Was Jesus actually sin-free?

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: randomint
agreed. christianity to me seems like a religion born out of convenience. you can pretty much do anything and get away with it as long as you "believe". there's nothing pushing me to take the moral initiative with regards to my actions and interactions with others. heck, i can pay a priest and go scot free irrespective of how heinous my crimes are in terms of man-made laws..as long as i "believe".

Umm... well, I can't agree with that. Sure, that might be the indirect teachings of the church, but it's not what Jesus said. Or perhaps that's what you meant?

he came to earth as the perfect lamb to die for the sins of all mankind. he's already paid for my sins. why should i bother being a good person?

He didn't die for your sins so you can keep sinning and sinning. If you are then you aren't really a Christian. "He who loves me will keep my commandments" is what Jesus said.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't follow you. Free will and omnipotence are not contradictory. But if you're looking for excuses, you'll always find them for anything and everything. If you take your emotions out of it, it will help you see more objectively. Suddenly you might see that the message is that of people trying to find hope and meaning in their lives. What's wrong with that? Well, except that to argue "literally" for either side (pro or con) is just silly.

Shouldn't religion be found within one-self, without the need for someone to explain it? Why would we need to have prophets sent for us if we were supposed to have free will? Sending people who "speak on his behalf" or serve as some other kind of mediator seems to be interfering to me.

i hear you. but think of it this way. if god spoke to every human being on his/her level (i.e. revealed himself), then faith wouldn't be faith anymore. the name of the game is to believe in him without actually having seen him your whole life.

he picks from among people one person to convey his message to all people. that's just his way of doing things. if he didn't, then there'd be no way for the message to get to you.

What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: randomint
agreed. christianity to me seems like a religion born out of convenience. you can pretty much do anything and get away with it as long as you "believe". there's nothing pushing me to take the moral initiative with regards to my actions and interactions with others. heck, i can pay a priest and go scot free irrespective of how heinous my crimes are in terms of man-made laws..as long as i "believe".

Umm... well, I can't agree with that. Sure, that might be the indirect teachings of the church, but it's not what Jesus said. Or perhaps that's what you meant?

he came to earth as the perfect lamb to die for the sins of all mankind. he's already paid for my sins. why should i bother being a good person?

If that's what you believe, then you missed the point (don't worry though, you're in good company).

In Jesus' time, sinners were not forgiven and could not repent. "Once a sinner, always a sinner." They were condemned and outcast from society, usually permanently, if not stoned to death. This was based on a belief that to allow the sinner to remain among them would bring down the wrath of God (think Pat Robertson's or Jerry Falwell's usual nonsense, like when they tirade against gays, etc.). You seem the same thing in primates -- chimps will kill their own kind if their behavior deviates to far from the troop's expectations. Jesus' teachings showed an evolution in human thought and behavior, i.e. that people could change, that people could be forgiven, be "born again," etc. and that the "wrath of God" would not fall upon the rest of the group.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't follow you. Free will and omnipotence are not contradictory. But if you're looking for excuses, you'll always find them for anything and everything. If you take your emotions out of it, it will help you see more objectively. Suddenly you might see that the message is that of people trying to find hope and meaning in their lives. What's wrong with that? Well, except that to argue "literally" for either side (pro or con) is just silly.

Shouldn't religion be found within one-self, without the need for someone to explain it? Why would we need to have prophets sent for us if we were supposed to have free will? Sending people who "speak on his behalf" or serve as some other kind of mediator seems to be interfering to me.

i hear you. but think of it this way. if god spoke to every human being on his/her level (i.e. revealed himself), then faith wouldn't be faith anymore. the name of the game is to believe in him without actually having seen him your whole life.

he picks from among people one person to convey his message to all people. that's just his way of doing things. if he didn't, then there'd be no way for the message to get to you.

What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

we should but we don't because humans are forgetful. the answer to this is different for the various abrahamic religions.

we need to be reminded very often. humans have always needed reminding even right after adam. that's why there' sbeen so many prophets at regular intervals so we don't forget.

 

[Alone]

But if it had been done properly, shouldn't we not need to be reminded?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

Once again, you're going literal. What is a prophet? Define God. Then maybe we'll go from there.

None of the ancient prophets spoke on behalf of any religion BTW. Religion as we know it is a relatively modern invention, going back only a few hundred years.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

None of the ancient prophets spoke on behalf of any religion BTW. Religion as we know it is a relatively modern invention, going back only a few hundred years.

true. so which "religion" (of the many religions we know today) is the one that all these prophets spoke on behalf of? surely it can't be more than one.

 

[Arkitech]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Arkitech
Jesus was sin free. The reason he was sent to Earth was to atone for mankind's sins, if he had led a sinful life his sacrifice would not have been valid to redeem mankind from their sins.

Why are we to believe without questioning that the books that were CHOSEN to make up the Bible were the only inspired words of God and all others were just merely men's accounts?

And why are those accounts not to be believed? Solely because they run contradictory to what the "founding fathers" of Christianity chose to base/build their faith on? What makes the recollection of those that wrote about Jesus, some hundreds of years AFTER he died, more truthful or factual than those that were written by James (his brother or step-brother quoted in the OP)?

That's the beauty of the Gospel accounts, if you read all of those different accounts you start to realize that they are all basically saying the exact same thing but from different perspectives. I used to wonder what the point of the duplicate accounts were about, but it now makes sense, they confirm what really took place.

 

[Compton]

Hallowed are the Ori

 

[UCDAggies]

Christians picked and chose the good quotes, and left the bad ones out. Their is no real justification to include the Gospel of John or Luke, but not to include the Gospel of Thomas. Except for the fact the Gospel of Thomas doesn't make "god" seem so wonderful.

 

[NiteWulf]

Originally posted by: DaShen
The sins of the father get passed to the son (although out of context it follows here the same way).

You have proof of this claim? There's no way that I can be punished for my dad's sins if God is just

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

None of the ancient prophets spoke on behalf of any religion BTW. Religion as we know it is a relatively modern invention, going back only a few hundred years.

true. so which "religion" (of the many religions we know today) is the one that all these prophets spoke on behalf of? surely it can't be more than one.

Surely why not?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: DaShen
The sins of the father get passed to the son (although out of context it follows here the same way).

You have proof of this claim? There's no way that I can be punished for my dad's sins if God is just

As someone once said....

"If God is a just God, all will be forgiven or none."

If what is in the Bible is true, that a sin is a sin is a sin, then no one belongs in the Kingdom of heaven. If some are granted access just because they believe and others aren't because they are atheists, no matter how good and morally you behave during your lifetime matters one bit. If that is the case, then God is truly fallable negating his own existence.

 

[randomint]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: randomint

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

None of the ancient prophets spoke on behalf of any religion BTW. Religion as we know it is a relatively modern invention, going back only a few hundred years.

true. so which "religion" (of the many religions we know today) is the one that all these prophets spoke on behalf of? surely it can't be more than one.

Surely why not?

ha ha. i was expecting something like this. i know the question is extremely complex and quite possibly unanswerable. all religions claim that it was "their" version that a particular prophet preached. i was just interested in what you think about it.

if you're already devoted to a faith, then you woul dhave given me a particular religion. but i guess you are still searchin'

 

[Luthien]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: DaShen
The sins of the father get passed to the son (although out of context it follows here the same way).

You have proof of this claim? There's no way that I can be punished for my dad's sins if God is just

As someone once said....

"If God is a just God, all will be forgiven or none."

If what is in the Bible is true, that a sin is a sin is a sin, then no one belongs in the Kingdom of heaven. If some are granted access just because they believe and others aren't because they are atheists, no matter how good and morally you behave during your lifetime matters one bit. If that is the case, then God is truly fallable negating his own existence.

Nice post.

Nothing to do with your post but as to the sins of the father being past to the son IMO that means simply that a son will follow a fathers example in life... Society being patriarchal within the community that wrote the bible.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Alone

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alone
What I'm saying is that if we're all children of God, shouldn't we inherently believe in Him, without being told by anyone or knowing anything else of religion?

Who says you don't? You don't have a conscience?

If we do, then we wouldn't need these prophets, or anyone speaking on behalf of religion.

I don't believe in God, and nothing "in me" conscious or not, has convinced me otherwise.

The spirit bears witness of the truthfulness of the Gospel. In order to have this witness, truth must be told. Where else do you hear truth than from the mouth of a prophet or from reading his words? Obviously there are other experiences that can bring about such feelings of the spirit, but this is one of the main purposes of prophets and apostles.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Luthien
Nice post.

Nothing to do with your post but as to the sins of the father being past to the son IMO that means simply that a son will follow a fathers example in life... Society being patriarchal within the community that wrote the bible.

Very good point and I agree. Children are only accountable for the sins of the father int that they repeat the example of their father. Obviously one person cannot be held responsible for the actions of another, but they can have a big impact on them nonetheless.

 

[Schfifty Five]

Sin Free.

.999.... = 1

the plane takes off

SWITCH doors, u go from 33% chance of winning to 66% chance

Coke Wins

 

[1prophet]

Original sin causes aging and physical death.

Sins committed by the individual affect the soul and cause spiritual death.

 

[Juno]

i don't think he ever sinned but i know he was tempted.

 

[slag]

Regarding my comments about Jesus and original sin, yeah, wow, i was way off. I figured since he was born in the image of man, he would take on all of man's issues.