Storm Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I have been reading through posts and just thinking about things I believed in general. One of the thoughts that hit my mind is "If we are all born as sinners, how was Jesus born without sin?" I know that many Christians believe in the age of accountability and that baloney, but what is the actual prevailing doctrine about when sin actually causes us to deserve to die? So, are we born sinners, or do we eventually choose to sin? at what point is our disobedience as children turned to sin? I've never really heard anyone talk about this in length. Thoughts?
mymistake Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 In my old theological circles the prevailing idea is that sin nature is passed down through the father. And Jesus had no human father. Presto chango - Jesus has no sin. It's like magic.
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 7, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 7, 2014 In my old theological circles the prevailing idea is that sin nature is passed down through the father. And Jesus had no human father. Presto chango - Jesus has no sin. It's like magic. I had a professor when I was at the christian college who said that sin is actually transmitted via sperm.
Storm Posted April 7, 2014 Author Posted April 7, 2014 In my old theological circles the prevailing idea is that sin nature is passed down through the father. And Jesus had no human father. Presto chango - Jesus has no sin. It's like magic. I had a professor when I was at the christian college who said that sin is actually transmitted via sperm. Is that why I am "sinning" if I masturbate?
centauri Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I have been reading through posts and just thinking about things I believed in general. One of the thoughts that hit my mind is "If we are all born as sinners, how was Jesus born without sin?" I know that many Christians believe in the age of accountability and that baloney, but what is the actual prevailing doctrine about when sin actually causes us to deserve to die? So, are we born sinners, or do we eventually choose to sin? at what point is our disobedience as children turned to sin? I've never really heard anyone talk about this in length. Thoughts? Paul (Rom 5:12) is usually used to justify the born in sin position. There is no specified age of accountability in the Bible. Sin can be overcome by the individual (Gen 4:6-7). Jesus is a magical man who is deemed sinless due to the virgin conception, but it should be noted, and is omitted from Christian Bible study, that the birth of Jesus made Mary unclean (Luke), just as any other baby would. Christians have no problem twisting and ignoring anything that gets in their way. For example, they want Mary to be able to genetically pass a kingship, but not sin. They want it both ways, even though one position contradicts the other.
Storm Posted April 7, 2014 Author Posted April 7, 2014 I have been reading through posts and just thinking about things I believed in general. One of the thoughts that hit my mind is "If we are all born as sinners, how was Jesus born without sin?" I know that many Christians believe in the age of accountability and that baloney, but what is the actual prevailing doctrine about when sin actually causes us to deserve to die? So, are we born sinners, or do we eventually choose to sin? at what point is our disobedience as children turned to sin? I've never really heard anyone talk about this in length. Thoughts? Paul (Rom 5:12) is usually used to justify the born in sin position. There is no specified age of accountability in the Bible. Sin can be overcome by the individual (Gen 4:6-7). Jesus is a magical man who is deemed sinless due to the virgin conception, but it should be noted, and is omitted from Christian Bible study, that the birth of Jesus made Mary unclean (Luke), just as any other baby would. Christians have no problem twisting and ignoring anything that gets in their way. For example, they want Mary to be able to genetically pass a kingship, but not sin. They want it both ways, even though one position contradicts the other. You have presented some of the things about which I have been thinking. Interesting side note on the uncleanness of Mary after Jesus' birth. The more I think about it, the more I cannot figure out how Jesus was born sinless. The bible says that Jesus was in all ways tempted as we are tempted, but if he was born sinless, how can that statement be true then? Honestly, it makes his sinless life less impressive since he didn't have to battle it from the beginning like we regular humans do. And even if he is not from the seed of man, he would still be the seed of Mary. So then we would have to assume that Jesus carried no DNA from Joseph or Mary to be sinless. Then we encounter the problem that if Jesus was not the genetic offspring of Mary or Joseph, then he cannot be a heir of the kingship lineage. There are just too many issues. It also strikes me as curious as to why Jesus' childhood is not recorded. If Jesus was indeed the messiah, and his parents knew it, why not keep more records of his whole life. I certainly would want my child to be documented as fully as possible if I knew that they were the messiah and the redeemer of all mankind. Just too many problems with the whole thing if you ask me. 1
centauri Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I have been reading through posts and just thinking about things I believed in general. One of the thoughts that hit my mind is "If we are all born as sinners, how was Jesus born without sin?" I know that many Christians believe in the age of accountability and that baloney, but what is the actual prevailing doctrine about when sin actually causes us to deserve to die? So, are we born sinners, or do we eventually choose to sin? at what point is our disobedience as children turned to sin? I've never really heard anyone talk about this in length. Thoughts? Paul (Rom 5:12) is usually used to justify the born in sin position. There is no specified age of accountability in the Bible. Sin can be overcome by the individual (Gen 4:6-7). Jesus is a magical man who is deemed sinless due to the virgin conception, but it should be noted, and is omitted from Christian Bible study, that the birth of Jesus made Mary unclean (Luke), just as any other baby would. Christians have no problem twisting and ignoring anything that gets in their way. For example, they want Mary to be able to genetically pass a kingship, but not sin. They want it both ways, even though one position contradicts the other. You have presented some of the things about which I have been thinking. Interesting side note on the uncleanness of Mary after Jesus' birth. The more I think about it, the more I cannot figure out how Jesus was born sinless. The bible says that Jesus was in all ways tempted as we are tempted, but if he was born sinless, how can that statement be true then? Honestly, it makes his sinless life less impressive since he didn't have to battle it from the beginning like we regular humans do. And even if he is not from the seed of man, he would still be the seed of Mary. So then we would have to assume that Jesus carried no DNA from Joseph or Mary to be sinless. Then we encounter the problem that if Jesus was not the genetic offspring of Mary or Joseph, then he cannot be a heir of the kingship lineage. There are just too many issues. It also strikes me as curious as to why Jesus' childhood is not recorded. If Jesus was indeed the messiah, and his parents knew it, why not keep more records of his whole life. I certainly would want my child to be documented as fully as possible if I knew that they were the messiah and the redeemer of all mankind. Just too many problems with the whole thing if you ask me. At one time, tiny humans were believed to be contained in sperm. Women were simply "fields" where the seed was planted. But apologists claim that Mary passed a genetic connection to Jesus via David. Even though women cannot pass titles or kingships, they ignore that issue. The Old Testament never says a king messiah was to be born to a virgin, nor does it ever state that such a king would be killed, rise from the dead, and require two visits to earth to accomplish what he was supposed to do the first time. Jesus never performed the tasks required of an expected king. Christian doctrine is a hodge podge of contorted concepts, held together with hubris and bluster. As an aside, Jesus undermined the dietary regulations in his speech given in Mark 7 so he wasn't sinless regardless of his birth condition.
Aggie Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I come from traditions that speak more about humanity sinning "seminally and federally" in Adam. We sinned in Adam because we are part of his semen (as the RedNeckProf notes above)-- a ridiculous idea which I think started with Augustine. Adam was also a representative of the race so he made the decision for us. These ideas are prominent in Presbyterian circles. The "age of accountability" idea is somewhat superior in that it doesn't suggest that infants deserve hell-- but if every one of god's "children" commit sin it would suggest that there is a design flaw. Why curse people and make them sinners and then get all bothered about it? With god's perfect foreknowledge, I can only assume that he likes being pissed off.
par4dcourse Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 It also strikes me as curious as to why Jesus' childhood is not recorded. If Jesus was indeed the messiah, and his parents knew it, why not keep more records of his whole life. I certainly would want my child to be documented as fully as possible if I knew that they were the messiah and the redeemer of all mankind. Just too many problems with the whole thing if you ask me. Many mysteries are solved by the book "Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal". Best book not in the bible but should be!
Roz Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 So one apologetic says that since jesus was born from a woman who wasn't impregnated by man's evil sperm, he is perfect and escaped the original sin "born into sin" problem. Check CARM.org says that jesus was, yup, both fully human and fully divine. Check Wasn't there a verse that said all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god? Check Which is more probable, that the omniscient AND omnibenevolent yaweh/allah/jesus would leave out this major contradiction about himself as a "test" of people's gullability/faith? Or that this religion 'evolved' over time, by different people pulling out differing ideas out of their backsides? Flame on, Christians
mymistake Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 So one apologetic says that since jesus was born from a woman who wasn't impregnated by man's evil sperm, he is perfect and escaped the original sin "born into sin" problem. Check CARM.org says that jesus was, yup, both fully human and fully divine. Check Wasn't there a verse that said all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god? Check Which is more probable, that the omniscient AND omnibenevolent yaweh/allah/jesus would leave out this major contradiction about himself as a "test" of people's gullability/faith? Or that this religion 'evolved' over time, by different people pulling out differing ideas out of their backsides? Flame on, Christians I just love that fully God and fully human bit. When you stop and think about how that is not possible the Christians come back with "all things are possible with God". Optimists are people who say the glass is half full. Pessimists are those who say the glass is half empty. Christian apologetics say the glass is 100% full and 100% empty at the same time. 3
amateur Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 "Optimists are people who say the glass is half full. Pessimists are those who say the glass is half empty. Christian apologetics say the glass is 100% full and 100% empty at the same time." -- mymistake I love this!
Guest afireinside Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I find this question interesting, I've thought about it a lot myself. Adam and Eve were born pure but sinned. The sin caused mankind to be born inheriting that sin from Adam down. Jesus was supposedly born without the seed of man so he is deemed sinless. The big question I am asking is did Jesus sin? If he sinned does that nullify his sinlessness as it did in the case of Adam and Eve? If so does anything in the Bible give evidence of Jesus committing sin? Here are some I can think of: Disrespecting his parents when he ran off and stayed in his "fathers house" Being a hypocrite by accepting Judaism then later in life coming against it. Insulting a woman who merely asked for compassion, calling her a dog. Being racist towards Gentiles. Being overcome with anger in the temple. Being in the least bi-curious with John. Would any of this be sin? If so did Jesus die a sinless man? 1
Aggie Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I find this question interesting, I've thought about it a lot myself. Adam and Eve were born pure but sinned. The sin caused mankind to be born inheriting that sin from Adam down. Jesus was supposedly born without the seed of man so he is deemed sinless. The big question I am asking is did Jesus sin? If he sinned does that nullify his sinlessness as it did in the case of Adam and Eve? If so does anything in the Bible give evidence of Jesus committing sin? Here are some I can think of: Disrespecting his parents when he ran off and stayed in his "fathers house" Being a hypocrite by accepting Judaism then later in life coming against it. Insulting a woman who merely asked for compassion, calling her a dog. Being racist towards Gentiles. Being overcome with anger in the temple. Being in the least bi-curious with John. Would any of this be sin? If so did Jesus die a sinless man? To add to the list, this verse always bothered me as a believer. Right before Jesus goes to the festival... John 7:8 8Go to the festival yourselves. I am not going to this festival, for my time has not yet fully come.’
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 7, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 7, 2014 I find this question interesting, I've thought about it a lot myself. Adam and Eve were born pure but sinned. The sin caused mankind to be born inheriting that sin from Adam down. Jesus was supposedly born without the seed of man so he is deemed sinless. The big question I am asking is did Jesus sin? If he sinned does that nullify his sinlessness as it did in the case of Adam and Eve? If so does anything in the Bible give evidence of Jesus committing sin? Here are some I can think of: Disrespecting his parents when he ran off and stayed in his "fathers house" Being a hypocrite by accepting Judaism then later in life coming against it. Insulting a woman who merely asked for compassion, calling her a dog. Being racist towards Gentiles. Being overcome with anger in the temple. Being in the least bi-curious with John. Would any of this be sin? If so did Jesus die a sinless man? Don't forget about how jesus warned that if you call your brother a fool you are in danger of hellfire; but then jesus himself called people fools. 1
Aggie Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 I find this question interesting, I've thought about it a lot myself. Adam and Eve were born pure but sinned. The sin caused mankind to be born inheriting that sin from Adam down. Jesus was supposedly born without the seed of man so he is deemed sinless. The big question I am asking is did Jesus sin? If he sinned does that nullify his sinlessness as it did in the case of Adam and Eve? If so does anything in the Bible give evidence of Jesus committing sin? Here are some I can think of: Disrespecting his parents when he ran off and stayed in his "fathers house" Being a hypocrite by accepting Judaism then later in life coming against it. Insulting a woman who merely asked for compassion, calling her a dog. Being racist towards Gentiles. Being overcome with anger in the temple. Being in the least bi-curious with John. Would any of this be sin? If so did Jesus die a sinless man? Don't forget about how jesus warned that if you call your brother a fool you are in danger of hellfire; but then jesus himself called people fools. Good point, RedNeck Prof. I saw this on another billboard this weekend: "The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." It would be a great billboard if they coupled that with: and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire. That Psalmist, that billboard dude, and Jesus will be with me in hell it looks like. JC supposedly said: "For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." The Scripture can't be broken after all!
seven77 Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 You have presented some of the things about which I have been thinking. Interesting side note on the uncleanness of Mary after Jesus' birth. The more I think about it, the more I cannot figure out how Jesus was born sinless. The bible says that Jesus was in all ways tempted as we are tempted, but if he was born sinless, how can that statement be true then? Honestly, it makes his sinless life less impressive since he didn't have to battle it from the beginning like we regular humans do. And even if he is not from the seed of man, he would still be the seed of Mary. So then we would have to assume that Jesus carried no DNA from Joseph or Mary to be sinless. Then we encounter the problem that if Jesus was not the genetic offspring of Mary or Joseph, then he cannot be a heir of the kingship lineage. There are just too many issues. It also strikes me as curious as to why Jesus' childhood is not recorded. If Jesus was indeed the messiah, and his parents knew it, why not keep more records of his whole life. I certainly would want my child to be documented as fully as possible if I knew that they were the messiah and the redeemer of all mankind. Just too many problems with the whole thing if you ask me. Was Jesus born sinless? In order to do this, he would have had to have been born. Which he was not as far as I am concerned. Jesus as found in the Bible is an amalgamation of legends rolled into a mythos pieced together by the later Roman empire until it collapsed under the weight of its own idiocy. Was Jesus tempted as we are tempted? No. The story of the temptation in the desert is a parallel retelling of stories from the OT. The 40 days is a parallel of Moses' 40 years in the desert. The temptation is also meant to parallel the many tales of old about heroes who were tempted but overcame temptation and were awarded with a position of power/godship. Where else is he tempted? He willingly accepts punishment because he MUST die in order for the prophecy to be fulfilled. The temptations of Jesus are not the temptations of a man, but of a godman and this godman will always succeed because the story demands it. He is never tempted as we are tempted, because he is omnipotent (according to legend). Knowing all, he knows the temptations he will face and he also knows how he will respond. Therefore, he has superior foresight and will always choose to do "right". Not much in the way of temptation, even if we relax the parameters given in the good book. Was Jesus the seed of Joseph/Mary? No. Jesus' parentage matters little as the story of Jesus, as well as the character, is NOT one of a real living being. Yet again, Jesus is the savior Hellenistic Jews just as Moses was the savior of the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. In Matthew, the story of Jesus is copied nearly verbatim from the origin story of Moses. Escape from Egpyt, infant killing tyrant and all. The genealogies are included in Matthew and Luke as a way of building an origin story for the Jewish Jesus character to justify their Jewish superhero story. The purpose of the genealogies was ultimately to tie the Jesus characters to the greats of the OT and also to make his own story a bit more...super. Greats of the OT Paralleled in NT Jesus Stories: Via Matthew's Genealogy: Abe - father of the Jews Isaac - the almost sacrificed lamb Jake - Israel [father of the 12 tribes] Judah - the founder of the tribe of Judah, from which the Judaism draws its name. Salmon/Rahab and Boaz/Ruth - righteous men who sleep with whores, a precedent that may have been thrown in to silence the critics of the authors' day who claimed that Jesus was a real man whose mother was a hairdresser (or whore) who became pregnant via an affair with a Roman soldier. David - heroic King of the Jews. Jewish prophecy also stated that the Messiah would hail from the Davidic line, so this was an important part of the mythos. Via Gospels: Moses - born in Egypt, leaves Egypt, 40 days/40 years, faces temptations Elijah - was to come to pave the way for Christ, John the Baptist was thought to be Elijah, Jesus copies some of his miracles. Elisha - Jesus copies some of his miracles. Isaiah - Jesus fulfills many of his prophecies. Those are just the ones I thought of off of the top of my head. Why isn't Jesus' childhood recorded? There are infancy gospels. None made it into the canon. Probably because Jesus was depicted as an average kid and occasionally as an evil little shit in some of them. Also, no one really cared about providing a minute-by-minute account of his youth because it wasn't important to the story that the authors were trying to tell. If the Jesus story is a mythos based around a god character, then it makes sense that we have no canon accounts of his upbringing and formative years. Many god stories/myths consist of a birth account, pivotal events/adventures/trials, adult years where orthodoxies, relationships, and tragic foreshadowing of the end take center stage, and a final climatic death scene. Childhood serves no purpose to the godman narrative and quite honestly, Jesus wanted his followers to be like children for a reason. So they'd be gullible, believing in his fantasies and placing value in escape and obedience to HIM. Hard for him to command that kind of respect if we have stories of him getting his ass whooped for mouthing off to Joseph, eh? The big question I am asking is did Jesus sin? If he sinned does that nullify his sinlessness as it did in the case of Adam and Eve? If so does anything in the Bible give evidence of Jesus committing sin? Here are some I can think of: Disrespecting his parents when he ran off and stayed in his "fathers house" Being a hypocrite by accepting Judaism then later in life coming against it. Insulting a woman who merely asked for compassion, calling her a dog. Being racist towards Gentiles. Being overcome with anger in the temple. Being in the least bi-curious with John. Would any of this be sin? If so did Jesus die a sinless man? Did Jesus sin? If he were a man, he would have sinned. If he were a god, he could not have sinned for it would have been against his nature to do so. Sin is nothing more than the breaking of God's law, so perhaps this is a catch 22. If he was God, he could have altered the rules and sinned without defying his own nature. Pretty twisted, if you ask me. Man without sin is another catch 22. Supposedly, none of us are without it and sin is all that we are. However, if you do not believe in sin as defined in the Bible, then you can very well be without sin. Many of us abide by other moral codes that prevent us from breaking man's laws or nature's laws, so perhaps no one is truly without sin depending on what you consider to be sinful. Jesus as presented in the Bible is not a human. He does not laugh nor does he cry. Where does he show affection for any of his disciples or family? All of this talk of great compassion, and yet, not a shred of it to be found outside of his sermons. He is an angry, petty lesser god, an acolyte of his father Yahweh, full of judgement and doom. He does not work (bearing the punishment of man per Adam) and instead relies on those around him to support him. Paul does the same in Acts and Epistles. Jesus is nothing more than a flat characterization put together by the early church and Roman empire, imho. To follow his teachings to the letter results in the slavery of common man. I have no respect for the system that is espoused in the NT. Jesus is not a human, he is not a god. He is an invented character of myth and not even as good as the creations of Stan Lee and company. Even the worst characters of the Marvel canon have more developed backstories than JC does. Yet none of us are worshiping the likes of Dr. Bong, Hawkeye, or 3D Man. Did Jesus die a sinless man? No. Jesus clearly sinned (defying or ignoring the laws and teachings given to the Jews in the OT) as detailed in afireinside's post I quoted above. He also broke the laws of the Roman ruled society he lived in (sedition, blasphemy). 1
amateur Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 ^^"Jesus wept." He wept when he heard that his friend Lazarus had died. HOWEVER, he knew he was the son of god and knew he could and would go and raise Lazarus from the dead. So why did he weep? If you KNEW you could raise your friend from the dead, you wouldn't weep, you'd be like, "Hey, I'll be right over and take care of that!" Hell, I would gloat! "Don't worry about Laz, wait'll I get there and you see what I do! It's gonna be SOOOO cool! It's gonna blow your mind!" So the one time he DID weep in the bible, in my opinion, was pointless. On a non-biblical note, I can remember being in a small group discussion at my church and the women sitting around debating, "Did baby jesus cry?" Some argued that no, baby jesus did NOT cry because he was perfect. Others pointed out that baby jesus was still a human baby, and would have cried from normal needs. It went around and around and nobody came to a good conclusion BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GOOD CONCLUSIONS, as with all these "discussions" we had in small church groups. So I agree that one episode of weeping (then going and bringing his friend back alive) does not a healthy emotional adult make. 1
Roz Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 ^^"Jesus wept." He wept when he heard that his friend Lazarus had died. HOWEVER, he knew he was the son of god and knew he could and would go and raise Lazarus from the dead. So why did he weep? If you KNEW you could raise your friend from the dead, you wouldn't weep, you'd be like, "Hey, I'll be right over and take care of that!" Hell, I would gloat! "Don't worry about Laz, wait'll I get there and you see what I do! It's gonna be SOOOO cool! It's gonna blow your mind!" So the one time he DID weep in the bible, in my opinion, was pointless. On a non-biblical note, I can remember being in a small group discussion at my church and the women sitting around debating, "Did baby jesus cry?" Some argued that no, baby jesus did NOT cry because he was perfect. Others pointed out that baby jesus was still a human baby, and would have cried from normal needs. It went around and around and nobody came to a good conclusion BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GOOD CONCLUSIONS, as with all these "discussions" we had in small church groups. So I agree that one episode of weeping (then going and bringing his friend back alive) does not a healthy emotional adult make. Jesus weeping = evidence that trolled his disciples before the internet made it popular. And yeah, half the discussions in my church were about nonsense as well. I fully empathize.
RipVanWinkle Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 "Women were simply "fields" where the seed was planted." Centauri That's what I understand the explanation is for Jesus not inheriting sin like the rest of us. Mary was thought of as just a conduit through which the baby passed. It came from the idea that woman were subservient and lesser people that men. But, as stated above, that did not stop the apologists from claiming the ancestors of Mary tied Jesus to David. bill
seven77 Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 ^^"Jesus wept." He wept when he heard that his friend Lazarus had died. HOWEVER, he knew he was the son of god and knew he could and would go and raise Lazarus from the dead. So why did he weep? If you KNEW you could raise your friend from the dead, you wouldn't weep, you'd be like, "Hey, I'll be right over and take care of that!" Hell, I would gloat! "Don't worry about Laz, wait'll I get there and you see what I do! It's gonna be SOOOO cool! It's gonna blow your mind!" So the one time he DID weep in the bible, in my opinion, was pointless. On a non-biblical note, I can remember being in a small group discussion at my church and the women sitting around debating, "Did baby jesus cry?" Some argued that no, baby jesus did NOT cry because he was perfect. Others pointed out that baby jesus was still a human baby, and would have cried from normal needs. It went around and around and nobody came to a good conclusion BECAUSE THERE WERE NO GOOD CONCLUSIONS, as with all these "discussions" we had in small church groups. So I agree that one episode of weeping (then going and bringing his friend back alive) does not a healthy emotional adult make. I stand corrected. Jesus DID cry. The weeping of Jesus. I forgot all about those crocodile tears of his. The story of Jesus' weeping is told at length in John 11. John was the later edition, the revised gospel of the early church. John's Jesus is the most developed of all of the Jesus characters we are presented with in the NT. He is carefully crafted and this story of his weeping is held up as the example of his great compassion for his people and for all mankind. The story of Lazarus parallels the raising miracle found in 2 Kings 13:20-21. Except for in this case, it is the bones of dead prophet Elisha that causes an unnamed man who is tossed into grave to come back to life. It is a strange story, but it is yet another example of the NT authors ripping stories from the OT to impress and confuse the Hellenized Jews who were the primary target of these NT gospel yarns in the early days of the faith. This is nothing but parallelism and allegory written into a priestly passion play. Jesus' character was flat and this was an attempt to make him seem more human, imho. Luke 19:41 also features a weeping Jesus, this time for the city of Jerusalem. However, I contend that all of his tears were big fat fakes because he was in control of everything. His emotions could not have been genuine if he were an all-knowing, all-seeing god. If he were a man, then his emotions were surely based in sin like all of ours are according the big guy upstairs. He cried in Jerusalem because the people did not accept his visions and he was not taken seriously by the very people he was sent to liberate (the Jews, his people.) Those were tears of frustration and anger, not of compassion, imo. So Jesus fails that test because that just goes to show that he is a lesser god, an underling of the mighty Yahweh who had no special powers. ------------- Among believers, there is rarely serious discussion or debate regarding the faith, the good book or the character of the Christ figure. It is all above questioning and there are certainly no answers besides the flimsy defenses of apologia. The Bible is true because it is true. Man cannot question God. Even in my liberal Jewish-leaning church, there was much that was off limits to the average believer. Even those in positions of power and teaching were mostly parrots in my experience. They had scripts and they had faith. If you had questions, you prayed about them. If anyone called you out about your lack of knowledge, lack of faith, criticism, or contrary opinions, you were not supposed to respond to them. Instead, you were to go to a pastor and report them or simply avoid them for a length of time. Planting seeds of doubt was a grave offense in my former church and that is a reason why I isolated myself to a degree while I was there. I always had doubts, always wanted to read, discuss, learn more about my faith. Once I had devoured a sufficient amount of apologia and history, I began to see the cracks in the ice over the still waters of life. I respect that faith is important to many and I felt that if I were to share my often caustic opinions and knowledge, I could cause others to "fall". Now that I have left the fold, I no longer care about causing others grief through doubt. It is unhealthy and unproductive to sit around and have pretend discussions about ancient mythology and stunted philosophy with people who are spoon-fed a bunch of jumbled bs on a weekly basis. 1
Deidre Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 To me, it boils down to the fact that the bible was compiled (written?) by misogynists who made up the early church. Sexually frustrated and feeling women were second class citizens, sexuality was seen as an evil culprit and thus virginity and chastity were seen as ideals to aspire to, or hold onto. (Misery loves company?) In order to create a church that would have at its helm the idea that sexuality is evil, a "savior" would need to be sinless. And that included having no sex, since sex goes hand in hand with sin in Christianity. He would need to be born of a virgin since the idea of mortal sex bringing about a god, would have heathenistic undertones. In other words, the NT is a contrived story to suit the whims of men desiring to control the masses, right down to its sexuality.
AJG Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 In my old theological circles the prevailing idea is that sin nature is passed down through the father. And Jesus had no human father. Presto chango - Jesus has no sin. It's like magic. I had a professor when I was at the christian college who said that sin is actually transmitted via sperm. I believe that the prevailing idea in the ancient world about sperm was that Adam's seed contained every human ever to be born nested within each other like those Russian nesting dolls. So when Adam sinned it infected all the tiny nested people in his sperm. So the whole concept of Original Sin was based off incorrect assumptions about human anatomy and reproduction. But as Christians typically do when a bit of their dogma is proven false by science, they simply moved the goalposts. Now Original Sin is this mysterious concept whose method of transmission is unknown. Just another matter of faith!
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted April 14, 2014 Super Moderator Posted April 14, 2014 Yes, it was called a Homunculus. It was believed that the entire person was contained within the sperm.
Guest afireinside Posted April 14, 2014 Posted April 14, 2014 I was having a debate with an atheist friend of mine one day and I was explaining to him about man being tripartite. He sarcastically said "so sperm is the spirit and the egg is the soul and the body is the human" I was like "actually that's a pretty good analogy!"
Recommended Posts