dzim77

[QUOTE=lpetrich;3828240]

Because... In order for you to condemn Jesus as a Sabbath-breaker, you have to presuppose that he is *not* the Lord of the Sabbath - that he was lying. You have to assume that this claim is not true. On the other hand, if you presuppose nothing, and take the text as it is, then you will find Jesus to be innocent of breaking the Sabbath. (because he is Lord of the Sabbath)

If the claims of the NT are true, then Jesus did not break the Sabbath.

If you believe Jesus to be a liar, then yes he is a sinner (by definition, nonetheless). However, if Jesus was telling the truth about himself, then the NT proves to be consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless... that's all I'm saying.

He claimed to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Who else is Lord of the Sabbath other than God??

Either way, if his claim to be Lord of the Sabbath is true, then he has not broken the Sabbath.

If you're going to resort to this line of thinking then this thread is useless.

In order to prove your contention that Jesus is a sinner, you've cited multiple biblical references. If you are now going to say that any one of those references could have been "put into Jesus mouth" then you have no ground to stand on in claiming that Jesus was a sinner by citing the NT.

However, if we are talking about whether the NT is consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless, we have to take the text as it is.

It seems inconsistent for you to use the biblical references that support your claims and then throw out the ones that contradict your claims. (Unless, that is, if you start by proving the references you cited are genuine and the ones that I cited are corrupt.)

He is not claiming exemption from the laws. He is claiming authority to interpret what it means to "keep the Sabbath holy". He is saying the Pharisees' interpretation of what it means to break the Sabbath is wrong, and that he did not break the Sabbath afterall. This should be obvious from his defense.

Again, you're going in a direction that renders the thread pointless. "Unless Jesus appears to me in person, he is not Lord of the Sabbath. Therefore, he was lying and is a sinner."

This does not make the NT inconsistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless.


There is no conclusive proof that Jesus dishonored his parents here. In fact, the immediately follwing verses state that Mary "treasured *all* these things in her heart". It doesn't seem from the text that she was dishonored at all.

This is way out of line from what Jesus was teaching. You are not treating the text fairly. The point is that Jesus advocated honoring God before family in contexts and situations where there may be tension and a necessary choice between the two.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jesus was advocating cannibalism?

It does include the context. Your claims suggest you are ignoring the context.

It seems that what you are doing here is to take Biblical definitions and standards of sin. Then you are approaching the NT text with certain presuppositions... (i.e. Jesus is not the Son of God until proven otherwise, Jesus is not the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus is not the Messiah, etc...)

Now, after discarding the presuppostions of the NT writters (i.e... Jesus is telling the truth about himself), you measure Jesus against the Biblical standard of sin and declare him a sinner.

It seems very inconsistent. It doesn't prove that Jesus sinned, it only proves that you don't believe what the Bible says about Jesus to be true. Your conclusions are the same as the Pharisees of the gospels who disbelieved in Jesus as Messiah - which makes sense since you are starting with the same presuppositions.

dzim77

Thanks Jack. Can I call you Jack?

While Jesus words could be taken as bigotry on the surface, I don't see conclusive proof of bigotry in this account.

In these accounts Jesus does two primary things:
1. States the priority of his mission to his disciples (first to Israel)
2. Uses his typical teaching techniques to develop the faith of the Syro-phoenecian woman.

First off, the NT tells of serveral accounts of Jesus crossing strong cultural barriers and taboos to minister to and interact with Gentiles... the Samaritan woman (Jn 4), the centurion (Lk 7), and other ministry trips to Gentile regions. This doesn't leave a strong case for Jesus as a bigot.

As to this specific case of alleged bigotry against the Syro-phoenecian woman...
Putting together the Mark 7 and Matthew 15 accounts, we see that Jesus was resting with his disciples in a house (as he had promised them rest) when the woman came calling for Jesus. Jesus makes a statement to his disciples that the priority of his mission is to Israel. Then, Jesus (or his disciples) seem to have let her in the house where she fell at his feet and made her request.

Jesus then uses the illustration of the children and dogs at the dinner table. This is not necesarily a derogatory statement, but rather a matter of clarifying the priority of his mission AND challenging the woman's faith in order to develop her faith. Jesus states as fact that his mission was to go first to the people of Israel and then, later to the Gentiles. He then uses the dinner table to illustrate this. When the woman responds with faith, Jesus then answers the woman's request, treating her with respect and complimenting her faith.

Throughout the gospels it is a common technique of Jesus to 'test' the faith of his hearers in order to teach them important lessons. By this testing of faith, Jesus revealed the faith (or lack of faith) that his hearers possesed and also helped to strengthen their faith.

So, we have no reason to believe that the woman felt disrespected, insulted, or mistreated by Jesus. (quite the opposite, really). And we have no reason to think that Jesus was treating the woman with disdain due to her ethnicity. We only have evidence that Jesus was called first to minister to Israel... as a matter of priority according to the OT prophecies and so on. In the end Jesus successfully gave the woman hope, faith, and healing for her daughter.

jakejonesiv

According to John 10:17-18, Jesus commited suicide.

If you believe the Gospels, Jesus lied when he is credited with saying "I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." John 18:20. But Jesus is alleged to have taught in secret all the time, and even to have told parables in order to confuse people. Mark 4:10-12.

Jake Jones IV

S.C.Carlson

You mean, a form of "suicide by cop"?

jakejonesiv

If we take the gospels at face value, Jesus seems determined to get himself killed.

"No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down"

Having second thoughts: But even so I am not sure this qualifies as a sin.

dzim77

Jesus was crucified at the hands of the Romans.

Would a soldier jumping on a live grenade to save his fellow soldiers be considered a suicide?

jakejonesiv

Good point. I withdraw it.

But onto another.

If John baptized for "the remission of sins" and Jesus was baptized by John, does that make Jesus a sinner? If not, why not?

Jake Jones IV

dzim77

Interesting point.

Matthew's account seems to indicate 'no'.

Jesus indicates that he is not being baptized to demonstrate repentance from sin, as the other Israelites were doing, but rather to properly 'fulfill all righteousness'. It seems Jesus' baptism was unique. And the events that followed his baptism, according to the NT, support this idea of uniqueness.

Notice that Jesus did *not* confess any sins before he was baptized. Most likely the Israelites that were baptized by John would have confessed the sins they were repenting of before being baptized.

Perhaps he was setting a precedent of baptism for which his followers should do as well?

(on a side note... Of course, theologians point to this event as symbolic of the 'passing of the torch' of the minstry of the Word of God from the OT-style prophets (of whom John was the last and greatest) to Jesus, thus commencing the earthly ministry of Jesus. Later, at Pentecost the ministry of the Word passed from Jesus to the apostles/church by the coming of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2) )

xaxxat

What Sins Did Jesus Christ Commit?


How about being born a human?...

lpetrich

It's possible that he was bragging or that he was giving himself a title or that he was honestly mistaken -- dzim77, please tell us why you ignore possibilities like that?

And Sabbath-breaking is Sabbath-breaking no matter who does it.

As to the argument that him being God made him exempt from the Sabbath law, I note that he posed as human, thus making it seem as if laws applicable to human beings apply to him -- including the Sabbath law.

And he even thought that it was OK for his followers to break the Sabbath if they were hungry -- and they weren't exactly God.

I am using the plain statement of the text, and not trying to explain it away. It's possible that some of it -- or even all of it -- may be the invention of some of his followers, but I'm using how they portrayed him.

I will concede that I was mistaken to bring in the question of authenticity, because my evaluation was intended to be independent of that question.

But his implying that he was God in the Gospel of John is contrary to the parts that imply that he is distinct from God and subordinate to God elsewhere in the New Testament, meaning that he was likely not God. And that he was guilty of the sin of pride when he implied that he was God.

So when the Old Testament plainly states that one must not work on the Sabbath, it is a Pharisee misinterpretation?

(Jesus Christ at the Jerusalem Temple as a boy...)
That's absurd. He made his parents get very worried about him, which he ought not to have done no matter what they later thought about him.

Is that any excuse for saying something like "Get lost! I'm only following God's orders!"

What you call "presuppositions" I call "normal conclusions". Does one automatically presume the Koran to be Allah's absolutely true and uncorrupted revelation unless one has reason to believe otherwise? Does one automatically presume that the Greek gods exist unless one has reason to believe otherwise? Etc. etc. etc.