9
   

Would it have been possible for Jesus to have sinned?

 
 
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 04:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
ummm, do we know that it actually offends him or is he suggesting that it is not part of His plan? hmmmm
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 08:24 am
@Intrepid,
Quote:
ummm, do we know that it actually offends him or is he suggesting that it is not part of His plan? hmmmm



Here's what he says about it:

“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13

So...your god thinks the conduct is an abomination...and that people doing it should be killed!

If you want to think that doesn't indicate it offends him...I guess your need for denial is mega!

0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 12:06 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Since there is nowhere in the bible that you will find your reference to "7 deadly sins" (as you would know if you read it) ...the answer is no.


I didn't say nor imply that the seven deadly sins were biblically based. I'm interested in knowing whether you think wrath is a sin, and therefore is Jesus guilty of that sin.

If your requirements are sola scriptura, will you please address Galatians 5: 19-21:

"19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. "

Did Jesus have of an outburst of wrath at the Temple, and thus is he guilty of a sin? This is a simple question.
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 02:56 pm
@tycoon,
The reason for the Temple incident was that the half shekel, which was scarce, was the coin used for religious purposes and the only coin permissible in the Temple. The money changers at the entrance of the Temple were like scalpers who had cornered the coins and getting a good buck for them. The priests seemed to be in on it so it was corruption. The priests probably sold those coins to those money changes at the end of Temples services at a good profit.

Jesus saw this as an outrage and got a whip and drove the moneychangers from the Temple and upturned the tables.
dyslexia
 
  2  
Reply Sun 15 Feb, 2009 06:27 pm
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

The reason for the Temple incident was that the half shekel, which was scarce, was the coin used for religious purposes and the only coin permissible in the Temple. The money changers at the entrance of the Temple were like scalpers who had cornered the coins and getting a good buck for them. The priests seemed to be in on it so it was corruption. The priests probably sold those coins to those money changes at the end of Temples services at a good profit.

Jesus saw this as an outrage and got a whip and drove the moneychangers from the Temple and upturned the tables.
really? how do you know that?
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 06:02 am
@talk72000,
talk72000 wrote:

The reason for the Temple incident was that the half shekel, which was scarce, was the coin used for religious purposes and the only coin permissible in the Temple. The money changers at the entrance of the Temple were like scalpers who had cornered the coins and getting a good buck for them. The priests seemed to be in on it so it was corruption. The priests probably sold those coins to those money changes at the end of Temples services at a good profit.

Jesus saw this as an outrage and got a whip and drove the moneychangers from the Temple and upturned the tables.


Would this mean that sinning is allowable as long as a reason is supplied?

If Jesus provided us with an cause for murdering someone, would he then not be guilty of the sin of killing?

I think it's quite clear that Jesus blows his stack and vandalizes others' property. His argument fails him and he resorts to violence. In that regard, he is guilty of the sin of an outburst of wrath in the first degree, along with vandalism, assault with a deadly weapon, disturbing the peace, and being a general all round public nuisance. He needs to get a job and discontinue living off the alms of the needy people. (That itself would be a big sin in my Book.)

The answer to the OP is yes, clearly and decidedly.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 07:10 am
@tycoon,
really? how do you know that?
tycoon
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 09:22 am
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

really? how do you know that?


Know what?

Are you going to answer the question posed to you?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:52 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

Why get yourself so twisted over a myth? Your time and efforts would be better spent learning physics.
Hi chumly. Good to see ya again.



neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:56 pm
@tycoon,
tycoon wrote:
. . .
BTW, is wrath--the kind displayed by Jesus in the Temple--one of the seven deadly sins? If so, is God offended by it?
Paul's words at Ephesians 4:26:
"Be wrathful, and yet do not sin . . ."

The money changers got only a small measure of what they deserved
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:57 pm
@tycoon,
tycoon wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Since there is nowhere in the bible that you will find your reference to "7 deadly sins" (as you would know if you read it) ...the answer is no.


I didn't say nor imply that the seven deadly sins were biblically based. I'm interested in knowing whether you think wrath is a sin, and therefore is Jesus guilty of that sin.

If your requirements are sola scriptura, will you please address Galatians 5: 19-21:

"19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. "

Did Jesus have of an outburst of wrath at the Temple, and thus is he guilty of a sin? This is a simple question.

No
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 02:59 pm
@dyslexia,
dyslexia wrote:

talk72000 wrote:

The reason for the Temple incident was that the half shekel, which was scarce, was the coin used for religious purposes and the only coin permissible in the Temple. The money changers at the entrance of the Temple were like scalpers who had cornered the coins and getting a good buck for them. The priests seemed to be in on it so it was corruption. The priests probably sold those coins to those money changes at the end of Temples services at a good profit.

Jesus saw this as an outrage and got a whip and drove the moneychangers from the Temple and upturned the tables.
really? how do you know that?
Regardless of talk's speculation, the temple was to be used for worship, not for banking or retail
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 03:00 pm
@tycoon,
OY!
Drunk
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 03:44 pm
@tycoon,
tycoon wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Since there is nowhere in the bible that you will find your reference to "7 deadly sins" (as you would know if you read it) ...the answer is no.


I didn't say nor imply that the seven deadly sins were biblically based. I'm interested in knowing whether you think wrath is a sin, and therefore is Jesus guilty of that sin.

If your requirements are sola scriptura, will you please address Galatians 5: 19-21:

"19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. "

Did Jesus have of an outburst of wrath at the Temple, and thus is he guilty of a sin? This is a simple question.



No
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:05 pm
Sorry to have missed ya. I've been selling my survival items at a gun and knife show in Portland, Oregon for a few days. Bad internet connection
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:21 pm
I am thoroughly impressed with the level of discourse here, the thoughtful responses given to legitimate questions and positions staked out by me in answering the OP.

To wit:

No, oy, no.
Intrepid
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:30 pm
@tycoon,
Some people are not satisfied with a short and complete answer. Oy
0 Replies
 
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:32 pm
@neologist,
This passage, besides being irrelevant, does not further your argument whatsoever. Unless your argument is that wherever there can be a contradiction, the Bible will supply one.

Let's consider Mark 3: 1-6.

"1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."

There he goes again, flying off the handle. "He looked at them in anger." I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I think he needs to deal with some anger management issues, seeing that we've established wrath as a sin which will keep one from inheriting the kingdom.

He needs to learn the power of persuasion. Right makes might, not the other way around.

I look forward to your persuasive arguments as well.

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 04:39 pm
@tycoon,
tycoon wrote:

This passage, besides being irrelevant, does not further your argument whatsoever. Unless your argument is that wherever there can be a contradiction, the Bible will supply one.

Let's consider Mark 3: 1-6.

"1Another time he went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. 3Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, "Stand up in front of everyone."

4Then Jesus asked them, "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" But they remained silent.

5He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. 6Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."

There he goes again, flying off the handle. "He looked at them in anger." I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I think he needs to deal with some anger management issues, seeing that we've established wrath as a sin which will keep one from inheriting the kingdom.

He needs to learn the power of persuasion. Right makes might, not the other way around.

I look forward to your persuasive arguments as well.


I believe Intrepid and I are dumbfounded by your inability to see the disgusting hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their total disregard for the welfare of the common folk "amharets" (or "dirt people") as they referred to them.
tycoon
 
  2  
Reply Mon 16 Feb, 2009 05:11 pm
@neologist,
That's not the point neologist.

If people behave disgustingly, is the proper response to stoop to their level, and become angry, and worse--to resort to violence? Or should we expect more, especially from this being who has been called the unblemished lamb? I believe I've successfully destroyed that image, and if your and Intrepid's response is only dumbfoundedness, well...

I'm not sure why you asked the question in the first place if you're unwilling to consider the evidence arrayed against him, and adjust your thinking accordingly. Any rational person faced with the irrefutable proof, and not being blinded by dogma, could easily reach the correct decision: Jesus has been caught sinning, according to the Bible.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/19/2021 at 02:59:57