A person without sin?

[Hentenza]

The idea of original sin being passed sexually was created to support Marian theology regarding her alleged virginity.

How do you figure that?

 

[Skaloop]

This is addressing the issue of whether Origina Sin applies to Jesus. When Jesus was a child, Mary and Joseph packed up and left Jerusalem, thinking young Jesus was with them. here's the story from Luke, chapter 2:



Here, the boy Jesus failed to tell his parents that he stayed behind in Jerusalem like he clearly should have. For any other 12 year old, this would clearly be not honoring one's mother and father (speaking of Joseph). But when Jesus does the exact same thing, are the rules changed?

By saying Jesus cannot sin because He is God, does that mean no matter what Jesus does is automatically NOT a sin? Or, is it saying that the act itself is not a sin, regardless of who commits it. I think this is critical issue, for if the former is the case, right and wrong become extremely relativistic. If it is the latter, then Jesus cannot be without sin.

Thoughts?

If I were an apologist, I would say that Jesus was honouring his true Father, God, by staying in His house. But, I'm not, so I dunno.

 

[tcampen]

If I were an apologist, I would say that Jesus was honouring his true Father, God, by staying in His house. But, I'm not, so I dunno.

Yes, but the 5th commandment is in the conjuctive, not the disjunctive with regard to mother AND father.

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, but the 5th commandment is in the conjuctive, not the disjunctive with regard to mother AND father.

Yes, but in situations where the mother and father's wishes are in disagreement, surely the child must acquiesce to the father as the head of the family.

 

[Hentenza]

This is addressing the issue of whether Origina Sin applies to Jesus. When Jesus was a child, Mary and Joseph packed up and left Jerusalem, thinking young Jesus was with them. here's the story from Luke, chapter 2:



Here, the boy Jesus failed to tell his parents that he stayed behind in Jerusalem like he clearly should have. For any other 12 year old, this would clearly be not honoring one's mother and father (speaking of Joseph). But when Jesus does the exact same thing, are the rules changed?

By saying Jesus cannot sin because He is God, does that mean no matter what Jesus does is automatically NOT a sin? Or, is it saying that the act itself is not a sin, regardless of who commits it. I think this is critical issue, for if the former is the case, right and wrong become extremely relativistic. If it is the latter, then Jesus cannot be without sin.

Thoughts?

How exactly is Jesus "taking care of His father's business" a sin? Do you not realize that Jesus was basically telling His parents that they left Jerusalem before the Father's business was finished? Why do you think Mary and Joseph were "amazed" at what Jesus told them?

Also, the verses that you quoted read more like his parents left Jerusalem thinking that Jesus was with them. Are they guilty of child abandonment?

 

[Hentenza]

Yes, but in situations where the mother and father's wishes are in disagreement, surely the child must acquiesce to the father as the head of the family.

 

[PantsMcFist]

How do you figure that?

Because, by the reckoning of the church fathers, the immaculate conception had to have a theological purpose and relevant reason - it wasn't just a benchmark.

Another little acknowledged piece of Marian theology was that in order for Mary to be sinless, she also had to have been immaculately conceived as well. So, going by the church father's, the Holy Spirit shows up in Jesus' family tree twice.

 

[Hentenza]

Because, by the reckoning of the church fathers, the immaculate conception had to have a theological purpose and relevant reason - it wasn't just a benchmark.

Another little acknowledged piece of Marian theology was that in order for Mary to be sinless, she also had to have been immaculately conceived as well. So, going by the church father's, the Holy Spirit shows up in Jesus' family tree twice.

I am not sure if you can support that view. Care to expand and show evidence?

 

[tcampen]

How exactly is Jesus "taking care of His father's business" a sin? Do you not realize that Jesus was basically telling His parents that they left Jerusalem before the Father's business was finished? Why do you think Mary and Joseph were "amazed" at what Jesus told them?

The way I look at it, the 12 year old boy knew their group was leaving Jerusalem to go home. He chose to stay behind and engage those at the temple, and did not tell his mother and adoptive father of this. Even if he was serving a higher spiritual purpose, that in no way prevented young Jesus from simply informing his mother of this, rather than causing her to needlessly worry about where he was. This act of not informing his mother was something of dishonoring and disrespecting Mary.

Also, the verses that you quoted read more like his parents left Jerusalem thinking that Jesus was with them. Are they guilty of child abandonment?

I don't know what the age requirements for child abandonment was in 1st centruy Palestine.

 

[tcampen]

Yes, but in situations where the mother and father's wishes are in disagreement, surely the child must acquiesce to the father as the head of the family.

I've thought of this, too. Interestingly enough, Mary scolds Jesus for disrespecting his mother and father (referring to Joseph), when Jesus refers to tending to his biological father's business.

But Mary did not know of this other business, and was not aware there was any such "disagreement". Under these circumstances, there was simply no reason for Jesus to inform his mother before she left Jerusalem and was needlessly worried sick about her son. Jesus still should have told her, regardless of his business at the temple. I just don't see a way around it.

Nice observation, tho.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I am not sure if you can support that view. Care to expand and show evidence?

http://www.amazon.ca/Mary-Evangelic...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232658184&sr=1-4

That's roughly equivalent to the author's "Mary in the Doctrine" course.

For Mary to be able to birth a sinless Jesus, she had to be conceived without sex as well.

 

[Skaloop]

I've thought of this, too. Interestingly enough, Mary scolds Jesus for disrespecting his mother and father (referring to Joseph), when Jesus refers to tending to his biological father's business.

But Mary did not know of this other business, and was not aware there was any such "disagreement". Under these circumstances, there was simply no reason for Jesus to inform his mother before she left Jerusalem and was needlessly worried sick about her son. Jesus still should have told her, regardless of his business at the temple. I just don't see a way around it.

Nice observation, tho.

I'm just pulling stuff out of my... ear. You brought up the verses in the first place.

 

[tcampen]

http://www.amazon.ca/Mary-Evangelic...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232658184&sr=1-4

That's roughly equivalent to the author's "Mary in the Doctrine" course.

For Mary to be able to birth a sinless Jesus, she had to be conceived without sex as well.

How did Mary make it 14 (or whatever age she was at Jesus' birth) without sinning just once?

Man! She must have had some really, really strict parents!

 

[PantsMcFist]

How did Mary make it 14 (or whatever age she was at Jesus' birth) without sinning just once?

Man! She must have had some really, really strict parents!

Nuh uh uh! This is still OT rules in play. Sin is ritual impurity. It is then wholly based on your actions. Now, I don't know if this means she was impregnated without menstruation (which would compound the miracle), or was just in the nick of time so she never bled.

 

[b&wpac4]

I've thought of this, too. Interestingly enough, Mary scolds Jesus for disrespecting his mother and father (referring to Joseph), when Jesus refers to tending to his biological father's business.

But Mary did not know of this other business, and was not aware there was any such "disagreement". Under these circumstances, there was simply no reason for Jesus to inform his mother before she left Jerusalem and was needlessly worried sick about her son. Jesus still should have told her, regardless of his business at the temple. I just don't see a way around it.

Nice observation, tho.

Odd that a woman and a man who were visited by angels, who experienced a child being born of a virgin, and who should have known he was special seem to be in utter confusion about what he is doing in the temple and what his "father's work" was.

 

[Hentenza]

The way I look at it, the 12 year old boy knew their group was leaving Jerusalem to go home. He chose to stay behind and engage those at the temple, and did not tell his mother and adoptive father of this. Even if he was serving a higher spiritual purpose, that in no way prevented young Jesus from simply informing his mother of this, rather than causing her to needlessly worry about where he was. This act of not informing his mother was something of dishonoring and disrespecting Mary.

The thing is that Jesus did not "choose" to stay behind to do His father's bidding. It is illogical to think that Jesus sinned because He didn't tell his mother that He had to stay behind to do His father's work. Luke even makes it a point to mention Jesus continued obedience and subjection to his parents in verse 51 and how Mary treasured all the things that her son did. A sin is a transgression against God which this event is definitely not one.

I don't know what the age requirements for child abandonment was in 1st centruy Palestine.

LOL!!! I don't know either but they did used to marry quite young.

 

[Hentenza]

http://www.amazon.ca/Mary-Evangelic...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232658184&sr=1-4

That's roughly equivalent to the author's "Mary in the Doctrine" course.

For Mary to be able to birth a sinless Jesus, she had to be conceived without sex as well.

First, I am not an adherent of the doctrine of the immaculate conception because there is no biblical support for it. There is no need for Mary to have been without sin to give birth to a sinless Jesus. Scripture merely defines the birth as from a virgin.

Original sin is described biblically in several NT books. It is not logical for the church to "invent" original sin to support the doctrine of immaculate conception.

I have to do some RL work now so I'll address your answer tonight.

 

[PantsMcFist]

I'm just passing on the Marian theology which the church father's originated. Also, the church fathers were not referencing an English translation. When going over construction of the canon, it's eminently helpful to do so in Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Skaloop]

There is no need for Mary to have been without sin to give birth to a sinless Jesus. Scripture merely defines the birth as from a virgin.

But you did say earlier that the sinful cannot create the sinless. So either Mary was sinless, or Mary was not involved in any way in Jesus' creation (and hence, not his mother), and was simply a surrogate for God.

 

[tcampen]

The thing is that Jesus did not "choose" to stay behind to do His father's bidding.

No, but he did choose NOT to tell his mother that he'd be staying behind. These are two different issues.

It is illogical to think that Jesus sinned because He didn't tell his mother that He had to stay behind to do His father's work.

Why not? Jesus was being raised by his mother (Mary) and adoptive father (Joseph). His choosing not to inform his parents he was staying behind, thereby causing them to worry about his well being like any parent would, was not honoring his mother. There is nothing in the story to even hint that Jesus could not have informed his mother he was staying. In fact, just the opposite was true. All he had to do was tell her.

Luke even makes it a point to mention Jesus continued obedience and subjection to his parents in verse 51 and how Mary treasured all the things that her son did. A sin is a transgression against God which this event is definitely not one.

But a transgression against a parent is still violating the 5th commandment. Take it out of the context of Jesus for a moment. Suppose a large family was leaving to go on a trip accross country. Once on the airplane, his mother realizes he's not on the plane with everyone else like she thought he was (think Home Alone if you like). The Mom is worried sick over what happened to her son. She immediately flies all the way back home, contacting police on the way in search of her son. Low and behold, they find him tending to patching up the roof on his father's house. (Ok, mom and dad are divorced with shared custody.) Mom goes to reprimand her son, and he says, "It was going to rain, and by Dad's roof has a hole in it. He's disabled and can't afford to pay someone to do it, so he asked me to help him."

So, are the son's intentions of doing his father's business understandable? Sure. But was it right for the son to put his mother through that ordeal just because he was tending to his father's business? Of course not. It was disrespectful not to inform his mother. Turn it up a notch. Suppose Mom returns and finds her son praying in church and witnessing to some homeless people there, to which he declares this is what God told him to do rather than go on the trip with the family. Either way, it was wrong for the son to disrespect his parent(s) in such a way. I don't see how you get out of this without changing the rules just for Jesus - which makes the concept of sin relativistic to the person, rather than objective as to the action itself.

It's an interesting issue.