|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 19, 2009 22:52:03 GMT -8
Some have actually argued that it may be a male trait.
Jesus had a biological mother but no biological father. There was DNA of Mary. Jesus was like us in that he felt the affects of sin (mortality, suffering) but like not like us (and more like Adam) in that he did not have a propensity toward sin which prohibited him from remaining sinless.
If I get some more time, I'll respond about the authorship of Hebrews, etc..
I'm going away for the weekend, so this gives you some material to go to town on!
Later!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 20, 2009 7:30:48 GMT -8
Josh,
I don't think it's fair that you changed the title of this thread in the midst of the discussion. It once read: "How can a perfect Jesus know what temptation is". It was the word "perfect" I took exception in. Now it looks like I came up with all the fuss about Jesus' perfection out of thin air...
That being said: have a nice weekend!
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Feb 20, 2009 8:47:11 GMT -8
Feel free to ignore my post and continue on with your conversation with Josh. Ah,but you know I can’t resist you!  No, I'm imagining they were probably chasing their oxen. If it was so easy to get them out of the temple, he wouldn’t have needed the whip to begin with. I suggest you try a thing like that: next time you come close to a farm you go with a whip to the animals, driving them out of the barn. Let’s see how the farmer reacts. But watch out, I hear the people in the USA are well equipped with guns Where does it saying Jesus whipped anyone? Where did I say that? You have to assume that, no? The truth is, the text doesn't say what Jesus did with the whip. You can call it a distortion if you wish, but I think you'll have to concede here that it's not "explicit". I said the text explicitly says Jesus made a whip and drove them all out, humans and animals. Mo: “The Bible is pretty explicit what Jesus did with that whip: He drove them all out, both humans and animals.” Bible: “When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen,…” I frankly don’t see what I’m supposed to concede. Apart from that: do you really want to tell me Jesus made a whip for fun and then didn’t use it? If one derives from the text that he did use it, then he used it to drive out both humans and animals, cause that’s what the text says he did. I meant pretty much what you described (actually, I was thinking forced prostitution, but your imagination is pretty vile too ;D ) It’s cause we live in vile times. Anyway, if you really wanted to paint such a vile scenario I have to dismiss it because it’s out of proportion. I don’t know what was going on in that temple. I haven’t got much scripture knowledge, so perhaps other passages go further into what went on that day. But from what I read, there were moneychangers, and merchants in the temple. I haven’t noticed physical violence going on (but I’m saying this with caution for I acknowledge you might know something I don’t know). Hence there was no need for a physical outburst, least of all for immediate action (it’s not like someone would have been killed if Jesus hadn’t intervened immediately, right?). The Bible doesn’t tell us of any resistance on part of the moneychangers and cattle owners. I can imagine this being because a) Jesus was really furious and scared the nuts out of them or b) they were simply harmless (physically). Either way, the fact that they offered no resistance tells me that Jesus could have tried to persuade them to leave the temple without using violence. The other example you provided emphasizes again that Jesus had a right to be upset. I can only repeat that I’m not questioning that. My point is that Jesus himself told everybody not to resist evil violently and then he himself did just that. He’s preaching water and then he drinks wine, as we say in Germany. On to the part where you said that the Sermon on the Mount bit is about self-defense and not about the defense of others. I disagree. Romans 12:21: 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (NKJV). I think this is the message. I don’t think this message is restricted to particular situations, but a general rule of Christianity. A very central rule, according to my Christian upbringing. Apart from that, who was it that Jesus was defending? God? That would mean he was actually defending himself. After all, God isn’t asking anyone to use violence in his defense: Romans 12:19:“ Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. (NKJV)
(I invite you to provide examples now where God is actually asking someone to use violence in his defense and then we’ll have another nice contradiction to discuss )
It shouldn't be odd at all. There's nothing half-baked about it. This is something bible is explicit on. Jesus was perfectly sinless (Heb 4:15, 2Cor 6:21). Of course there's a theological implication. If Jesus was not sinless, He couldn't be the lamb "without spot or blemish" to be sacrificed for the sins of the world.
Yeah, but sinlessness and perfection are two pairs of shoes. My temple-argument is about Jesus supposed perfection. I hold the position that he wasn’t perfect. That he himself didn’t practice what he preached. But that isn’t a sin. It’s merely imperfection. If you asked me I would say: when Jesus was preaching on that mountain he was calm, unaffected by emotions of anger. He told people how things should be. When he was at the temple he was pissed angry and his emotions got the better of him. It happenes to the best of us.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 21, 2009 23:29:03 GMT -8
Mo, I believe most of our points have been sufficiently balanced out, so I’ll leave them where they are and let the reader decide if he/she wishes. I’ll just answer some of the new points you brought up. You wrote:
Lev 24:10-23
10 Now the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and this Israelite woman's son and a man of Israel fought each other in the camp. 11 And the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord and cursed; and so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.) 12 Then they put him in custody, that the mind of the LORD might be shown to them.
13 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 14 "Take outside the camp him who has cursed; then let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him. 15 Then you shall speak to the children of Israel, saying: 'Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin. 16 And whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall certainly stone him, the stranger as well as him who is born in the land. When he blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death…..
……23 Then Moses spoke to the children of Israel; and they took outside the camp him who had cursed, and stoned him with stones. So the children of Israel did as the LORD commanded Moses.
NKJV
I don’t shrink back from anything that God has said. I invite you to show the contradiction (you might want to start a new thread for this one). You wrote: Semantics again. When Christians speak of Christ’s “perfection”, His sinlessness is precisely what we mean. They are one in the same. If Jesus didn’t practice what He preached, He’s a liar and a hypocrite (a sin incidentally) and He is not qualified to be anyone’s savior. But I don’t agree with your assessment of Him. I believe He “walked in the Spirit” every minute of His life, and therefore NEVER “fulfilled the lust of the flesh”. I don’t believe His emotions ever “got the better of Him” as you say. During His time on earth, He was God’s chosen agent to deliver all kinds of messages, prophesies, miracles, and yes, even execution of judgments (like this one). I think I’ve presented a tenable alternative to your contradiction theory, and though you are not impressed, I do think it shows that your example is not necessarily a contradiction at all. It does, of course, require us to realize that there is much about God we don’t know and to acquiesce to His perfect ways. For He says: Isa 55:8-9
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD.
9 "For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
NKJV I say all this with full realization that it is likely you will cavalierly dismiss this notion out of hand calling it willful ignorance or denial or whatever, but you need to realize that once someone accepts and embraces the reality of God and His sovereign authority over all Creation and everyone dwelling in it, that this is just the way we come to see it. And we take great joy and comfort in doing so.  |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 22, 2009 20:49:23 GMT -8
That's understandable, and thanks for pointing it out. The reason I changed it was because it became clear in the course of our discussion that we mean two very different things by "perfection". When I wrote the original post title I meant "morally perfect" but not perfect in the sense of withouth limitation or weakness. So, a clearer way of saying what I originally intended was "sinless". I'll think about changing it. I wish there was more space in the title, because this conversation veered more towards the sinlessness of Jesus as opposed to the originally intent (how can Jesus relate). Maybe a new title: Jesus: Perect, Sinless, Tempted? or something like that? I'm following the dialogue between you and Chris and waiting for a response to my points. In response to Chris's quote from Leviticus, I just want to re-emphasize the point I was making above, that Jesus didn't stand against the Old Testament law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus wasn't saying that the Law was evil, or that violence is evil. In fact, he said this at the very beginning of the Sermon on the Mount so as to clear up any possible confusion Matthew 5: 17-20 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.He's not condemning the Old Testament, He's calling His people to go above and beyond fairness and justice to mercy and sacrifice. Fairness and justice still exist, and sometimes need to be called on, but the Kingdom of God is now going to be recognized through the higher way of Jesus' kingdom ethics. There are several parallel discussions on the forums that echo these thoughts. For instance, here's one (still unfinished) on Capital Punishment: The Death Penalty |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 23, 2009 10:23:54 GMT -8
I'm confused. Did you think I was saying otherwise with that quote?
I was just giving an example where God ordained violence to defend His name. Mo thinks there is a contradiction there and I wanted to see where he would go with it (again, that's probably for another thread though).
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 23, 2009 10:56:06 GMT -8
I should have said, "in agreement with what Chris said" rather than in "response" I suppose.
Yeah, I was just adding to your argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Feb 23, 2009 14:24:31 GMT -8
Thanks for clarifying |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 22, 2009 16:07:22 GMT -8
who said that Jesus whipping out the money changers was a sin? i mean, he cursed a fig tree because he was hungry and wanted a fruit, but it didnt produce any. so he was angry with it. mark tells us HE WAS ANGRY ALOT. anger is not a sin. and him whipping out the money changers was not a sin. he doesnt have to be indifferent about it.
we often try to pacify the view of Jesus, but he did some things that we would be appaled at NOT because we wouldnt do them ourselves, but because we dont see Jesus as doing those things.
he WAS without sin moritz. but he was also a human, not God. God cannot be tempted neither tempteth he any man (james), but Jesus was tempted in every way like we were. he was a man, and he lived a sinless life, even through the temptations, unlike us, who sin in the temptations as humans.
but the fact is that Jesus was stopping the ungodliness that was going on. in fact, this was the act that got him killed eventual,y. he litterally STOPPED THE SACRIFICES, the central message of judaism at that time. that was a radical movement. but it wasnt a sin, and there is no reason why it shouldnt be.
God himself demonstrates holy anger.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 22, 2009 22:32:30 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 23, 2009 10:51:39 GMT -8
yeah i know. i disagree with alot of things with you, not too many, but alot within theology. but this one point will robably be a very rigorous discusssioin. i will not start it until i get my materials ready for it.
shalom - john
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 23, 2009 15:32:31 GMT -8
Just so you know, I think it's productive to disagree amicably.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 23, 2009 18:47:01 GMT -8
i do too. thats why i like talking to you. we disagree and we both grow through it. but i have to be ready for this one because i know that this will be the strongest disagreement i will have towards mainstream christian theology, and your own theology, mostly mainstream itself.
shalom- john
|
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 23, 2009 20:24:03 GMT -8
Hi,
Getting back to the money changers, did Jesus drive out the money changers once or twice?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 23, 2009 20:44:25 GMT -8
Ben, take this link and scroll down for my response to that question: John chapter 2 |
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Jul 23, 2009 22:22:46 GMT -8
Thanks Josh, good stuff a lot to ponder. Like you said on Sunday, when it's time for me to learn, I'll learn. I'm open so I'll keep hanging around you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Jul 24, 2009 9:11:49 GMT -8
ben if you think that all three of the gospels were historical accounts, than yes, he did twice. however, if you see John as i do, than no. i think John used a true storyline to teach his personal doctrines, often tweaking the story to make theological statements (like moving Yeshuas death up a day to iterate the fact that he is our paschal lamb)-which i do not see as wrong.
but i think that is what you are asking.
shalom- john
|
|
