason so many in this NG express their
doubts that He was God is that He never _did_ openly call Himself
God. So we don't even have it "on his word". Rather, we have it "on the word" of
his disciples, especially those who wrote the New Testament.
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by SherLok Merfy
You might not see anything wrong with that in English, except for the
shift in tense from the past tense to the present. That capitalized
"I AM" is more than that. He seems to be saying that Jesus is a being
with the past and future always before him, and since "I AM"
translates from YHWH, this is exactly where Jesus claims to be God.
This is pretty accurate.
Then why didn't you notice you were contradicting yourself?
Either we have it from Jesus that he was God or we don't.
We hav it from a cured blind man that Jesus was a prophet.
We don't hav it from anyone in the bible but Jesus that he was God.
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by SherLok Merfy
It is the same as swearing in Hebrew.
But this is not.
Then why did the Jews take up stones shortly thereafter? You might
have noticed that forms of "to be" are italicized in the bible. That's
because Hebrew is a languaje for people acutely aware of the daynjers
in self-reference. You can say "I honest" in Hebrew, but you won't say
"I am honest", because at the beginning of that sentence is the name
of God. To say the name of God in Hebrew is to claim to be Him. That's
taking the lord's name in vain, and in both senses: you won't be
belived and it is self-exaltation.

_______
http://www.mynumo.com/SherLok
SherLok Merfy
2006-06-23 03:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Matthew Johnson wrote:
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
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.
SherLok Merfy
2006-06-23 03:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by SherLok Merfy
In the next verse, Jesus mentions that the Jews "dishonour me". This
is tit for tat.
No, it is not "tit for tat".
Post by SherLok Merfy
He was calling them murderous before they had even made accusations.
What are you talking about? It is a long way from "dishonor me" to
"murderous". Not to mention, if this latter accusation were true, then
your former would have to be false. Make up your mind!
How does my accusation that Jesus was bearing false witness of the Jews
falsify my accusation that Jesus claimed to be God?

John 8:37 (NKJV)
"I know that you are Abraham's descendants,
but you seek to kill Me,
because My word has no place in you."

Tit for tat.
_______
http://www.mynumo.com/SherLok
SherLok Merfy
2006-06-23 03:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matthew Johnson
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.
_______
http://www.mynumo.com/SherLok
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-26 02:48:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
Post by Matthew Johnson
Oh, no. On the contrary: the reason so many in this NG express their
doubts that He was God is that He never _did_ openly call Himself
God. So we don't even have it "on his word". Rather, we have it "on the word" of
his disciples, especially those who wrote the New Testament.
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by SherLok Merfy
You might not see anything wrong with that in English, except for the
shift in tense from the past tense to the present. That capitalized
"I AM" is more than that. He seems to be saying that Jesus is a being
with the past and future always before him, and since "I AM"
translates from YHWH, this is exactly where Jesus claims to be God.
This is pretty accurate.
Then why didn't you notice you were contradicting yourself?
Because I am not.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Either we have it from Jesus that he was God or we don't. We hav it
from a cured blind man that Jesus was a prophet. We don't hav it
from anyone in the bible but Jesus that he was God.
This isn't true. We have it on John's words. Read John 1:1-18
carefully.
Post by SherLok Merfy
Post by Matthew Johnson
Post by SherLok Merfy
It is the same as swearing in Hebrew.
But this is not.
Then why did the Jews take up stones shortly thereafter?
This is a fallacious question. There are lots of other reasons. You
cannot presume it was 'swearing' simply because they took up stones.

Do YOU pick up stones to execute the offender when YOU hear somebody
swearing, Merfy?
Post by SherLok Merfy
You might have noticed that forms of "to be" are italicized in the
bible.
No, they are not. Only some editions do this. The editions I read do not.
Post by SherLok Merfy
That's because Hebrew is a languaje for people acutely aware of the
daynjers in self-reference.
No, this is not why, either. This is nonsense whatever 'daynjers[sic]'
might mean.
Post by SherLok Merfy
You can say "I honest" in Hebrew, but you won't say "I am honest",
because at the beginning of that sentence is the name of God.
This is ridiculous. That is not the reason. The reason is that forms
of the verb "to be" can be left out, especially in the present tense.
Post by SherLok Merfy
To say the name of God in Hebrew is to claim to be Him.
Where _do_ you get this nonsense, Merfy?

[snip]
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-26 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
Post by Matthew Johnson
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.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-26 02:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
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.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Matthew Johnson
2006-06-27 00:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by SherLok Merfy
(...)
Post by Matthew Johnson
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.

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.
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
Loading...