Joan of Bark

According to E.P. Sanders in The Historical Figure of Jesus, none of his miracles would have indicated to anyone living at that time that he is the Son of God, because others before him had done the same things. Claiming to be the Son of God is clearly meaningless; hell, I could claim to be the Son of God. Ditto for forgiving sins. Curing the sick and healing the blind, while not common, were considered to be skills possessed by others.

I'm with Ipetrich. Your arguments are unconvincing. Jesus was inconsistent in both his views and his actions, unless you use very convoluted rationalizations to make them so.

Gawen

Ex 14 "If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies while the owner is not present, he must make restitution. 15 But if the owner is with the animal, the borrower will not have to pay. If the animal was hired, the money paid for the hire covers the loss.
VS
Mat 8
32 He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.

Ex 22
1 "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. (Note: Does not include pork. Probably the cloven hoof thing)

Ex 22 (assuming the tenders of the herd of Pigs in Mat were not the owners of the herd)
10 "If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, 11 the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the LORD that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property. The owner is to accept this, and no restitution is required.
(Technically, Jesus did not touch the animals)

It would appear that Jesus did no wrong-doing. However a weak case could be made with:
Ex 22
12 But if the animal was stolen from the neighbor, he must make restitution to the owner.

I am neither a lawyer nor a Rabbi. Who knows how this would have ended up had they tried to prosecute.

Anat

Those were pigs! Since when do rabbis care what happens to pigs?

Clivedurdle

I must agree that Jesus was sinless! According to Hebrews he was both the High Priest and the sinless lamb of god to be sacrificed.

This of course, has no relationship to a bloke in some stories called the gospels.

(And if a child kills another child is that murder?)

What about the clay made into sparrows that flew off - is it a sin to interfere with the laws of nature?

It would seem the rabbis above would argue that any tricks, including god himself appearing, cannot overrule a considered agreement!

Clivedurdle

Read Durkheim - it is definitely killing yourself, therefore suicide!

The issue is the reason behind it and how the catholic church defined suicide and when,

http://durkheim.itgo.com/suicide.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm

Their get out of jail free card is "without God's consent" which brings in Nuremberg,

1 is God committing murder?
2 following orders is no defence!

Jobar

And don't forget boating on a navigable waterway without a license, or indeed even a boat.

Chili

Of course it was and therefore his final comment "It is finished." We must remember here that only the bare naked persona was crucified and that was created by Joseph the Jew. Jesus the son of man just carried it to Calvary as if it was his cross to be crucified on.

Jesus himself was without sin because he was no longer a Jew and not subject to the convition by their laws (eg. Gal. 5:1-5; 1Jn.3:9; Rev.14:12). In fact, to be saved and keep the commandments is a sure sign of a heretic who will surely die in the flesh.

dzim77

To repeat....

If Jesus was a mere ordinary human... then he may have been lying or bragging or giving himself a title, and yes he would be guilty of sin. I've already admitted that.

On the other hand, if you take Jesus to be the Son of God, as the NT claims him to be, then he did not break the Sabbath. Thus, the NT is consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless.


When approaching the Sabbath-breaking issue, the determining factor is *who do you believe Jesus to be?*

Yes, if you believe him to be an ordinary human, then he is a sinner.

Apparently this is the approach you are taking with this thread (am i correct?)....

1. We presuppose that Jesus is a completely ordinary human man
2. Now, let's look at the NT text and list all the sins he commited given this presupposition

The problem is that your presuppostion contradicts the very text you are dealing with. You're assuming Jesus to be a liar and then judging him guilty of lying. It renders the thread pointless.

Again, you are only showing that you don't believe what the NT says about Jesus to be true. You are not proving him to be a sinner.

The issue here is "what does it mean to keep the Sabbath holy? What does it mean to work on the Sabbath?"

As the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus interprets the law to mean that healing the sick and picking grain from the field as you walk along (as his disciples are with Jesus while he is ministering) is consistent with keeping the Sabbath holy.

I disagree with you here. Above you stated that Jesus may have been mistaken or giving himself a title... this is clearly *not* how the text portrays him. His followers portray him as actually being the Son of God, the Son of Man, the Messiah, 'God the one and only', etc...

Thanks.
Now, having established the above, a plain reading of John 1 should tell you that Jesus was *not* an ordinary human being. Do you think "God the one and only" has authority to interpret the Sabbath laws?

If you'd like to stay in the synoptics... Matthew 1 speaks of Jesus' conception by the Holy Spirit, his being the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy, and that he would "save his people from their sins". With this view of Jesus presented to us in the NT, it would be out of line to assume that Jesus was just 'giving himself a title' when he claimed to be Lord of the Sabbath.

I disagree. There are sufficient ways to explain this other that saying that Jesus was lying and blaspheming. The trinity is one of them.


No, a Pharisee misinterpretation would be that one cannot heal the sick on the Sabbath. They allow one to pull a sheep out of a pit if it's stuck, but not to heal the sick.... Jesus points this out as hypocrisy and a misinterpretation of the law's intention. Jesus claims it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.

(... hm, this Jesus guy sounds like either a rotten sinner or a lunatic to me )

Here, you seem to be reading in your own idea of Jesus speaking to his parents with an air of arrogance or snottiness. The text gives us no reason to read Jesus words in this way. You can just as easily read the text as Jesus speaking with sincerity and reverence to his parents... wanting to explain and reveal to them a truth about his identity and his heavenly Father.


Ok, I understand your point... but would you agree that this is beside the point of the thread? Above you said that authenticity was not the issue.

The point I'm making is that the NT is consistent in it's view of Jesus as sinless.

If you admit that you are approaching the text with a presuppostion that much of what it says about Jesus is not true, then I will drop all my arguments.

dzim77

Is a soldier throwing himself on a live grenade to save the lives of his fellow soldiers a sinful act of suicide?

Is the bodyguard who takes a bullet to protect the President commiting suicide? Is this a sin?

dzim77

First off, no one in history had performed miracles on the scale of Jesus... hundreds, maybe thousands of healings would be assumed from the NT texts. Also, he did the miracles by his own authority, no one ever cast out demons 'in the name of Elijah'.

Also,

What about resurrecting from the dead? Including his prophecy to be killed and be raised after three days. (Luke 9:22)

What about his transfiguration -revealing his glory to Peter and John?