|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 10, 2018 10:27:30 GMT
One does not have to sin to relate to sinners.
That's like saying that one has to commit a crime to understand the justice system.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Aug 10, 2018 10:28:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Aug 10, 2018 10:47:16 GMT
I don't get this. Christians always say that Jesus never sinned. Why does it matter if he sinned?
It'd probably help him relate to us. I think it'd be a good thing if he had sinned.
He had to have sinned before. Come on. He was a baby, then a child, then a teenager. Is it possible not to sin in those years? Maybe if you stare at a wall the whole time. The reason it matters to them is because if Jesus sinned, then it kind of destroys their entire belief system which depends on a perfect, sinless person paying for everyone else’s sins with his life. If Jesus sinned, and all sins are equal in the eyes of God, then Jesus is no better than anyone else, and therefore not qualified to be our “savior” because he also has fallen short of the glory of God. That’s why they have to imagine him as a sinless person in order to validate the belief system. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 10, 2018 12:41:16 GMT
In answer to the actual question.
If Jesus sinned, his death means nothing in relation to redeeming mankind from sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Aug 10, 2018 12:48:13 GMT
I don't get this. Christians always say that Jesus never sinned. Why does it matter if he sinned?
It'd probably help him relate to us. I think it'd be a good thing if he had sinned.
He had to have sinned before. Come on. He was a baby, then a child, then a teenager. Is it possible not to sin in those years? Maybe if you stare at a wall the whole time.
Because as God it would be contrary to His nature. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 10, 2018 14:09:54 GMT
I don't get this. Christians always say that Jesus never sinned. Why does it matter if he sinned?
For once I can almost agree with Cody, just above. It doesn't matter, for if Jesus was God then either what He did by definition was the right thing (as Jehovah can do no other than good, apparently) or, He could just forgive that third of Himself which had transgressed.
Of course if JC was not God, which some faithists certainly believe, then he is one of everybody else and, as scripture tells us: Romans 3:23 " For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard." JC was also at least part human, which means that he was born with original sin if nothing else. Also, there are about 20 to 25 years of his life that are unaccounted for, so it seems unlikely these lost years would be without a single blemish. (An objective reader, at least, can identify the sins of pride: for instance in Luke 14:25-26 when he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple" or when he curses a fig tree for not providing as he thinks he deserves, which was not righteous indignation.)
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 10, 2018 14:29:30 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Aug 13, 2018 8:14:43 GMT
You don't see it? ; if Jesus sinned (even the tinniest little sin) He would no longer be perfect in every way. it would go against EVERYTHING He stands for which is good itself. sin is contrary to His perfect nature.
also, you forgot to factor in that we are His creation who have a free will. Adam/Eve abused that free will and freely choose to do something contrary to God and then all hell broke loose. basically once Adam/Eve fell they no longer see things properly and many things that appear appealing to them are actually bad even though they seem and feel good to us. basically it's concupiscence humanity now has after the fall of Adam/Eve. humanity is prone to sin now.
since Jesus is God (i.e. The Holy Trinity(Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) He's not subject to easily cracking under the pressure like us mere mortals do.
also, they say Jesus (when he walked earth about 2000 years ago) is like us in everything except sin. besides... He created us so it's a pretty safe bet He knows us far better than we know ourselves. basically he knows everything, as He knows our thoughts and everything we have done and will do and the future etc as you cannot hide anything from God.
p.s. Mary (who's Jesus mother) was also sinless as that's official teachings of the Catholic church which is the church Jesus Christ started with Peter (who's the first pope) and then it passed down through the generations til today. basically... Mary is God's masterpiece of creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:08:39 GMT
One does not have to sin to relate to sinners. That's like saying that one has to commit a crime to understand the justice system. Actually, I'd say that one would understand it much better if one had been on the defendant side of the equation at some point. The more angles that one experiences something from, the better one is going to understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:10:09 GMT
In answer to the actual question. If Jesus sinned, his death means nothing in relation to redeeming mankind from sin. The whole idea of that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense ontologically whether he sinned or not, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Aug 13, 2018 12:11:16 GMT
In answer to the actual question. If Jesus sinned, his death means nothing in relation to redeeming mankind from sin. The whole idea of that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense ontologically whether he sinned or not, in my opinion. If He sinned He wouldn't have been the perfect sacrifice. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:13:37 GMT
The whole idea of that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense ontologically whether he sinned or not, in my opinion. If He sinned He wouldn't have been the perfect sacrifice. I'm saying that the idea of "dying for someone's sins" or to "save them from their sins" etc. doesn't make any sense ontologically in my view. In other words, just how and why it's supposed to work in terms of the "mechanics" of it. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:33:49 GMT
In answer to the actual question. If Jesus sinned, his death means nothing in relation to redeeming mankind from sin. The whole idea of that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense ontologically whether he sinned or not, in my opinion. That's ok since it's not a philosophical issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:36:34 GMT
The whole idea of that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense ontologically whether he sinned or not, in my opinion. That's ok since it's not a philosophical issue. It can't not be an ontological issue, even if it's just intended to be fictional. The fiction would still have to make some ontological sense, otherwise it's a plot hole (well, or at least just incoherent poetic stuff). |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:37:38 GMT
One does not have to sin to relate to sinners. That's like saying that one has to commit a crime to understand the justice system. Actually, I'd say that one would understand it much better if one had been on the defendant side of the equation at some point. The more angles that one experiences something from, the better one is going to understand it. This doesn't make sense from a corruption angle.
That's like saying the best firemen have to have 3rd degree burns.
It is not beneficial to experience something that will kill us in order to understand why someone else died from it. Further, it is more beneficial to save someone from something that could kill them because we have never experienced it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:41:15 GMT
That's ok since it's not a philosophical issue. How come? The idea of sin in itself is a religious based philosophical concept within itself. Yes, from the outside of the religion.
From within, it's a rule set.
So in Judaism and Christianity sin leads to death and also leads to an imperfect mode of redemption through sacrifice. That's not a something up for debate in relation to other philosophies as if it's a hypothesis.
However, if ones want to debate on the assumption the doctrine isn't true, then have at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:42:32 GMT
That's ok since it's not a philosophical issue. It can't not be an ontological issue, even if it's just intended to be fictional. The fiction would still have to make some ontological sense, otherwise it's a plot hole (well, or at least just incoherent poetic stuff). It does make sense from within the teaching and you haven't provided a plot hole just by saying it doesn't make sense to you. That would just mean you don't get it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:43:11 GMT
Actually, I'd say that one would understand it much better if one had been on the defendant side of the equation at some point. The more angles that one experiences something from, the better one is going to understand it. This doesn't make sense from a corruption angle.
That's like saying the best firemen have to have 3rd degree burns.
It is not beneficial to experience something that will kill us in order to understand why someone else died from it. Further, it is more beneficial to save someone from something that could kill them because we have never experienced it.
I don't know what "from a corruption angle" refers to. You'd have to explain that better. I didn't say anything about "the best." I said something about understanding things better. You'd understand fires and how to deal with them, including people stuck in the middle of them, better if you understand what it's like to be in a fire, and firemen certainly understand that. It's part of their training to become a fireman. "It is not beneficial to experience something that will kill us in order to understand why someone else died from it." I'm not making a black and white statement. In other words, I'm not saying that one can't understand something at all, from some angle, if one hasn't experienced something. I'm saying you understand it better if you have experienced the various angles of it. You indeed would understand something that will kill you better if you've experienced it than if you haven't. For one, that experience is itself a kind of understanding. You can't have that if you've not experienced whatever it is. You can only have an intellectual understanding of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 13, 2018 12:44:26 GMT
It can't not be an ontological issue, even if it's just intended to be fictional. The fiction would still have to make some ontological sense, otherwise it's a plot hole (well, or at least just incoherent poetic stuff). It does make sense from within the teaching and you haven't provided a plot hole just by saying it doesn't make sense to you. That would just mean you don't get it. Explain how it works ontologically from within the teaching then. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 13, 2018 12:48:01 GMT
Terrapin StationIt's simply. Sin is corruption. However, anything that removes us from our optimal levels is a corruption. For example, meth head is not a better employee than a drug free one. You don't need to understand things "better, whatever that means, to understand them. All someone would have to know is being burned by a fire is bad. There's no extra step that needs to be taken although one could argue that Jesus did indeed step into the fire in a manner of speaking.
|
|
