Good debate point

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-26 03:53am

I wonder if this has ever been pointed out before... but I realized something today... Jesus isn't without sin!

When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not yet come.

John 2:3-4

Sounds to me like Jesus wasn't honoring his mother.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-26 04:07am

Why would he be without sin? If nothing else, the concept of traditional sin dictates that Jesus would have some sin on him.

Of course, I think original sin is a load of bunk, but there ya go...

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-07-26 04:24am

The "Jesus without sin" is a crux in the Christian belief system. Jesus didn't sin, so that is why you have to live like Christ.

If he had sinned, it kind of destroys that mentality.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-07-26 04:52am

only a flawless sheep could be sacrificed and turned into lambchop.

if jesus is flawed, then we are only getting 2nd rate lambchop.

htg · Post by **htg** » 2003-07-26 12:57pm

DPDarkPrimus wrote:The "Jesus without sin" is a crux in the Christian belief system. Jesus didn't sin, so that is why you have to live like Christ. If he had sinned, it kind of destroys that mentality.

Almost correct. It is a crucial belief, and if someone can prove that Jesus sinned, Christianity does fall apart.

But the actual reasoning goes more like this:
1. Crime (sin) deserves punishment.
2. All humans are sinful, therefore all humans deserve punishment.
3. One can pay for one's sin, but unfortunately the payment is banishment from God's presence (i.e. hell) which no person can endure.
4. However, a sinless person can offer himself to take on the punishment of a sinful person.
5. See point 2.
6. God is sinless.
7. Therefore God can take on himself the punishment for humanity, and since he is God, he can also endure it.
8. But only humans can pay for the sin of humanity.
9. Solution: God becomes man -> Jesus Christ.

BUT if Jesus sinned, he would only have paid for his own sins, and humanity would still be stuck...

For the above reasons, people have been trying for some 2 eons to prove that Jesus sinned. Of course, they have not been able to do so to the satisfaction of the church.

As to John 2:4, my NIV translation reads "Dear woman, why do you involve me?" (your quote was from the RSV?), and the one commentary I have that covers that text notes that Jesus' response is often translated harsher than the original Greek. Apparently it meant that nobody (not even his mother) can force Jesus to act before he choses to.

Hope all that helps.

Actually, for a better example of this kind, check out Luke 2:41-50. (Of course, us Christians have an explanation for that one, too.)

Henk G.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-26 01:02pm

Howedar wrote:Why would he be without sin? If nothing else, the concept of traditional sin dictates that Jesus would have some sin on him.

Of course, I think original sin is a load of bunk, but there ya go...

Jesus was born without original sin. That is what the Immaculate conception is. It's go tnothing to do with Mary being a virgin, it's that the conception of Jesus wasn't sinful.

As God defines what sin is, He can make anything Without Sin if he wants to concieve a child without sin.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-26 01:09pm

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the
village...ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose
him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him?
thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as
they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye
the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

Sounds like stealing to me?

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-07-26 01:14pm

Having thought about it - further to my last post:

1. God defines what is Sin
2. Jesus is God
3. Jesus is my definition without Sin (if He wants to be)
4. Do what I say, not what I do!

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-26 01:53pm

innerbrat wrote:Jesus was born without original sin. That is what the Immaculate conception is. It's go tnothing to do with Mary being a virgin, it's that the conception of Jesus wasn't sinful.

Actually its the conception of MARY that is immaculate. Mary is the Mother
of Jesus, the woman without original sin who was conceived through divine
means. Jesus is her son, and son of whoever that guy was, Joseph or
something. It is Mary's conception, not Jesus', that is immaculate.

As God defines what sin is, He can make anything Without Sin if he wants to concieve a child without sin.

I don't think thats necessary tho. Jesus was supposed to sin, because he
was taking on all the sin of the world. The real shameful part about the
whole story is that God himself did not sacrifice his life. If God had given his
life to save humanity then he would be redeemed, so to speak, in the eyes
of mankind, because he made the ultimate sacrifice to make up for all the
things he'd done. But God has to be a selfish fuck and send his clone/son
who doesn't really die.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-07-26 02:33pm

kojikun wrote:[ The real shameful part about the
whole story is that God himself did not sacrifice his life. If God had given his
life to save humanity then he would be redeemed, so to speak, in the eyes
of mankind, because he made the ultimate sacrifice to make up for all the
things he'd done. But God has to be a selfish fuck and send his clone/son
who doesn't really die.

perhaps he did, and that's why he's stopped calling since then.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-26 02:43pm

Rye wrote:perhaps he did, and that's why he's stopped calling since then.

We can only hope. :p

Macross · Post by **Macross** » 2003-07-26 03:54pm

Kitsune wrote:Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the
village...ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose
him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him?
thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as
they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye
the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."

Sounds like stealing to me?

Does this mean I can steal anything as long as I say "The Lord hath need of it?"

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2003-07-26 05:26pm

Macross wrote:Does this mean I can steal anything as long as I say "The Lord hath need of it?"

Maybe that is how Pat explains stealing old ladies Social Security checks and using it for diamond mining.

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-26 05:38pm

What baffles me is why does a (supposedly) omnipotent being have to jump through all these hoops in order to save man from his own laws?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-26 05:51pm

Sir Sirius wrote:What baffles me is why does a (supposedly) omnipotent being have to jump through all these hoops in order to save man from his own laws?

Because its all bullshit

Sir Sirius · Post by **Sir Sirius** » 2003-07-26 05:59pm

kojikun wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:What baffles me is why does a (supposedly) omnipotent being have to jump through all these hoops in order to save man from his own laws?
Because its all bullshit

Of course, but how do christians rationalize it? I assume they have some form of a rationalization for all this, because right now it looks like god is chasing his own tail.

SeebianWurm · Post by **SeebianWurm** » 2003-07-26 06:10pm

Sir Sirius wrote:
kojikun wrote:
Sir Sirius wrote:What baffles me is why does a (supposedly) omnipotent being have to jump through all these hoops in order to save man from his own laws?
Because its all bullshit
Of course, but how do christians rationalize it? I assume they have some form of a rationalization for all this, because right now it looks like god is chasing his own tail.

The fundies ignore it. They ignore what being omnipotent really means, and they're so indoctrinated with it already that they almost never independently realize it.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-07-26 06:14pm

Nice to know that god wouldn't give everyone the chance to be without sin, instead he would simply make eveyrone inherently sinners just by being born. So what, we have to prove who's worth sparring, just because the first two screwed up, and god's a bitter, vengeful asshole?

Then again, in my book, debating who god punishes is like arguing over how the Easter Bunny picks how much candy to give to people. He doesn't; he's a ficticious character of a modernized belief system (not a very rational one, either). The end.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-26 06:14pm

kojikun wrote: Actually its the conception of MARY that is immaculate. Mary is the Mother
of Jesus, the woman without original sin who was conceived through divine
means. Jesus is her son, and son of whoever that guy was, Joseph or
something. It is Mary's conception, not Jesus', that is immaculate.

Wrong.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-07-26 08:15pm

Howedar wrote:Wrong.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

NapoleonGH · Post by **NapoleonGH** » 2003-07-27 07:58pm

Howedar, you are quite wrong here, at least according to the catholic church, the Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception.