Evidence for God from Science

Capo, Jesus didn't sin. If you want to appeal to other parts of Scripture, see

Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? - John 8:46

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 1 Cor. 5:21

For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. - Heb 4:15

Besides that, He could not have been the sacrifice for sin if He were not perfect (that is, if He had sinned). If Jesus sinned, then everyone will die in theirs and no one, not even Jesus, can be saved.

caporegime wrote:Well before anyone sinfully appends (Rev 22:18) to the Scriptures thanks all for your insights, although all these reminds me of a conversation with a Catholic cousin of mine, that he won't accept Jesus as having sex at all. I said what if he has or he wanted to? It's not up to you to decide on that, not unless you consider him to be a dummy.

Jac provided some scripture, capo, stating that Jesus was without sin. If you want to insist that he did sin, then you are the one appending scripture. Even though Jesus was fully human, he also had divine assistance, if you want to put it that way (there was the transfiguration, prophecy, etc). There is such a thing as the gift of celibacy. I don't know how he did it, but it's bizarre to think of him as a dummy if he didn't sin, and the bible clearly teaches that he was without sin. He wasn't a dummy, but the opposite--far better--for being able to not sin. For some reason you want to bring him down to your level. He was human, yes, and he was tempted as we all are, yet he was without sin.

Question is, to whom is he accountable for if he indeed does "sin"? So I would agree with you, he didn't, doesn't. Ever.

caporegime wrote:Question is, to whom is he accountable for if he indeed does "sin"? So I would agree with you, he didn't, doesn't. Ever.

Your question contradicts your following statement.

Do you want to know who you're accountable to (along with everyone else)?

It's not so much as an accounting, anyway, as a washing. We are washed of sin (by Jesus' blood), like sin is dirt, so that we can be in the presence of God. Without the washing and removal of sin, we simply can't be with God.

cslewislover, what I meant was what if Jesus rather has a "divine immunity" to sin? Like being allowed to do certain "sinful" things without being counted as "sinning".

With regards to being a dummy or at least close to it, would you agree though that without "sin" comes lesser activity? Isn't that boring? Can't we give Jesus a break?

caporegime wrote:cslewislover, what I meant was what if Jesus rather has a "divine immunity" to sin? Like being allowed to do certain "sinful" things without being counted as "sinning".

With regards to being a dummy or at least close to it, would you agree though that without "sin" comes lesser activity? Isn't that boring? Can't we give Jesus a break?

So I would agree with you, he [Jesus} didn't, doesn't [sin]. Ever.

Why are you asking the first question? So that you can get in on it too? The question shows that you don't know the whole point as to why Jesus came and why he did what he did. If he sinned and got away with it somehow, then he wouldn't be holy and be the head of the church and be our example and he wouldn't have been able to die in our place for our own sins. I'm assuming by your second comment that you're accusing Jesus of still partaking in some sort of sexual activity; I'm not positive, but that's what it seems. You seem to be full of nonsequiturs.

If in fact you do know what we Christians believe, and why, but you are here just to make opinionated assertions - ones that you don't even come right out and say - then you really need to find another place to do that. We are not a forum for this type of "debate."

caporegime wrote:Well before anyone sinfully appends (Rev 22:18) to the Scriptures thanks all for your insights, although all these reminds me of a conversation with a Catholic cousin of mine, that he won't accept Jesus as having sex at all. I said what if he has or he wanted to? It's not up to you to decide on that, not unless you consider him to be a dummy.

The problem would not be with Jesus being a "dummy." The problem in the scenario that you lay out is that Jesus as God can do anything he wishes, but he will not contradict his nature and "sin." Jesus as fully man certainly had and has the physical means to "have sex". However, as a man fully and wholly committed to God and without sin, he did not have sex outside of marriage. He never married. Therefore, he did not have sex.

Jesus however does have a bride which will be presented to him in the end. This is the universal church. There is a higher calling in Christ that is a mystery of sorts and spiritual, not physical that Jesus has chosen. Jesus could have married and experienced sex, if His obedience to God's plan allowed for it. It certainly would not have been wrong nor is sex wrong in the context of marriage. It simply wasn't in his plan.

Dennis4Jesus wrote:ok, so ivebeen thnking about this for a whilenow, jesus knew judas was gonna betrayhim, by saying befre the rooster did the roostersound 3 times he wuould betray him, anyway... jesus let judas betray him, letting him do a not so very nice hevanely thingy... and jesus ket him... is jesus bad now?

I don't understand Eubonics well but the answer from what I can understand of this post is NO: Jesus did not sin.

cslewislover wrote:Why are you asking the first question? So that you can get in on it too?

No, why do you think that? I'm celibate right now and even willing to die while at it. I'm just concerned for the man, err.. God. I really think he deserves a break (that, without being judged).

cslewislover wrote:The question shows that you don't know the whole point as to why Jesus came and why he did what he did.

I think I know: it's maddening to be alone. It may not seem like it but the universe is purpose-built for himself for alleviation of just that and nobody else. Remember, there was no you nor anyone else existing before it was created for you nor anyone else to be a reason for it to be created but for himself (Jesus).

cslewislover wrote:If he sinned and got away with it somehow, then he wouldn't be holy and be the head of the church and be our example and he wouldn't have been able to die in our place for our own sins. I'm assuming by your second comment that you're accusing Jesus of still partaking in some sort of sexual activity; I'm not positive, but that's what it seems. You seem to be full of nonsequiturs.

Well, like I said what if he indeed has a "divine immunity" to it? But it would seem that instead he's not immune to your judgment.

cslewislover wrote:If in fact you do know what we Christians believe, and why, but you are here just to make opinionated assertions - ones that you don't even come right out and say - then you really need to find another place to do that. We are not a forum for this type of "debate."

This "whether Jesus has had sex or not" discussion is just a precursor to greater issues that need resolving, but unfortunately like you said this forum isn't up for it. Well still, thanks for your time.

Btw, "stooping down", "writing with his finger" and "ground" has symbolic (double) meanings associated to them. Being human, sex and female respectively.

As me and others here have pointed out, and you even agree with, Jesus did not sin. Sex outside of marriage was considered a sin, so Jesus did not have it. I am not judging Jesus - I'm just following what is in the bible, as is everyone else here who posted (excluding yourself). The NT is the Word, and the Word is Jesus. So by going against Jesus' own words, it's like you're calling Him a liar (so the forum isn't up for this, no). Yes, there are areas of the bible that are disputed, but Jesus having sex and sinning is not one of them.

As far as your symbols go, you didn't say your source. Were they symbolic of what you claim to the people at the time? If not, it has no meaning for the text (and even if they had those meanings at the time, they still may not have been used for that meaning). You clearly want to put your own interpretation on this text to suit your own purposes, and by your own admission, this then helps you think of other parts of the bible the way you want.

caporegime wrote:

B.W. wrote:. . . Jesus is a "sinner". He is but then he is entitled to, IMHO. Btw, I know it's odd I'm a Jesus believer I believe he's God but I am not a Christian.

A Christian is someone who follows Christ, so what do you mean you believe in Jesus but [are] not a Christian?

You haven't answered this yet. There are those opposed to Christ who believe he's God, but of course they aren't followers of Him.

Encrypted (hidden) portions of the Scriptures are timeless, after all they are "divinely inspired" and one can't just argue that they are from another era and that those symbols don't apply or can't mean anything now etc. etc. In fact, I think you're missing the most amazing "timeless" facet or dimension to it. Not only with the book, but this reality as well. So you can't truly say that God has had no part in the formation of the word "God" (being a modern word as you said), or why does "Yeshua" sounds like 'Yes you are' (in British accent) or why "Hesus" (He's us) is what Filipinos call Jesus etc. These are just clues however, word plays I believe that leads to understanding of a greater truth.

Heck, even the "Pericope Adulterae" is said to be by scholars as an unscrupulous, later addition to the Gospel of John. But if it's ever true I believe even that act was "divinely inspired"... an "adulteration", eh?

I've already explained and I believe it's already obvious, I don't view Jesus the same way Christians do. I'm not a follower albeit perhaps, a defender of his "rights". I do believe he has a "divine immunity" to sin while you're the ones bringing him down to your level believing he's not immune to them. Sorry to say that.

I suppose then as a Democrat who firmly believes in symbology that you understand the antichrist prophecies and that "lightning falling from the heavens," can be translated into ancient Hebrew as Barack Obama (Barak O Bam Maw or Baraq U Bam Maw") the president you voted for right?

I'm Filipino currently living in the Philippines and apolitical. I stopped voting for anyone for any office eons ago.

caporegime wrote:Encrypted (hidden) portions of the Scriptures are timeless, after all they are "divinely inspired" and one can't just argue that they are from another era and that those symbols don't apply or can't mean anything now etc. etc. In fact, I think you're missing the most amazing "timeless" facet or dimension to it. Not only with the book, but this reality as well. So you can't truly say that God has had no part in the formation of the word "God" (being a modern word as you said), or why does "Yeshua" sounds like 'Yes you are' (in British accent) or why "Hesus" (He's us) is what Filipinos call Jesus etc. These are just clues however, word plays I believe that leads to understanding of a greater truth.

The plain meaning of the texts are divinely inspired, so yes, I can and do argue that your own added symbolic meaning is all your own, not God's. Who are you to tell me what God has divinely inspired, if it is outside of the generally agreed upon meaning of the words? It would get to be incredibly absurd, with everyone who wishes claiming different symbolic meanings for different words based on whatever they want to base it on. The texts need to be taken in their historical and cultural contexts. God wants us to know Him and He hasn't made it more difficult than necessary.

Why should word plays lead to some higher truth? God is truth, and if they somehow lead a person to God, then they will be in the truth instead of a spiritually dead place. If God has a sense of humor and uses some word plays to lead people to His Word, that's one thing; but you are promoting something else. God chose to reveal Himself in written form through Israel, which He did in the Old and New Testaments. The gospels are "the good news": "'The time has come," he said. 'The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!'" (Jesus, in Mark 1:15). He never said that what he brought was the good news and secret encrypted codes that only a select few would understand. The Good News is that we can be washed of our sins and enter the loveliness that is the presence of God; it should then be our desire to be "good and faithful servants." Those are the points. We are to care for people and be less selfish, we are not called to try and find secret knowledge where there is none.

Heck, even the "Pericope Adulterae" is said to be by scholars as an unscrupulous, later addition to the Gospel of John. But if it's ever true I believe even that act was "divinely inspired"... an "adulteration", eh?

Yes, the story is disputed because of the dating of it, not because it's unscrupulous. It shows the hypocrisy of the Jews in bringing the woman only, Jesus' grace in not condemning the woman, and His admonition to not live in sin.

I've already explained and I believe it's already obvious, I don't view Jesus the same way Christians do. I'm not a follower albeit perhaps, a defender of his "rights". I do believe he has a "divine immunity" to sin while you're the ones bringing him down to your level believing he's not immune to them. Sorry to say that.

Is there a language problem here?? How is it that we are bringing Jesus down to our level, when we hold Him to be at a higher level? What you say makes absolutely no sense. The higher level is to live in the Spirit, without sin, and that's what Jesus did (He was tempted, but He did not sin). You said earlier that you believed He was without sin, but you seem to keep going back on that. If He was without sin, then why would He need divine immunity? It makes no sense. If He is God, then why does He need "rights"? That also makes no sense. He is God and all is in Him; what does He need rights for? And why would He need you to defend them?