Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 03-12-2008, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

here is a conversation I had today with a co-worker who was shocked by my deconversion:

Me: Did Jesus sin?

Him: Of course not he was God.

Me: But if Jesus was man, and all men sin, wouldn't this mean jesus could sin?

Him: of course not because he's God too! He can't sin.

Me: Well, did he feel pain on the cross when he was crucified since he's God?

Him: of course he felt pain! He was a man too!

Brilliant!

FWIW the question as to whether Jesus could have sinned but didn't, or could not have sinned at all, is disputed among broadly orthodox Christians. (Eg I don't think Anglicans have ever had an official position on the issue.)

Useful discussion probably requires a clear definition of what one means by things that might have happened but didn't.

Andrew Criddle

Gamera · 03-12-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Your assumption that a fit of rage in the Temple (even your characterization of it) is not possible for a divinity may or may not be true (whatever that means), but it certainly isn't true for the Jesus that is portrayed in historical Christianity. So who are you talking about?

As to the donkey, do you think maybe there is some symbolic meaning there that has nothing to do with how it was procured?

Well If god knows all, he can not have rage because rage is a human emotion that humans have because we are not "perfect beings."

A perfect being has no reason or desire to have a fit of rage. By definition, a perfect being lacks nothing so it can't be mad or upset, because getting mad, upset, etc implies imperfection.

Again, you're making an assumption about the concept of God that isn't shared by historical Christianity, which has no problem with an emotional God, so your criticism of the texts seems off base.

Gamera · 03-12-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Your assumption that a fit of rage in the Temple (even your characterization of it) is not possible for a divinity may or may not be true (whatever that means), but it certainly isn't true for the Jesus that is portrayed in historical Christianity. So who are you talking about?

As to the donkey, do you think maybe there is some symbolic meaning there that has nothing to do with how it was procured?

Supposedly, there is a prophecy of jesus riding into town on a donkey. So, Jesus sees a donkey and tells his disciples to get it and they will return it.

There is no way around this question:

Why did god Himself mention the donkey would be returned and fail to mention the reutrn in his "infallible Word?"

Maybe the symbolism is that jesus is an "ass" for doing this.

I must go out for a bit. I will be back later.

I don't think you have a future as a literary critic.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-12-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Well If god knows all, he can not have rage because rage is a human emotion that humans have because we are not "perfect beings."

A perfect being has no reason or desire to have a fit of rage. By definition, a perfect being lacks nothing so it can't be mad or upset, because getting mad, upset, etc implies imperfection.

Again, you're making an assumption about the concept of God that isn't shared by historical Christianity, which has no problem with an emotional God, so your criticism of the texts seems off base.

More importantly, the premise upon which "Half life's" conclusion of absurdity rests -- that Mark presents or thinks of Jesus as God, let alone the God of Greek philosophy -- is absolutely false. It has no foundation in the text of Mark and involves reading Mark anachronistically, as if he were a Chalcedonian.

Jeffrey

Didymus · 03-12-2008, 02:51 PM

The donkey story was one of the many pericopes that were shamelessly contrived to portray Jesus as the messianic fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy. Zechariah 9:

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Of course, the king in this case was of a more conventional variety, smiting the Greeks and bringing peace to the land of Zion. And shortly thereafter, the Lord appears!

As with many of these pericopes, the parallel was inexact, to say the least. Some were quite ludicrous. But they were close enough to convince readers, even today, that the NT was anticipated by the ancient Hebrews.

As the saying goes, there's one born every minute.

Ddms

Half-Life · 03-12-2008, 03:10 PM

Boy, if Jesus got this upset at Jews selling things in a Temple, I'd hate to see how he would have reacted if God sent him to Egypt to deal with their gods.

He probably would've destroyed the whole nation.

Good thing God "played it safe" and sent him to Jerusalem.

Cege · 03-12-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Boy, if Jesus got this upset at Jews selling things in a Temple, I'd hate to see how he would have reacted if God sent him to Egypt to deal with their gods.

Jesus is viewed by Christians as a manifestation of God on earth, fully man and also fully God. (This perception, like many others by Christians, has to remain "mysterious" because there is no logical and natural explanation, but that's religion for ya.)

God portrayed in the OT often burns with rage and inflicts pain, disease, and death on both on his 'chosen people' and on pagans who are in their vicinity.

Jesus' actions in 'clearing the temple' (literalists believe this happened twice) are meant to appear motivated by righteous indignation. God is down with righteous indignation.

The donkey incident is meant to be interpreted as something of a miracle (Jesus knowing where to find the donkey, knowing it would be allowed to be borrowed on the mere mention of his name, and a fullfilment of messianic OT scripture). There's no hint of stealing the donkey or any plan not to return it.

For the rendition of how God is supposed to have dealt with Egypt, see the book of Exodus

WishboneDawn · 03-12-2008, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

More importantly, the premise upon which "Half life's" conclusion of absurdity rests -- that Mark presents or thinks of Jesus as God, let alone the God of Greek philosophy -- is absolutely false. It has no foundation in the text of Mark and involves reading Mark anachronistically, as if he were a Chalcedonian.

Jeffrey

I think he comes from a fundie background so he's probably not to knowledgable about textual criticism and all that.

EmpiricalGod · 03-12-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Half-Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Your assumption that a fit of rage in the Temple (even your characterization of it) is not possible for a divinity may or may not be true (whatever that means), but it certainly isn't true for the Jesus that is portrayed in historical Christianity. So who are you talking about?

As to the donkey, do you think maybe there is some symbolic meaning there that has nothing to do with how it was procured?

Well If god knows all, he can not have rage because rage is a human emotion that humans have because we are not "perfect beings."

A perfect being has no reason or desire to have a fit of rage. By definition, a perfect being lacks nothing so it can't be mad or upset, because getting mad, upset, etc implies imperfection.

chrsitians call it righteous indignation!
It's basicly an excuse to still get pissed off, but claim it's to maintain respect for God. In other words, if someone treds on their beliefs, then it's a free ticket to sinless anger.

Eldarion Lathria · 03-12-2008, 07:57 PM

Maybe that's why Jesus was crucified. Was it possible that they crucified ass thieves in those parts?

Eldarion Lathria

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-12-2008, 02:51 PM	#25
Didymus Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 416	The donkey story was one of the many pericopes that were shamelessly contrived to portray Jesus as the messianic fulfillment of Hebrew prophesy. Zechariah 9: Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey. Of course, the king in this case was of a more conventional variety, smiting the Greeks and bringing peace to the land of Zion. And shortly thereafter, the Lord appears! As with many of these pericopes, the parallel was inexact, to say the least. Some were quite ludicrous. But they were close enough to convince readers, even today, that the NT was anticipated by the ancient Hebrews. As the saying goes, there's one born every minute. Ddms

03-12-2008, 03:10 PM	#26
Half-Life Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A place in the Northern Hemisphere of Planet Earth Posts: 1,250	Boy, if Jesus got this upset at Jews selling things in a Temple, I'd hate to see how he would have reacted if God sent him to Egypt to deal with their gods. He probably would've destroyed the whole nation. Good thing God "played it safe" and sent him to Jerusalem.

03-12-2008, 07:57 PM	#30
Eldarion Lathria Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Atlantis Posts: 2,449	Maybe that's why Jesus was crucified. Was it possible that they crucified ass thieves in those parts? Eldarion Lathria

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.