CX

Crucial to this argument is what constitutes "sin". "Sin" is that which is against god. If Jesus was god certainly he did nothing against himself. If god is the absolute standard then by definition nothing god does is sinful.

Sheshbazzar

The N.T. definition of "sin" IS, "...sin IS the transgression of the Law." 1 John 3:4, The point being made is that the mans 'alleged' conduct is inconsistent with the god given requirements of kingship. Based on the Law, and the Judgments, and Decrees of the 'Authorized' Priesthood, all Jews would be bound to reject his, and his disciples claims to kingship.
I believe that most of the N.T. was fabricated long after to support the various dogmas that the cult had invented.

Toto

Chili's digression has been split off here.

Sheshbazzar - please enable your PMs (private messages).

Endemion

Yes, but one of the arguments for the divinity of Jesus is that he commited no sin. Something it is alleged that only God himself could accomplish. If it can be shown that Jesus commited a sin, then Christianity is shown to be false.

Toto

I notice that some of the things that people use to accuse Jesus of "sin" are things your school teacher might consider bad behavior, but not "sin" as defined in the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus might have lied at one point, but he was not under oath bearing false witness. He got angry, which your mother would not like if you did it at the dinner table, but which cannot be called ungodly behavior.

It does not appear that he was in open rebellion against the law, as Paul and later Christians tended to be. His sayings were compatible with those of the Pharisees.

Where he (or the character in the gospels) did violate the law was in refusing to get married and propagate the species.

Sheshbazzar

When He was challenged by the Pharisees for preforming "work" on the Sabbath (Matt 12:1-2) it was not simple "bad behavior," the penalty for preforming "work" on the Sabbath could be as extreme as to receive the sentence death, And He knew it, having been born and raised in that society, and fully educated in all The Laws.
He was most certainly aware that His actions were forbidden by DECREE, and that the Law was subject to the interpretation of the Priesthood, in fact interpretation by the priesthood was DEMANDED. (Deut.17:8-13)
His choosing to resist rather than obey with humility the Divinely sanctioned DECISION of the Levitical Priesthood, was a willful insult to the Laws of Yahweh, to the ordained priesthood, to authority, and to the very institutions and foundations on which Jewish society was built. An affront to all that they held Holy, all that they believed in, and all that they lived for.
But here was the real problem with His alleged conduct, They whom he was resisting and rebuking, had been by threat from Yahweh himself, given NO other options than an obedience to the letter of the Law, or punishment.
And as of this time He himself offered them no alternative nor escape from their situation, which was a set-up, and if the narrative is to be accepted at face value, He knew it was a set-up, and therefore had no valid reason to treat His countrymen with such contempt.

All this said, I believe this entire story is a fable that was invented by the Christian cult years latter to support all their fabricated dogma, Things that He allegedly spoke, He did not actually speak at all, They put their words in His mouth.

Toto

Sheshbazzar: most commentators seem to have difficulty figuring out what the charges against Jesus were in the Sanhedrin, and whether they made any sense under Jewish law. Why do you think he was charged? Does the trial make any sense based on Jewish law or procedures?

Alf

Let us assume that Jesus was God as the christians believe.

He never spoke up against slavery, discrimination of women etc.

Now, you may say that "not speaking up" against something is not a sin. Fine, if he had spoken up against it, so much the better but not speaking up is not a sin, right?

Well, if he was God then he is supposedly the one that holds an absolute standard of moral and so not speaking up implies one of the following:

1. Jesus was not God - the christians are mistaken.
2. God has no absolute morality - again the christians are mistaken in that belief.
3. God's absolute morality implies slavery and discrimination of women is "ok". If so, God's absolute morality is inferior to modern man's morality and by our moral standard God and Jesus are immoral. Christians are therefore following a god that is less moral than themselves. This is absurd but the world appear to be absurd at times.
4. Jesus did speak up against slavery and discrimination of women but it never made it to the gospels. One may ask what other things of importance of Jesus' sayings never made it to the gospels? How can the gospels be considered the "word of God" when they leave out such important information?

If anyone can see a solution to the dilemma not listed above I would like to know about it. The solution "There was no Jesus" is contained in solution 1. above and is thus included.

So, given that this list all possible solutions and they are all unacceptable to christians one must conclude that the christians are wrong. They can choose which one of the places above where they are wrong but they are wrong either way.

I would say that it is reasonable to expect that a god being the source of an absolute moral WOULD speak up against slavery and that such a statement WOULD make it to the bible if the bible was the divinely inspired word of god and so the failure to produce such statements from the NT is evidence that Jesus - if he existed - was a sinner. The sin here is failure to speak up against something that is contradictory to the moral standard which God supposedly are supposed to be the source of. This failure to speak up might be forgiven if it was performed by a mere mortal but for a god to keep silent about this is not acceptable and is a sin.

So, Jesus - if he existed - was either a mere mortal (i.e. not God) or he was a sinner.

Alf

Sheshbazzar

Not really that complicated, in my view, and various Jewish and Christian sources have explained it many times. If I recall correctly, it was somewhere around 200 B.C. that Rabbinic Judaism began to interpret the fourth commandment of the Decalogue (Ex.20:7 & Deut.5:11) to mean to refrain from speaking the Divine Name,Yahweh, least it become mocked or held in contempt by Israel's enemies, this interpretation was passed into a JUDGMENT, and a BAN, that ultimately had a death sentence for the person that would presumptuously violate it by speaking 'ha Shem ha mephoresh',
that is "The Name in particular."

By the time of Yahshua, It is recorded by Josephus, that the Name had became the exclusive province of The High Priest, who would only utter it once a year in the Temple ritual incantations on the Day of Atonement. For anyone else it was the sin of 'blasphemy' to utter it aloud.
I have here a Bible that renders Exodus 20:7 thus:

" Thou shalt not take away the Name of Yahweh thy Elohim to bring it to nought, for Yahweh will hold him guiltless that taketh away His Name to bring it to nought"

[as a person who has recited this verse a countless number of times in Hebrew, my more modern English rendering is:

"You must not remove the Name Yahweh to make it void, For Yahweh will not hold him guiltless that removes His Name to make it void"

But this loses somewhat in translation, for the word rendered as 'remove' (yisa) has the meaning 'to lift' so that essentially 'lifting' or exalting the Name to the point of it being considered 'unspeakable' is also the trespass here being spoken against.]

At Yahshua's trial, He said to the High Priest: "I AM, and you shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of Yahweh, and coming in the clouds of heaven" Then the High Priest tore his garment, and said, 'What need have we of any further witnesses? You have heard the BLASPHEMY! what is your verdict?" and they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. (Mk.14:62-64)

At this point He 'had stepped down hard on some theological toes!, He had usurped the High Priest's prerogative! They were incensed!
And as they were fully in charge of the Law, Death could be rendered by ANY MEANS of their choosing. irregardless of any prior tradition or practice.

A short final comment here about the 'I AM'.. a recognized play on the short form of the Name, 'YAH', having as its root the verb meaning 'to make exist' The very first recorded WORD to be SPOKEN by Elohim, in Gen.1:3 "LET THERE BE light" ...YOD-HEY-YOD AOR " literally "Let HIM Be light".. and HE WAS.."
This first WORD of Elohim is what St. John was invoking in 1:1-5
Best wishes to all.

Jontg

Actually, lemmings do not commit suicide--they swarm, and on occasion some lemmings will fall over a cliff or into a river. The myth of the suicidal lemmings was started by a poorly-researched nature documentary that showed footage of a swarm of lemmings near the edge of a cliff. A good deal of them wound up falling off, and the image passed into urban legend.
This myth is annoying enough simply because it is wrong--but our increasingly desperate Christian rivals have begun using the lemming as "evidence" against evolution.
Remember, even skeptics are vulnerable to ignorance--and we don't get a free pass when we contradict ourselves.