Jesus - sinless "human"???

daithiocondun

We are told to believe that Jesus was COMPLETELY divine and also COMPLETELY human... but without sin. Surely to be without sin is to be INHUMAN? If Jesus was absolutely human - just like us - then he would have had impure thoughts (which is sinful), lost his temper (sinful) and done something in over 30 years which was a sin??? If Jesus NEVER sinned in his life then he cannot be human. For humanity is flawed and does sin... it's part of what makes us human! How can we believe that a human being lived his whole life without EVER ONCE SINNING???! Plus... are we not told in the bible that Jesus once lost his cool and trashed market stalls which were set up on holy ground... surely thus wrath is a sin of some kind???!!!

Secondly, we are also told that Mary is the Immaculate Conception??? So she was also without sin??? How can this be? A human being (who is not divine... or part of the Trinity for that matter) who was without sin yet still a normal human being???

Please explain... and save the biblical references and quotes... they can all be argued and used to explain anything. Cheers!!!

Zombrex

daithiocondun wrote: »

Please explain... and save the biblical references and quotes

You might be in the wrong forum ...

JimiTime

daithiocondun wrote: »

save the biblical references and quotes... they can all be argued and used to explain anything. Cheers!!!

its remarkable the amount of times I've heard this said. Its like people turn off their brains and powers of deduction when it comes to the bible. Rather than actually thinking about what one actually thinks it means, they'd rather deduce that it can be interpretted in so many ways. Yes, one can interpret or misinterpret things, but at the end of the day, we all have the ability to decide what we think it means. It may be wrong or right, but using a good critical analysis you can decide for yourself. God willing, you may be even guided by Holy Spirit if your search for truth is humble and genuine.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

its remarkable the amount of times I've heard this said. Its like people turn off their brains and powers of deduction when it comes to the bible. Rather than actually thinking about what one actually thinks it means, they'd rather deduce that it can be interpretted in so many ways. Yes, one can interpret or misinterpret things, but at the end of the day, we all have the ability to decide what we think it means. It may be wrong or right, but using a good critical analysis you can decide for yourself. God willing, you may be even guided by Holy Spirit if your search for truth is humble and genuine.

I think what he means is that Jesus can be human and sinless, that isn't a problem, because it says so here in the Bible isn't an explanation he would be happy with, and is there a more detailed explanation that builds from first principles without contradicting itself would be more believable. But then since all of this is founded on the Bible anyway, that is rather a dead end. From a Christian point of view the Bible is hardly going to be correct in one place, where one forms these first principles about the nature of humans and the nature of sin, and then wrong in another where it says Jesus can be sinless (does it actually say he was sinless?) So Bible quotes saying Jesus can be sinless are as good as a logical deduction that Jesus can be sinless deduced from other Bible quotes.

If that makes sense.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I think what he means is that Jesus can be human and sinless, that isn't a problem, because it says so here in the Bible isn't an explanation he would be happy with, and is there a more detailed explanation that builds from first principles without contradicting itself would be more believable. But then since all of this is founded on the Bible anyway, that is rather a dead end. From a Christian point of view the Bible is hardly going to be correct in one place, where one forms these first principles about the nature of humans and the nature of sin, and then wrong in another where it says Jesus can be sinless (does it actually say he was sinless?) So Bible quotes saying Jesus can be sinless are as good as a logical deduction that Jesus can be sinless deduced from other Bible quotes.

If that makes sense.

It does. And as you said yourself, it all leads to a bit of a dead end if someone denies us the use of the most integral document in Christianity.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

its remarkable the amount of times I've heard this said.

The reason that it's said is because that's what christians do. That's not an interpretation of the bible, but a simple observation of people's actions.

Fanny Cradock

An observation, maybe (that says nothing about it's accuracy, however). An assumption, definitely.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

The reason that it's said is because that's what christians do.

If you mean that Christians have different interpretations, then so what. It still doesn't mean that you can't use your own powers of deduction. In many ways, christians are guided, or misguided, by religion. Their own powers of deduction are switched off and given to someone else. Catholocism would be a prime example. It does not stop someone from reading a text honestly and asking themselves what they think was being said. In many ways, being irreligious gives one a better opportunity to read the texts with discernment. Only the witness of the Holy Spirit can give guarantee's to meaning, but our capacity to think, certainly can give us a good idea.

That's not an interpretation of the bible, but a simple observation of people's actions.

But again, why would this observation impact on ones own critical analysis of it? Does it stifle ones own ability to think?

Often i hear it used lazily, by someone who knows very little of the subject, but has heard some 'smart' person say it. It has become cliche.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

If you mean that Christians have different interpretations, then so what.

I don't think that is what he means.

What he means (I assume) is that so often when asked to explain or justify the logic or reason behind a Christian belief the only answer put forward is along the lines of "because it says so in the Bible", or "I don't know why X is the way it is, but it definitely is that way because it says so in the Bible"

That is a rather pointless position from the point of view of understanding the reason and logic behind something. It is simply stating that something is so, not explaining why it is so.

For example, if someone asked "Why is it illegal to steal", a rather non-answer would be because it says so in the law books. That ignores why it says so in the law books in the first place, ie what is the reason behind making stealing illegal.

In terms of the question of how can Jesus be human but never sin I think daithiocondun is asking for the logic for how that is possible, not an answer along the lines of "because it says so, here chapter verse"

Of course, as I said above, when dealing with a concept that only originates in the Bible, such as sin, this is a flawed way of looking at the question.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that is what he means.

What he means (I assume) is that so often when asked to explain or justify the logic or reason behind a Christian belief the only answer put forward is along the lines of "because it says so in the Bible", or "I don't know why X is the way it is, but it definitely is that way because it says so in the Bible"

That is a rather pointless position from the point of view of understanding the reason and logic behind something. It is simply stating that something is so, not explaining why it is so.

For example, if someone asked "Why is it illegal to steal", a rather non-answer would be because it says so in the law books. That ignores why it says so in the law books in the first place, ie what is the reason behind making stealing illegal.

In terms of the question of how can Jesus be human but never sin I think daithiocondun is asking for the logic for how that is possible, not an answer along the lines of "because it says so, here chapter verse"

Of course, as I said above, when dealing with a concept that only originates in the Bible, such as sin, this is a flawed way of looking at the question.

Sorry WN, I'm not even talking in the context of the OP's question. I'm just generally objecting to the statement 'the bible can be used to argue and explain anything'.

What you say above i agree with. i know what he's asking, I've just not answered it:)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think that is what he means.

What he means (I assume) is that so often when asked to explain or justify the logic or reason behind a Christian belief the only answer put forward is along the lines of "because it says so in the Bible", or "I don't know why X is the way it is, but it definitely is that way because it says so in the Bible"

I think that's unfair. To my mind, most of the Christian here wont give a simple "because it says so in the Bible" answer. This, of course, leads to the odd accusation of 'mental gymnastics' aimed at us.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example, if someone asked "Why is it illegal to steal", a rather non-answer would be because it says so in the law books. That ignores why it says so in the law books in the first place, ie what is the reason behind making stealing illegal.

Fair enough. But I think it is important to establish what it says the law books. To use your example, and apply the OP's demands, we would not be allowed to consider what's said in the law books at all.

Anyway, 10th post and no direct answers to the OP. HAHAHA!

JimiTime

daithiocondun wrote: »

We are told to believe that Jesus was COMPLETELY divine and also COMPLETELY human... but without sin. Surely to be without sin is to be INHUMAN?

define human.

BrianCalgary

daithiocondun wrote: »

We are told to believe that Jesus was COMPLETELY divine and also COMPLETELY human... but without sin. Surely to be without sin is to be INHUMAN? If Jesus was absolutely human - just like us - then he would have had impure thoughts (which is sinful), lost his temper (sinful) and done something in over 30 years which was a sin??? If Jesus NEVER sinned in his life then he cannot be human. For humanity is flawed and does sin... it's part of what makes us human! How can we believe that a human being lived his whole life without EVER ONCE SINNING???! Plus... are we not told in the bible that Jesus once lost his cool and trashed market stalls which were set up on holy ground... surely thus wrath is a sin of some kind???!!!!!!

Humanity was created to be in communion with God and without sin. Jesus led a life by example, a life that was completely human; without sin and in the comlete will of God.

Being human and living life to the fullest is to be living it without sin in the complete will of God.

daithiocondun wrote: »

Secondly, we are also told that Mary is the Immaculate Conception??? So she was also without sin??? How can this be? A human being (who is not divine... or part of the Trinity for that matter) who was without sin yet still a normal human being??? !!!

Nowhere does the Bible teach that Mary was without sin. That is the make-up of man.

daithiocondun wrote: »

Please explain... and save the biblical references and quotes... they can all be argued and used to explain anything. Cheers!!!

No can do. The Bible is the authority.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I think that's unfair. To my mind, most of the Christian here wont give a simple "because it says so in the Bible" answer. This, of course, leads to the odd accusation of 'mental gymnastics' aimed at us.

Well i guess we will have to disagree there Fanny

To me that seems to eventually be what most explanations on this forum boil down to, along with the odd charge along the lines of how would we, humble humans, know better than all powerful God, or my favorite response, I don't know but I look forward to asking God when I see him.

The point I'm making though is that the atheist/skeptic charge often made that this is a cop-out is itself a little irrational when dealing with concepts that only exist in the Bible in the first place, such as sin.

It is rather pointless to ask for an explanation of something like Jesus' sinless nature while requiring a ban on invoking the Bible, when you have to invoke the Bible to justify the existence of sin in the first place.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair enough. But I think it is important to establish what it says the law books.

Certainly, but important for different reasons.

To understand the law it is not simply a matter of understanding the meaning of what the law says, but also the reason it says it.

That is of course only true in the context of wish to actually fully understand the law.

If the focus is instead on following the law, with understanding it being irrelevant to that, then the central issue is the correct meaning of what the law says, not why it says it.

I would imagine Christians would take an in between approach, they would seek to understand what they can, but not understanding God's wishes does not mean they would not follow them, or attempt to ascertain the exact meaning of his commands.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To use your example, and apply the OP's demands, we would not be allowed to consider what's said in the law books at all.

Not exactly. If the book explains the reason behind a law then it is possible to explain the law without having to quote the law book. If it doesn't explain the reason behind a law then quoting the law itself won't explain the reasoning.

The Bible may explain something like why Jesus can be human and sinless, but if it does then it is unnecessary to quote these passages, you can simply explain to the OP the reasoning explained in the Bible. It might be the case that you think the exact wording in the Bible explains it better than any other way, but that is some what secondary. It should still be possible to explain it without resorting to quoting the Bible, even if you feel that it is uneconomical with English.

On the other hand if it doesn't, then simply quoting Bible passages that state that Jesus can be human and sinless does not educate the OP as to how this can be.

Either way quoting Biblical passages becomes rather redundant.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Anyway, 10th post and no direct answers to the OP. HAHAHA!

Well i would answer the OP that my understanding is that the concept of Jesus being sinless is not taken directly from the New Testament but is instead and inferred assertion. But I might be mistaken about that.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Humanity was created to be in communion with God and without sin. Jesus led a life by example, a life that was completely human; without sin and in the comlete will of God.

Being human and living life to the fullest is to be living it without sin in the complete will of God.

Is it possible or probably for an adult human, other than Jesus, to live a life completely devoid of sin?

I think this might be where the OP's confusion is coming from, as I've been told by Christians, including some on this forum, that this would never happen, our sinful nature inherited from Adam compels us to give into to sin.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Is it possible or probably for an adult human, other than Jesus, to live a life completely devoid of sin?

No it's not possible for a human to live a life without sin.

I think it's worth striving for though.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No it's not possible for a human to live a life without sin.

I think it's worth striving for though.

I think that gets to the heart of what the OP was asking.

Assertion 1 - It is not possible for a human to live without sin
Assertion 2 - Jesus was a human
Assertion 3 - Jesus lived without sinning

The issue being of course assertion 3.

Not being a Christian, and being given out to for putting forward "Christian" point of views, I don't want to answer for you guys, but I would imagine the obvious conclusion is that

Assertion 1 - It is not possible for a human to live without sin because as punishment for Adam's sin God removed his grace from us and therefore we slide towards sin
Assertion 2 - Jesus was a human but retained God's grace
Assertion 3 - Jesus lived without sinning because he was the only human since Adam & Eve to have God's grace

Now that is just what I came up with, it most likely is nonsense to you guys. But that is the type of think the OP is looking for I think.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

I think that gets to the heart of what the OP was asking.

Assertion 1 - It is not possible for a human to live without sin
Assertion 2 - Jesus was a human
Assertion 3 - Jesus lived without sinning

The issue being of course assertion 3.

Not being a Christian, and being given out to for putting forward "Christian" point of views, I don't want to answer for you guys, but I would imagine the obvious conclusion is that

Assertion 1 - It is not possible for a human to live without sin because as punishment for Adam's sin God removed his grace from us and therefore we slide towards sin
Assertion 2 - Jesus was a human but retained God's grace
Assertion 3 - Jesus lived without sinning because he was the only human since Adam & Eve to have God's grace

Now that is just what I came up with, it most likely is nonsense to you guys. But that is the type of think the OP is looking for I think.

Humans inherited sin from Adam. But Jesus was not Adams son, but Gods. He had the capacity to sin, just as Adam did, but did not blemish himself like Adam did, and told the tempter to take a hike. A great description I've heard when asked 'was it Jesus' life or death the important part?' is; 'Both, for it was his life that gave his death its value'.

wolfsbane

daithiocondun said:

We are told to believe that Jesus was COMPLETELY divine and also COMPLETELY human... but without sin. Surely to be without sin is to be INHUMAN? If Jesus was absolutely human - just like us - then he would have had impure thoughts (which is sinful), lost his temper (sinful) and done something in over 30 years which was a sin??? If Jesus NEVER sinned in his life then he cannot be human. For humanity is flawed and does sin... it's part of what makes us human! How can we believe that a human being lived his whole life without EVER ONCE SINNING???!

Adam & Eve were human, and originally sinless, so sin is a later characteristic of humaness and not essential to it.

Jesus was born without Adam's sinful nature, being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.

Plus... are we not told in the bible that Jesus once lost his cool and trashed market stalls which were set up on holy ground... surely thus wrath is a sin of some kind???!!!

No, this wrath was a just anger at man's wickedness.

Secondly, we are also told that Mary is the Immaculate Conception??? So she was also without sin??? How can this be? A human being (who is not divine... or part of the Trinity for that matter) who was without sin yet still a normal human being???

That is not Bible teaching, just the inventions of foolish or wicked men, following in the steps of their Pharisee forebearers.

Please explain... and save the biblical references and quotes... they can all be argued and used to explain anything. Cheers!!!

As another brother has pointed out, the Bible is the only source for our teaching about the sinlessness of Christ, and the essence of human nature.

daithiocondun

As the original OP of this issue I would like to clear up a few things. Firstly, my reference to not using biblical references was not intended to signal that the bible is not important... what I meant was that I didn't want people to fling in loads of bible references as this is not the kind of answer I'm looking for.

I KNOW what the Bible says... I study it! I am looking for an answer from a Systematic point of view. I want someone to explain HOW Jesus was human and without sin - without telling me where it says it in the bible... EVERYONE OK with that??? Thanks.

Regarding some of the points raised that Jesus was born in God's grace and hence free from the propensity towards sin... OK therein lies my problem. I have NO issue with the fact that Christ was sinless. My major issue lies in the fact that he is proclaimed sinless and completely human. By mere virtue of the fact that Christ was born inn God's grace means that he was born DIFFERENT from EVERY HUMAN BEING THAT HAS AND WILL EVER BE BORN ON EARTH - Conclusion???: Jesus cannot be completely human as he is completely different from ALL of humanity.

Fair enough if the church believes that Christ was without sin... but this can only be said if they admit that he was different from human beings too. He was born under different circumstances and therefore was free of a major human trait which makes him somewhat inhuman.

Plus, the remark responded regarding Christ losing his temper... I don't care what you say: acting violently in response to anger is a SIN. If I saw someone selling fruit on top of my mother's grave and I lost my cool, beat up the seller and trashed his stand... the church would consider it a Sin and expect me to confess it to God. Jesus get's special treatment and you give me a wishy washy reason as to why it was not a sin. Christ let his emotions out and went mental for a while... no biggie, but still a SIN!!!!

In conclusion... saying that Jesus was without sin and also a full human being just like us is the same as saying that "Timmy down the road is a human being except he doesn't breath air... he lives in a fishtank... oh and by the way he is a perfect human being... who would have guessed!"... sorry if it sounds trivial and stupid but its that ridiculous to me.

Happy arguing.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Humans inherited sin from Adam. But Jesus was not Adams son, but Gods.

Well there you go, an explanation that doesn't simply quote a Bible verse.

If I understand correctly, we sin because of God's punishment of Adam. Jesus was the only human apart from Adam and Eve not inherit this punishment as he came from God not from humans.

Therefore he, like Adam, is a human with free will capable of sin but not condemned to inevitably sin.

daithiocondun, that explain it for you?

Slav

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No it's not possible for a human to live a life without sin.

I don't think this is 100% correct from the Christian point of view because they have an example of Jesus Christ.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jesus was born without Adam's sinful nature, being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.

One might come to a conclusion that the human sinful nature is patrilineally inherited. So if some day it would be possible to conceive a baby of two females by means of artificial fertilization then that person would not sin.

daithiocondun wrote: »

By mere virtue of the fact that Christ was born inn God's grace means that he was born DIFFERENT from EVERY HUMAN BEING THAT HAS AND WILL EVER BE BORN ON EARTH

Absolutely. Bearing His divine nature is the difference.

daithiocondun wrote: »

- Conclusion???: Jesus cannot be completely human as he is completely different from ALL of humanity.

Christians don't see a reason why human and divine natures cannot coexist together "without confusion, change, division, or separation". This matter was finally clarified in 451 during the Council of Chalcedon. As it was agreed our Lord Jesus Christ is of two natures that came together in one person. Jesus could not sin because it would be against His divine nature. At the same time (as it has been correctly pointed out) humans originally are not sinful by nature. It is person that sins, not its nature, so there is no contradiction here.

thebaldsoprano

daithiocondun wrote: »

Please explain... and save the biblical references and quotes... they can all be argued and used to explain anything. Cheers!!!

Not sure Bible quotes and references are a problem. It's whether you're willing to take the Bible as an article of faith that is more likely where problems lie.

Zombrex

thebaldsoprano wrote: »

It's whether you're willing to take the Bible as an article of faith that is more likely where problems lie.

Ummm ... deja ve

Wicknight wrote:

You might be in the wrong forum ...

Given that without faith in the correctness of the Bible one would have very little reason to believe in either sin or Jesus, the idea that a sinless Jesus some how is a problem for faith in the Bible is a bit of a non-starter.

thebaldsoprano

Wicknight wrote: »

Ummm ... deja ve

Given that without faith in the correctness of the Bible one would have very little reason to believe in either sin or Jesus, the idea that a sinless Jesus some how is a problem for faith in the Bible is a bit of a non-starter.

Yeah, took this a bit out of context alright... Meant that it needn't be necessary to believe in the Bible to learn something from it.

A sinless Jesus without believing in the Bible would be a bit of a tough one alright

BrianCalgary

daithiocondun wrote: »

I KNOW what the Bible says... I study it! I am looking for an answer from a Systematic point of view. I want someone to explain HOW Jesus was human and without sin - without telling me where it says it in the bible... EVERYONE OK with that??? Thanks.

Regarding some of the points raised that Jesus was born in God's grace and hence free from the propensity towards sin... OK therein lies my problem. I have NO issue with the fact that Christ was sinless. My major issue lies in the fact that he is proclaimed sinless and completely human. By mere virtue of the fact that Christ was born inn God's grace means that he was born DIFFERENT from EVERY HUMAN BEING THAT HAS AND WILL EVER BE BORN ON EARTH - Conclusion???: Jesus cannot be completely human as he is completely different from ALL of humanity. .

Agreed Jesus is different from every human in that he was also fully God. That does not take away from His humanity.

Being human means that Jesus faced temptation: the difference being that He was also God, He was able to reject temptation.

daithiocondun wrote: »

Fair enough if the church believes that Christ was without sin... but this can only be said if they admit that he was different from human beings too. He was born under different circumstances and therefore was free of a major human trait which makes him somewhat inhuman. .

True, but you have to look at what being human means. We were created to be in communion with God. Jesus was. We were made to be without sin, Jesus was.

Jesus was and is the only TRUE human that has ever lived, because of His special relationship to God.

We are the ones that are inhuman, in that we sin and do not fully reflect theimage of God.

daithiocondun wrote: »

Plus, the remark responded regarding Christ losing his temper... I don't care what you say: acting violently in response to anger is a SIN. If I saw someone selling fruit on top of my mother's grave and I lost my cool, beat up the seller and trashed his stand... the church would consider it a Sin and expect me to confess it to God. Jesus get's special treatment and you give me a wishy washy reason as to why it was not a sin. Christ let his emotions out and went mental for a while... no biggie, but still a SIN!!!!.

It was a calculated act to make apoint with the ruling Jews.

daithiocondun wrote: »

In conclusion... saying that Jesus was without sin and also a full human being just like us is the same as saying that "Timmy down the road is a human being except he doesn't breath air... he lives in a fishtank... oh and by the way he is a perfect human being... who would have guessed!"... sorry if it sounds trivial and stupid but its that ridiculous to me.

Happy arguing.

Sorry bad analogy. We are th eones who are less than human. Mankind was created in teh image of God and to reflect that image.

We fail in our reflection of God's image, which makes us less than human. Jesus reflected that image perfectly, which makes Him the human.

gramlab

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Agreed Jesus is different from every human in that he was also fully God. That does not take away from His humanity.

Being human means that Jesus faced temptation: the difference being that He was also God, He was able to reject temptation.

If its taken that he was not a child of adam and this is the reason he could not sin, did he inherit all other human traits and failings besides this?
Or is it assumed that he only got the good bits and none of the bad/potentially bad ones because of his divine nature.

Also, since he was born of Mary and presuming she was a "daughter of adam", would this mean that genetically he inherited half of the human ability to sin?

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, this wrath was a just anger at man's wickedness.

What about when he got angry with a fig tree and cursed it for not having any fruit for him to eat (even though it was the wrong time of year and so couldn't have any fruit)?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Jesus was and is the only TRUE human that has ever lived, because of His special relationship to God.

Wouldn't that also include Adam and Eve? It is only after they went against God that humanity was cursed

BrianCalgary

gramlab wrote: »

If its taken that he was not a child of adam and this is the reason he could not sin, did he inherit all other human traits and failings besides this?
Or is it assumed that he only got the good bits and none of the bad/potentially bad ones because of his divine nature.

Also, since he was born of Mary and presuming she was a "daughter of adam", would this mean that genetically he inherited half of the human ability to sin?

Jesus was fully human complete with the potential to sin and the ability to make a choice. See the temptation that He was put under by Satan and the way He responded. He chose not to sin.

Being born of Mary I dont think has anything to do with His propensity to sin.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Wouldn't that also include Adam and Eve? It is only after they went against God that humanity was cursed

Yes it would.

daithiocondun

Yes, Jesus was both human and divine and I accept therefore he was different from us. What many of you are saying though is that human beings cannot refrain from sin, whereas Christ did.

To be human is to share the traits of humanity - e.g all humans breath air, need food, tend to communicate vocally, sometimes make poor decisions, sometimes sin.etc... all of these things are human qualities. Christ didn't conform to all of these hence he was not human.

What many of you are arguing is that God created humanity such that we all must sin at some stage in our lives, then Jesus arrived, did not sin but is conveniently called human too even though he is the ONLY person EVER in existance to be sinless. So your argument is that humans aren't human??? That only Jesus is human???

Also, it is naieve to believe that Christ NEVER sinned. I was taught as a child that swearing is a sin as commanded by the 2nd commandment... so Jesus never said "****" when he banged his finger with a hammer??? Jesus never looked at an attractive female and had a dirty thought... even for a second?? Jesus never lost his temper or picked up 10cents and put it in his pocket or missed church or ANYTHING???
I know these are small sins and are trivial but they are sins... and I think that it would be impossible for a healthy, male to live for 33 years without doing ANYTHING remotely sinful.

And yes, Jesus did go mental with the people at the stalls on the holy ground. It is irrelevant whether he was set up... he lost control and committed the sin of wrath. And there is also a reference to Christ cursing a tree somewhere in the bible... another sin. It's absurd to believe otherwise.

BrianCalgary

daithiocondun wrote: »

Yes, Jesus was both human and divine and I accept therefore he was different from us. What many of you are saying though is that human beings cannot refrain from sin, whereas Christ did.

To be human is to share the traits of humanity - e.g all humans breath air, need food, tend to communicate vocally, sometimes make poor decisions, sometimes sin.etc... all of these things are human qualities. Christ didn't conform to all of these hence he was not human.

What many of you are arguing is that God created humanity such that we all must sin at some stage in our lives, then Jesus arrived, did not sin but is conveniently called human too even though he is the ONLY person EVER in existance to be sinless. So your argument is that humans aren't human??? That only Jesus is human???

You are not getting this right. We are not arguing that God created humanity so that we all must sin. Let's get this part staright.

God created humanity in His image. He created us with the ability to choose. Th edefinition of human from a Christian perspective is: to reflect the image of God as mankind was initially created.

Every human does not reflect this image. Only three humans (thanks wicknight ) have ever reflected this stae; Adam, Eve and Jesus.

Adam and Eve fell, they succumbed to temptation. Jesus did not.

Jesus' life reflected that of what a true human life should be: Complete communion with God, and free from sin.

We however can not achieve this without Jesus and we will only achieve the full state of humanity when we are united with God in Heaven.

PDN

daithiocondun wrote: »

Yes, Jesus was both human and divine and I accept therefore he was different from us. What many of you are saying though is that human beings cannot refrain from sin, whereas Christ did.

To be human is to share the traits of humanity - e.g all humans breath air, need food, tend to communicate vocally, sometimes make poor decisions, sometimes sin.etc... all of these things are human qualities. Christ didn't conform to all of these hence he was not human.

What many of you are arguing is that God created humanity such that we all must sin at some stage in our lives, then Jesus arrived, did not sin but is conveniently called human too even though he is the ONLY person EVER in existance to be sinless. So your argument is that humans aren't human??? That only Jesus is human???

And yes, Jesus did go mental with the people at the stalls on the holy ground. It is irrelevant whether he was set up... he lost control and committed the sin of wrath. And there is also a reference to Christ cursing a tree somewhere in the bible... another sin. It's absurd to believe otherwise.

Adam and Eve were created without sin. So sin is not an integral part of being human. However, since Adam and Eve every human being has indeed been born with a propesnsity to sin (what we call 'original sin'). I think where you are getting confused is in equating the following two propositions:
a) Every single human being (except Jesus) for thousands (millions?) of years has sinned.
b) Sinfulness is integral to being human.
I would say that a) is true but b) is not.

Maybe an illustration or analogy can help explain why the two are not the same. Every human being that has ever lived up until a few years ago was born via normal copulation between a man and a woman. Then, in 1978, Louise Brown, the first 'test tube baby' was born in Oldham. At that point in history Louise Brown was unique and different from all other humans - but she was still human. So, the fact that all human beings before Louise had one common trait (born as a result of normal sexual intercourse) did not make that one trait an integral part of being human. Nor did it diminish Louise's humanity because she lacked that common trait.

Also, it is naieve to believe that Christ NEVER sinned. I was taught as a child that swearing is a sin as commanded by the 2nd commandment... so Jesus never said "****" when he banged his finger with a hammer??? Jesus never looked at an attractive female and had a dirty thought... even for a second?? Jesus never lost his temper or picked up 10cents and put it in his pocket or missed church or ANYTHING???
I know these are small sins and are trivial but they are sins... and I think that it would be impossible for a healthy, male to live for 33 years without doing ANYTHING remotely sinful.

No. I think it would rather be naive to judge the Incarnate Son of God by our own standards and experiences.

And yes, Jesus did go mental with the people at the stalls on the holy ground. It is irrelevant whether he was set up... he lost control and committed the sin of wrath. And there is also a reference to Christ cursing a tree somewhere in the bible... another sin. It's absurd to believe otherwise.

Anger is not, of itself, a sin. Indeed there are times when anger is the only righteous response to a situation. If a person could hear about a young child being sexually abused and not feel any righteous anger then I believe such a lack of anger is an indication of sinfulness not sinlessness.

kelly1

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Every human does not reflect this image. Only three humans (thanks wicknight ) have ever reflected this stae; Adam, Eve and Jesus.

... and Mary. Jesus is the new Adam and Mary is the new Eve.

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

PDN wrote: »

Adam and Eve were created without sin. So sin is not an integral part of being human. However, since Adam and Eve every human being has indeed been born with a propesnsity to sin (what we call 'original sin').

PDN, if I may be a bit pedantic for a moment, I think Adam and Eve were created without original sin so the wouldn't have had a tendency to sin. It was only after they sinned (after being conned) that they lot the preternatural gifts of

- infused knowledge
- absence of concupiscence
- freedom from death and sickness

( from http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0509fea4sb2.asp )

To the OP, I think the answer to your question is that Jesus was conceived without Original Sin and therefore He had the preternatural gifts listed above.
Every other human being (except Mary) was born with OS and hence we have a tendency to sin. Jesus' will was totally aligned with that of His Father. He fully understood the enormity of sin.

daithiocondun

And now I see someone has said that INDEED Mary was too without sin... I mean come on!! Explain how a woman, born of flesh and blood and not the Daughter of God (in the same way that Christ was) was born without sin??? What is the major obsession that the church has with declaring certain major figureheads as divine, sinless, pure, perfect etc. Surely we can all accept that Mary sinned, that Christ may have sinned (tongue in cheek here!)

Does it really affect the church's position to think that (shock horror) Christ said "feck" once in his life, or that as a child he stole a Cadbury's Cream Egg from a stall??? What does it matter! He was supposedly entirely human, so what's the problem if he or Mary sinned??? Humanity is not perfect and therefore Jesus' humanity need not have been perfect!

Surely the major point is that he was also divine, and it is through his divinity that we shall be all saved. I firmly believe that the church uses the idea of a perfect, pure and sinless Christ and Mary as some sort of promotion for them.

Christianity is NOT affected whatsoever if Christ sinned, is it?? The sinfulness comes from his humanity and we shoule be able to accept therefore that he was just like us... because humanity is not perfect.

I mean even God himself admits he made a mistake when He said that it was wrong of him to flood the earth and that He would never do it again... that doesn't affect Christianity nor does it shake the pillars of Christian morality or ethics or beliefs.

Think for one second... if Jesus was capable of sin or (God forbid!) did sin... why does it matter?????? Does it alter the fact that He was God's son, that his divine nature as one of the persons of the Trinity of God saves us from sin?? No it doesn't. The issue of Christ's sinlessness is a man-made concept designed to establish Christ as a wonderful, glorious, perfect human so that we would revere Him more...

In my humble opinion... I can relate better to a Christ who had faults, who was like us in his humanity. Who suffered, loved, hated, cried, sinned, repented just like us. A Christ who, despite his faults, died on the cross and rose in glory to heaven, broken in body but resplendant in soul. A perfect Christ is a Christ to whom we can never aspire... because we cannot refrain from sin.

Slav

daithiocondun wrote: »

And now I see someone has said that INDEED Mary was too without sin... I mean come on!! Explain how a woman, born of flesh and blood and not the Daughter of God (in the same way that Christ was) was born without sin???

Immaculate Conception is only accepted by the RCC and rejected as heresy by others (well, actually Orthodox is generally OK if somebody believes it /or believes the opposite/ so by no means it's a dogmatic matter in OC). This dogma of RCC has been developed during centuries and we cannot say that it was developed by mentally disabled. There are logical conclusions behind it and it's better to educate yourself first on the subject before criticising it for the sake of the critics be stronger!

daithiocondun wrote: »

church uses the idea of a perfect, pure and sinless Christ and Mary as some sort of promotion for them.

Not at all. It's just a logical conclusion (at least in case of Christ).

daithiocondun wrote: »

Christianity is NOT affected whatsoever if Christ sinned, is it??

It is. In fact it completely ruins the whole teaching. It would mean that Christ was not God Himself. That would make Him a prophet at best like in Islam; it would not be Christianity as there would be no place for the salvation as it's understood by Christians.

daithiocondun wrote: »

The sinfulness comes from his humanity

Once again, not in Christianity. Human sinfulness comes from 2 things:
1) Free will AND
2) Not being in communion with God.

In case of Christ only 1) is true as He was in perfect communion with God because He had a divine nature as well as His human nature.

kelly1

daithiocondun wrote: »

And now I see someone has said that INDEED Mary was too without sin... I mean come on!! Explain how a woman, born of flesh and blood and not the Daughter of God (in the same way that Christ was) was born without sin??? What is the major obsession that the church has with declaring certain major figureheads as divine, sinless, pure, perfect etc. Surely we can all accept that Mary sinned, that Christ may have sinned (tongue in cheek here!)

Did you take note of the preternatural gifts I mentioned? Don't you think it's possible that God could create someone with a tendency to sin. i.e. the same as a person would be in Heaven? If you have no difficulty with this idea, then when could you not apply this to Christ and the Blessed Virgin?

daithiocondun wrote: »

Humanity is not perfect and therefore Jesus' humanity need not have been perfect!

If Jesus had sinned, He would not be a worthy sacrifice in the eyes of God in order to atone for our sins. See http://unavoxveritatis.blogspot.com/2008/03/impeccability-of-christ.html

daithiocondun wrote: »

Surely the major point is that he was also divine, and it is through his divinity that we shall be all saved. I firmly believe that the church uses the idea of a perfect, pure and sinless Christ and Mary as some sort of promotion for them.

It was Christ's infinite human dignity that gave His sacrifice infinite value. God cannot suffer so Christ had to assume human flesh in order to accomplish this. Christ derives His dignity from His union with His divinity and His absolute impeccability.

daithiocondun wrote: »

Christianity is NOT affected whatsoever if Christ sinned, is it??

Yes, it is. If Christ had sinned He would have finite dignity which would effectively make His sacrifice on the cross worthless because a finite sacrifice cannot atone for infinite offence against God's infinite goodness and justice.

daithiocondun wrote: »

I mean even God himself admits he made a mistake when He said that it was wrong of him to flood the earth and that He would never do it again... that doesn't affect Christianity nor does it shake the pillars of Christian morality or ethics or beliefs.

I'm not sure that God ever admitted to making a mistake!

daithiocondun wrote: »

Think for one second... if Jesus was capable of sin or (God forbid!) did sin... why does it matter?????? Does it alter the fact that He was God's son, that his divine nature as one of the persons of the Trinity of God saves us from sin?? No it doesn't. The issue of Christ's sinlessness is a man-made concept designed to establish Christ as a wonderful, glorious, perfect human so that we would revere Him more...

Why do you say Christ's impeccability is a man-made concept? The bible makes it clear that Christ never sinned so are you doubting the bible?

daithiocondun wrote: »

In my humble opinion... I can relate better to a Christ who had faults, who was like us in his humanity. Who suffered, loved, hated, cried, sinned, repented just like us. A Christ who, despite his faults, died on the cross and rose in glory to heaven, broken in body but resplendant in soul. A perfect Christ is a Christ to whom we can never aspire... because we cannot refrain from sin.

Why would God give us a less than perfect model to follow? God doesn't do mediocre!

This article might be of some use:-

http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/2052.php

wolfsbane

Slav said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Jesus was born without Adam's sinful nature, being conceived in Mary by the Holy Spirit.
One might come to a conclusion that the human sinful nature is patrilineally inherited. So if some day it would be possible to conceive a baby of two females by means of artificial fertilization then that person would not sin.

You mean it is possible to get a male from only female chromosomes?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Slav said:

You mean it is possible to get a male from only female chromosomes?

You think a sinful nature is passed in chromosomes?

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

What about when he got angry with a fig tree and cursed it for not having any fruit for him to eat (even though it was the wrong time of year and so couldn't have any fruit)?

No mention of anger in the account. The event was an acted out parable, used by Christ to illustrate God's right to expect fruit even from the barren and the judgement that falls on such.

Israel is often portrayed as a fig tree, and she was barren toward God. No fruit was present because she had deserted God; God was coming to her for the fruit He was entitled to; her failure would lead to her destruction.

This is exactly what happened to that generation. God sent His Son to them, looking for their obedience; He found none; the nation perished in His judgement (AD70).

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

Slav said:

You mean it is possible to get a male from only female chromosomes?

Did I say the baby has to be a boy?
Anyway currently it's technically not possible, be it a female or a male. Obviously conceiving an XX would be much easier if you have two female parents rather then messing with making a Y somehow. But all this genetic has nothing to do with the point I was making.

wolfsbane

daithiocondun said:

Also, it is naieve to believe that Christ NEVER sinned. I was taught as a child that swearing is a sin as commanded by the 2nd commandment... so Jesus never said "****" when he banged his finger with a hammer??? Jesus never looked at an attractive female and had a dirty thought... even for a second?? Jesus never lost his temper or picked up 10cents and put it in his pocket or missed church or ANYTHING???
I know these are small sins and are trivial but they are sins... and I think that it would be impossible for a healthy, male to live for 33 years without doing ANYTHING remotely sinful.

Not if He did not have a sinful nature. With a perfectly holy nature there is no reason He had to sin.

And yes, Jesus did go mental with the people at the stalls on the holy ground. It is irrelevant whether he was set up... he lost control and committed the sin of wrath. And there is also a reference to Christ cursing a tree somewhere in the bible... another sin. It's absurd to believe otherwise.

Wrath is not a sin - it is, has been and will eternally be practised by God on the wicked. I'm afraid you have been misled by the unbelieving theologians who portray an effeminate Jesus and an over-indulgent Father in Heaven.

Read the Biblical accounts for yourself:
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Did I say the baby has to be a boy?
Anyway currently it's technically not possible, be it a female or a male. Obviously conceiving an XX would be much easier if you have two female parents rather then messing with making a Y somehow. But all this genetic has nothing to do with the point I was making.

Sorry, I was relating it to Jesus being born sinless. But I take your point. The answer would seem to be that such a creature would not be human.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You think a sinful nature is passed in chromosomes?

Well, more that it manifests itself through the paternal line. How exactly that is done, I can't say. But no paternal line, no sin.

Slav

wolfsbane wrote: »

But no paternal line, no sin.

I'd be interested to see your explanation of this. Why is it so? The way you understand it.

Indeed both Adam and Eve sinned. Eve even played more active role in it. Why paternal line only then?

such a creature would not be human.

Could you please clarify on what basis you made this conclusion?

daithiocondun

Wrath is not a sin????!!!!!

It's one of the seven deadly sins!!!!

Noone has sufficiently answered this question... you all tiptoe around the issue. Christ acted in anger and wrath and lost his temper. He wrecked people's private property in temper.

Is there ANYONE out there who will be man enough to call this a sin???

All you have is rubbishy answers pertaining to the idea that Christ was set up on this occassion, that wrath isn't a sin (which is bull!), that Christ acted with his heart in the right place??!!! RUBBISH!!!

If I beat someone up, with good intentions it's still a sin!!!

BOTTOM LINE: Christ got angry with people, lost control over his temper, acted in violence and damaged other poeples property... it does not matter why He did it... the fact is that he did. And wrath is a SIN... EXPLAIN please!!!!! Bloody speakeasy Catholics.....

santing

daithiocondun wrote: »

Wrath is not a sin????!!!!!

It's one of the seven deadly sins!!!!

Noone has sufficiently answered this question... you all tiptoe around the issue. Christ acted in anger and wrath and lost his temper. He wrecked people's private property in temper.

Is there ANYONE out there who will be man enough to call this a sin???

All you have is rubbishy answers pertaining to the idea that Christ was set up on this occassion, that wrath isn't a sin (which is bull!), that Christ acted with his heart in the right place??!!! RUBBISH!!!

If I beat someone up, with good intentions it's still a sin!!!

BOTTOM LINE: Christ got angry with people, lost control over his temper, acted in violence and damaged other poeples property... it does not matter why He did it... the fact is that he did. And wrath is a SIN... EXPLAIN please!!!!! Bloody speakeasy Catholics.....

The Bible clearly indicates that you can be angry and not sin:

Eph 4:26-27 ESV Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, (27) and give no opportunity to the devil.

and

Jas 1:19-20 ESV Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; (20) for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.

and

Rom 12:19 ESV Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

The questions to answer when we are angry are:
1. Does this produce God's righteousness
2. Am I trying to avenge myself, to get even
3. Is my anger becoming part of me, or can I let go before a new day comes?

daithiocondun

santing wrote: »

The Bible clearly indicates that you can be angry and not sin:

Your not listening to me. To be angry is not sinful, but to act violently as a response to anger IS A SIN. In this case we are told that Christ got angry and acted violently and in a destructive manner as a result. It is irrelevant whether Christ's intentions were noble or not. The fact remains that the chuch would consider it sinful if I got angey, failed to control that anger and I hit someone or damaged their property... which is exactly what Jesus did on this occassion.

Anger is not a sin, but wrath is! I mean, there is even a law against damaging anyone's property under any circumstanes whether you think its justified or not.

Another bottom line... if this account of Christ's actions is true (and it must be if its in the Bible) then Christ sinned... it cannot be argued otherwise!

Pompey Magnus

I wonder would it be a sin for a Christian to get upset during collection time in Church and so he brings a whip to attack those who collect the money and chases them away?

Let us not forget that the money changers who Jesus attacked were kosher. Jews from many nations descended on the Temple for Passover, bringing with them their native currency. The money changers were present in the Temple in order to prevent gentile coins with graven images of pagan gods from defiling the Temple. If Jesus (God) didn't want money changers present in his Temple then he shouldn't have set such strict rules on the defilement of the Temple. God is getting angry at the Jews even though he provided incomplete or misleading instructions for them.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry, I was relating it to Jesus being born sinless. But I take your point. The answer would seem to be that such a creature would not be human.

She would be human, she would be a human female. You only need a Y chromosome to produce a male.

Or do you mean such a human would not have a soul (inherited from the father?) and therefore wouldn't be a human in the spiritual sense?