I am not arguing that Jesus broke a law, but that God could still use Jesus to provide a means of salvation if he broke one (though the situation and means would have to be different).
according to OT scripture, and NT for that matter, any sin at all, even one that to us seems insignificant would separate us from God, thus rendering the sacrifice meaningless.
Some passages in the Pauline epistles state the Jesus was without sin; thus I believe that Jesus did not sin because I have no reason to question Paul's understading in light of the available scriptural evidence.
agreed, but the problem remains that you think some sin would be acceptable, scripture is pretty clear that is not the case.
I am not questioning the validity of the passages, but I am wondering if you know of texts by other authors making this claim. (What I am getting at is if Paul had never been converted, could you make the same strong arugment?) I am slowly trying to go through some of the other New Testament books again, but I was wondering if you have a striking text offhand since you seem to be very well versed.
not quite sure what text you are looking for....one that supports fully God and fully man, or one that supports Jesus being without sin...? Help me out and I'm see what I can find for you.
I realize that what scripture we, we have; however, I would find it odd if Paul were the only one to mention it and he never followed Jesus during Christ's lifetime. I only mention this from a logical/intellectual standpoint to see how you/we would fashion our beliefs in the absence of conversion and ministry of Paul.
Paul, just like Jesus was a Jew, which means that the first place we go for understanding of belief is the Jewish law. That is why I suggested studying the OT sacrifices. In Jewish law, all sin, no matter how insignificant it seemed to us, separates us from God and that separation means that God cannot "look" upon us. The blood of a spotless lamb (sorry for the short lesson, I'm trying to keep posts manageable) covered over the sin so that God could not see that sin anymore, thus in fellowship once again with Him. When Jesus came, He was that spotless lamb, so much so that when He died, taking on the sin of the world, God turned His back on Jesus and we see Jesus crying out, "My God, My God why have you forsaken me." God could not look upon Jesus because in that moment, Jesus took all our sins upon Himself. His blood, however, covers over those sin, hides them so to speak to that God can look upon us. But we have to apply that blood (go back to the ark of the covenant).
Now one more quick thing, the curtain that was torn in two, remember that part? The curtain in the temple separated the court yard from the holy of holies. The holy of holies was the seat of God and only a high priest could enter, apply the blood to the "mercy seat", to hide our sins. Access to God was only possible through "royal" bloodlines. The high priest. When the curtain tore, it exposed the holy of holies, giving all men access to the throne of God. But that was only possible through the blood sacrifice of both blameless and royal bloodlines. therefore, in order for Jesus to be that sacrifical lamb, He had to be both without sin, and of royal bloodlines. thus the long portions of scripture that talk about His geneology. I purpose to you that that geneology is only part of the true royal nature of the sacrifical lamb.
I may at some point revert back to a Trinitarian point of view, but as of now I see Jesus as a perfect messenger and servant of God rather than as God himself. I certainly admit that it's possible for Jesus to be a part of God, but I don't believe that is the case because Jesus is focused on and characterizes his work as doing the will of the Father. To me, that makes the case for a nondivine view of Jesus also possible. Im also not quite sure what youre getting at here about making excuses.
many people, make excuses for their beliefs. My admitting that you could be wrong, you are starting out ahead of most.
As to the rest of this, something I still don't understand about the mindset...how could Jesus be a perfect messenger, a perfect servant fo God if He was just a man and nothing more? I also don't understand the mindset as it relates to deity, if His father was God, wouldn't that also make Him at least part God? Or do you think this is just figurative as in God is all of our FAthers? Let's see another way to say it, do you believe in virgin birth?
Because God gave it to Jesus is my position. If this is the case, even though I believe Jesus did not sin I don't think I am required to believe that he is also God. I only have to consider it in light of all of the available scriptural evidence.
I'm all for scriptural evidence and I would love for someone to show convincing evidence that Jesus could not be fully God and fully man according to scripture, but that is a different matter. What I don't get it how or why God would give that power to a man and not change Him into more than just a man? Let me see, another way to say it....If I take my old Buick and soup it up, it becomes a hot rod. How would it be possible to take a man, soup Him up and still only have a man? Wouldn't He be some kind of super something, like supernatural God?
I stated this earlier-- I am unaware of a scripture where Jesus claims to be fully God. If he did, then I no longer have a viable argument.
are you stumbling over the word fully God, or are you not reading in context the scriptures that are posted about His claim of deity? I can't provide something if I am not sure what you don't understand...
I do believe the scriptures and argue from them. I really don't see why one would make Christian claims or care about the theology if one does not at least believe they are generally acurate. If you don't believe in the scriptures or Jesus, that can be perfectly rational but it ultimately has nothing to do with a Christian should believe.
awesome, so we both use scripture as authority on this matter. Therefore, the passages that claim Jesus to be a man, must be truth, right? As well, the passages that claim Jesus to be God, must also be truth, right? So the only consistent in scripture then, is that Jesus was both God and man, not either or....why do so many people think God is an either or kind of God? Scripture is full of the both ands of God.
I can possibly see how people would believe that the apostles' letters to the churches could contain some misunderstandings in doctrine or instruction. However, to make that claim, one needs a counterargument for why a particular author in a particular instance is mistaken. Along this line of logic (though I am not arguing for it), would conflicting views among the apostles' letter present a logical case against the validity of Christianity? I would argue that it generally does not because men can have a slightly different view of the same truth with the essential message and purpose of Christianity being changed.
truth in scripture is an absolute. Let me explain what I mean. The early church (apostles included) believed that there was 1 Spirit and therefore only 1 interpretation, all others were false. So to find that 1 interpretation, they fasted and prayed until they were all in agreement. (something I often challenge people to do and they always refuse). In the case of tinitarian, we only have one possible interpretation, because there is one one spirit interpreting it, and only 1 God authoring it, and that God and HS are part of each other. So no, it can't contain misunderstanding doctrine, only truth. We may not understand it, but that is because we are not listening to the HS.
not really diminished His deity as limited His glory...look at it this way, my personhood is not diminished by my being on the forum, but the full extent of my personality is diminished here. Similarly, deity was not diminished by Jesus being here, but the glory of that deity was. because if you don't believe that Jesus was God in flesh form, how do you know what you are believing in?
I mean no disrespect, but I think you know the answer to the last question. One believes what one believes. Just because a belief doesn't meet your expectation does not make it impossible to have a different but sincere belief (whether right or wrong)? Are you meaning to say how can one claim to believe the Bible, and then not actually do so because you hold that the scriptural evidence for Jesus divinity is beyond argument?
read what I wrote again, I talked about how deity cannot diminish Him, only our perception of His glory. that has nothing at all to do with what one believes or doesn't belief, unless of course you want to believe that there can be no arguement against your personal beliefs. Logically speaking if (notice the word if) Jesus was God, it would limit His glory, not His deity. We know that man cannot look fully on God's glory, so limiting that glory is not a problem for God or scripture. To take the opinion that Jesus deity must someway diminish is God nature is a fallacy I am arguing. Has nothing at all to do with who is right and who is wrong, it has to do with what God's glory is and what we know of that glory from scripture, a scripture we both claim is the authority.
It would be wise, not to confuse me with other posters who refuse to accept that Jesus claimed to be human, He did, He also claimed to be God, which is our point of disagreement and I do not wish to convince you otherwise because that is not my job, that is God's job. But to discuss what that means to God's glory is in the scope of debate and as I explained, it does not diminish God in any way, it only limits His glory to something that man is capable of being around.
