How do they KNOW?

[Elijah John]

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?

[ttruscott]

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

It is by faith we are saved and by faith we live, not by proof. Once again our faith is scorned before the materialistic secular need for proof. Faith is denigrated to mere speculation, another word for imagination, but it is a hope that once accepted that brings changes to lives outside of mere imagination.

LIKE a child cannot understand the lives of the adult because it is outside of his experience but the adult knows very well the life of a child because he has experienced that life for himself...the person without faith cannot understand the person of faith because they have never experienced faith but the person with faith understands very well the person without faith because they too lived without faith for part of their lives...with all due apologies for the fact that no analogy can ever be absolutely true to the reality it compares.

[Divine Insight]

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

It is by faith we are saved and by faith we live, not by proof. Once again our faith is scorned before the materialistic secular need for proof. Faith is denigrated to mere speculation, another word for imagination, but it is a hope that once accepted that brings changes to lives outside of mere imagination.

Having been a Christian I totally agree with Ted on the above point. Christianity is a faith-based religion. Period. Let's there be no doubt about that.

LIKE a child cannot understand the lives of the adult because it is outside of his experience but the adult knows very well the life of a child because he has experienced that life for himself...the person without faith cannot understand the person of faith because they have never experienced faith but the person with faith understands very well the person without faith because they too lived without faith for part of their lives...with all due apologies for the fact that no analogy can ever be absolutely true to the reality it compares.

However, also having been a Christian I totally disagree with Ted's continued claims in his second paragraph.

It's not true that a person who is without faith cannot understand a person of faith.

Having had faith in this religious doctrine at one time I fully understand what faith is. Like Ted explains, faith is simply believing in these ancient stories and claims without seriously questioning their validity. You just take their validity "on faith".

That what faith is. There is nothing magical to it, and it's certainly not something a person without faith cannot understand. That's absolutely false.

Faith is to simply believe without doubting or questioning it. Period. That's all faith is. Some theists might argue that faith is much more than this. For example they might argue that faith is a strong desire or passion to believe, or to want to be with God, etc. But that's not faith. Those are just reasons why a person might be motivated to have faith.

Faith is simply believing in things unseen. Things unproven. And things that have no been verified to be true. That's faith in a nutshell.

And here is why this person of faith no longer has any motivation to "keep the faith".

I simply looked into the matter in great detail and found the entire theology to be absurd and highly self-contradictory. There's just no other way to put it.

So what's the motivation to "keep the faith" in something that I can intellectually see it clearly false? The only motivation at that point would be if I personally was so desperate to believe in it that I couldn't face the reality of it being false.

And yes, I know this thread is just asking about having faith that Jesus was sinless. But let's face it, that's just the tip of the iceberg? Why would it be important for Jesus to be sinless? Obviously the only reason this is important is so that he can qualify to play the role of the unblemished sacrificial lamb of God. And that requires having faith that this is the ultimate story of Christianity.

But a person of "Faith" really needs to ask themselves exactly what they are placing their faith in?

Before it makes sense to place their faith in the idea that Jesus is the "sacrificial lamb of God" who was brutally crucified and died to pay for their sins, they must FIRST place their faith in the idea that some God is out to condemn them AND that they deserve to be condemned.

Now I'm sure there are some people of faith who have committed horrific atrocities in their lives and therefore have no problem believing that they deserve to be condemned. So for those people this theology may make some sense.

But for the rest of us it's clearly nonsense. This is why I say that unless a person truly believes that being condemned to hell would be justified for them, then they truly have no good reason to place their faith in this theology.

Unless of course, they believe that every child deserved to be cast into the pits of hell with the very first lie they ever tell.

I mean, a person of faith needs to believe that it's justified to cast any imperfect human into eternal damnation before placing faith in Christianity (or that Jesus was the unblemished lamb of God) and that they need to be saved from their deserved damnation.

~~~~~~~~~~

So Ted's wrong in his second paragraph. People who no longer have faith in these ancient theological claims, can indeed understand a person of faith. The person of faith, who hasn't yet realized the folly of this religion can only "keep the faith" because they fail to see how absurd it is to "keep the faith".

What they are "Keeping Faith" in is that they deserve to be damned. NOT that they deserve to be saved. In fact, according to orthodox Christianity no mortal human on earth deserves to be saved on their own merit. For if they did then there would be no need for an unblemished lamb of God to be sacrificed on their behalf.

So what Christian theists don't seem to realize is that by placing their faith in Christianity all they are really doing is placing their faith in the idea that they deserve to be damned, but could be unjustly "saved" through Christ by grace.

That's ultimately what they need to place their faith in, in order to believe in this religion.

So as a person who no longer has faith in this religion I fully understand people of faith. They simply aren't paying attention to the details of exactly what it is they have placed their faith in. And they refuse to take a seriously skeptical view of it long enough to realize that the theology is unworthy of their faith.

And YES, everything I've said in this post is directly related to the question of having faith in the idea that Jesus was sinless. Because that idea is directly related to his eligibility to be the unblemished sacrificial lamb of God, and that idea is directly related to the fact that in order to believe in this theology a person "must have faith" that they deserve to be damned. Otherwise, why would they need an unblemished sacrificial lamb as their scapegoat?

So that's what Christian faith is truly all about. It's about placing faith in the idea that you deserve to be damned, and that Jesus qualifies as a valid scapegoat to pay for your sins. That's Christianity in a nutshell.

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Hello!

In the Old Testament, there is written many a prophecy of his sinless nature. The sinless nature might not be one of witness to man, but through the eyes of God.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Hello!

In the Old Testament, there is written many a prophecy of his sinless nature. The sinless nature might not be one of witness to man, but through the eyes of God.

In Christianity, the only reason that Jesus needs to be sinless is so that he qualifies as an unblemished sacrificial lamb. Otherwise he would too would be "fallen".

So this is why in Christian theology it's paramount that Jesus is perfectly sinless.

A theists should also recognize that this requirement is needed because in this theology no mortal man is without sin and therefore all mortal men deserve damnation.

This is also paramount if Jesus is to be the savior of all mankind. Christianity cannot afford to have mortal humans walking around who are without sin.

So as strange as this may sound to some Christian theists, your faith is not so much dependent upon Jesus being sinless, but rather your faith is dependent upon your belief and acceptance that you deserve eternal condemnation.

This is what you are actually placing your faith in when you place your faith in Christianity. You are necessarily placing your faith in the idea that you deserve eternal condemnation. For if this isn't true, then you would have no need for an unblemished sacrificial lamb to serve as your penal substitute.

So Christian theology is ultimately based upon placing your faith in the idea that you deserve to be eternally condemned. Without that core belief you would have no need of a "Savior".

[tam]

Peace to you,

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?

How about some reasoning as well then?


“Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." John 5:19


When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing on My own, but speak exactly what the Father has taught Me. John 8:28



And of course Christ also said that if one sees and knows Him, then one sees and knows His Father as well.

Making Christ the living Image of the living God.


**

As for the theology that you are questioning, John the Baptist also says this of Christ:


"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"



What is the point of emphasizing that sacrifices to God (lambs and anything else) had to be perfect, if the Lamb of God was not also going to be perfect?




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

[Divine Insight]

What is the point of emphasizing that sacrifices to God (lambs and anything else) had to be perfect, if the Lamb of God was not also going to be perfect?

Exactly.

In Christianity the whole idea of Jesus being sinless is the idea that this is a quality that is required if he is going to be the sacrificial lamb offered up to God to atone for our sins.

This is a paramount foundation of Christian theology.

And the reason this is paramount, is because in Christianity we are being asked to place our faith in the idea that we deserve to be damned and we are in dire need of a perfectly sinless sacrificial lamb to serve as our atonement.

So once again, the core faith of Christianity is the faith that we deserve eternal damnation. Without that prerequisite faith the need for a sacrificial lamb to appease God on our behalf makes no sense.

Add to this the absurdity of God himself becoming this sacrificial lamb to be sacrificed unto himself on our behalf, and the only question left is to ask why anyone places their faith in this theology?

It must be accepted on faith because it most certainly doesn't make any rational sense at all.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

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

It's like when a person is losing an argument, they start calling names. A sign of defeat and surrender.

So in regard to the answers so far on this thread, fact is, the NT writers don't know that Jesus was sinless. They couldn't possibly. What in reality is theological speculation, is now called "faith".

But I guess Jesus HAD to be perfect. If he wasn't, no matter, they make him such by decree. Instead of questioning blood-atonement human sacrifice theology, they simply claim that Jesus was perfect because that was necessary in order to make their bloody theology work.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Hello!

In the Old Testament, there is written many a prophecy of his sinless nature. The sinless nature might not be one of witness to man, but through the eyes of God.

References please.

[polonius]

ttruscott posted:

"It is by faith we are saved and by faith we live, not by proof. "

All the world's various conflicting religions can make the same claim, can't they?

But some people prefer proof and certainty. Not "lets pretend."

Did you have faith and believe in the Easter bunny?