The Bible tells us Jesus was perfect and without sin. Thus, when we want to describe the perfect being, we often use Jesus as an example. However, making a mistake is not necessarily a sin, at least in my opinion (I have had some employers that seemed to have thought differently however). While Christians accept that Jesus was sinless, he also had ordinary human weaknesses. The Bible tells us he got tired, he got hungry and thirsty, he felt physical and emotional pain etc. If a person makes a mistake and fails to admit it, that would certainly be sin. But how about just the act of making a mistake, could Jesus have done that?
Don’t have my Bible handy, but I recall Jesus in Gethsemane, feeling doubt and fear, wishing he could turn away from the cup of sorrows he had in front of him. Wasn’t the whole point that God decided to incarnate himself as a human, with all the human weaknesses? Sounds insane to me, but that’s apparently what Christians believe. Powerful idea, even if it is nuts. (Obviously, opinions differ on that.)
Of course, if the Biblical character of Jesus is based on some actual man, that man doubtless had his share of failings and made mistakes, but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking.
What do you mean by “mistakes”?
If you mean ordinary, everyday screwups, then of course Jesus committed them! He was human, after all. Was he capable of misspelling words? Absolutely. Of tripping over his own feet and falling down? Sure. Of forgetting things? Of course.
Even those of us who believe Jesus was divine acknowledge that much.
But didn’t Jesus have doubts?
And don’t Christians believe that doubting God, or not putting one’s whole trust in God, is a sin?
(Or am I just crazy again?)
Julie
I don’t think doubt is a sin. Doubt is a feeling. Trusting in God is an action.
Actions (or the lack of action) can be sinful. Feelings can’t. They just are.
Regards,
Shodan
I guess there are three ways you can look at it.
-
Jesus was a man. Whether he was a prophet annointed by ‘God’, a brilliant or wise enlightened philosopher, or a charismatic lunatic is up for debate. If this is the case, he most certainly made mistakes, just like the rest of us.
-
Jesus was ‘God’. In this belief Jesus becomes the physical imbodiment of the omnipotent/omniscient deity. He is ‘God’ Incarnate. If this is the case, he could not have made a mistake, for that would deny his godhead (and if the Bible is correct, would destroy the universe).
-
Jesus was somehow both. In this belief Jesus would be a physical human, who is somehow possessed with the spirit and/or nature of ‘God’. This is generally the most common belief among Christians (In my experience anyway). I personally believe that someone who feels this way could go either way with your question, but my personality prefers that he would make a mistake, though only on the ‘human’ side. I.E. that though he is ‘God’ he has limited himself to the limits of being human. So therefore, while his ‘spirit’ would understand the nature of existence, his brain would only be capable of ‘knowing’ the things that it was tought in the same way that your or I would. He would therefore be capable of expounding on the fundamental nature of existence without error by being guided by his ‘spirit’ and would have the ability to ‘tap’ that nature for guidence, but if he was tought in math class that pi was 3.2 all of his circles would come out funny.
this has been your daily dose of pure conjecture from a non-christian ex-theology student
I guess there are three ways you can look at it.
-
Jesus was a man. Whether he was a prophet annointed by ‘God’, a brilliant or wise enlightened philosopher, or a charismatic lunatic is up for debate. If this is the case, he most certainly made mistakes, just like the rest of us.
-
Jesus was ‘God’. In this belief Jesus becomes the physical imbodiment of the omnipotent/omniscient deity. He is ‘God’ Incarnate. If this is the case, he could not have made a mistake, for that would deny his godhead (and if the Bible is correct, would destroy the universe).
-
Jesus was somehow both. In this belief Jesus would be a physical human, who is somehow possessed with the spirit and/or nature of ‘God’. This is generally the most common belief among Christians (In my experience anyway). I personally believe that someone who feels this way could go either way with your question, but my personality prefers that he would make a mistake, though only on the ‘human’ side. I.E. that though he is ‘God’ he has limited himself to the limits of being human. So therefore, while his ‘spirit’ would understand the nature of existence, his brain would only be capable of ‘knowing’ the things that it was tought in the same way that your or I would. He would therefore be capable of expounding on the fundamental nature of existence without error by being guided by his ‘spirit’ and would have the ability to ‘tap’ that nature for guidence, but if he was tought in math class that pi was 3.2 all of his circles would come out funny.
this has been your daily dose of pure conjecture from a non-christian ex-theology student
Coveting is a feeling. So is lust. So is pride.
Aren’t these considered sins?
Julie
Is coveting an action?
Whoops. I see that jsgoddess covered this for me.
Hmm. I don’t know.
Does letting someone else write up your philosophy for you count as “a mistake”? Seems to me that we could have done with less narrative and more explicit reasoning and explanation.
shrugs
The idea being that he was human, why shouldn’t he have made mistakes?
Even if you believe he was God become man, what would be the point if he didn’t have any of humanities imperfections.
He never farted? He never stumbled or fell? Even as a kid? He never fingerpainted all over foster dad’s newly finished commode?
'tis well I remember the day when he put on that red cloak, that day He wanted to enter Jerusalem as ‘King of the Jews’.
He didn’t have a fibula, see, so the damned thing kept slipping. So when he tried to climb that donkey He got caught in it and He fell off the other side.
Boy, did we laugh our asses off.
Pitty that one didn’t make the books. 'twas damn funny that was.
Only in the hip-and-groovy, make-it-up-as-you-go-along West.
In the East, before all that newfangled medieval stuff got tacked on by the Latins, the term “passions” was used for these things, not “sins”. It only became sinful if one entertained those passions.
That being said, there was a further refinement into “blameless passions” and “dangerous passions”. Christ, being God, was shielded from the dangerous passions. Christ, being human, was still subject to the blameless passions.
The blameless passions include hunger, thirst, fear of death, etc. So the “doubt” at Gethsemane was a manifestation of the blameless passion of the fear of death. That it was overcome means that Christ did not let the passion turn into a sin.
Yes, fear of death could be the motive for a sin. Somebody could fear death from “secondhand smoke” so much that he takes a gun and tries to kill people for smoking (it’s happened as of last month) instead of trying some other tactic.
So “coveting your neighbor’s wife” isn’t a sin in the East?
Are the other commandments potentially not sins as well?
Julie
Yes.
AFAIK, coveting is [ul][li]scheming to possess something in order to spite someone else,[/li][li]a sinful plan of action which is frustrated by circumstance - I want your money, but you are too well-armed for me, or[/li][li]harboring and encouraging a sinful desire. I want your girlfriend, but you are bigger than me (and she is faithful to you), so I occupy myself by dwelling on thoughts of what I would ever do if I got the chance. I think this is what Jesus was talking about when He mentioned “looking on a woman to lust after her” constituting adultery. If I do this, I am not constrained by moral considerations, only by the fact that I can’t have every woman I see. [/ul] In other words, “Boy, isn’t she pretty” is not a sin - “Boy, what wouldn’t I do to her if I ever got the chance” is. [/li]
Martin Luther phrased it by saying, “You can’t stop the birds from flying over your head. You can stop them from making a nest in your hair.”
Which may be why “self-control” is considered one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit. It is quite similar to the Dale Carnegie idea of “positive thinking” and related ideas of “positive self-programming”, or the Buddhist idea of “right thinking”, which is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan- I heard that attributed to Martin Luther King Jr- tho I’ve also heard it attributed to lots of others also.
My two cents- he could have made mistakes of knowledge (I doubt he knew there was a big land mass way west past Africa assuming that wasn’t common knowledge, tho that’s up for debate) but not mistakes of morality.
First, the division between an action and a feeling is a thin one, and easily crossed.
Secondly, this contradicts Christian doctrine. Jesus makes clear that it’s not only actions that are important (as Jews at the time emphasized) but thoughts and feelings as well. Wanting to kill someone is as bad as actually doing so – lusting after people is the same as having sex with them. At least, as far as the sin goes.
You didn’t actually read what I wrote, did you?
Coveting is more than a mere emotional state, it is actively entertaining the desire.
To actually want to kill means that one must go beyond an initial dislike–one must entertain the passion. To indulge in lust, one must entertain the passion.
Yes, I read what you wrote.
Pardon the hell out of me if my Catholic-raised mind doesn’t immediately grasp the difference between coveting as an emotional state (which would mean “I want that”) and coveting as entertaining the desire (which would mean “I really want that and am going to think about it”?)
What is “entertaining the desire”? You keep using the phrase as if it’s obvious what it means.
Julie