Did Jesus Christ Sin? (Poll)

5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

I don't tend to associate damning your enemy eternally with love, nor do I consider eternal damnation a blessing. And I certainly don't consider it doing good to those that hate you. See, it's a really nice thought. We are commanded to live by that principle. But God? Oh no. He gets to SLAUGHTER His enemy. He gets to exact some GOOD, RIGHTEOUS PAYBACK on those who curse him or hate him... as opposed to doing exactly what we're supposed to do to those who hate us or curse us. That's what I mean when I say God is playing by His own set of rules. And if He gets to hate and damn where we must forgive and turn the other cheek... it's not equitable, not fair.

As for 5:46 - Most Bible believers will claim that God DOES love the souls He casts into Hell, but we both know that wrath and the imposition of eternal torture as punishment for disobedience are the very antithesis of love. So if we are to believe this verse, Jesus ironically demonstrates that God is no better than the 'fallen' publicans when it comes to love and forgiveness.

So that's the problem. These are good notions to which the turn and burn God does not ascribe, despite demanding that we do.

pianist

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.

Well, I don't believe that the Bible, in its original form, said that God sends people to eternal damnation... but yeah, those who do certainly would have to justify such a thing, although you've given precisely the argument that one tends to use.

pianist wins again. Why must thou be so smrt? :o And I wish that they would stop trying to turn us, I mean, how many have they turned with this kind of LONG reads?Deihjan

They're not trying to turn us. They frankly don't care if they convert anyone. Do a little reading up on them and you'll quickly find that they're just looking out for themselves by submitting to the Lord through spreading the "good news" as they are commanded by the Bible. They couldn't care less if they're breaking GS's anti-advertising rules or driving people away from Christianity with their presentation of their viewpoints. In fact, they revel in the negative attention they receive, viewing it as just more proof that they're doing the Lord's work and will be rewarded in Heaven.

It's just... PAINFULLY clear that the union's mission is in no way designed to create discussion. Its mission is to advertise Christianity, nothing more. If its product weren't religion, the CWU would have been shut down long ago.

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.

Well, I don't believe that the Bible, in its original form, said that God sends people to eternal damnation... but yeah, those who do certainly would have to justify such a thing, although you've given precisely the argument that one tends to use.

GabuEx

I know, Gabu. You need not address my concerns, because you obviously believe in a very different sort of God - one that does actually "love His enemies."

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Ahhh, I see what you're saying.

Well, I don't believe that the Bible, in its original form, said that God sends people to eternal damnation... but yeah, those who do certainly would have to justify such a thing, although you've given precisely the argument that one tends to use.

pianist

I know, Gabu. You need not address my concerns, because you obviously believe in a very different sort of God - one that does actually "love His enemies."

Rightio, carry on then. :P

This question is best answered like this: Sin is defined as an immoral act considered to be a offensive against divine law. If Jesus was God embodied in man -- then it is impossible for him to sin, because he cannot offend himself. If Jesus was not God's son -- then he by definition is a sinner, as he was a blasphemer. and if God does not exist -- Jesus cannot by definition be called a sinner, because it is impossible to offend something that doesn't exist. Once you have decided whether Jesus is God's son, isn't God's son, or God doesn't exist at all -- you've answered the question.Stumpt25

I don't believe He did.

Well his wife was a prostitute so i would think so.

BumFluff122

You telling me his wife was a hooker?! then what kind of son of God was that?! after hearing that, how am I gonna respect the man?!.... that kind of man is no son of God.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Well his wife was a prostitute so i would think so.

Dogswithguns

You telling me his wife was a hooker?! then what kind of son of God was that?! after hearing that, how am I gonna respect the man?!.... that kind of man is no son of God.

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]pianist wins again. Why must thou be so smrt? :o And I wish that they would stop trying to turn us, I mean, how many have they turned with this kind of LONG reads?pianist

They're not trying to turn us. They frankly don't care if they convert anyone. Do a little reading up on them and you'll quickly find that they're just looking out for themselves by submitting to the Lord through spreading the "good news" as they are commanded by the Bible. They couldn't care less if they're breaking GS's anti-advertising rules or driving people away from Christianity with their abrasive presentation of their viewpoints. In fact, they revel in the negative attention they receive, viewing it as just more proof that they're doing the Lord's work and will be rewarded in Heaven.

It's just... PAINFULLY clear that the union's mission is in no way designed to create discussion. Its mission is to advertise Christianity, nothing more. If its product weren't religion, the CWU would have been shut down long ago.

While I do not accept a single one of the premises you put forth in your "advertisement" against the CWU and why we discuss and defend our faith, I must admit, that your comments were an excellent example of another form of "advertisement". I do respect your right however, to "advertise' your opinions and beliefs regarding the CWU and our members.

One puzzling thing however is this. I could not help but notice that many of your comments implied that you somehow posessed an intimate knowledge of the intent of our hearts. In reality, no man can know the intent of another man's heart. Only the Lord is omniscient and truly knows the heart of any person.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

[QUOTE="Deihjan"]pianist wins again. Why must thou be so smrt? :o And I wish that they would stop trying to turn us, I mean, how many have they turned with this kind of LONG reads?blackregiment

They're not trying to turn us. They frankly don't care if they convert anyone. Do a little reading up on them and you'll quickly find that they're just looking out for themselves by submitting to the Lord through spreading the "good news" as they are commanded by the Bible. They couldn't care less if they're breaking GS's anti-advertising rules or driving people away from Christianity with their abrasive presentation of their viewpoints. In fact, they revel in the negative attention they receive, viewing it as just more proof that they're doing the Lord's work and will be rewarded in Heaven.

It's just... PAINFULLY clear that the union's mission is in no way designed to create discussion. Its mission is to advertise Christianity, nothing more. If its product weren't religion, the CWU would have been shut down long ago.

While I do not accept a single one of the premises you put forth in your "advertisement" against the CWU and why we discuss and defend our faith, I must admit, that your comments were an excellent example of another form of "advertisement". I do respect your right however, to "advertise' your opinions and beliefs regarding the CWU and our members.

One puzzling thing however is this. I could not help but notice that many of your comments implied that you somehow posessed an intimate knowledge of the intent of our hearts. In reality, no man can know the intent of another man's heart. Only the Lord is omniscient and truly knows the heart of any person.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="pianist"]

They're not trying to turn us. They frankly don't care if they convert anyone. Do a little reading up on them and you'll quickly find that they're just looking out for themselves by submitting to the Lord through spreading the "good news" as they are commanded by the Bible. They couldn't care less if they're breaking GS's anti-advertising rules or driving people away from Christianity with their abrasive presentation of their viewpoints. In fact, they revel in the negative attention they receive, viewing it as just more proof that they're doing the Lord's work and will be rewarded in Heaven.

It's just... PAINFULLY clear that the union's mission is in no way designed to create discussion. Its mission is to advertise Christianity, nothing more. If its product weren't religion, the CWU would have been shut down long ago.

Funky_Llama

While I do not accept a single one of the premises you put forth in your "advertisement" against the CWU and why we discuss and defend our faith, I must admit, that your comments were an excellent example of another form of "advertisement". I do respect your right however, to "advertise' your opinions and beliefs regarding the CWU and our members.

One puzzling thing however is this. I could not help but notice that many of your comments implied that you somehow posessed an intimate knowledge of the intent of our hearts. In reality, no man can know the intent of another man's heart. Only the Lord is omniscient and truly knows the heart of any person.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

pianist wins again. Why must thou be so smrt? :o And I wish that they would stop trying to turn us, I mean, how many have they turned with this kind of LONG reads?Deihjan

They're not trying to turn us. They frankly don't care if they convert anyone. Do a little reading up on them and you'll quickly find that they're just looking out for themselves by submitting to the Lord through spreading the "good news" as they are commanded by the Bible. They couldn't care less if they're breaking GS's anti-advertising rules or driving people away from Christianity with their abrasive presentation of their viewpoints. In fact, they revel in the negative attention they receive, viewing it as just more proof that they're doing the Lord's work and will be rewarded in Heaven.

It's just... PAINFULLY clear that the union's mission is in no way designed to create discussion. Its mission is to advertise Christianity, nothing more. If its product weren't religion, the CWU would have been shut down long ago.

While I do not accept a single one of the premises you put forth in your "advertisement" against the CWU and why we discuss and defend our faith, I must admit, that your comments were an excellent example of another form of "advertisement". I do respect your right however, to "advertise' your opinions and beliefs regarding the CWU and our members.

One puzzling thing however is this. I could not help but notice that many of your comments implied that you somehow posessed an intimate knowledge of the intent of our hearts. In reality, no man can know the intent of another man's heart. Only the Lord is omniscient and truly knows the heart of any person.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

While I do not accept a single one of the premises you put forth in your "advertisement" against the CWU and why we discuss and defend our faith, I must admit, that your comments were an excellent example of another form of "advertisement". I do respect your right however, to "advertise' your opinions and beliefs regarding the CWU and our members.

One puzzling thing however is this. I could not help but notice that many of your comments implied that you somehow posessed an intimate knowledge of the intent of our hearts. In reality, no man can know the intent of another man's heart. Only the Lord is omniscient and truly knows the heart of any person.

domatron23

No, he most definitely did not sin:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

"Because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." - 1 Peter 2:21-22

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." - 1 John 3:5

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yeah? Well, I don't accept a single one of the premises in your advertisment against his advertistment against your advertisment of Christianity :xFunky_Llama

There are several answers one could give, but I will give the one you should expect of me: if Jesus truly is a manifestation of God, then God, being omnipotent, can, does, and will sin.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]If he existed, yes he did, he was just a man like any other...

exactly...every man makes mistakes, even if he is the son of God. It cannot be helped it is almost genetically coded.

Probably, I heard that Mary Magdalene was pretty hot.

*sigh* I don't know why this thread was created because it should be understood that by definition (religious) sin is an action AGAINST GOD.

Thus Jesus being God it is then IMPOSSIBLE for Him to sin against Himself. Thus....He did not sin and this thread was ill conceived from a religious standpoint.

/thread

No, he most definitely did not sin:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

"Because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." - 1 Peter 2:21-22

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." - 1 John 3:5

Lansdowne5

The problem here for you and all evangelists is that your own definition of sin is what clearly shows that in the equation of sinful behavior and sin, Jesus is a sinner. Why? Because he had feelings. Had you not presented such an extreme definition for sin, there would be no issue but this actually backfired with horrific results for your argumentation.

Has it not occured to you that those verses do not subscribed to YOUR definition of sin (which includes thoughts, impulses or even a zinc of thought in the mind), and it is only speaking of actions which is the right definition of sin.

By deploying the slippery slope fallacy in your arguments you have achieved in making Jesus look like a sinner due to the inevitability of human nature to draw people to sin even in thoughts. Therefore either abandon you argument that sin includes thoughts and impulses or accept that Jesus was prone to evil as well.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No, he most definitely did not sin:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

"Because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." - 1 Peter 2:21-22

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." - 1 John 3:5

Teenaged

The problem here for you and all evangelists is that your own definition of sin is what clearly shows that in the equation of sinful behavior and sin, Jesus is a sinner. Why? Because he had feelings. Had you not presented such an extreme definition for sin, there would be no issue but this actually backfired with horrific results for your argumentation.

Has it not occured to you that those verses do not subscribed to YOUR definition of sin (which includes thoughts, impulses or even a zinc of thought in the mind), and it is only speaking of actions which is the right definition of sin.

By deploying the slippery slope fallacy in your arguments you have achieved in making Jesus look like a sinner due to the inevitability of human nature to draw people to sin even in thoughts. Therefore either abandon you argument that sin includes thoughts and impulses or accept that Jesus was prone to evil as well.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

No, he most definitely did not sin:

"For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." - Hebrews 4:15

"Because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." - 1 Peter 2:21-22

"And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin." - 1 John 3:5

LJS9502_basic

The problem here for you and all evangelists is that your own definition of sin is what clearly shows that in the equation of sinful behavior and sin, Jesus is a sinner. Why? Because he had feelings. Had you not presented such an extreme definition for sin, there would be no issue but this actually backfired with horrific results for your argumentation.

Has it not occured to you that those verses do not subscribed to YOUR definition of sin (which includes thoughts, impulses or even a zinc of thought in the mind), and it is only speaking of actions which is the right definition of sin.

By deploying the slippery slope fallacy in your arguments you have achieved in making Jesus look like a sinner due to the inevitability of human nature to draw people to sin even in thoughts. Therefore either abandon you argument that sin includes thoughts and impulses or accept that Jesus was prone to evil as well.

The point is that by their definition of sin, Jesus is a sinner too. Therefore they are by necessity wrong in one case: either they are wrong of their definition of sin (which is what I believe mostly) or they are wrong when they depict Jesus as a man not prove to evil AT ALL.

In other words: they contradict themselves.

Yeah I know and I made sure I mention specifically that the verses do not subscribe to THEIR definition.

The point is that by their definition of sin, Jesus is a sinner too. Therefore they are by necessity wrong in one case: either they are wrong of their definition of sin (which is what I believe mostly) or they are wrong when they depict Jesus as a man not prove to evil AT ALL.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Yeah I know and I made sure I mention specifically that the verses do not subscribe to THEIR definition.

The point is that by their definition of sin, Jesus is a sinner too. Therefore they are by necessity wrong in one case: either they are wrong of their definition of sin (which is what I believe mostly) or they are wrong when they depict Jesus as a man not prove to evil AT ALL.

LJS9502_basic

Oh I was about to analyze my thoughts on this as to why their message gets to people more easily but I am tired... :P

PS: Oh and my last posts of course were ignored by the CWU folks...

...Expectable though..... BR has aid he will be ignoring me... :P

You know, you really don't need to write "Poll" in every title... There's a little indication to that to the left of the threads title.super_mario_128

[Yeah thats the danger here.

Oh I was about to analyze my thoughts on this as to why their message gets to people more easily but I am tired... :P

. BR has aid he will be ignoring me... :P

Teenaged

You know, you really don't need to write "Poll" in every title... There's a little indication to that to the left of the threads title.super_mario_128

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Yeah? Well, I don't accept a single one of the premises in your advertisment against his advertistment against your advertisment of Christianity :xFunky_Llama

Reported for abusing the poor "Report Abuse" feature. :x

Poor thing... it doesn't like being abused :cry:.

:P

These creationists make me facepalm.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

There are several answers one could give, but I will give the one you should expect of me: if Jesus truly is a manifestation of God, then God, being omnipotent, can, does, and will sin.

LJS9502_basic

You'd be absolutely right, if the Bible did not say itself that God was omnipotent. Because It is omnipotent, It can be all. If It is omnipotent, then It can, does, and will sin. Unless, of course, you deny that the Bible is the source of theological truth.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

There are several answers one could give, but I will give the one you should expect of me: if Jesus truly is a manifestation of God, then God, being omnipotent, can, does, and will sin.

tycoonmike

You'd be absolutely right, if the Bible did not say itself that God was omnipotent. Because It is omnipotent, It can be all. If It is omnipotent, then It can, does, and will sin. Unless, of course, you deny that the Bible is the source of theological truth.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

There are several answers one could give, but I will give the one you should expect of me: if Jesus truly is a manifestation of God, then God, being omnipotent, can, does, and will sin.

tycoonmike

You'd be absolutely right, if the Bible did not say itself that God was omnipotent. Because It is omnipotent, It can be all. If It is omnipotent, then It can, does, and will sin. Unless, of course, you deny that the Bible is the source of theological truth.

Just because God can do everything doesn't mean he will :|Funky_Llama

That doesn't mean God sins.LJS9502_Basic

Can either of you define what God does?

If so, then It is not omnipotent, for how can a human define the infinite beyond using synonym?

If not, then how can any of us know beyond making an assumption?

If God is truly omnipotent, the most we can ever do is make assumptions of Its actions. The beauty of it is that all of our assumptions are right because It is omnipotent. Very circular, wouldn't you agree? Yet another example of definition by synonym.

Can either of you define what God does?

If so, then It is not omnipotent, for how can a human define the infinite beyond using synonym?

If not, then how can any of us know beyond making an assumption?

If God is truly omnipotent, the most we can ever do is make assumptions of Its actions. The beauty of it is that all of our assumptions are right because It is omnipotent. Very circular, wouldn't you agree? Yet another example of definition by synonym.

tycoonmike

!. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

Thus Jesus as God cannot sin.

As I stated before this thread is not started with the correct premise of sin in regard to God.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Can either of you define what God does?

If so, then It is not omnipotent, for how can a human define the infinite beyond using synonym?

If not, then how can any of us know beyond making an assumption?

If God is truly omnipotent, the most we can ever do is make assumptions of Its actions. The beauty of it is that all of our assumptions are right because It is omnipotent. Very circular, wouldn't you agree? Yet another example of definition by synonym.

LJS9502_basic

!. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.

2. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.

Thus Jesus as God cannot sin.

As I stated before this thread is not started with the correct premise of sin in regard to God.

Omnipotence: the ability to do absolutely anything, even the logically impossible (Yes, wikipedia, so shoot me)

No matter what the definition of sin you wish to use, Revelation 19:6 means that God, and any form thereof, can, will, does, and has sinned.

KJV, Revelation 19:6

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction and without historical support.

blackregiment