Would it have been possible for Jesus to have sinned?

Hi Neo,

I am pleased to see you, however I can tell you that Kirchhoff's circuit laws (for example) are vastly more pragmatic than a mythical figure's imaginary actions.

Pragmatism being the philosophy of considering practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of both meaning and truth.

Why not spend some time and effort making inroads into discovering reality?

I finished the hand holding with our two year old. You will have to find it on your own.

Let us be guided neither by hope of reward nor desire for license.

What.......you expect me to give a you spanking?

Oh, you are sooo nasty.

If you believe in original sin, then self-affliction may be more your thing...........however you need not envision reality through a clouded myth, try Pythagorean Theorem as a way to grasp a sense of geometric reality.

I taught algebra and geometry for several years before I went into the service.

You know what's scary is people who blindly follow leaders despite ample evidence of the leader's revolting actions and behavior.

History pages have been turned blood red by this mistake, and it happens over and over.

We are talking about religion...not the American government

Maybe I've been too critical. Today I feel a bit magnanimous and so will state that perhaps the stolen horse story is not the smoking gun needed to prove Jesus has sinned. I say that because of the powerful argument put forward so far by Intrepid in defending Jesus in this troubling story (which to date is this, "What? You must be kidding????" and "I can't be bothered with showing you a rebuttal!!!"

So I'll back off. Maybe it wasn't stealing. When two unemployed thugs show up on your private property and begin to walk off with things that were previously secured, and you ask, "Where are you going with my property?", and they tell you it's no longer yours because "someone else needs it", maybe it's unfair to call it stealing.

Let's call it a hostile takeover. Now, I quickly checked the list of Biblical sins and I didn't find anything about hostile takeovers. So, technically, Intrepid is right, it isn't a sin, and thus acquiring a horse through a hostile takeover isn't my smoking gun that I was looking for.

However, my smoking gun does lie just two verses previous to the hostile takeover of the horse story. I don't know how I missed it!

Luke 19:27-


"But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence."


So Intrepid, do you also countenance cold-blooded murder?

Makes one wish for the good old days of steal...er, hostile takeovers of a horse.

It is certainly true that the pages of history are deeply stained with the blood of innocents killed in the name of a god.

All to often, when the politicians needed fodder for their cannons, it has been priests who have delivered bodies to the front.

This does not diminish the truth of the bible; it is not the fault of the God who created us; the guilt lies in the hands of God's adversary who established himself in the third chapter of Genesis.

Now, you may wonder why a righteous and loving God did not execute judgement on the rebels immediately. Why has he allowed many thousands of years for the one called Satan to have dominion over his earth?

I believe the answer belongs in a different thread. I refer you to this one in the archives: http://able2know.org/topic/70309-1

The topic of this thread relates to the relationship between Jesus and his creator and Jesus' role in the outworking of God's purpose.

You mentioned everything except what I really said by way of rebuttal. No matter. You nonetheless concede the point.

As for your new allegation. This is a parable. How can you say this is murder. It a parable for way of explanation to the disciples.

Your smoking gun is losing it's puff.

If you believe I conceded the point, I can see why we're not making any progress here. There is a reading comprehension problem in the way. Have you had it checked?



As a measure of this reading comprehension problem, could you explain to me who the king in this parable represents, and why he advocates murdering his "enemies"?

He was Jewish so I'd figure it was theoretically possible for him to have voted for a democrat; I can't picture him actually doing it however.

Howdy, Gunga.

What makes you think that Jesus would have voted at all?

This thread has been useful as far as me going back to read the gospels, with an eye for sins and omissions. It's worse than I remember. We might fill another ten pages.

I think if I had been Jesus' father, we would have had a strained--if not estranged--relationship. He was taught a useful trade, but he preferred not to work. I wouldn't have allowed him to disrespect his mother. Where he got this end-of-the-world nonsense I don't know, but it made him very angry. And violent too. He ran some kind of religious scam, but whenever large crowds appeared, he got very nervous and disappeared as though he were a wanted man, charged with horse theft or something.

So you were a Pythagorean honoring numbers and geometrical diagrams with the names and titles of the gods.

And I drove cars with vulcanized rubber tires.

Shocking!

But, of course you know that Pythagoras was a mathemetician, not a god.

You are now bordering on the absurd. Hysteria seems to be setting in.

How do you know that Pythagoras was not a god?

The Pythagorean view of the universe rested squarely on the belief that numbers were the key to the various qualities of mankind and matter. In the Pythagorean view everything is composed of numbers so the explanation for an objects existence could only be found in numbers.