The notion that Jesus was “sinless” is crucial to the whole sacrificial nature of the crucifixion. In Christian soteriology, Jesus was a sort of spiritual surrogate for the Pascal Lamb, and as such had to be completely pure and “spotless.” If he was a sinner the sacrifice wouldn’t have worked.
The above pertains purely to the religious view of Jesus, of course. The historical Jesus no doubt “sinned” under some definition of the word (I’m sure he must have yanked the old banana now and then). I suppose you could make an argument that even some of his Biblical behavior was somewhat borderline, rejecting his family, for instance, or beating the asses of the moneychangers in the Temple (who were doing nothing illegal or immoral under Jewish law).
You’re absolutely right. Years and years ago people believed that the earth was flat.
And yet the Bible (which many Christians believe were inspired by God) states in Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the Earth…” (KJV)
This indicates to me that somebody knew the earth wasn’t flat. This is not a reference to the “circle of life” or such nonsense…it’s clear that the Bible is speaking of the earth itself. How is that possible that Isaiah knew that?
Want another gem? For thousands of years people doctors treated people by bleeding or bloodletting as a treatment for almost any symptom. This was an acceptable practice by doctors throughout the world. It was thought that blood needed to be purified and fresh blood needed to be pumped to replaced the dirty blood. Sounds weird now eh?
Yet the Bible states in Leviticus 17:11 that “For the life of the flesh is in the blood;…”(KJV). Although chapter 17 focuses upon atonement through blood…isn’t it amazing that this particular sentence fragment couldn’t be more accurate? How is it a book written THOUSANDS of years ago is more accurate than science over thousands of years…even up to the recent past. Think I’m kidding? This so called “practice” killed George Washington.
I know next to nothing about the historical Jesus but one thing I’m sure of is that he was a human being and was, therefore, not perfect. It’s not a big leap. It’s not speculation. It’s a default presumption. If he existed he was human. I have never seen a reason to believe otherwise.
Cholo, I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about with the Leviticus reference or what you think it proves. Could you be a little more specific. In what way is it “accurate?”
Huh? Where the heck did that come from? I didn’t say he wasn’t human. Nobody did. Please re-read what I posted.
Let me repeat: The Biblical accounts say that Jesus was the exception to the rule that everyone sins. This does not make him non-human. It merely makes him the exception to the rule.
Obviously, it’s foolish to counter this by insisting that all humans sin. Such an argument amounts to circular reasoning. It requires assuming the very point which one is purporting to prove.
Well, first of all, it hardly requires divine intervention for ancient peoples to figure out that Earth isn’t flat. The pagan Greeks knew that as early as 300 B.C.E.; I don’t suppose it was because they were divinely inspired by Zeus.
Secondly, the language quoted in Isaiah is perfectly consistent with a belief that the Earth is a round, flat disk; and in fact that is more likely what that author of that passage believed.
And in Genesis 30:27-43 we are led to believe that you can cause sheep and goats to give birth to striped or speckled offspring by exposing the parents to striped sticks as they are mating.
No doubt the Bible contains the odd shrewd observation about life and nature–I suppose at least some of the laws on ritual cleanness might have actually helped prevent the spread of disease, and although the justification for it sounds a bit comical to modern ears, don’t shit in your own tent is sage advice for any army. However, I’ve never heard of anyone who believes in perfect Biblical errancy; that every word of the Bible is untrue. In truth, scientifically speaking the Bible contains about the proportion of fact, half-truth, wild-ass guesses (some of which may happen to be correct, if only by sheer chance), folklore, and rank superstitition one would expect from a collection of writings set down across many centuries in a succession of pre-scientific cultures.
The whole question is insured against any argument quite conveniently by Christian doctrine.
God=Jesus
God=infallible
therefore
Jesus=infallible
Even if he did commit what appears to be a sin in our mortal eyes, it was a righteous act in the whole cosmic scheme of the “loving” and “just” Christian God.
One of the reasons I am not a Christian- too much blind and unquestioning faith required. I prefer to think.
Riddle me this, all you doubting Thomases?
Is it a sin to question whether Jesus’ was unblemished and sinless?
Those who base the idea that Jesus was sinless on the fact that he was seen as God, and God was sinless, need to reread large sections of the Old Testament.
The Old Testament God was angry, vengful, held grudges, and killed regardless of personal guilt.
It is much easier for me to conceptualize a Sinless Jesus than a Sinless Old Testament God.
But sins are something that people do.
Can you consider a hurricane a sin? God is a force of nature.
Jesus seems much more defiantly sinless than God, he seemingly defends humanity from the wrath of the Father.
But, remember, in the end he did accept humanity’s sins. He descended into death and hell, by taking the ultimate sacrifice, of accepting the world’s sins onto his shoulders, (this is very important in Lutheran theology).
A large part of the conflict here, is between different conceptions of the dual nature of Christ, both man, and God.
Jesus was the son of man, but he was also the son of God.
Jesus, was a man, a human being and sinned according to what the rules where at the time for what was considered sinning. He was not the son of god, he was the offspring of two other human beings.
I know next to nothing about the historical Jesus but one thing I’m sure of is that he was a human being and was, therefore, not perfect.
Yes, but he was also God and therefore perfect. So.
I suppose you could make an argument that even some of his Biblical behavior was somewhat borderline, rejecting his family, for instance, or beating the asses of the moneychangers in the Temple
Who said he hit the moneychangers?
The Old Testament God was angry, vengful, held grudges, and killed regardless of personal guilt.
Jesus got angry. Anger is not sin in itself. As for vengance and killing relatively innocent people, God being omniscient knows the outcome of all His possible actions. Kinda like killing Hitler when he was twelve, but actually being sure that it’s a good idea.
Jesus, was a man, a human being and sinned according to what the rules where at the time for what was considered sinning. He was not the son of god, he was the offspring of two other human beings.
That seems circular somehow. If he was human, then he sinned, then he was human. BUT, if he was God, then he couldn’t sin. It all depends on your basic assumptions. He was either God and perfect, or human and sinful.
The question is moot, since there is no such thing as sin.
You either do what is right for you and the ones you care about, or you do what is wrong for those same people.
Sin was created by religious fanatics or the people in power that want control over the ones that don’t know any better.
That was pretty insightful. Perhaps you might have assumed that the discussion was taking place in the implied context of: assuming sin exists, and that the Christian concept of Jesus is accurate…
Worse than death. He mostly smote “bad” people right?
Specifically, I tire of people who decry god’s love and mercy as good, yet refuse to take into account eternal fire and torment upon where the gaits of entry are wide.
Quick FYI:
“Hate” in the Qtm 's post is a misleading literal translation. In this case, it is commonly meant as preferring Jesus over parents and the others mentioned . For a cite, check out other versions of the Bible, such as the Living Bible.
If someone is without sin, doesn’t it mean their sins have been forgiven; not that they have never sinned. Couldn’t Jesus have asked for forgiveness and wiped the slate clean. Keep in mind that as far as “religion” goes, the scriptures were very thoroughly weeded out. They reflect what the church wanted them to. I believe almost as much was taken out of the bible as remains, but I could be wrong. There are some very interesting scriptures tossed out of the Bible in 364 A.D. cite I have no clue how authentic this really is, but I.Infancy and II.Infancy were really fascinating. My belief in God is strong, but I don’t have a problem poking a stick at that bear called religion now and then. It’s good to do your own thinking.
IWLN I am with you here, having been taught that the baptising of Jesus by John was the washing away of his Human sins from childhood. I havn’t seen any reason to doubt that idea, if Jesus was sinless before the baptism, then why the baptism?
Please show us all where the Bible says that purpose of Christ’s baptism was to wash away the sins of his childhood. Methinks you’re proceeding from a faulty assumption, here.
