Spirituality
11 Nov 06
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI agree it isn't a strong case, I didn't mean to say it was. As I said, these passage could be interpreted as saying that he is not free of sin, but it doesn't have to. I still find it interesting, especially combined with the fact that he doesn't explicitly say anywhere that he is free of sin. Why do you find the bit about his supposed sins an especially weak case, though? Are you arguing that the mentioned actions were not really sins, or are you arguing they were not sins for him?
Nordlys, vistesd:
I have to say, that's a bit of a weak case (especially the supposed sins). First it is unclear if he's talking about sin. Matthew's quote is much more logical, as in the follow up the man says has been without sin as Jesus describes it. It would be weird to believe Jesus sinned more than this man.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaIt may not be a strong case, though I’m not sure what “sinning more than” has to do with it. “Sin,” in neither the Hebrew nor Greek words—nor in the original English meaning—does not only that one does things that are immoral. It also means actual or potential failure, error, etc.
Nordlys, vistesd:
I have to say, that's a bit of a weak case (especially the supposed sins). First it is unclear if he's talking about sin. Matthew's quote is much more logical, as in the follow up the man says has been without sin as Jesus describes it. It would be weird to believe Jesus sinned more than this man.
“Good” in these passages (agathos) can mean satisfactory, beneficial, fitting, just, generous, as well as morally upright; it can also be used to mean “perfect,” though I don’t think it is translated thus in the NT. teleios generally means perfect in the sense of complete or whole.
Now, if only God is agathos, what does that mean here? And is Jesus deferring away from himself to God? Or is he saying something like, “Why are you calling me ‘good’ if only God is good? Do you recognize that I am God?” It is the latter understanding that, I think, would have to be used to support Jesus as the God-man—from these verses.
However, the standard Chalecedonian definition says that Jesus was also “fully human”—
The Definition of the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)
Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
So, was Jesus always speaking out of his divinity (assuming trinitarianism)? Or did he sometimes speak from his humanity? And how do we sort that out?
Frankly, as you can probably tell, I am now getting too “mush-brained” to focus on it any further.
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by louisXIVNo, no problem—I’m just carrying the question of Jesus’ divinity/humanity over from another thread, I’m afraid. (See my above post, with the Definition of Chalcedon). I’m getting tired enough that it’s starting to run together...
Do you see any problem with these verses? I don't
You are a Trinitarian, so that is how you will read it (in one of the two ways that I suggested are consistent with that). And I think that is valid, especially read in context with, say, Paul.
My basic line is not that these texts cannot support a Trinitarian argument, but just that they are not so clear-cut that there is no room for intelligent argument. But that is really the only argument I am making...
15 Nov 06
Originally posted by NordlysI think they aren't sins to Christians (perhaps to Jewish people, I don't know).
I agree it isn't a strong case, I didn't mean to say it was. As I said, these passage could be interpreted as saying that he is not free of sin, but it doesn't have to. I still find it interesting, especially combined with the fact that he doesn't explicitly say anywhere that he is free of sin. Why do you find the bit about his supposed sins an especi ...[text shortened]... entioned actions were not really sins, or are you arguing they were not sins for him?
Harvesting at a Sabbath: They weren't really 'harvesting' in the sense of working. It was work that was forbidden, not eating.
Eating without washing hands: Jesus was pretty clear about what should be considered a sin.
The demons and the pigs go without saying... I have to go, hope you get the picture.
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaSeen what defended? Stoning?
Nice point. I'd never thought of that... He does ask her to sin no more, so he didn't approve.
Also, the sermon of the mount, in my mind, also excludes such punishments. Turn the other cheek, judge not lest ye be judged, and so on....
Of course, this is my view as an atheist. I don't pretend to teach you anything, LH, just that I've never seen that defended and it doesn't make much sense to me personally.
16 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not trying to defend stoning as a punishment -- merely pointing out that Christ did not condemn it when he was asked a direct question.
Yes. Pretty much.
The problem, for me, is when people make the leap from a particular punishment for a crime/sin being indefensible to the crime/sin itself being acceptable.
16 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerI specifically said that it contradicted his message.
I'm not trying to defend stoning as a punishment -- merely pointing out that Christ did not condemn it when he was asked a direct question.
The problem, for me, is when people make the leap from a particular punishment for a crime/sin being indefensible to the crime/sin itself being acceptable.
Do you disagree? If yes, then you are defending the possibility of its acceptance in a Christian worldview.
Edit - And I did say that he didn't endorse the sin, just that I also think he didn't endorse the punishment.
16 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure what I'd have to agree/disagree with.
I specifically said that it contradicted his [b]message.
Do you disagree? If yes, then you are defending the possibility of its acceptance in a Christian worldview.
Edit - And I did say that he didn't endorse the sin, just that I also think he didn't endorse the punishment.[/b]
Stoning does not appear to fit with Christ's message but, if that were the case, why did he not simply condemn it when the question was put to him directly?
EDIT: I guess I'd have to say I disagree with a simplistic black-and-white view of either Jesus's "message" (and that term has a different meaning for non-Christians and Christians) or his views of pre-Christian Jewish practices we consider barbaric.