What makes you think I believe that I believe I have the only teachings and interpretations? I've never, ever done that- not here on the RF or anywhere else.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is possible that Jesus sinned.
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
What makes you think I believe that I believe I have the only teachings and interpretations? I've never, ever done that- not here on the RF or anywhere else.
nash8
Da man, when I walk thru!
No: God-sent Divine Messengers don't sin.
End of story.
Peace,
Bruce
Naw, homie.
I like the logic, but I disagree with the conclusion. I definitely like the refutation and breaking of "the Law", with religious authorities not being able to find any wrongdoing in his actions. The powers at be, no matter what time or context it is in, hate someone who is smarter than they are and "mocks" them, especially in a loving, kind way. This is what go Jesus killed in my opinion. The pride of the elite, not being able to "fight" his logical, loving, peaceful resistance. Very similar to the resistance that Ghandi and MLK used during their movements. One Charismatic man can cause more trouble than all of the worlds armies.
My personal interpretation is that Jesus "became one with God", or in other words he reached the state of "oneness" or merger with universal conciousness that is spoken of in almost all mystical philosophies. The realization that God and the self are but one.
I don't believe he was always this way, I would even argue that he was a little brat as a child because he was so gifted he thought he was better than everyone else. So at one point in his life do I think he was seperate from God and sinned, both physically morally, and according to "the Law", most definitely. But once he reached a certain, not so much.
:yes:
Yeah, but being "God" from a panenthiestic view would mean that you are just a part of the universe. And can you cite a verse where Jesus demands all people for all ages follow him? And by Christian religion, do you mean the Roman state? And the atonement theory was not likely to be generally accepted til atleast after Paul, and at the most not until the 9th centurty or so. There was a thread on this exact topic a while back.
LOL, oh ye of soo much faith in the elite. How many innocent men have been killed because of their opposition of the "state". Is speaking out against oppression a sin? Because if it is then I totally agree with you that he sinned. If this is the case, then MLK, Buddha, Ghandi, and all others who used non-violent means to oppose the imperial state would have been qualified as criminals just for their actions during their protests. Did Nelson Mandella deserve to be locked up for 30 years or however long it was for opposing Apartheid in South Africa?
Jesus may have been a criminal according to the state, but so were Jews during the Holocaust, does that mean that they were actually criminals?
I'm glad someone has the Wisdom to realize this. Frubals for you sir.
So the State always executes bad guys.
godisimaginary.com said it, I believe it, and that settles it!
Double phenominal post lol, frubals for you as well, and glad to see you've decided to hang around with us "unruly heathens" atleast for the time being.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi........ so......... you do accept that Jesus did exist?
Anyone can go and buy the same books preachers use for their interpretations of scriptures. SOOOO Christian teachings are available to anyone without committing to being a Christian. You have commented on how non Christians try to tell Christians about their teachings. Your post #30 in True Christianity thread. Well we can. The teachings of the church Fathers are online, Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew are online with the translations and commentaries. Christians just don't have a monopoly of their teachings or writings.
Anyone can criticize them since no set Christian teachings are universal with historical proof.
Last edited:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're forgetting that Jesus was also fully God. God cannot be separated from God. Therefore, Jesus did not sin. Remember: Sin is not an innate qualifier for humanity, because sin is not our "natural" condition. We were created to be in communion with God. So, even if Jesus were not fully God, he could still be fully human and not sin.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It would help make sense if your theology wasn't completely damaged...:thud:
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Sin isn't our natural state.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
And here's three posts of "I have no idea what I'm talking about...":help:
I'd say it's the former.
And that goes to show that God the Father knows how to pick His key players.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But the meaning of the teachings is vitally important, and the meaning is very much tied up in the context of the Christian community and how that community makes meaning together. So, it is rather difficult (if not impossible) for those outside the community to understand the fullness of meaning that is contextualized by the community that formulates the teachings. Christians simply do have a monopoly on that context. Therefore, it's very difficult (if not impossible) for an outsider to adequately and honestly criticize them.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Awwwwww too bad you don't know what you're talking about theologically.Awwwww too bad you don't enjoy it.
InChrist
Free4ever
According to the scriptures, Christians do have a monopoly on understanding the truths of the Bible. Unless a person is spiritually born again and their mind is transformed and guided by the holy Spirit they can read the Bible or commentaries over and over again, study in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic and listen to sermons endlessly, yet still not understand what the scriptures are saying because...
...the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:14
And now you go to confession?
Awwwwww too bad you don't know what you're talking about theologically.
Christianity is not about "theology," it's about Churchianties, insiders and outsiders.
Your posts prove it.
That is irrelevant. I mentioned that a lot of non-Christians tell me how to me how to follow my faith in a different thread and it's true. I never said that all non-Christians know nothing about my faith, I actually said the opposite in another post which you totally ignored.
Why on earth are you taking those posts so personally? I wasn't directing them at you and I wasn't even directing them at the people I quoted (which I explained).
I'll repeat some of what I said about it: 1. My mother, when she was an atheist, knew the Bible incredibly well. 2. Some atheists and other non-Christians know the Bible BETTER than some Christians.
Please, stop making judgments about me from a few posts.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
You're absolutely right! Xy isn't "about" theology, although well-grounded theology helps us to understand what we are "about." And, even though Xy isn't "about theology," the question of whether Jesus could have sinned is a purely theological question. So, my comment was completely cogent to the topic up for debate, while yours here...
is not.
Even though I do agree with you, with some caveat. Xy is about relationships (IOW, "insiders and outsiders"). But I'm not the one drawing the distinction between the two -- "insiders and outsiders" -- at least not in the way it appears you're suggesting. You see, when people abide in community, they make meaning of their lives together (each individual providing one "thread," the combination of "threads" creating a "tapestry" that has meaning beyond the individual "strands." That's what I was talking about when I mentioned the "context"in which teachings are grounded. So long as "threads" are interwoven, meaning can be made of the relationship between them. One cannot stand outside a relationship, however, where her or his "strand" is not interwoven and comment on the meaning that is made within a relationship. Therefore, unless you choose be in relationship with those of us who foster the teachings, you have no hope of being able to aptly criticize the meaning that we, as Xtians, make together. It's not a matter of "we know something you don't" (as it appears your post is accusing us of). Rather, it's a matter of, "you don't want a relationship, so there's simply no meaning to be made."
It goes well beyond simply critiquing the teachings, themselves, as I've mentioned, because the teachings are teachings of relationship, or context. And that relationship must be taken under consideration if the teachings are to be adequately critiqued.