My Messiah isn't a sinner

artybloke · Feb 5, 2007

From which we learn that sin is not breaking Mosaic law. Sin is taking one's focus off God, and his will for our lives.

I don't know if you've read Bonhoeffer's Ethics, but this is just what he says too! So many Christians put their focus on the law and whether they're keeping it or not; but they've missed the point because their focus is no longer on Christ, but on the law.

And that's essentially what Pharasaism is. It's not that they're not perfectly good people, but that ultimately their focus is on keeping the law rather than doing the will of God. Jesus actually seems to have deliberately broken the Mosaic laws to make this very point.

When we focus on sin, on whether or not this act is or is not a sin, we are not focused on the will of God. It isn't always easy to figure out the will of God, but I guess that's what makes Jesus special. Not whether or not he did or did not really break this or that Mosaic law, but that His will was God's will.

So many people seem scared almost to go outside their doors in case they might sin. But perfect love casts out fear.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

Blackguard_ said:
Yes, he did.

irrelevant since He did not get drunk.

Blackguard_ said:
The pharisees said he was sinning when he healed on the Sabbath.

That is because they misunderstood the Law. God is mercy and as such demands it be applied to the Law. Withholding mercy while following the Law is contradictory.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

DaRkWoLf said:
I can't rationalize offering servitude or worship to an entity which doesn't just hate, but has willfully turned it into a system of sorts.

Why would someone actually want to associate themselves with an entity which has no desire to overcome such detrimental, chosen, attribute? How does a hateful entity qualify as a supreme being, for that matter?

God hates only one thing, sin and by His own definition of Himself, cannot abide by it. You seem to be wanting to attribute the human, imperfect emotion of hate to God. Is there some Bible verse that led you to do this? or is it just your own assumption? I am very happy that I worship a God who does hate sin. Instead of worshipping imperfect human morality that continues to slide into the gutter as the generations pass.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

DaRkWoLf said:
Maybe I should go and slowly skin the fist person I see walk down the street. My actions are assuredly just (Why? because I said so, of course.) you just cant understand it. Yeah... Right...

Since we're in the Ethics and Morality forums, I'll dissect some pretty clear instances of bad ethics here:
-Hate
-Wanton Violence
-Torture
-Glorification of Human Sacrifice (without an established need, no less; isn't BibleGod supposed to be omnipotent?)

How is an entity which supposedly hates, commits acts of violence essentially for the sake of it, and tortures just because he can, supposed to be "holy" or somehow deserving of praise?

can you point out where God does the things you say He does? that will get us started on looking at your interpretation vs the Christian interpretation.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

TooCurious said:
How about Noah's flood? According to the story, he drowned every land-dwelling living creature that didn't get a ticket onto the Ark. That not only includes all the "wicked men" he was trying to kill, but the infant children of those wicked men, the unborn that any pregnant "wicked women" were carrying, and every member of every species of animal other than the ones that boarded the Ark two-by-two; all the cattle, all the cats and dogs and rabbits and mice and horses and sheep and lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and squirrels and ostriches and chickens and sparrows and every other member of every other species of land-bound life on the planet. According to the story, he drowned them all. However, being omnipotent, he could have just snapped his fingers and all the "wicked men" would have dropped dead. Or he could have sent his angels to kill them all. But instead, we have an account of wanton slaughter by drowning.

*shudder* I have a bit of a fear of water. I know that's not how I'd want to go.

the infant children argument is a strawman since the Bible shows that people unable to mentally make the choice to reject God are taken to heaven (paradise).

The animals as well, since they will be taken up since they have not rejected God. Yes, I believe animals have souls due to Genesis 1:20. The term 'living creatures' is the same as used to describe mankind. Though, it is not something i base my salvation nor my theology on.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

The Bible says all men, except Noah were wicked. So God judged the wicked, end of story.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

KCDAD said:
So if one doesn't do those things he would be sinless also? What, in your mind, is sin? Is it something we do or don't do? Is it something we think or don't think? Is it something we are born or do we achieve it? (Anger is not sinful, nor is attacking someone with a whip... right? Hating one's parents is not a sin either, right?)

David was messiah and he was definitely a sinner by your definition. He may not be your messiah, but God sure liked him alot. Saul was also annointed... that is what messiah means, you know.

Just because Judaisim used messiah frequently does not mean the human imperfections are attributed to Christ.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

UberLutheran said:
If it's "righteous indignation", why did God repent of the evil He had pronounced upon Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:13), and why did God repent of the evil He was going to do to Nineveh (Jonah 3:10)?

Something which cannot do evil has no reason to repent.

relent, not repent.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

KCDAD said:
Do you just quote dogma or do you have some idea of what you mean?

You use that word sin like it has some secret meaning only you know. In reality, it appears you have no idea what it means. Occultists gloat in their sins? What does that mean?

How could you possibly know everybody in the world is a sinner? What about that fetus aborted, or the baby that died in birth? What about the infant left to die in the garbage or toilet, abandoned by its mother? What is their sin? Admit it. You have no idea what "sin" is or what you mean when you use the word. Tell me what Jesus never did that these sinners did do?

yes, fetuses and babies sin, through inheritance from Adam. The do not conciously reject God and hence have mercy and go to heaven when they die. Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, did not inherit the sinful nature of Adam. Since He did have a mother, He was fully human.

silentreader · Feb 9, 2007

kiwimac said:
According to the religious authorities of the time, Jesus was a glutton and drunkard, he quite obviously fellowshipped with those who broke the mosaic laws.

From their point of view he was a sinner and a deliberate sinner at that.

and your point is? they were in no position to judge Jesus, God in flesh. the Bible also states they made false accusation against Him.

kiwimac · Feb 9, 2007

They could not have known Jesus was God in the flesh and therefore they were exercising their right to judge, a right given and confirmed by both the people of Israel and by the Torah.

They had both the right and the authority to judge, we believe them to have been in the wrong but we are looking back on the situation and from an alien POV.

KCDAD · Feb 10, 2007

silentreader said:
yes, fetuses and babies sin, through inheritance from Adam. The do not conciously reject God and hence have mercy and go to heaven when they die. Jesus, conceived of the Holy Spirit, did not inherit the sinful nature of Adam. Since He did have a mother, He was fully human.

So the "sin nature" as you call it is carried in the y chromosome? When we clone humans from female cells they are sinless?

silentreader · Feb 12, 2007

KCDAD said:
So the "sin nature" as you call it is carried in the y chromosome? When we clone humans from female cells they are sinless?

i see you bring up something that hasn't happened (something we don't know can even be done) yet in order to avoid refuting my assertion. why don't we stick to the current realm of possibility before going down that path.

silentreader · Feb 12, 2007

kiwimac said:
They could not have known Jesus was God in the flesh and therefore they were exercising their right to judge, a right given and confirmed by both the people of Israel and by the Torah.

They had both the right and the authority to judge, we believe them to have been in the wrong but we are looking back on the situation and from an alien POV.

ahh but you are wrong here. The disciples were able to know Jesus as the Christ. Jesus taught extensively in the Temple and all of His words were received (though not understood) by the Pharisees.

The only rights they had were given to them by God the Father. You seem to imply that just because they were the only official voice of the nation of Israel that they were somehow automatically correct. if you look at the history of the nation of Israel you will see that this is not the first time the leaders of Israel did not recognize the truth of God. They persecuted their own prophets during the prophets' lives and only later recanted and confessed, after the appropriate consequences had occured.

KCDAD · Feb 12, 2007

silentreader said:
i see you bring up something that hasn't happened (something we don't know can even be done) yet in order to avoid refuting my assertion. why don't we stick to the current realm of possibility before going down that path.

Actually ALL cloning is done from female cells.

silentreader · Feb 12, 2007

KCDAD said:
Actually ALL cloning is done from female cells.

yes i know. since cloning is man meddling in the affairs of God, i would assume that it is detestible in the sight of the Lord. And hence would be sinful in nature even without having male genetics. God only intended cloning His way, through twins, etc. Given when the Bible was written and the fact it is not a science book, I don't think the fact that cloning is not specifically mentioned to be an issue. i hope your not going to use it as the crux of your argument...

Red530 · Feb 12, 2007

"He did not commit adultery.
He did not commit fornication.
He did not have gay sex.
He did not drink or do drugs.
He didn't lie, steal, murder, say anything profane."

He was human though. How do we know that he did not steal as a child, and learned from it that it was the wrong choice?
And you mention gay sex, but you don't mention sex. Do you believe he had sex? And gay sex isn't a sin, it's a risky step to take and very dangerous.

angelwarrior007 · Feb 17, 2007

hmmm sorry i didnt really read the entire thread but i have always wondered, if original sin applies to jesus. Assuming you believe in original sin, by simply being born isn't he guilty of adams sin?

ottaia · Feb 17, 2007

MercyBurst said:
If Jesus was a sinner then he would not be my messiah. He overcame every sinful temptation:

He did not commit adultery.
He did not commit fornication.
He did not have gay sex.
He did not drink or do drugs.
He didn't lie, steal, murder, say anything profane.

Just sinlessly perfect -- that's the Jesus I believe in.

Amen and amen

I am coming into this way late and I apoplgize, but what does this have to do with liberal theology? Sounds mighty conservative to me.

My Messiah isn't a sinner

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Active Member

New Member

Blue Dragon Rider

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency