Jesus accuses God of being a sinner does he not?

[Avoice]

Read the narrative below. How could Jesus accuse the power from above (aka to Christians:God) of having the greater sin? How could bringing the sacrifice to be sacrificed be sinful?

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.


Let me sum this up:
Pilate tells Jesus I have the power to kill you or let you go.
Jesus tells Pilate: The power you have was given to you by God.

Jesus is saying the one who brought him to Pilate has the greater sin. Who is jesus accusing? Does he mean the guard or Pilate? No matter who brought jesus to Pilate it was ultimately Pilate who gave them that authority. And he received his authority from above. Jesus made it clear where Pilate got his power- from above. Jesus is accusing God of being a sinner.

The word 'therefore' connects the first half of his sentance to the last half. Jesus was talking about the 'power from above'. Jesus didn't say God and neither do I. However Christians dont need it today say God for them to say its God. ( ie: The unidentified 'voice from heaven' is God) It is clear that Jesus is accusing Pilates source of power for being a sinner. But if Christians want to say he's talking about a guard -go ahead The source of
for either and for all is God.

So Jesus is accusing God. Why would delivering the sacrifice to save the world be a sinful act? But it is! And if sinful then it would be sinful. 'Therefore' unacceptable

[marco]

Read the narrative below. How could Jesus accuse the power from above (aka to Christians:God) of having the greater sin? How could bringing the sacrifice to be sacrificed be sinful?

There's not much to discuss, Avoice, but your misinterpretation.

Pilate has whatever power he has because God has allowed him to have it. He has some guilt in his dealing with Jesus, but he does not have the major responsibility. Caiaphas, the high priest, knew what he was doing when he handed Jesus over and Pilate is no more than a pawn in their game. The Sanhedrin wanted Christ dead, and handing him over to Pilate was the way to do it.

Since the interpretation that Jesus is blaming the Father is so absurd, one would attempt to see what a sensible interpretation might be,

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by Avoice]


The early interpreters who translated the passage into Latin wrote:

"respondit Iesus non haberes potestatem adversum me ullam nisi tibi esset datum desuper propterea qui tradidit me tibi maius peccatum habet "

Jesus replied: You would have no power against me unless it had been given to you from above, and so the one who handed me over to you has the bigger sin.

Pilate is just carrying out his judgment job; the person who referred Jesus to him is the guilty person. It seems pretty straightforward.

[Divine Insight]

So Jesus is accusing God. Why would delivering the sacrifice to save the world be a sinful act? But it is! And if sinful then it would be sinful. 'Therefore' unacceptable

I have to agree with this.

It had to be God's idea and plan to have Jesus crucified as his "sacrificial lamb". It could not have been the idea of men to do this.

So not only is this God guilty of orchestrating this act, but in doing so he basically committed the act of crucifixion on Jesus himself.

Fortunately the whole religion is nothing more than a very sick mythology. Why anyone in this day and age even bothers to continue to try to keep it afloat it beyond me.

[Avoice]

[Replying to marco]

Again, the word 'therefore' connects the beginning of his sentance to the rest of his sentance.

Pilate speaks of his power over Jesus.
Jesus tells Pilate that [God] has power over him.
(God has power over all. Even those who brought him to Pilate)

You said he means the sanhedrin.. No. He said THE one who brought me. Singular Not plural.

The word 'THEREFORE' connects and follows a path of thought. Had he been talking about the sanhedrin then I could agree with you sonewhat. But he wasn't. Even if he was the sanhedrin gets their power from above too. Jesus is clearly saying that the real one to blame for his situation is God. Why bother bringing God into the equation? Jesus comment was to cast blame. On the sanhedrin? He wasnt talking about the sanhedrin. Unless the sanhedrin are from above. The sanhedrin werent responsible for God sending his son to Pilate. Jesus was before Pilate because God brought him there according to their testament. You mean to tell me that the sacrifice wasnt God's idea but the sanhedrin? Every Christian claims Gid sent Jesus. Sent him...brought him...its all God, right. Its on him.
.
BLAME THE SANHEDRIN? BLAME JESUS! HE WALKED RIGHT INTO JERUSALEM KNOWING WHAT AWAITED HIM. HE KILLED HIMSELF.

ALL POWER COMES FROM GOD. AND JESUS ACCUSED THAT POWER

[marco]

So Jesus is accusing God. Why would delivering the sacrifice to save the world be a sinful act? But it is! And if sinful then it would be sinful. 'Therefore' unacceptable

I have to agree with this.

It had to be God's idea and plan to have Jesus crucified as his "sacrificial lamb". It could not have been the idea of men to do this.

So not only is this God guilty of orchestrating this act, but in doing so he basically committed the act of crucifixion on Jesus himself.

Then you are wrong in agreeing. You are right that God offered his only son, and in that way God did give Jesus for execution, at least in some theologies. But that is not the question here: it is being claimed that Jesus is saying the Father handed him over and so he has sinned more than ever Pilate did.

You weaken any case you have by supporting this absurd interpretation. Sometimes in our eagerness to condemn what we dislike we grasp at straws. There's enough material to base a case on without inventing.

[marco]

Again, the word 'therefore' connects the beginning of his sentance to the rest of his sentance.

Yes, the word therefore, in English grammar, connects in a variety of ways. It presents a summary; it has the force of "and"; it announces a conclusion is being drawn; it may relate to part of what has been said or to something inherently understood......

Jesus is telling Pilate that though he boasts of having the power of life and death, it's by the grace of God he possesses it; he is a mere pawn THEREFORE the one who is really guilty is Caiaphas, the High Priest, who handed him over.

You said he means the sanhedrin.. No. He said THE one who brought me. Singular Not plural.

I said Caiaphas - singular - handed over; in another sentence I said "The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus dead." You have confused the two sentences in much the same way as you confused Christ's reported statement.

The word 'THEREFORE' connects and follows a path of thought. Had he been talking about the sanhedrin then I could agree with you somewhat.

The word THEREFORE can be used in this way. It can be used in other ways too. But taking your meaning, what is being "connected" is Christ's removal of responsibility from Pilate, with the removal of power, and the guilt is then being given to the human who wanted Christ to be crucified.

You have wrongly substituted God for Caiaphas. When we reach an absurdity in mathematics we conclude our hypothesis is wrong. You should adopt this handy rule.

You mean to tell me that the sacrifice wasnt God's idea but the sanhedrin? Every Christian claims Gid sent Jesus. Sent him...brought him...its all God, right. Its on him.

If I had "meant" to make this claim, I would have done in resoundingly clear terms. You are confusing two things: Christ's reported statement and Christian theology about the crucifixion.

Christ is talking about the person - the human being - the High Priest - who handed him over to be sentenced to death.

Christ is not going into the theory of "God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son" and we KNOW he is not because he is attributing blame. The reader should ask:

"Can Jesus be condemning God the Father or is he condemning the person who sought him out and handed him over for punishment?"

What a tough choice!

By all means attack the theories around Jesus, but base them on a reasonable proposition, not on misinterpretations.

[Willum]

I agree, but not for the reasons you indicate.
I propose the reason God can forgive any sin is that He has performed far greater sins than any man possibly could.
Therefore he has little right to condemn.

[Avoice]

[[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 927#990927]Replying to marc
No
The one who handed him over to pilate - where did he get the power to hand him over? You can go up the line of command. Ultimately God is the power behind everything. The first half of his 6úsebtance needs to relate to the secibd galf. The first half is about Pilate, Power and God.
Then you say he changes midstream talkibg about someone completely different. It woukd be like me saying :You wouldn't have a paycheck if it wasnt given to you from your employer THEREFORE the mailman who delivered the check had the bigger sin. How did the mailman get into the conversation? And if he delivered payment then why would he be accused of wrong doing? If Jesus really was to be a sacrifice (a pay then whoever was involved in getting Jesus to that cross should be blessed not cursed. And Jesus entered Jerusalem on his own accord knowing what was to happen. He brought himself to Pilate. He could have boarded a ship Yafo and left. He didn't. He walked right into Pilates hands.

You go on the premise that Jesus' death was a sacrifice. Impossibke! God said only he chooses where sacrifices are offered. He isn't vague about it. Because he elaborates and says WE don't get to choose. That place was on the alter. Golgotha a place called the skull is unacceptable. Jews don't have the sacrifucial system today. But it was prophecied that wed be without sacrifices and a king for many days. But in end tines the sacrificial system will be reinstated. And at that time the (true) Messiah will offer a sacrifice for himself and a sacrifice for the nation. Thus can't be Jesus - he was sinless, right? And besides Jesus died ONCE FOR ALL SINS . Oh really? NONSENSE.