How do they KNOW?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:09 am

There is scant evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was sinless and perfect. By contrast, Jesus perfection is explicitly claimed by the authors of the Epistles.

For debate, how could they possibly know that Jesus was perfect, and never sinned in thought, word or deed? Were they witnesses to his mind? And to his every word and deed from childhood?

Isn't the claim that Jesus was perfect and sinless simply theological speculation?

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:49 pm

Elijah John wrote: Unless faith is reconciled with logic and reasoned debate, what place does it have on a debating site? "You gotta have faith". Conversation over.

I didn't think that was supposed to be the case in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum?

In this forum they don't need to argue that their theology is "True", all they need to argue is that this is what their theological doctrine states. And it does indeed state that faith is what it is base upon.

So from a purely theological perspective ttruscott is right. The Christian theology is based on faith. Period. That's what the theology says and requires.

Debating that the theology is then meaningless is certainly a debate you can then have. But that would be no different from saying that Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma are meaningless. Which, again, may be something you hold to be true, but that's not going to go over well in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma forum.

When you ask a question here, what you are really asking is whether something can be supported by the doctrine.

Based on that perspective then it has already been shown to you by Tam and others that the doctrine does indeed make this claim.

Whether you accept the claims of this theology is irrelevant in this specific forum is it not? If the doctrine claims that Jesus was without sin, then that's what the doctrine claims. If you want to argue with the validity of that claim don't you need to take that to Christianity and Apologetics?

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:18 pm

Divine Insight wrote: When you ask a question here, what you are really asking is whether something can be supported by the doctrine.

Actually, it's the Bible, not doctrine which is considered authoritative on this forum. And that does not mean "infallible". The Bible contains contradictions, and therein lies room for debate. Both sides can appeal to the authoritative Bible.

So to say "faith settles it" does not settle matters at all. That is a dismissive cop-out.

And the OP seeks to determine to what degree the doctrine in question is supported by the Bible.

Clearly, the epistles hold that Jesus was sinless. The Gospels? Not so much. There is room for dispute there.

As Avoice points out, Jesus was rude to his mother. The Gospels record this.
And "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone". It's in the Gospel.
And Jesus submitted himself to the "baptism of REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENSS OF SINS". That's in the Gospel of Luke.

John's Baptism rituals were not a "coming out" party. Nor were they a presentation. They were cleansing rituals. Outward signs of inward repentance. Perfect people do not need to repent, imperfect people do. Seems Jesus did.

Divine Insight · Post by **Divine Insight** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:46 am

Elijah John wrote: Actually, it's the Bible, not doctrine which is considered authoritative on this forum. And that does not mean "infallible". The Bible contains contradictions, and therein lies room for debate. Both sides can appeal to the authoritative Bible.

For many Christians and Churches their Bible is their doctrine.

You might claim that the Bible is not "infallible" but that doesn't mean that a Christian needs to agree with you. In fact, I've met many Christians who claim that the Bible is indeed infallible and that anything you perceive to be a problem is simply a misunderstanding or misinterpretation on your part.

Same thing goes with the contradictions. They'll simply claim that there are no contradictions and they will deny any contradictions that you claim exist until they are blue in the face. If they don't want to admit that their doctrine (which is the Bible) contains flaws or contradictions they simply won't admit it. Period.

And besides, how can you claim to know anything about a God if you are going to claim that the Bible is flawed, contains contradictions and cannot be trusted?

What then could you point to that could be trusted to describe your YHVH?

Once you question the validity of the Bible you can hardly defend the Abrahamic faith in any manner.

After all, if you toss out Christianity as being flawed and contradictory, then you certainly can't argue that the Old Testament isn't. You'd need to take an extremely hypocritical position to try to do that.

That would be like saying, "Your book is flawed but mine isn't". I don't think that's going to hold any water in any serious debate. And if you confess that your book are also flawed, then what's the point in arguing with other theists that their books are flawed when yours aren't in any better shape?

Theists arguing with each other over who's theology or doctrine is more rational has to be the most amusing spectacle on earth. And we do indeed see this happening daily right before our very eyes. Theists out to destroy each other's theology.

I guess the atheists really have nothing to do here.

All they need to do is sit back and watch the theists battle it out between themselves.

tam · Post by **tam** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 11:17 am

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

As Avoice points out, Jesus was rude to his mother. The Gospels record this.

Just because some people consider something rude (and many people consider the truth to be rude), does not mean it is rude, and it certainly does not mean that it transgresses the law. Christ does exactly what His mother asks Him to do (at the wedding); or, if you are referring to the time that His mother and brothers came to take him 'in hand', He was doing the will of His Father. How could that have been a transgression of the law?

And "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone". It's in the Gospel.

Have you considered that He was emphasizing His Father being greater than Him? And/or - that because he was born in the flesh that he inherited from his mother, that it is His flesh that was not perfect? Not to mention that he took other's sins and infirmities into his own flesh - an act of mercy and compassion (from love).

And Jesus submitted himself to the "baptism of REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENSS OF SINS". That's in the Gospel of Luke.

John's Baptism rituals were not a "coming out" party. Nor were they a presentation. They were cleansing rituals. Outward signs of inward repentance. Perfect people do not need to repent, imperfect people do. Seems Jesus did.

John (the baptist) believed and stated otherwise - that he needed to be baptized by Christ; not the other way around.

But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

marco · Post by **marco** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:00 pm

Elijah John wrote:

Isn't the claim that Jesus was perfect and sinless simply theological speculation?

It contradicts what we are told in the gospels. As you pointed out Jesus himself says he is less than perfect, for only God is good. Why even make this point over a very simple form of address?

While recommending that we do not speak harshly about our brothers, Jesus declares:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, for ye are like whited sepulchres, "

Are they ALL to be seen as such? Surely this is as bad as calling them "fool" or "raka".

Instead of remonstrating with the buyers and sellers he loses his temper with them. The gospels are a hagiography of Jesus and yet there are some stains in evidence, so Jesus almost certainly sinned. One does not detect any recognition of the command to honour one's parents.

Elijah John · Post by **Elijah John** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:11 pm

tam wrote: Peace to you,

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

As Avoice points out, Jesus was rude to his mother. The Gospels record this.
Just because some people consider something rude (and many people consider the truth to be rude), does not mean it is rude, and it certainly does not mean that it transgresses the law. Christ does exactly what His mother asks Him to do (at the wedding); or, if you are referring to the time that His mother and brothers came to take him 'in hand', He was doing the will of His Father. How could that have been a transgression of the law?

And "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone". It's in the Gospel.
Have you considered that He was emphasizing His Father being greater than Him? And/or - that because he was born in the flesh that he inherited from his mother, that it is His flesh that was not perfect? Not to mention that he took other's sins and infirmities into his own flesh - an act of mercy and compassion (from love).

And Jesus submitted himself to the "baptism of REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENSS OF SINS". That's in the Gospel of Luke.

John's Baptism rituals were not a "coming out" party. Nor were they a presentation. They were cleansing rituals. Outward signs of inward repentance. Perfect people do not need to repent, imperfect people do. Seems Jesus did.

John (the baptist) believed and stated otherwise - that he needed to be baptized by Christ; not the other way around.

But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

You're making excuses for Jesus, but I guess that is part of Christian apologetics.

Being rude violates the Golden Rule, which Jesus preached.

Regarding John's alleged statement, HJ scholars see that as an insertion, the Gospel Evangelist putting words on John's and Jesus' lips. Because of the criteria of embarrassment, they believe Jesus was baptized by John, or why include that event? So that much was probably historical. But to relieve that embarrassment, or to mitigate it, (as it would have put Jesus in an inferior position) they inserted the disclaimer by JtB. and the "let it be so" response from Jesus. Also, HJ scholars believe that Jesus was actually a disciple of John, till John was executed and Jesus basically "inherited" John's disciples to add to his own.

tam · Post by **tam** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:54 pm

Peace to you,

Elijah John wrote:
tam wrote: Peace to you,

[Replying to post 12 by Elijah John]

As Avoice points out, Jesus was rude to his mother. The Gospels record this.
Just because some people consider something rude (and many people consider the truth to be rude), does not mean it is rude, and it certainly does not mean that it transgresses the law. Christ does exactly what His mother asks Him to do (at the wedding); or, if you are referring to the time that His mother and brothers came to take him 'in hand', He was doing the will of His Father. How could that have been a transgression of the law?

And "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone". It's in the Gospel.
Have you considered that He was emphasizing His Father being greater than Him? And/or - that because he was born in the flesh that he inherited from his mother, that it is His flesh that was not perfect? Not to mention that he took other's sins and infirmities into his own flesh - an act of mercy and compassion (from love).

And Jesus submitted himself to the "baptism of REPENTANCE for the FORGIVENSS OF SINS". That's in the Gospel of Luke.

John's Baptism rituals were not a "coming out" party. Nor were they a presentation. They were cleansing rituals. Outward signs of inward repentance. Perfect people do not need to repent, imperfect people do. Seems Jesus did.

John (the baptist) believed and stated otherwise - that he needed to be baptized by Christ; not the other way around.

But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
You're making excuses for Jesus, but I guess that is part of Christian apologetics.
So because I disagree with you and your conclusions, you are just going to be dismissive and suggest that I am making excuses? My Lord has done no wrong that He needs "excuses" to be made for Him.

What about you? Why are you seeking to find fault with Christ?

Being rude violates the Golden Rule, which Jesus preached.

I think you're reaching with this one. Because again, what people find 'rude' is a matter of opinion. And again, many people find truth to be rude as well. Do you suppose the golden rule is meant to be (mis)used to keep people from speaking the truth?

When Christ spoke the truth to and about the Pharisees, I am sure they found that to be rude as well (they were certainly offended)- but that does not mean that He transgressed the law. False prophets and corrupt religious leaders (even some common people among Israel) probably found the prophets (like Jeremiah) to be rude as well. Are you suggesting that the prophets transgressed the law in the things they were told to say?

I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. John 14:29

Regarding John's alleged statement, HJ scholars see that as an insertion, the Gospel Evangelist putting words on John's and Jesus' lips. Because of the criteria of embarrassment, they believe Jesus was baptized by John, or why include that event? So that much was probably historical. But to relieve that embarrassment, or to mitigate it, (as it would have put Jesus in an inferior position) they inserted the disclaimer by JtB. and the "let it be so" response from Jesus. Also, HJ scholars believe that Jesus was actually a disciple of John, till John was executed and Jesus basically "inherited" John's disciples to add to his own.
I'll be honest with you here, EJ. I don't care what HJ scholars have to say. They were not there; they do not know.

I will take my Lord and His words over them and their conjecture. Especially since God said to listen to His Son.

But that is me, EJ. We are all free to choose whom we listen to.

Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:23 pm

[Replying to post 15 by marco]

DID JESUS LOSE HIS TEMPER AND COMMIT THE SIN OF ANGER WHEN HE THREW THE MONEY-CHANGERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE? (TWICE)

Anger is not a sin. Unjustified, misplaced, uncontrolled, unbridled anger is a sin; righteous anger is a virtue. God himself is described in scripture as expressing his anger, indeed anger is entirely the appropriate reaction to certain situations.

To illustrate, if a father came home to see an intruder raping his baby daughter, would indifference or joy be appropriate reactions (perhaps a stern look and a polite invitation to sit down and talk the event through, whenever he had finished pleasuring himself?)....or would the sight if such evil exploitation of the innocent not fill him with rage, and the rage push him to take appropriate measures?

Jesus saw exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable in his Father's house and took appropriate action well within his legal limits.

DID JESUS LOSE CONTROL

Its clear Jesus was extremely angry both from his words and from his forceful actions, but there is no indication he "lost his temper" meaning that his actions were uncontrolled or without due forthought. Indeed the bible account explains, after having assessed the situation on the previous day, he had returned home and made a whip. So far from being spontaneous loss of control, the narrative indicates his actions were premeditated and entirely deliberated*.

* There's no indication he used the whip for anything but to drive the animals. There is no record of any people suffering injury

WAS JESUS ANGER MISPLACED OR UNJUSTIFIED?

Far from it. Although selling isn't of itself a sin, the trade was going on insde the temple courtyard, something which was strictly forbidden by bible law . The temple was dedicated for prayer and worship not commercial endeavours. Further the traders were charging exorbitant prices which represented abject exploitation, exploitation that would be felt most by the most vulnerable, the poor. (For example one temple riot was over the price of sacrificial doves promptly resulted in a reduction in price of 200%, this gives us an idea to what extent the people were bejng "fleeced").

PREVENTING A CRIME

The religious leaders, whose job it was to prevent misuse of the temple, were, if historical records are to be believed, running the racket, so Jesus, as the son of the king took action, well within his rights in expressing his disaccord with the situation and forwarding a solution, namely to move the traders out of the prohibited area and expose their their greedy profiteering by calling them "theives". Their actions were indeed criminal (the Mosaic law expressly prohibited the exploitation of the poor and traders were instructed to be honest in their commercial dealings, not exploitative). The preventing of crime is not criminal, if anything it's a civic and certainly a religious duty.

CAN WE SAY JESUS RESORTED TO VIOLENCE?

No, Violence has been defined as ...
VIOLENCE

behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Since Jesus clearly didn't intend to kill or hurt anyone (a rope snapped near or on an animals hide is intended to get it moving not damage it). And there is no report of him killing or even striking anyone, it would be fair to say while he acted with controlled force his actions were neither criminal, reprehensible nor were they "violent".

CONCLUSION According to the gospel accounts, Jesus committed no sin by throwing the money-changers out of the temple, rather he was expressing his fathers righteous indignation at the systematic corruption of the temple arrangement and a blatant disregard for the most vulnerable members of that society. He neither lost his temper nor acted inappropriately, indeed it could be argued that anything less would have been a sin.... of omission.

JAMES 4:17

Whoever knows the right thing to do, yet fails to do it, is guilty of sin

Continued below...

RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus sin when he threw the money-changers out of the temple?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 99#p976999

Did Jesus violate Roman law?
viewtopic.php?p=1033256#p1033256

Who held jurisdiction over Herod's temple?
viewtopic.php?p=1033249#p1033249

To learn more please go to other posts related to

WAR , VIOLENCE and ... "BAD JESUS"

JehovahsWitness · Post by **JehovahsWitness** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:51 pm

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

RELATED POSTS

Was Jesus virile?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 474#927474

Was Jesus secretly married?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 464#927464

Was Jesus secretly gay?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 477#768477

Did Jesus imply nobody (including himseelf) was perfect?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 101#916101

Was Jesus immodest?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 924#815924

Was Jesus guilty of name-calling?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 542#926542

Did Jesus commit suicide?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 213#357213

Was Jesus a double agent working under cover for the Romans?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 982#933982

Was Jesus black?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 431#962431

Was Jesus ugly?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 297#976297

marco · Post by **marco** » Thu Aug 29, 2019 4:30 pm

JehovahsWitness wrote:

DID JESUS LOSE HIS TEMPER AND COMMIT THE SIN OF ANGER WHEN HE THREW THE MONEY-CHANGERS OUT OF THE TEMPLE?

Anger is not a sin.

Interesting way of defending an action: define it wrongly and then attack one's own wrong definition.

The accusation is that Jesus ACTED by losing his temper instead of setting an example and solving a problem without violence. There is no defence.

if a father came home to see an intruder raping his baby daughter, would indifference or joy be appropriate reactions

This is worse. We are discussing the inappropriate setting for the selling of articles. It is silly to replace this situation with some horrendous crime. Jesus did not commit a horrendous crime.

Jesus saw exploitation of the poor and the vulnerable in his Father's house and took appropriate and reacted appropriately and well within his legal limits.

Selling - in itself - is not exploitation. Presumably there were people whose job it was to prevent misuse of the temple. Jesus acted in a precipitate manner, making assumptions and without any dialogue he used violence. There is no defence. The "house" was metaphorically his "father's". A metaphor does not justify violence.

JehovahsWitness wrote: Indeed the bible account explains, after having assessed the situation on the previous day, he had returned home and made a whip. So far from being spontaneous loss of control, the narrative indicates his actions were premeditated and entirely deliberated

And this makes the action worse, being premeditated. To construct an object of violence and move towards its deliberate use certainly borders on criminality, not just sin. If one gets a knife with which to punish some perceived injustice, one is wrong in general.

So far from exonerating Jesus, you have implicated him in criminality. At the very least he transgressed in some way, however minor, by using violence when other methods were available - especially to a man who could walk on water.

Debating Christianity and Religion

How do they KNOW?

How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?

Re: How do they KNOW?