Sinners all

[Amisk]

"Our sinner-ship is the one thing which equalizes all humans"
Major Ron Millar

 

[SurgeCurrent]

"Our sinner-ship is the one thing which equalizes all humans"
Major Ron Millar

Except Jesus who was 100% God 100% Human and yet had no sin.

 

[charvel]

affirmative!

 

[meganahan]

Except Jesus who was 100% God 100% Human and yet had no sin.

I am struggling with the idea that Jesus was 100% human, yet had no sin. It makes sense to me, then again it doesn't. It's my understanding that RCs believe that Mary was conceived without sin, therefore Jesus was without sin as well.

I guess I will have to think on the sinless idea, let it marinate and soak into my brain. I don't like to blindly accept things. I want to have a reason for accepting them.

 

[Jonahan]

I am struggling with the idea that Jesus was 100% human, yet had no sin.

This can, in a way, be dealt with logically, if you are so inclined as to be persuaded by logic where matters of faith are concerned.

What is the definition of sin? The Christian definition of sin varies from conversation to conversation, from church to church, and from person to person. However, it is usually defined as an "infraction of the law" (primarily Old Testament terminology), or departure from the will of God, or that which seperates us from God. (I welcome other definitions of sin. I don't think there are any that invalidate this argument.)

Jesus was not only 100% human, but 100% divine. In fact, Trinitarian doctrine states that Jesus is co-equal to God. Jesus is God. Jesus is equal to God. However you view it, Church doctrine clearly states that in all matters, what applies to God the Father applies to God the Son.

Could God sin? Could God break his law? I suppose he could, but then the question becomes, was the law meant for God? Was he ever bound by the law? To that, I believe the answer must be "no".

Could God ever do something that was against his will? This one is tougher, but if you believe that God is omnipotent, then the answer is "no". If God does it, it's God's will. (That's not to say that God doesn't allow events to happen that are NOT his will. But if I *choose* to jump up in the air, then it was my *will* to jump up in the air. If God *chooses* to do something, then that something was God's will. Unless one argues that God suffers from OCD or similar illness, I don't believe that one could successfully argue that God can do anything that's against his will. The very act of doing "it" means that "it" was, indeed, God's will.)

Could God do something to seperate himself from... um.. himself? Not in any way that we can understand.

The law was written for man, not God. God cannot do something that is not God's will, for if God does something, then that something was God's will. God cannot seperate Godself from Godself. Thus, God cannot sin.

God cannot sin.
Jesus is God.
Jesus cannot sin.

 

[Catechumen]

However you view it, Church doctrine clearly states that in all matters, what applies to God the Father applies to God the Son.

Are you sure about that? That doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Jonahan]

Are you sure about that? That doesn't sound right to me.

Hmm... You're right, it's not quite right. Though it made perfect sense when I wrote it

In terms of the "argument" I posted, I hold to what I said. God cannot sin. Christ *is* God. The doctrine of the Trinity is that God is a single being who exists as a communion of three "persons" -- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

God cannot sin.
Christ is God.
Christ cannot sin.

I believe that statement to be logically sound, and supported by scripture.

However, in terms of what the Trinity really is, I think you're right, and maybe I can't say that what applies to God the Father applies to God the Son -- especially in light of the belief that God cannot suffer, and clearly Christ did.

Now, someone can, and probably will say that:

God cannot suffer.
Christ is God.
Christ cannot suffer.

I believe that statement to be logically sound, but refuted by scripture.

Clearly there is a disconnect. We can understand the concept of the Trinity, but I, at least, am incapable of fully comprehending God.

I'll have to re-run this by my UM Doctrine professor Thursday morning and see if she can shed any light on the subject for me.

I swear as soon as I think I have ANYTHING figured out, I'm reminded that I don't =)

 

[FLA2760]

I am struggling with the idea that Jesus was 100% human, yet had no sin. It makes sense to me, then again it doesn't. It's my understanding that RCs believe that Mary was conceived without sin, therefore Jesus was without sin as well.

I guess I will have to think on the sinless idea, let it marinate and soak into my brain. I don't like to blindly accept things. I want to have a reason for accepting them.

Hi
Christ came as the Second Adam, see 1 Cor 15:47) The actual meaning of ADAM is man. His human nature was as Adam's was BEFORE the Fall. Adam had full fellowship with God proving Adam's sinless state. Adam was sinless but untested (the test being not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Christ was tested in the wilderness 40 days and nights and He resisted the temptations. See Matthew4:1-11 and Hebrews 2:9-18
Jesus himself said rebuking the Pharisees in John 8:46 "which of you convicts me of sin? And if I say the truth why don't you believe me"? Here Jesus was challenging the religious authorities to find sin and they could not.
In the Resurrection of Christ; God was showing that He accepted Christ's sacrifice on the cross for sin thus showing that Christ was indeed sinless. The innocent for the guilty.
GOD BLESS