Jesus is God: Jesus committed no sin

[Wootah]

You are a sinner, God is not and has no sin.

Jesus is not a sinner.

Therefore Jesus is God.

Did Jesus commit sin? Is Jesus a sinner?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #17]

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-4.htm

Check the verse in hebrew and the key word tamim.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tamim_8549.htm

I think blameless or without blemish is better.

God is without blemish. It means you cannot blame God when God acts. No one can look at God's work and blame God.

So are you suggesting what God does is not perfect? Gods work is imperfect?

[TRANSPONDER]

Rubbish. Tinkering about with words means nothing when bad actions are identified.

And saying someone is perfect or without sin when plainly they are far from perfect and did sin (though in personality ways) is simply blinkered denialism.

You can believe it if youlike but you must be called on it just to be sure you don't mislead anybody else.

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #17]

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-4.htm

Check the verse in hebrew and the key word tamim.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tamim_8549.htm

I think blameless or without blemish is better.

God is without blemish. It means you cannot blame God when God acts. No one can look at God's work and blame God.

So are you suggesting what God does is not perfect? Gods work is imperfect?

I think you can read deuteronomy 32 to get the context.

I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.

5 They are corrupt and not his children;
to their shame they are a warped and crooked generation.
6 Is this the way you repay the Lord,
you foolish and unwise people?
Is he not your Father, your Creator,[a]
who made you and formed you?

God's ways are faultless a faithful God who does no wrong upright and just is he and in verse 5 they are corrupt. So you have to answer how God can create things perfectly in vs 4 and in v5 talk about corrupt things that he created. That's why my view makes sense. God is blameless in his actions is the point. In making creation and you and me God is blameless.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #17]

https://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/32-4.htm

Check the verse in hebrew and the key word tamim.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/tamim_8549.htm

I think blameless or without blemish is better.

God is without blemish. It means you cannot blame God when God acts. No one can look at God's work and blame God.

So are you suggesting what God does is not perfect? Gods work is imperfect?

I think you can read deuteronomy 32 to get the context.

I will proclaim the name of the Lord.
Oh, praise the greatness of our God!
4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.

5 They are corrupt and not his children;
to their shame they are a warped and crooked generation.
6 Is this the way you repay the Lord,
you foolish and unwise people?
Is he not your Father, your Creator,[a]
who made you and formed you?

God's ways are faultless a faithful God who does no wrong upright and just is he and in verse 5 they are corrupt. So you have to answer how God can create things perfectly in vs 4 and in v5 talk about corrupt things that he created. That's why my view makes sense. God is blameless in his actions is the point. In making creation and you and me God is blameless.

I don't follow you at all. as an analogy, we have a workman supposed to be perfect and without flaw. He sets to work and produces a flawed and inadequate product. So somehow this shows what a perfect workmen he is, and to prove it, look at his written claim that he is first class and without fault.

Explain your reasoning, please.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I am saying all God's ways are blameless is the intention of the verse.

If I have a child and raise the child blamelessly and they go and do something evil later that is not on me.

That's normal logic.

By JWs logic he is claiming all God's created works are perfect because God is perfect. It makes no sense of the Bible. I am not feeling perfect I can say that much.

I am suggesting as well that God cannot create a perfect being. God cannot create God seems logically impossible to me. I think all beings in God's presence have been declared righteous by God. This is debatable and I am open to thoughts.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #24]

I am saying all God's ways are blameless is the intention of the verse.

If I have a child and raise the child blamelessly and they go and do something evil later that is not on me.

That's normal logic.

By JWs logic he is claiming all God's created works are perfect because God is perfect. It makes no sense of the Bible. I am not feeling perfect I can say that much.

I am suggesting as well that God cannot create a perfect being. God cannot create God seems logically impossible to me. I think all beings in God's presence have been declared righteous by God. This is debatable and I am open to thoughts.

Yet again, yet again, the use of false analogy to excuse and explain what is inexcusable and unexplainable.

No human has the ability to create a child blameless (1). No human has the ability to wave a magic wand and make them perfect.

God does. If the product is flawed, he should know it and take the blame for it. He and nobody else is to blame. Or that would be if God existed, but for me Biblegod does not and never could exist, and that makes it so much easier as one does not constantly come up with false, deceptive and irrational excuses to try to get God of the hook.

It does not work and never did. It is my work (atheist apologetics work) to put before the people the deceptive and false excuses the Bible pluggers peddle tofool them into thinking it is believable. The debate (as I have said before) is long since done. The only problem is how to explain that we won, when they have been told for centuries that the Bible is true and believable. But bI have Faith in the Yumung beans, and 'once you show the audience how the trickm is done, they won't be fooled by it ever again'. That is, if the truth is more important to them than the Faith.

(1) this apologetic is expemplified as a test case and precedent by the Theist parable of the barber.

"If you are a barber (hairdresser), why are so many people in the town with terrible naircuts?"

"They have to come to me first."

This fails for the reason your argument fails - the Barber cannot wave a magic wand and give everyone haircuts; God can (2).

There are of course reasons why God doesn't do it, but they all come down to the same thing - God needs something from us. Or rather, his church. Money, authority, influence. And we see how they use it.

(2) which brings up another misuse of analogy; here it is used as an analogy should be - a simpler way (people must go to the barber before he can hairdress them) of understanding 'people have to come to God before he can save them. But here, the fallacy is assuning as a given truth that which is being queried. This is even worse in the 'correct the child' analogy of eternal torment which is one that generally makes the apologists look really, really bad, but this analogy is just as false if not so reprehensible.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

I wager that if we wait and see we will see God is blameless in creation.

But that doesn't discount what I said and you not liking it.

edit: The issue here is that we are looking at the same thing from two sides. Everything in life can be seen positively or negatively. So long as you can at least try to see my side then I will at least think you are being genuine.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #26]

I wager that if we wait and see we will see God is blameless in creation.

But that doesn't discount what I said and you not liking it.

edit: The issue here is that we are looking at the same thing from two sides. Everything in life can be seen positively or negatively. So long as you can at least try to see my side then I will at least think you are being genuine.

I know what your side is; I have seen it and used to think that way one. It is having a beleif and denying everything that contradicts, even what the Bible says itself. God did evil repeatedly so the Bible says, by any standard of morality God supposedly gave us, and Jesus not only taught against the laws God gave Moses but was not a nice person to know, either.

To say other is to ignore what the Bible says, any standard of morality we have and resort to denialist Faith.

That's absolutely your choice, but no way you can sell it to me, nor to anyone else willing to listen to go 'looking from both sides' as you say and I don't care whether you think I am being genuine or not. From where I'm standing the Believers have no means of genuine judgement in these matters. We have seen so many, many times, they reject overpowering evidence, logic and even what the Bible says.

[terrydactyl]

God is not and has no sin.

An issue. Who defines what 'sin' is? If God defines it, then God cannot sin because he says so.

[TRANSPONDER]

God is not and has no sin.

An issue. Who defines what 'sin' is? If God defines it, then God cannot sin because he says so.

Of course. Then it becomes meaningless, except in the view of the person or persons (collectively) defining it. This is what the demands of the believers for and Objective morality are invalid because there is no such thing. It is only preferences, and the question is, are they human preferences or those of a god? And if the latter, which one?

And if one, then why does its' creation have different versions of the same basic moral instinct, as we do with art and music? It is the same in basis, but different, culturally.

Thus the evidence is that we have a moral instinct as we do with art and music - and religion. But they differ culturally.

That is why religion is a preference, not a truth. There is an argument that the common instincts we have are down to a creator, but is it a 'Creator'or evolved instinct? I see a possible debate about that but for me, the debate that a particular god or religion gets the right to say what morality should be is not even be an issue.