long winded fool

Does sinning mean doing something that I don't agree with, something that Judaism doesn't agree with, or something that God doesn't agree with? Most Christians assume the last. If one accepts Jesus' divinity for the sake of argument, then all he has to do is say that he is not a sinner and that's that. If Jesus is God, then it is not a sin for Him to work miracles on the Sabbath, curse a fig tree, or tell people He is the son of God, because he obviously thinks that those are the right things to do.

And as far as whether or not Jesus was keeping the Sabbath holy, how does one do that, precisely? And what exactly is allowed and disallowed? And in what way would healing the sick render the Sabbath unholy? Seems to me that Jesus was the only one who was honoring the Sabbath and keeping it holy. The Pharisees, in their political attempts to outwit Jesus by deliberately trying to find contradictions in his behavior with the Law of Moses, were the ones dishonoring the Lord's Day. Finding fault in a good thing for selfish personal reasons is dishonorable, whereas doing good things without expectation of a reward of any kind is honorable.

BuffaloBill

I think he could be accused of stealing an ass and a colt, shortly before embarking on his famous stunt rider escapade (Look! He rides them both!), as recorded in Matthew 21:1-11.

Magdlyn

The question is: was Jesus a sinner that need to repent and reform at his baptism? There is no simple answer. One must understand that each gospel narrative, and Paul, treated this subject in a different way.

The ritual bath was a common element of both Judaism and pagan religions. So for John to have taken that ritual and made it popular enough to have people coming from miles around to have "the baptism of John" is not surprising. Perhaps Jews saw the end of their culture being near and wanted a cleanse before the end of life as they knew it?

Anyway, Jesus might have come to the Jordan b/c there were large groups of Jews looking for religious ritual outside of the Temple, which was corrupted by this time. Perhaps he heard of a dissatisfied crowd that might be open to a new way of practicing Judaism.

The stories of Jesus and Ioannes, both rebel Jews, became intermixed in the gospels, one cult feeding off another.

In Mark, Jesus was not seen as divine. He was a man who did not become special until his baptism. He was not god. He was human. The suspect nature of his baptism also had a pagan element--the dove, a common goddess symbol, descending on his head. Perhaps the gooddess (not YHWH) said: this is my son.

Matthew and Luke tried to excuse J's need to be baptized. But BGJn, written even later, just left it out!

Paul did not know of John the Baptist of course. His Jesus was not baptised. And followers of Jesus? Needed a baptism, but that could be interpreted broadly, as in Moses "baptism" crossing the Sea of Reeds, for example.

Magdlyn

If you dig into scholarship at all, you would find this odd little story was never meant to be interpreted literally. The fig tree represents Jews who will not open their eyes to the next phase of Judaism (as the narrator saw it), Jesus' Messiahship. J's point was, if, as a Jew, you will not come along on the Jesus adventure, leaving temple worship behind, you are not bearing fruit.

So, not a sin. Just a symbol.

Magdlyn

Who says this is a heresy? Jesus' divine nature is moved farther and farther back, the more the tradition develops.

In Paul Jesus becomes God's elect at his resurrection. In Mark, at his baptism. In Matthew and Luke, at his conception and birth. In John, he is pre-existent with YHWH himself, before creation, as the Logos (wisdom) of god.

Pay your money, take your choice.

BuffaloBill

If Jesus were to espouse and preach a philosophy such as "resist not evil" (or in some translations "resist not evildoers") as he did in the Sermon on the Mount, would that not make him complicit in any atrocities or crimes committed?

diana

Interesting question. I'd take it to be something "God" doesn't agree with, but in those days--if we take the bible to be truth, which is the standard assumption of the Christian, is it not?--the Jewish laws were the things God didn't agree with, so far as anyone knew.

Then it would follow that "Jesus was without sin" is altogether a meaningless phrase. It would also follow that it was impossible for him to be tempted.

I've long wondered how anyone could read the story of Jesus' temptation and not see how daft it is. Assuming Jesus was God, then he already had everything and every power and knew it (being omniscient). With what do you "tempt" someone who already has everything? Wouldn't that rather be like a man offering to trade me my own house and my own truck if I performed a sexual favor for him? If I manage to say no, does that make me "resistant to temptation"--or just "not mental"?

Jesus, being a "rabbi," would have been well acquainted with the Sabbath laws. The Pharisees weren't just making them up, you know.

Does this mean your idea of "sin" is that which you don't agree with? I thought you were arguing that it was something God doesn't agree with for a second there. Please clarify.

Not at all. The OT makes it quite clear that those who violate the Lord's Day were to be punished (stoned, right?). They were only doing their duty in pointing out his obvious transgressions.

Exd 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it [is] holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth [any] work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Num 15: the Lord commands a man who is picking up sticks on the Sabbath be stoned to death, and the CoI are admonished to remember the commandments of the Lord, to take this as an example.

Neh 13: Nehemiah upbraids the nobles of Judah for buying/selling on the Sabbath and allowing the strangers within their gates to do so. He puts an end to the practice to protect the people from the wrath of God.

You seem to be forcing an interpretation unsupported by the text.

d

Boomeister

Nah, the question has nothing to do with in need to repent and reform at his baptism.
Much of the sins I posted in the OP happened after his baptism.
This isn't a baptism question.
I just don't see how Jesus could be considered sinless and perfect, as he clearly didn't lead a sinless and perfect life. Perhaps he was less sinful than other people, perhaps he was holier than other people. I'll grant people that. But he clearly made mistakes.

He killed someone else's pigs; he stole corn on the sabbath; he got his disciples to steal a colt and ass; he calls people "fool," he disrespected Mary by stating that she is not his mother (when he was mad at her for thinking he was crazy); he doesn't show compassion for the man who just lost his father ('let the dead bury the dead!'), he preaches against family stability; he lied about whether he was going to be at the feast (anyone remember that verse? I'm too lazy to look it up now, but I will if need be).
Maybe there were good reasons for some of the things he did, but they were still sins as delineated by Old Testament and by many people's standards. I can rationalize my sins too, it doesn't make them go away.
Jesus said we need to follow all of the laws (I'll try to find that verse too if need be)...that even the small laws should be obeyed.


Boomygrrl

long winded fool

Is the victim of a crime complicit in the crime itself if he or she allows it to happen? Can it be said that it is my fault that my wallet was stolen since I did not resist the thief? Does putting yourself into a situation that makes you vulnerable to criminal victimization make the crime partially your fault? Is the girl who wears revealing clothing complicit in her own subsequent rape? Or is crime always solely the responsibility of the criminal?

I would say that putting yourself or someone else in a situation where they are vulnerable to being victimized is a question of wisdom, not moral responsibility. The person who chooses to victimize someone else bears 100% of the responsibility of his crime.

An interesting point. Does "without sin" necessarily imply an inability to sin? Does the notion that "Jesus is God" also mean that all attributes attributed in God must be present in Jesus? Perhaps, but what of the notion that "Jesus is Man?" Shouldn't all the attributes of "Man" be present in Jesus as well? Are these attributes necessarily incompatible, or just practically incompatible?

The Pharisees were interpreting them incorrectly. According to Jesus, the books of Moses were not about law, contrary to the teachings of the religion of the time, they were about Him. Perhaps the Pharisees were the ones who were not acquainted with the laws. Understanding the letter of the law does not mean that one understands the spirit. Perhaps the Pharisees were obeying the letter of the law, but disobeying the spirit?

I wasn't making an argument, just asking what it means to "sin."

Matthew 12, Mark 3, Luke 6, John 5. They were acting out of hatred for Jesus, not love for God. Their intent was to kill him, and they were attempting to use God's law as a weapon to do it. "Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or do evil, to save life or destroy it?"

Magdlyn

I didn't mean your first question per se.

I guess you are pointing out that the Bible and Jesus' words are contradictory? Yep. They are. The gospel narrators contradict Paul, each other, and even themselves within each book. They all had a unique hagiogrphical agenda. They were all "preaching to the choir" of different geographical regions, decades apart. The myth grew and changed.

Jesus did not neccessarily steal the donkey, tho. He may have prearranged for its use and just had a couple guys go pick it up. Minor point.

Breaking the Sabbath by picking grain and healing a withered hand, and preaching against family stability do go against Torah. Jesus was changing the law, even tho Matthew made him he said he wasn't.