Would it have been possible for Jesus to have sinned?

Your precious bible is full of number mysticism!

The worst facet of Jesus, by far, was his constant threats of hellfire awaiting most of the human beings who have lived and loved on this beautiful planet. He never missed a chance to detail the fate awaiting someone who didn't conform exactly to his twisted, disjointed dogma.

It may be he invented this place himself. He certainly has been shown in this thread to possess the disposition of someone with an unbalanced mind who might revel in such horrid things. We know hell is an undeveloped idea in the Old Testament, and when God set about his frequent smoting and smiting, it appeared his anger could be appeased at the sight of dead bodies.

Not so with Jesus. He puts eternity behind his seething anger. We are left with a few choices of what to make of this. We can say that he is not the same person who uttered some of the sparse, elevated thoughts of the Sermon on the Mount, or we must concede that he is the worst hypocrite who ever existed, or that he in fact never did exist.

1 Reply

In an earlier post, I mentioned the sin of omission. By this I meant that a "sin" need not be strictly something one does, but rather could be something one doesn't do when the moral imperative calls for action. In this, Jesus was most guilty.

As an example, we are told that Jesus had the power to heal, through words, or touch, or even spit. But he rarely used that ability, even when the multitudes dealing with afflictions surged to him for relief. He preferred to retreat, time and time again. At one point, he elected for a massage with prohibitively expensive oil instead of dealing with the rabble outside, and when someone called him on it, asking him why he didn't sell the oil and give the proceeds to the poor, he replied, " The poor will always be among us." That is wholly unsatisfactory.

I'm blessed to call as friends at least a half dozen people who, if given the chance to heal the sick and halt the lame, would work themselves to physical and mental exhaustion, and not care one wit about their personal needs in order to do what they could to alleviate the little bit of pain and suffering wherever they found it.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Jesus is guilty of sin.

2 Replies

@tycoon,

You are, apparently, a very young person with much to learn. Or, a foolish person who has much to learn. Either way, you lack the ability to participate in serious dialogue.

Please provide the reference to the "multitudes dealing with afflictions surged to him for relief"

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

You are, apparently, a very young person with much to learn.

What does my age have to do with anything? Address the issues, as I have been repeatedly requesting you do this entire thread, to no avail.

Intrepid wrote:

Or, a foolish person who has much to learn.

You do realize Jesus warned that calling another person a fool would subject them to hellfire, don't you? You surely don't want to risk that, do you? Or are you gambling that no sooner had Jesus uttered that warning, he couldn't help but call someone a fool, and thus the threat is empty?

Intrepid wrote:

Either way, you lack the ability to participate in serious dialogue.

This coming from someone who has yet to post anything but insults on this thread.

Why don't you address my last two posts? Or any other of my posts here. Please! Tear them apart and show me where I'm wrong. Engage in dialogue!

Intrepid wrote:

Please provide the reference to the "multitudes dealing with afflictions surged to him for relief"

You're asking me to research for you? After a similar request by me was handled thus:

tycoon wrote:

Please point me to the refutation. I missed it.

Intrepid wrote:

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

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Well, he has a human history

0 Replies

@Chumly,

Examples

1 Reply

@tycoon,

tycoon wrote:

The worst facet of Jesus, by far, was his constant threats of hellfire awaiting most of the human beings who have lived and loved on this beautiful planet. He never missed a chance to detail the fate awaiting someone who didn't conform exactly to his twisted, disjointed dogma.

It may be he invented this place himself. He certainly has been shown in this thread to possess the disposition of someone with an unbalanced mind who might revel in such horrid things. We know hell is an undeveloped idea in the Old Testament, and when God set about his frequent smoting and smiting, it appeared his anger could be appeased at the sight of dead bodies.

Not so with Jesus. He puts eternity behind his seething anger. We are left with a few choices of what to make of this. We can say that he is not the same person who uttered some of the sparse, elevated thoughts of the Sermon on the Mount, or we must concede that he is the worst hypocrite who ever existed, or that he in fact never did exist.

BS

If you really understood the bible, you would know that the dead are unconscious. Therefore - no baking, boiling, broiling, or frying

1 Reply

@tycoon,

You have misrepresented Jesus' mission on earth which, according to John was

"For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." (John 18:37)

1 Reply

Sorry for being away. Not only has eBay been busy, but I also had the flu.
Hope you are all well.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

BS

If you really understood the bible, you would know that the dead are unconscious. Therefore - no baking, boiling, broiling, or frying

Well, thank you for finally adding some substance to the opposing view. I've been waiting and wondering if after nine pages anyone would be willing to express a cogent, on-topic rebuttal.

As to your comment, this is your opinion--that unconsciousness ensues after death. I feel confident that this is not the belief of most people who consider themselves Christian. I will concede that the number of people who hold this barbaric belief has been declining. At the very least many who profess to still believe in it have dialed down the flames by a few degrees, so that hell could be better described as being merely uncomfortable.

But for most, hell is still hell. We shouldn't be surprised by that. Most of Jesus' pronouncements were quite graphic about the place, and if one were to count his words about hell compared to that of heaven, it would be a most lopsided affair. So, from a standpoint of importance placed on frequency of the subject alone, hell is a very important part of their religion. They prefer to take his warnings about fire and brimstone literally, because moving it to a metaphorical level puts heaven in the same place. You can't have one without the other, the thinking goes, and the latter is unthinkable to Christians.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

You have misrepresented Jesus' mission on earth which, according to John was

"For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone that is on the side of the truth listens to my voice." (John 18:37)

First, I don't agree that was his mission. If it was, it was ill-conceived and poorly executed. What the author of John is trying to say frankly escapes me.

Second, if it were indeed his mission, we should expect him to do exactly that--bear witness to the truth. He must be truthful at all times, at all costs, and in all matters. Yet we can point to numerous instances where Jesus is caught in bald-faced lies.

A good example--my favorite--is when he assured us in the Sermon on the Mount to "ask and it will be given to you". Mark Twain said something to the effect that of all the lies in the Bible, that one was the whopper.

His promise to his disciples that he would return before some of them tasted death is embarassing.

So are many other of his pronouncements, so much so that the author of John is blowing smoke, in my opinion. There is no way Jesus can stand the scrutiny of being the truth tsar.

2 Replies

@tycoon,

If you are going to use a bible verse, at least use the entire verse. Then, rather than use your own interpretation, put it into proper context.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"

This has to do with prayer and does not mean that everything you ask for you get.

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

If you are going to use a bible verse, at least use the entire verse. Then, rather than use your own interpretation, put it into proper context.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"

This has to do with prayer and does not mean that everything you ask for you get.

Sure, I understand now.

'Ask and it shall be given to you' does not mean 'ask and it shall be given to you'.

'Seek and you shall find' does not mean 'seek and you shall find'.

'Knock, and it shall be opened to you' does not mean 'knock, and it shall be opened to you'.

Yeah, I'm getting into this Christian-speak stuff, where words don't mean anything. Rolling Eyes

1 Reply

@tycoon,

It really is very simple. You just have to look beyond your own prejudices and it will become clear.

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Well if we go with pure Christian theology, much of this is foolishness to the non believer. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that we are able to understand and believe but of course many are unable to understand that either.

I have always taken the 'seek and you shall find.......' passage to be referring to spiritual things, and not so much to specific material things. I don't think Jesus ever promised anybody abundance or riches in this life. If all we had to do was ask to get anything we wanted, we would all be awash in mansions and Rolls Royces. Smile

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

If you are going to use a bible verse, at least use the entire verse. Then, rather than use your own interpretation, put it into proper context.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you"

This has to do with prayer and does not mean that everything you ask for you get.

It would be well to consider that a more literal translation would read "keep on asking" This is in keeping with the idea of needing to search for the truth.

Also, it would be fruitless to ask for things not commensurate with Gods' will.

1 Reply

@neologist,

That is what I was saying without using the clear wording that you used. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I agree with you there. Some try to understand; Some cannot understand; Some refuse to understand; Some understand.

Unfortunately, there are those who put everthing into materialistic or worldly things and think that those of us who realize that this is out of context are buffoons. Well, I may be a buffoon but that is a different topic for another thread. Wink

1 Reply

@tycoon,

Not wanting to take away the context of your reply, I have simply sandwiched mine in bold red. Hope that's OK:

tycoon wrote:

neologist wrote:

BS

If you really understood the bible, you would know that the dead are unconscious. Therefore - no baking, boiling, broiling, or frying

Well, thank you for finally adding some substance to the opposing view. I've been waiting and wondering if after nine pages anyone would be willing to express a cogent, on-topic rebuttal.

As to your comment, this is your opinion--that unconsciousness ensues after death. I feel confident that this is not the belief of most people who consider themselves Christian. What people believe is not necessarily the point. Rather, what is true is the point. Consider Solomon's words at Ecclesiastes 9: 5,6: "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. 6 Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." There are many other proofs of this conveniently ignored by centuries of false priests who are wont to use the power of fear to control the masses. [/b]I will concede that the number of people who hold this barbaric belief has been declining. At the very least many who profess to still believe in it have dialed down the flames by a few degrees, so that hell could be better described as being merely uncomfortable.

But for most, hell is still hell. We shouldn't be surprised by that. Most of Jesus' pronouncements were quite graphic about the place, and if one were to count his words about hell compared to that of heaven, it would be a most lopsided affair. So, from a standpoint of importance placed on frequency of the subject alone, hell is a very important part of their religion. They prefer to take his warnings about fire and brimstone literally, because moving it to a metaphorical level puts heaven in the same place. You can't have one without the other, the thinking goes, and the latter is unthinkable to Christians. Replace the capital "C" with a lower case and you will be more correct.

0 Replies

Would it have been possible for Jesus to have sinned?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know