Question: Are You Really A Christian?

[Ouroboros]

Maybe we should set rules that only "Jesus quotes" allowed in debates?

[chefranden]

He also wasn't teribly honest. In several casses he misquotes the OT in order to make it look like the OT supported his ideas far more than it did. This was the central reason the jews rejected his message.

 

This wasn't necessarily the case. It is just as likely that Paul, like many Christians, didn't really know scripture. If he was as poor as he made out, he probably didn't have his own expensive hand written copy to referance. Also, since he wasn't beloved by Jews he may not have had access even at the occasional synagogue. So like any good preacher in a pinch he just winged it. Few of the people he talked and wrote to would be able to call him on it anyway. Those that did he could just call Judaizers.

 

I find it facinating that Christians never notice that the 12 that Jesus is alleged to have trained for the purpose of founding the church had little or nothing to do with founding the church, and that Paul bragged about having little contact with those guys and thus wasn't contaminated by their nonsense. It seems that Peter and James were the leaders of those "Evil Judaizers" that Paul warns us about.

 

Jesus is interpreted by Paul in normal Christian circles. I don't think that the Jesus of the synoptics would have been very comfortable with Sola Fidelis. To preserve that one needs to jack Jesus around to fit Paul.

[Mythra]

i looked a wiki and it give a very good definition of what constitutes a christian.

 

YOU LOOKED A WIKI??

 

I Looked up what JESUS said. YOUR SAVIOUR.

 

He said unless you give up everything you have, you CANNOT BE HIS DISCIPLE.

 

Jesus said it. I read it. I believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, not really.

[RHEMtron]

Jesus Himself speaking:

 

"But as for Me, I speak truth

and for that reason,

you do not believe Me.

Can any of you convict Me of sin?

If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me?"

John 8:45:46

Interesting... How does this explicitly show Jesus claiming he is a sinless being? what's your interpretation of these verses? I see and believe there are, but not limited to, 2 ways:

 

1- Jesus also said they cant judge because they are sinners. In other words, to paraphrase he's saying, "Can any of youconvict me of sin? No, because you cant 'cast the first stone' since youre sinners!!"

 

2- Sin [amartia] is used in the singular form, not plural [aJmartiva]. Sin being referred to is lying. So in context with the previous and next verse, to paraphrase, Jesus says, "Me, I speak the truth and because of that, you dont believe me. Can any of you expose me as having lied? I told you the truth. Why dont you believe me?"

 

"I shall not talk with you much longer, because the prince of the world (Satan) is on his way. He has no power over Me." John 14:30 Other translations read "nothing on Me." (the Message Bible.) Or some read "No thing in Me."

 

"This is My blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28

Explain how these verses explicitly show Jesus saying he is a sinless individual.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

 

 

This is true but not all the disciples of Jesus gave up all wordly goods. Martha, Mary and Lazurus entertained Jesus and friends in their house and fed Him dinner. Zach the tax collector gave away half of what he owned to the poor and paid back four times the people he cheated, but he didn't give up everything. Jesus is talking about having a loose hold on material things. If you were to suffer the loss of all things in a fire or if God indeed instructed someone to give it all to the poor and be a missionary in Africa we must love these things less than God's will. Yes that's the attitude every Christian should have. All belongs to God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hahaha. Amy marie, are you an unusually well-educated third world prostitute who's pimp has an internet connection? Did you give him a roofie so that you could post your warm owlshit fondue? Either that or you are a deliberare fake. In either case, posting to you has left the taste of saccherine in my mouth. I need a beer. Eff you, hussy.

[dibby]

Originally you were talking about the Gospel of John. When John uses the phrase, "Logos" he clearly means Christ. "The Logos became flesh and we beheld His glory."

 

Thats my point. The writer of John takes a pagan concept "Logos" and applies it to Jesus. He is synthesising the Jewish Messiah figure with the pagan concept of the Logos. The original Greek says,

"It was with God in the beginning. All things happened through it, and not one thing that happened, happened without it" (see Unvarnished New Testament) The personal "He" was not there. It is later in the passage that the writer of John uses "He" when he equates Jesus with Logos.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. People have done good things without Jesus but this beautiful dependency of the branches on the Vine or the other way around speaks about much more than doing good things. It's too much to go into right now.

 

Mystically speaking I agree with you. Without the "Christ", "Life", "Buddha" or "Logos" within we could do nothing. Coz we would be dead! So figuratively Jesus points out a deeper truth. He clearly doesn,t mean we can do NOTHING without him literally? Does he?

 

You know that Paul said that what he preached was something he learnt only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galations !: 11 He also states when certain ideas are his own opinion.

 

So because Paul says he has had a revelation from Jesus, you believe him? Say if a person around the corner from where you live said he had had a revelation from Jesus. You would just believe him...right?

[RHEMtron]

Logos although translated as word, it means reason, logic, and/or wisdom.

 

Dont forget Logos it's a Gnostic term as well.

[Mythra]

Jesus is talking about having a loose hold on material things. If you were to suffer the loss of all things in a fire or if God indeed instructed someone to give it all to the poor and be a missionary in Africa we must love these things less than God's will. Yes that's the attitude every Christian should have. All belongs to God.

 

Oh, I see.

 

So, what Jesus really MEANT to say is this:

 

UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO FORSAKE ALL THAT YOU HAVE, YOU CANNOT BE MY DISCIPLE.

 

 

The second leg of the trinity should have taken a class in effective communication.

 

 

Speaking of that, (to Amy now)

 

 

Hasn't Jesus always been a part of God? Since the beginning of time?

 

 

Then it was Jesus who ordered the man to be stoned to death in the OT for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. HE ORDERS A MAN TO BE KILLED FOR PICKING UP STICKS.

 

Then, when he shows up here as GOD in the flesh, he dismisses the law with a wave of the hand.

 

Some consistent God you worship.

[freeday]

Jesus Himself speaking:

 

"But as for Me, I speak truth

and for that reason,

you do not believe Me.

Can any of you convict Me of sin?

If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me?"

John 8:45:46

Interesting... How does this explicitly show Jesus claiming he is a sinless being? what's your interpretation of these verses? I see and believe there are, but not limited to, 2 ways:

 

1- Jesus also said they cant judge because they are sinners. In other words, to paraphrase he's saying, "Can any of youconvict me of sin? No, because you cant 'cast the first stone' since youre sinners!!"

 

2- Sin [amartia] is used in the singular form, not plural [aJmartiva]. Sin being referred to is lying. So in context with the previous and next verse, to paraphrase, Jesus says, "Me, I speak the truth and because of that, you dont believe me. Can any of you expose me as having lied? I told you the truth. Why dont you believe me?"

 

"I shall not talk with you much longer, because the prince of the world (Satan) is on his way. He has no power over Me." John 14:30 Other translations read "nothing on Me." (the Message Bible.) Or some read "No thing in Me."

 

"This is My blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28

Explain how these verses explicitly show Jesus saying he is a sinless individual.

 

i think you could substitute the word satan for sin, hence "sin has no power over me" i think the whole thing with the temptation was the evidence he could not sin. under the worst conditions possible, he refuted satan.

 

also in john the people call him the "Lamb of God". or the perfect sacrifice, why is he perfect, because he did not sin.

 

1 Peter 1:18 - “knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

 

2 references from the gospels, 1 from the original 12 disciples if you are still keeping count.

[white_raven23]

Jesus Himself speaking:

 

"But as for Me, I speak truth

and for that reason,

you do not believe Me.

Can any of you convict Me of sin?

If I speak the truth, why do you not believe Me?"

John 8:45:46

Interesting... How does this explicitly show Jesus claiming he is a sinless being? what's your interpretation of these verses? I see and believe there are, but not limited to, 2 ways:

 

1- Jesus also said they cant judge because they are sinners. In other words, to paraphrase he's saying, "Can any of youconvict me of sin? No, because you cant 'cast the first stone' since youre sinners!!"

 

2- Sin [amartia] is used in the singular form, not plural [aJmartiva]. Sin being referred to is lying. So in context with the previous and next verse, to paraphrase, Jesus says, "Me, I speak the truth and because of that, you dont believe me. Can any of you expose me as having lied? I told you the truth. Why dont you believe me?"

 

I've got a third interpretation of that verse. And it does NOTHInG whatsoever to prove Jesus is a sinless person....except by omission.

 

"Can any of you convict me of sin?"

 

This can also be interpreted as, "Have you witnessed me sinning?"

 

This follows the logic of: If you can't prove I did it, or have witnessed me doing it, then it's never ever ever happened!

 

So it doesn't prove Jesus was a sinless person, just that he did not commit a sin his disciples could bear witness to! And he uses that as "evidence" that he therefore speaks the truth!

 

Pretty slick bit of con artistry if the guy were ever real.

[Ouroboros]

I find it facinating that Christians never notice that the 12 that Jesus is alleged to have trained for the purpose of founding the church had little or nothing to do with founding the church, and that Paul bragged about having little contact with those guys and thus wasn't contaminated by their nonsense. It seems that Peter and James were the leaders of those "Evil Judaizers" that Paul warns us about.

Exactly. That has been on my mind for quite some time, and I try to hint to it in the debates with Christians, but everyone have failed to recognize the dilemma. If Jesus was God, wouldn't he have made a perfect choice of followers? Wouldn't the proof that Jesus was God's son for real be that the church was built completely and solely on the disciples alone? No extra body needed? And how could Peter be the rock or foundation of the Church when the early Church had Paul's letters before they had anything from Peter, and Paul traveled around and started Churches left and right, while Peter stayed home and did nothing? In my mind the disciples and Peter failed their mission completely, and since they failed, they were bad elects from Jesus, which means Jesus didn't make a perfect choice, and if Jesus wasn't perfect in establishing God's only True Church. Then could he really have been even inspired by God? Undoubtedly if Jesus existed he was 200% human (if you get my drift) and 0% God.

 

 

Hahaha. Amy marie, are you an unusually well-educated third world prostitute who's pimp has an internet connection? Did you give him a roofie so that you could post your warm owlshit fondue? Either that or you are a deliberare fake. In either case, posting to you has left the taste of saccherine in my mouth. I need a beer. Eff you, hussy.

Shiva. No personal attacks in Colosseum.

 

Then it was Jesus who ordered the man to be stoned to death in the OT for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. HE ORDERS A MAN TO BE KILLED FOR PICKING UP STICKS.

 

Then, when he shows up here as GOD in the flesh, he dismisses the law with a wave of the hand.

Ouch! I forgot about that story. It's true God and Jesus kills a man for breaking the Sabbath by picking up some frigging sticks because (I assume) he's freezing to death. Well, then Jesus have no problem let his favorite disciples break it, and then he gives an excuse for why. Because the Sabbath was for man, and not man for sabbath. So which way is it? Is the Sabbath law part of the 10 commandments or not, Amy, Freeday et.al.?

[Mythra]

Ouch! I forgot about that story. It's true God and Jesus kills a man for breaking the Sabbath by picking up some frigging sticks because (I assume) he's freezing to death.

 

Freezing to death, or needed a fire to cook a meal, or whatever it was - we really don't know.

 

But, what's the difference between that and breaking off the heads of grain because you're hungry?

 

Everyone says - yeah, but that was Old Testament. Yahweh was trying to demonstrate the value of obedience and the penalty for rebellion or resistance.

 

But, according to the christian dogma - hasn't GOD always been a trinity? Therefore, you can point to any single event - any atrocity in the old testament - whether it was the stoning of Achan's family, the man picking up sticks, the pillar of salt, the wiping out of Ai or Jericho - the directive to kill everyone but the virgins, and take those for yourselves - you name it -

 

And legitimately say that Jesus did it.

 

The freakin hypocrite.

[NotBlinded]

I liked this site: The Words of Jesus

 

It has no biblical references and is separated out into sections such as Who Do You Say that I Am? and The Light That Has Lighted the World.

 

Here is the homepage: The Words online 2006

 

And for the literalists, I offer this quote:

 

By now you have certainly forgotten the five loaves that fed the five thousand, with twelve baskets left over, and the seven loaves that fed the four thousand and the plenty that remained. But I am not speaking to you about earthly food. No, I have come to warn you against feeding on the ideas and false teachings of those who market in religion.

[NotBlinded]

Originally you were talking about the Gospel of John. When John uses the phrase, "Logos" he clearly means Christ. "The Logos became flesh and we beheld His glory."

 

Thats my point. The writer of John takes a pagan concept "Logos" and applies it to Jesus. He is synthesising the Jewish Messiah figure with the pagan concept of the Logos. The original Greek says,

"It was with God in the beginning. All things happened through it, and not one thing that happened, happened without it" (see Unvarnished New Testament) The personal "He" was not there. It is later in the passage that the writer of John uses "He" when he equates Jesus with Logos.

Where is that Ahhh-haaa smiley?

[RHEMtron]

i think you could substitute the word satan for sin, hence "sin has no power over me" i think the whole thing with the temptation was the evidence he could not sin. under the worst conditions possible, he refuted satan.

To replace Satan with sin means you are not reading the bible literally anymore. Here is the definition of Sin [in context with John and Matthew] using a Greek Concordance and Lexicon:

 

Amartia translated as Sin

Definition

 

1. equivalent to 264

1. to be without a share in

2. to miss the mark

3. to err, be mistaken

4. to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong

5. to wander from the law of God, violate God's law, sin

2. that which is done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act

3. collectively, the complex or aggregate of sins committed either by a single person or by many

 

As you can see, the original definition for it's intended use has nothing to do with Satan. Let's see how scripture reads when replacing sin for Satan:

 

Matthew 26:28: This is My blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of Satan. [so now his blood was poured out so Satan can be forgiven]

 

John 8:46 Can any of you convict Me of Satan? [Does that now mean can anyone convict me as Satan?]

 

John 1:29: The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the Satan of the world. [Obviously his death and resurrection did not take away Satan from the world]

 

So yes, the story of the temptation means Satan does not have a hold on him. I agree. But if a person sins, it does not mean it is because of Satan. Also, you can see from the examples above that we cannot substitute sin for Satan. To do it for one verse means youre being dishonest not only to the original meaning and context of the verse it is used in, but with yourself. You claimed to be a literalist. To do so means youre not being one anymore. If you choose to do it in one verse, the rule must at least, be applied to all words of sin in the book that it comes from. Cant pick and choose. You see what happens to the meaning of the verses when Satan is substituted. It changes drastically, in which we know those events did not happen.

 

also in john the people call him the "Lamb of God". or the perfect sacrifice, why is he perfect, because he did not sin.

Now... where in the bible did Jesus call himself the "Lamb of God"? Let's take a look at what it means to be a "Lamb of God", or sin offering.

 

First use of "Lamb of God" is Exodus 12. There, the blood of the lamb is supposed to be smeared on door posts, so God can kill all the children, except for the ones who followed the given instructions. How does this analogy relate to Jesus? Are we supposed to smear Jesus' blood to protect us from God as he kills off children? Or in another way, Jesus' death is supposed to protect us from God's slaughter of innocent children just to prove a point to the leader of the country?

 

Next use is in Leviticus 4:32-34 and 5:6. For the "Lamb of God" to be a sin offering, certain conditions are supposed to be met. For Jesus' death to have fulfilled the law, which he himself said is supposed to do, this should have happened:

 

1- The offering must be a "clean" animal. Humans were not on the list of clean animals that can be used a sacrifice.

2- The lamb must be FEMALE [Leviticus 4:32]

3- The lamb must be unblemished. By definition and context in Leviticus, unblemished means unbeaten, or simply untouched. Jesus was beaten. VERY blemished. Of course youre probably thinking unblemished means did not sin. This does go with the definition for unblemished by the standards used for offering a lamb for sin offerings. But we can also argue that Jesus did sin. We can debate about that later.

4- The lamb must be offered on an altar. The blood is then drained onto the altar, so that the lamb may die of blood loss. The blood and fat is then taken and burnt as a sin offering. [Leviticus 4:34]

5- Finally, the offering must be done by a Levitical Priest.

 

So after all that, please explain to me how the "Lamb of God" applies to him. Explain how the conditions for the sacrifice of a lamb was met by Jesus. Keep in mind that Jesus said he was to fulfill the law. Not break it. How was it even analogous to the lambs used in Exodus and Leviticus? More importantly, again where in the bible did Jesus even say he was the "Lamb of God"?

 

1 Peter 1:18 - “knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."

The NT is addressed to people who are unfamiliar with the OT... esepcially the laws. They did not understand what lamb without blemish actually meant. But again, Jesus is not the one making these claims.

 

2 references from the gospels, 1 from the original 12 disciples if you are still keeping count.

Of course i am

[white_raven23]

Oh come on! That's really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it!

 

Really?

 

What were the actual words again?

 

"Can any of you convict me of sin?"

 

That's what he said. He DID NOT say...."I've commited no sin." or "I have never sinned."

 

He asked: "Can any of YOU convict me of sin?"

 

It's a question (with hypothetical intent)....NOT a statement of innocence.

 

Can someone with brain cells please define where my supposition based ON THE WORDS spoken are in any way a stretch?

 

So Jesus was this guy who sinned in secret and nobody ever caught Him? Why couldn't one person in that crowd name even one sin?

 

Because no one saw him do them? Just becasue his disciples and the public present at the time of legal inquiry did not witness an indescretion does not mean one did not take place!

 

You might as go the whole way raven. He was a delusional mad man for believing His blood could take a away the sins of the world.

 

Um. No.

See the whole belief in the blood removing the sins of the world is depicted in that fictional book. So NO I'm not going to go there.

 

As for the existence of a wandering desert guru passing through the area who may have been a bit touched in the head? Quite possible.

[RHEMtron]

nbbtb: great links! i really enjoyed it! kinda disappointed though... i was thinking about doing something like that. too bad somebody beat me to it haha.

 

amy marie: white_raven did not stretch at all. i did not either. everything said is in context. refer back to my post: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?act=...&pid=198258

 

<Edit>

 

refer back to this above post on blood atonement as well: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...mp;#entry198404

[Antlerman]

I refer you again to John 15 "Apart from Me you can do nothing. We can't be more Christ like if we are not untited to the Vine, Christ Himself.

 

 

This is clearly not the case if taken literally. Plenty of people have done loving, kind things for people without any reference to Jesus or Christianity. Bob Geldoff organised Live Aid to help the starving in Africa without being "helpless" without Jesus.

 

Yes. People have done good things without Jesus but this beautiful dependency of the branches on the Vine or the other way around speaks about much more than doing good things. It's too much to go into right now.

No. please do go into this right now. I for one would like to know why the good works that go forth into the world through the hearts of man are as filthy rags to your version of God because it's not done in the name of your chosen deity? Tell me what is the benefit beyond the church coffers that someone be a Christian for doing good works in the name of Love?

 

I look forward to your reply about my previous comments concerning Jesus and Paul.

You know that Paul said that what he preached was something he learnt only through a revelation of Jesus Christ. Galations !: 11 He also states when certain ideas are his own opinion.

So do you believe in Jesus, or Paul? What are your faith-based reasons for accepting Paul saying he heard from Christ over Charles Manson hearing from Christ?

 

I agree with Cheftran about Paul defining Christianity in his own image over James and the others from the Church of Jerusalem, those whom Paul brands as Judaizers. You believe the Gospels contain Jesus words, when in fact they are a blending of his words with traditions, with personal story teller’s spins, etc, yet you accept Paul who fought with and rejected those who were direct disciples of Jesus himself!

 

Me thinks you accept Paul because his writings were included in the Bible you happen to use, and you accept on faith that the canonizers of scripture were guided with a divine hand. Of course, there are many different canons, so..... which one was the right one? Yours?? Do you see the point? Things are not so simple when you look at what lurks beyond what is accepted blindly Amy. No, blindly accepting traditions based on the limited knowledge out of the dark ages are being just a tad bit overly simplistic in thought. It's easier to be sure, but it is ultimately sadly naive.

[RHEMtron]

Again, where in the bible did JESUS SAY he was the "Lamb of God"?

So let's talk about Jesus being the Lamb of God.

 

1.) The lamb prefigures Christ. "And Yahweh burdenened him with the sins of all of us. Harshly dealt with, he bore it humbly, but never opened his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter -house, like a sheep that is dumb before its shers never opening it's mouth." Isaiah 53:7

Where in the OT does it say that the lamb foreshadows Jesus? More importantly, where in the bible does Jesus say he is the "Lamb of God"? What does your bold statements have to do with Jesus being a lamb? If he kept his mouth shut, why did he pray to God to let the "cup pass" from him if able to, right before he was arrested? And why did he yell out "My God! My God! Why have you foresaken me!" right before he died? That doesnt sound like he kept his mouth shut did it? That doesnt sound like he COMPLETELY WILLING does it?

 

2.) God is both male and female. We are created in God's image.

Where in the bible does it say God is male and female? Read Genesis over.

 

Gen 1:26:

Then God said, "Let us make MAN in Our own image, according to our likeness;" <snip>

1:27: God created MAN in His own image, in the image of God he created HIM;

 

Remember, God made man before woman. So when he formed man, man was formed from God's image.

 

1:27: cont... male and female he created them.

 

In Genesis, when the word Man is used, or the plural Men, it always refers to man. Man, or men, is then usually proceeded by He, Him, or His. One must keep im mind this is a patriarchal society. When both Man and Woman are referenced together, the word Man is never used. It is usually addressed by saying in the same sentence "Man and Woman", or with, or proceeded by Them. Genesis 1:26 in context shows that is was Man, or Males, who were created in God's image. Not Man and Woman.

 

Jesus says in the gospel of John "when a woman is in labor she is sad because her time has come. But when she gives birth the child she forgets the pain because a child has been born into the world." The context for this verse is the Last Supper. The "labor" He experienced was the Passion. The Church was the child born when the Roman spear pierced His side. Another verse, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often I have longed to gather you as a mother hen..." One of the titles of God in Hebrew means "the many breasted One." (I can't think of the actual word right now.) "like a son comforted by his mother will I comfort you." Isaiah Isaiah 66:13 Clearly there is both the feminine and masculine in Jesus.

And you had the audacity to call white_ravens in-context-interpretation a stttttreeeeeeeeeeeetch? This is a big time stretch. Did Jesus even ever say he was going to suffer like a woman giving birth? And because he suffers by a metaphorical stretch, this means he is a woman?

 

God in Hebrew means "the many breasted One"? What hebrew dictionary/lexicon do you have? The words used are El, Elohiym, and Elowahh. None of those mean "the many breasted One".

 

Youre quoting Isaiah in the wrong context. It has nothing to do with Jesus. But to humor you, let's see what the rest of Isaiah 66 says:

 

Isaiah 66:15:

For behold, the Lord will come in fire, and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire.

 

Jesus really does sound loving doesnt he? All the points you addressed for my point 2 are far fetched. I will start a separate thread to fully address your point.

 

3.) Jesus is the unblemished Lamb of God. "though he had done no wrong and there was no deceit in his mouth." Isaiah 53: 9

Again, i pointed out what unblemished means in terms of sin offering sacrifices. And, AGAIN, where in the bible did Jesus say he was a "Lamb of God" and was without blemish? AGAIN, youre quoting Isaiah out of context. Quoting Isaiah 53 is fruitless. If Isaiah 53 was a prophecy, why is the whole chapter written in the PAST TENSE? I will also address this in the thread i will start.

 

To say that Jesus sinned would mean that His sacrifice for our sins would be pointless and he was delusional to believe His blood could actually take our sins away.

He did sin, but mainstream Christianity is delusional for thinking he didnt. But your right, the idea of his sacrifice is pointless and believing in blood atonement is delusional.

 

"This is My blood. the blood of the New Covenant which is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins." Matthew 26:28 Also Jesus took unlevened bread or matzah at the passover and said "This is My body." Ask any Jew. They will tell you that leven represents sin. During Passover Orthodox homes must be cleaned of any traces of leven. That's one of the reasons why they eat unlevened bread. So Jesus took UNlevened bread meaning that He was without sin. "This is My body." If Jesus sinned you may as well throw out most of the NT. This idea clearly goes against the teaching of the NT.

No, the whole idea clearly goes against the teachings of the OT. The laws forbid the eating and drinking of blood of humans. Ill ask a Jew. It makes no difference. Now i offer you a challenge: Go ask a Jew if Jesus is the messiah. Go ask a Jew if it's against God's law to eat and drink from Humans. Ask a Jew if they believe in the NT. Go ahead... i dare you.

 

Also He was unblemished BEFORE He was lashed and beatened etc. The lamb has to be sacrificed, right? It's certainly not bloodied before the scarifice.

The lamb is without blemish [unbeatend, mutilated], then it is sacrificed. Jesus was beaten and lashed before he was "sacrificed". This means he was blemished.

 

4.)The altar was Jesus' cross. This prefigures the story of Abraham and Isaac. The wood for the sacrifice was placed on Isaac's back which he carried up the hill. Then Isaac was placed on the wood. You know the rest of the story. God provided the sacrifice. Jesus descended into hell but His body did not see corruption because the sacrifice was complete.

Fine this was the altar. But they didnt take his blood and fat, and burn it. That's what a sin offering is. This is the law.

 

5.) You have read the book of Hebrews. Jesus is the High Priest of His own sacrifice.

 

John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God and Jesus didn't refute it.

Fine, but the OT law dictates that the priest is supposed to perform the cerimony. Jesus didnt perform the ceremony on himself. The OT law makes it perfectly clear the priest must slay the offering, take the blood with his fingers, and put it on the horns of the altar, and all the rest of the blood is poured onto the altar, remove the fat from the offering, then burn the fat. Jesus didnt do this to himself. If he killed himself, that wouldve been a sin now wouldnt it. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law to the tee. He didnt exactly do that.

 

John did call Jesus the "Lamb of God". Jesus didnt refute it because he didnt hear him. There are 2 passages that have John calling Jesus this. Let's read what it says:

 

John 1:29:

The next day John saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the lamb of God....

 

and

 

John 1:35-38

.Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?"

 

In both incidences, and in context, John was not walking next to Jesus. Jesus didnt refute because he wasnt even near when John called him the "Lamb of God".

 

Did Jesus call himself a high priest? Where in the bible does call himself a high priest? Where in the bible did Jesus call himself the "Lamb of God"? Again, Jesus did not fulfill any of the requirements for the sacrifice. The conditions for the sacrifice are part of the laws. Jesus said the law was to be followed exactly.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

You might as go the whole way raven. He was a delusional mad man for believing His blood could take a away the sins of the world.

 

Assuming Jesus existed, this is a good possibility, actually. In our own time we see messianic religious leaders like David Koresh or Jim Jones, who probably were mad.

 

It's also sketchy to be sure about the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels, since you can see the gospels developing theology and the legend, so to speak, over time. Especially the Gospel of John - I think much in there is highly unlikely to be words of the historical Jesus or John the Baptist.

[NotBlinded]

You might as go the whole way raven. He was a delusional mad man for believing His blood could take a away the sins of the world.

No...it's a delusional world that believes this. They follow the "teachings of those that market in religion". (Jesus' own words applied here.)

 

nbbtb: great links! i really enjoyed it! kinda disappointed though... i was thinking about doing something like that. too bad somebody beat me to it haha.

Your welcome and nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo!

[Ouroboros]

Christians are delusional to believe Jesus never sin? If Jesus sinned then His sacrifice means nothing and I am still in my sins. I strongly disagree.

He did break the Sabbath. And he did lie.

 

"No one takes My life from Me. I lay it down on My own accord."

"I am the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep."

"This is My body given for you."

 

He willingly laid His life down.

So it was suicide?

[NotBlinded]

 

Christians are delusional to believe Jesus never sin? If Jesus sinned then His sacrifice means nothing and I am still in my sins. I strongly disagree.

 

The delusion lays with believing that one's death can take away the sins of another. His death was supposed to help those understand that they have the power to live without sin on their own. Everytime you put your sins on Jesus, you kill him again and his sacrifice means nothing. It doesn't matter if he sinned or not. He was trying to show people that they can know God like he did if you live life like he did. He didn't want you to pile all your sins on him and then you go away with no responsibility! His death was meaningless if you believe this! He tried desperately to get people to understand that God is for everyone that is ready to recognize the Presence and to get people away from institutionalized religion and here you are, with your institutionalized beliefs, spitting in his face and getting fat from "...feeding on the ideas and false teachings of those who market in religion." (Once again applying Jesus's words.)

[Ouroboros]

Oh, and btw Amy, (in a further response from NBBTB), "sin" is a religious word. So if you believe that "sin" exists, then you believe there is a "God" and you believe there is a way out from "sin", which is Jesus. If you would stop believing in Jesus salvation for your sins, you actually stop believing there are anything called "sin" too.

 

I do think there are morals and ethical guidelines etc, but the word "sin" is an act against a supreme and divine entity, it's in its definition related to supernatural beliefs. If you don't have the belief in crimes against the supernatural, then "sin" is nothing, and you don't have to be "cleansed" or "saved" from it.

[Eponymic]

Christians are delusional to believe Jesus never sin? If Jesus sinned then His sacrifice means nothing and I am still in my sins. I strongly disagree.

 

There was also that fun little incident with the fig tree that my roommate always loves bringing up.

 

Just a wee little bit of wrath & destructiveness there eh.