• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

If Christ was completely without sin...

foolish heart

New member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
470
MBTI Type
ISTP
What is interesting is that the myth teaches us, that not only He was free from Original Sin, but his Mother was also free from Original Sin.

You're thinking of Roman Catholicism. Here is what the Bible says:

By default, none are sinless--
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Jesus was the only exception (no mention of Mary)--
God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:27)

Jesus corrects a woman--
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." (Luke 11:27-28)

Mary identifies herself as having needed a savior--
And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior (Luke 1:46-47)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
You're thinking of Roman Catholicism. Here is what the Bible says:

By default, none are sinless--
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

Jesus was the only exception (no mention of Mary)--
God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:27)

Jesus corrects a woman--
As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you." He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it." (Luke 11:27-28)

Mary identifies herself as having needed a savior--
And Mary said: "My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior (Luke 1:46-47)

Even the devil quotes scripture for his own purposes.
 

Winds of Thor

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
1,842
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Was he actually a carnal man, as you or I am?

Christ is sinless. Additionally accepted the form of a man's body, and walked sinless all of his days in his flesh on earth.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Sticking to the Bible to learn about Jesus is selective reading. There is more information about Jesus from his early followers than what made it into the Bible. The Bible as we know it today was compiled generations after Jesus, out of motivations that were as much political than anything else, with the aim of solidifying the primacy of one early Christian group over its competitors (e.g. Gnostics).

Some of these excluded documents suggest that Jesus did, indeed, have the usual carnal desires, perhaps even having a relationship with Mary Magdalene. Notice that the fact that Mary seems to have been the first to see the supposedly risen Christ gives her no traction in later interpretations of events.

Yes, the equation of sin with carnal desire and sometimes all manner of physical pleasure is a hurtful and insidious legacy. It has been used to justify much unhealthy behavior, misogyny being one large subset of this. Adultery is mentioned in just one of the 10 commandments, though coveting one's neighbor's wife could be seen as a precursor "sin". A better indication of the connection between sin and sex is that, when Israel sinned by disobeying God, they were compared not with a murderer, or a traitor, or a liar, but with a harlot. The repeated use of the harlot metaphor suggests that sexual promiscuity was viewed as the worst sin of all.

I make a distinction between the historical Jesus, and the mythical Jesus Christ. From the limited historical writing, we can gather that Jesus led a life of unusual spirituality and openness, reaching out to the marginalized in society to offer compassion and hope. In doing so, he made enemies in both the Jewish establishment and the Roman authority (status quo of his day), leading not unpredictably to his execution.

The idea of virgin birth, descent into the Hell, and subsequent resurrection is a story present in mythologies that predate the time of Jesus. The story seems to have been overlaid on the historical Jesus by early followers, perhaps to gain supporters, or tap into a grander if figurative interpretation of the often harsh events of his actual life. There is nothing wrong with finding inspiration or solace in this version of events. Indeed, many other cultures and belief systems have done so. What strains credibility is claiming factual validity for what is a figurative and spiritual truth.

For a historical account of much of this, see Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade. For a fictionalized account, see Clysta Kinstler's The Moon Under her Feet. The second stands the Jesus story on its head so completely, but in a way that causes me to have if anything more respect and regard for Jesus, not less.
 

Beorn

Permabanned
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,005
Sticking to the Bible to learn about Jesus is selective reading. There is more information about Jesus from his early followers than what made it into the Bible. The Bible as we know it today was compiled generations after Jesus, out of motivations that were as much political than anything else, with the aim of solidifying the primacy of one early Christian group over its competitors (e.g. Gnostics).

meh. I'm not bothered by the canonization process.


I make a distinction between the historical Jesus, and the mythical Jesus Christ. From the limited historical writing, we can gather that Jesus led a life of unusual spirituality and openness, reaching out to the marginalized in society to offer compassion and hope. In doing so, he made enemies in both the Jewish establishment and the Roman authority (status quo of his day), leading not unpredictably to his execution.

Are you kidding? There's 5000 documents that form the NT from within the first 100 years of initial writing. They're roughly 99.5% accurate. The bible is easily the most reliable ancient document we have. In comparison we only have 49 copies of Aristotle's writings and they're from 1400 years after initial writing.
 

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ
I think the last book of the NT was written by the apostle John - "Revelation" and that was done prior to the end of the 1st century. The gospel accounts were written within decades of Jesus death.

The Bible states at 1 Timothy 3:16 that the Bible is "inspired of God"- that means it's his thoughts, expressed through the writings of 40 different men. It's impossible then to conclude that the Bible was put together for political reasons.

The scriptures also tell that, after the death of the apostles, there would be a great apostacy. (I'll have to find the scripture later- I'm at work now). Included in that period would be a host of inaccurate information, designed to confuse and mislead anyone seeking to know the truth. Those are the writings that came centuries later and were pushed by the political and even religious authorities of the time, killing the credibility of the Bible- the same writings you discuss here.

All of your arguments can be disproved by information within the Scriptures themselves. Mary was Jesus mother. The Bible stands alone and is consistent with the history surrounding.

It's up to the individual to make that decision, though. We can't rely on what someone tells us the Bible says. If you haven't looked within it yourself, and studied it, how can you be sure?

Yes, the equation of sin with carnal desire and sometimes all manner of physical pleasure is a hurtful and insidious legacy. It has been used to justify much unhealthy behavior, misogyny being one large subset of this. Adultery is mentioned in just one of the 10 commandments, though coveting one's neighbor's wife could be seen as a precursor "sin". A better indication of the connection between sin and sex is that, when Israel sinned by disobeying God, they were compared not with a murderer, or a traitor, or a liar, but with a harlot. The repeated use of the harlot metaphor suggests that sexual promiscuity was viewed as the worst sin of all.

Actually, the sexual promiscuity symbolizes the way the Israelites acted with surrounding nations, and is symbolic of something larger. Instead of sticking to their husbandly owner (God), they made covenants with other groups for protection and alliances. God wanted them to look to him for guidance, but they went and sold themselves, just like a harlot does. This was mentioned many times in the OT, ultimately leading to the Israelites being captured by the Babylonian Empire in 607 B.C.E. If you recall, Babylon was the greatest world power up to that point, and was very influential. A lot of non-Christian "pagan" traditions can be traced back to Ancient Babylon.

Harlotry is mentioned again in the NT in Revelation where "Babylon the Great" is considered selling herself to the "wild beast", or political factions (political powers are represented by beasts in the Book of Daniel), in defiance of God. This actually represents the way religion has allied with politics in our day and time. When Jesus came to Earth, he taught his followers about a Kingdom (Our Father Prayer) and he did not get involved in the Politics of his time. Religions involvement with Politics today is not approved by God, thus, God disapproves of any religious group that claims to be his representatives yet are not leading the way consistent with Christ's example, and has identified them as that symbolic Harlot, Babylon the Great.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think the last book of the NT was written by John the Baptist - "Revelation" and that was done prior to the end of the 1st century. The gospel accounts were written within decades of Jesus death.

Minor issue -- No, John the Baptist is a distinct personality from John of Patmos / the disciple John. (John the Baptist -- Jesus' cousin -- was far more extroverted in his approach and did all his spiritual work hands on until his execution.)

Are you kidding? There's 5000 documents that form the NT from within the first 100 years of initial writing. They're roughly 99.5% accurate. The bible is easily the most reliable ancient document we have. In comparison we only have 49 copies of Aristotle's writings and they're from 1400 years after initial writing.

That, and we have copies (within the Dead Sea Scroll collection) of Isaiah and other OT books that verify the translation record back to the first century AD.

I think my issue with the Scriptural records is not about the transcription process (which I think has been shown to be pretty sound)... but simply that we have no way of verifying the specific content to be true. We just know it's been copied accurately for many centuries, not whether the original content was accurate.
 

IZthe411

Carerra Lu
Joined
Jul 19, 2009
Messages
2,585
MBTI Type
INTJ
Minor issue -- No, John the Baptist is a distinct personality from John of Patmos / the disciple John. (John the Baptist -- Jesus' cousin -- was far more extroverted in his approach and did all his spiritual work hands on until his execution.)


Oops you are right! I have to correct that immediately.

JTB's head was chopped off by Herod shortly after Jesus was baptized.

Good catch, Jen! Thanks.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
There's 5000 documents that form the NT from within the first 100 years of initial writing. They're roughly 99.5% accurate. The bible is easily the most reliable ancient document we have. In comparison we only have 49 copies of Aristotle's writings and they're from 1400 years after initial writing.
Do you have a reference for these assertions? I find they strain credibility, but then my familiarity with the Bible is, alas, limited.

Using the Bible to prove its own validity is circular reasoning at its worst. The Bible may be a reliable guide to the development of a specific culture's view of God, and many of the historical details contained in it are, indeed, corroborated in other documents of the period. The divinity of Jesus, his supposed virgin birth and bodily resurrection are not among them. These are matters of faith, and to recognize them as such is not a criticism.

The motivations of the authors of the Bible may not have been political, but the goals of those who edited and compiled the Bible into its present form were substantially so. This does not necessarily diminish the value of what the Bible contains, but it neglects, indeed seeks to bury, important documents from that first century after Jesus that shed much light on his life and work. It is noteworthy that many of these excluded early writings reflect the feminine aspect of the divine much more clearly than what was included.

The excluded writings to which I refer appear to have been written well within the first century, and thus significantly predate the "canonization" of the Bible. These include gnostic writings, and the texts in the "Nag Hammadi library" that came to light only in the last century, such as the gospel of Mary (Magdalene), and the gospel of Thomas. The latter contains what is probably the oldest recorded account of words Jesus actually said; predates the 4 gospels of the Bible; and is credited as a source for the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

If we are going to claim something as objective fact, we must judge it using the objective measures of accuracy, logic, and internal consistency. If we intend something to be taken on faith, then let it be so; it does not need the trappings of objectivity for that.
 
Last edited:

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
Victor, please paint for us a vision of a world without misogyny. What does that look like?

It looks like one of those old drawings depicting olympics in Ancient Greece... with naked dudes wrestling and what not.
 

LightSun

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2009
Messages
1,107
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
#9
I have no belief of any mortal being without sin. In fact i deplore the word 'sin.' I say ignorance. This i can more appreciate, for each of us has only a limited perception when it comes with reality. If Jesus had no "sin" he would not lose control and have that episode with the temple and money lenders. Losing control is a mark with imperfection. He would definately not chosen cursing a fig tree, just for the reason that the fruit was not ripe. The episode where he drives "demons" into swine and all of them fall over a cliff is also inconsistant with any perfection. This being said, I love Jesus. All he represented, i admire. He was a phrophet who had remarkable abilities and was far more insightful about the real essence of the world.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I don't/have never understood the benefit to anybody of fire and brimstone teaching, that you should not do certain things because the Bible says so and if you do you'll rot in everlasting hell.

Certain readings of Romans Chapter 8 reveal that there is no condemnation for those who are in Jesus Christ.
Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are
So if you've declared your faith, your salvation can't be taken away from you. Which kind of makes the "saved" person like Christ -- a Christ one -- human but dwelling in god and forgiven by god.

I think when Romans and other places in the Bible talk about the flesh, they are not talking about skin -- they are talking about physicality, things that exist that you can see and touch -- and the teaching is not to get attached to those things. Don't get attached to the idea of sex, don't get attached to the idea of money, don't wrap yourself up in these things, because if you do, you can't focus on being more like Christ, and perfecting your faith is what you're supposed to be about.
 

Edgar

Nerd King Usurper
Joined
Oct 25, 2008
Messages
4,266
MBTI Type
INTJ
Instinctual Variant
sx
I don't/have never understood the benefit to anybody of fire and brimstone teaching, that you should not do certain things because the Bible says so and if you do you'll rot in everlasting hell.

It benefits those doing the preaching. Fear makes people fall in line.
 

slowriot

He who laughs
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
1,314
Enneagram
5w4
he is without sin in the way that he was born without the sin that Adam and Eve brought into the world. He was not concieved by a descendant of Adam and Eve but was "concieved" by God to be born by a descendant of King David.

The question is not was he carnal, but what is a perfect human.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Original Sin and Redemption

Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without original sin, and accordingly is called the immaculate conception. So I think we can also presume Jesus was born without original sin.

So when we say Jesus and Mary were without sin, we mean they were born without original sin.

Unfortunately the rest of us were born with original sin and so we need to be redeemed.

And naturally we can only be redeemed by the perfect blood sacrifice, the sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God, Jesus.

And interestingly, Mary his mother, being innocent of original sin as well, is called our co-redeemer.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
Mary, the mother of Jesus, was born without original sin, and accordingly is called the immaculate conception. So I think we can also presume Jesus was born without original sin.

So when we say Jesus and Mary were without sin, we mean they were born without original sin.

Unfortunately the rest of us were born with original sin and so we need to be redeemed.

And naturally we can only be redeemed by the perfect blood sacrifice, the sacrifice of the innocent lamb of God, Jesus.

And interestingly, Mary his mother, being innocent of original sin as well, is called our co-redeemer.

This is Catholic orthodox doctrine, accurately presented as I understand it. Reform theologians have a different perspective on the matter, of course.
 
Top