I read he was crucified for marrying too many women. Is that true? I was never taught religion. Only a few stories.
He was crucified for breaking numerous roman laws repeatedly and ignoring warnings. So by roman standards he was a huge disgusting sinner. By jesus' standards I suppose he wasn't much of a sinner. I'm not a sinner by my standards either. By god's standards I think the drunken 13 man orgies would have raised an eyebrow. Also when he "healed" that child with constipation by digitally penetrating it's anus I think that was quite sinful by todays standards, seeing as how he's not a licensed physician. By peta's standards it was very sinful to kill all those fish, and suggest sheep exist to serve shepherds. I could go on...
I am no theologian, but just looking at the first line tells you a lot about the text. It clearly states that these were "stories," so we already know there is a possibility that they are fictional. Furthermore, they were written not by Jesus' disciple Thomas, but another man of the same name, so it is not likely that he was at all acquainted with Jesus. The time of writing, indicated in the introduction as the fifth or sixth century, is so far removed from the time of Jesus' birth that the reliability of the detail presented in the text come seriously into doubt. In summary, the claims made by philosopher Thomas cannot be ascribed much credibility. I believe there was a time when the christian faith came under attack by "antichrists," as mentioned in Paul's letters (i.e. the gospels), to intentionally desecrate Jesus' name. This might be one of their writings, because to suggest that Christ has sinned is a severe challenge to christian beliefs.
Audible There are God's laws and there are Man's laws. There are differences such as premarital sex. That is not against the law at least in the United States but it is against God's laws. You may not be punished for it by the state but you will be punished according to God's law unless you repent. Running a red light will not send you to Hell (however it could speed things up in that direction) but, that act is punishable by man's laws. Sometimes man's laws coincide with God's laws such as murder and theft. Those crimes you will be punished by man and by God. Jesus may or may not have broken man's laws which resulted in him being crucified but he never broke any of God's laws. Therefore he was pure and sinless before God. Athelwulf The reason we can repent and be forgiven by Christ is because he atoned for our sins. Christ washes us clean from our sins. Before Christ’s atonement there could be no forgiveness of sin. Once you sinned you were forever separated from God. If Christ sinned he too would have been separated from God and could not have repented because there would have been no atonement. Therefore Christ had to remain sinless in order to have done the atonement. Christ was the only one capable of doing that because he was part God and part human. It was his God part that made it possible to remain sinless.
I 'm sorry but this does not clarify anything, what are gods laws, if you mean the ten commandments, then god, moses, and jesus, all had different versions.so lets look at these ten commandments. moses version no6. Thou shalt not kill. Jesus, advocates murder 3 Nephi 9:3-15 The voice (who finally identifies himself as Jesus Christ) brags about burning to death, drowning, and burying alive all of the inhabitants of 16 large cities and 11:34 Jesus says that whoever does not believe in him and is not baptized will be damned to hell. being the instigator and/or doing it are one and the same. and again what of original sin. so undoubtedly jesus has sinned.
Audible We do not believe that we are born with Adam's sin. We are only responsible for our own sins. As for Adam's sin we don't really consider it a sin but a transgression. What Adam and Eve did was the equivalent to a child disobeying a parent after telling him not to get into the cookie car. It was not inherently wrong for them to eat the fruit, it was wrong for them the disobey God. The fact that they did disobey God was enough for them to fall however. Even the smallest of transgression will separate us from God. This is why Christ could not have sinned because to do so he too would have been separated from God and not able to accomplish his mission to atone for all of human kinds sins. It is not a sin for God to take a life, no more than it is a sin for nature to take a life. If God takes a life he had a good purpose for it. We cannot judge God. We do not have all the facts in order to make that kind of a judgment. We cannot see all ends. God can however, so he is the perfect judge.
i asked this question elsewhere on this thread but it was ignored; how did jesus' crucifixion pay for the sins of mankind?
There's nothing about Moses childhood either... for example. The important are the things Jesus and Moses did, their teachings and such...
Someone said ; "It is not a sin for God to take a life, no more than it is a sin for nature to take a life. If God takes a life he had a good purpose for it. We cannot judge God. We do not have all the facts in order to make that kind of a judgment. We cannot see all ends. God can however, so he is the perfect judge. " I cannot agree with this. It smacks too much of someone wanting to "have his cake and eat it too". Also, it echos what is found in the Book of Job, which even the author doesn't seem comfortable with (by the discussions of his friend and the sylloques of Job), but only accepts. Nature is impersonal, and makes no conscious decisions. Everything is arbitrary, though it does follow established patterns and natural law. We would never say that nature intentionally ever killed anyone, just a case of that person boing in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, when god is personalized, that is, created in the image of man, then god is no longer impersonal. If we impart to god some form of intelligence and forethought, his decisions will no longer appear arbitrary, nor can they be, given the properties we have assigned to it. The problem with the statement above now becomes more clear. If we further assign to god the idea of a lawgiver, as one who can dictate morality to humans, we now have an even worse moral quandry. Given this, we can no longer believe in an absolute morality, nor absolute law, or any absolute sense of right and wrong."Absolute" means aboslute, applying to all. For, if god is permitted to live by one set of standards, and humans another, then god's moraliy and laws are not absolute, but relative only. The logical implication of the above is that of relative morality, and by negation the denial of any absolute standard. Further, I am not the only person to ever see this, the early greek philosophers realized it as well. It would seem that certain of the second temple period Jews (perhaps those from the diaspora, exposed to greek philosophy) realized it as well, and realized that the explanation of Job didn't solve the problem. Ellion asks a valid question, and the answer is complex. I have only time to outline it here. First, we must realize that Judaism used its temple, and systems of sacrifice for the atonement of sin or wrongdoing. These sacrifices involved the sacrifice of animals, and the burning of certain fat and organs in offering to their god.(not all sacrifices were for atonement, but many were). But, it is from this, and the events of 70CE that the idea of Jesus sacrificing for all sin for all time a viable concept. If the "wages of sin is death", then it follows some payment can be made in the death of another, in the case of sacrifice, of an animal. (it doesnt make much sense to the modern mind, but given the prevalence of ancient religions with sacrificial rituals, it was accepted in ancient times) Another idea must be interjected here. There was in Judaism at the time, the legend of a messiah, and him one descended of the royal line of their ancient king David, who was to come and gather together Israel and defeat their enemies (at that time, Rome). Now, when the Roman invaded Judea in 65-70 CE, they not only destroyed their cities, they destroyed and disassembled their holy temple, the place of sacrifice. Many Jews of the time must have believed that their god would save them from the Romans, because common sense, even of that time, had to have indicated to them that defeating Rome was an impossibility. At the same time, they had recent memory of Judas Macchabeus's defeat of the greeks a couple hundred years earlier, but evne the most common minds realized that the Roman had put the greeks down as well. The point being, the Jewish revolution against Rome was hopeless from the start, as Flavius Josephus points out. So, now, we have a people who believed themselves to be favored in Gods eyes, with a system of sascrifice in their temple for atonement, who no longer had a temple, and who had been utterly and totally defeated and humiliated by Rome.(even worse in their eyes, by Gentiles). So, various surviving groups, especially those outside of Judea, began to think of how to continue their traditions, how to cope with(read as rationalize) this humiliating defeat. Several answers arose from these groups. One was rabbinical Judaism, which represents the survival of Pharisseeism. Another solution was Christianity, which rationalized it thusly. The Jewish messiah (oops, I didnt delve into that, sorry, I added something brief above), who was to save Israel, had in fact already come to the Judeans Jews, and that they had in fact killed him. There were some thematic precedents for this to be found in ancient Jewish tradition, legend and myth. ( What makes this difficult is that Christianity itself stretches and contorts existing Jewish tradition ). As it goes, for killing the messiah, Judea and Israel are punished by god through the actions of Rome. So, now, we have to rationalize the messiah's mission. It was to save JUdea/Israel, but they killed him. They were hten punished by god through Rome. But, the messiah death was now understood to be as a sacrifice, and no more temple was needed, the sacrifice of the messiah is sufficient for all time to come. Further, that messiah was understood to be god (or some part thereof) himself. Please understnad that I personally don't believe a word of this. I am only tying to answer your question as to why Christians think Jesus's death atones for sin. There are many allusions to this in the gospels themselves. The trading of Barabbas for Jesus is understood as parallel to the scapegoat of Leviticus. One is released, one is sacrificed.(Some people understand it more literally, but I've never seen them make their case very well in the light of these midrashic parallels. In Matthew's gospel, we have the most insidious line of all the NT, when Pilot is about to condemn Jesus to death, Matthew says that the Jewish mob utters, "let his blood be upon us and upon our children" (Now that's chilling, and that line is regrettable in light of what it caused in later history). We can also see this as shifting the reponsibility of Jesus's execution from Rome to the Judeans. But, that had been done well up to that point in the story, as least in the stories of the Judean leadership scheming to take Jesus out. It is an attempt at a reconstruction of some form of Judaism from the ashes of Judea, and not the only reconstruction. Whole books are written on this subject, and I hope you now have some understanding of why the whole Jesus thing arose from the events of those times. It is also very difficult to reconstract how much of the NT stories are actual history, and how much are legendary. I believe that ther might very well have been a historical figure who the Jesus of the gospels is based. Perhaps not, perhaps he is an amalgammation of messianic contenders of that time.
We all die at some time. God chooses the day and hour. Only He has the right to do that. When someone murders another they are trying to take the place of God. He gave us life so he alone can take it. It is not a sin when God takes a life. Every man and women has a time apointed by God for their lives to end.
What about when cancer kills someone? Or a donkey? Infact, I'm not aware of one autopsy which revealed god to be the cause. It's always something or someone else. Is god still waiting for his chance to kill his first person? Does he get mad everytime a person or heart disease kills someone before he gets the chance to? No wonder he's so pissed off. It would be so frustrating. But why does he take so long? It wasn't so long ago when diseases and predation were ending everyone's life before they were 50. You'd think he would have gotten used to this and got quicker on his toes. But now elderly people, sometimes 100 years old are just sitting around waiting for god to strike his deadly blow, but I guess god has a procrastination problem because something else will invariably beat him to it everytime. Look over medical records, God hasn't killed one person. There's no one to blame but god. If he wants to kill people so badly, he needs to get in there and do it.
Ellion You ask why the atonement was necessary. There are two laws diametrically apposed. They are justice and mercy. If one is given the other must be denied. God cannot deny either. He must bring justice and mercy into balance. There is a law that no unclean thing can dwell with God. Any sin will separate you from God forever. However God wants us to return to him. He wants to be merciful and bring us back but he also must not deny justice. For this he provided a way that both justice and mercy would be satisfied. He provided a savior for us that would come to Earth and atone for our sins. Jesus came to Earth and was sinless. Therefore he was not separated from God. He took upon himself the sins of the world. He paid the price of justice. He was the only one that could do that because he was the only one without sin. He suffered more than any human could. In fact his main suffering was not at the hands of the Romans or on the cross. That was the easy part. It was in Gethsemane that he began the atonement that finally ended on the cross. In Gethsemane the Bible tells us that he bled from every pour. Any mortal man would have died right there, but Christ could only lay down his own life. No man could take that away. When Christ died on the cross it was by his command. He died even though he didn't have to; he suffered even though he didn't have to. He did it because it was the will of his father. He did it for us so we could be made clean from our sins and once again returns to our Heavenly Father. With the atonement it allowed God to show mercy and not cheat justice. It was the only way.
Fortuna, THANK YOU ! That makes sense. Let me see if I 've got this right ; 1 -> Ancient religion with practice of sacrifice of animals for sin reparation in temple. 2 -> Messiah god comes, Messiah god is sacrificed for sin reparation. 3 -> Temple no longer needed, Messiah god sacrifice is reparation. It was the social and political consequences of the Temple leveling that drove the mythology. Jesus talks about this in Mark 13 predicting the leveling of the temple. IOW, the prophecy was written after the fact ! Can you recommend any books where I can find more info about this ? Jimmy
Sciforums certainly has the oddest takes on Christianity. Jesus Christ was put to death for breaking Roman Law. uh....huh.... And now for something completely different.... Materialists might consider He did sin He never gave Janis Joplin a Mercedes Benz.
firstly this thread is about jesus's sins, not a gods. and that is the most sick statement you could make. however no one or nothing is allowed to take a life be it a god or not, to kill is the ultimate sin mans or gods.
I agree, Jesus would have sinned, he like all of us, lived many lives and reincarnated many times. Jesus would have sinned, repented and paid for those sins over many lifetimes. Eventually perfecting himself and living his final incarnation as Jesus, annoited by God (christed) to save mankind i.e. pay a large portion of the accumulated karmic debt of mankind by the sacrifice of his perfected self.
this sounds like a very intricate loop of nonsense how does christ dying the death of a man, save us from our 'sins'? what was the payment, if his death returned him to the father, where he came from. wouldnt it have been the birth into human form on earth and away from the father that was the real sacrifice?
The death was not the payment, as you say death only returned Jesus to the father, which can be seen as a good thing. The sacrifice was in the suffering prior to death. This is not to say every time we suffer we pay a debt. Jesus's suffering was taken on voluntarily, with intent that the object of the suffering was to pay for other peoples sins. Jesus could have avoided this suffering very easily but chose not to. Birth into human form is not really a sacrifice but a punishment we all suffer after our wilful seperation from God. Original life was in union with God and was in spiritual form only (edenic existence). We have descended into the world of matter and are now seperated from God. But God has not abandoned us and gives us the opportunity to repent and return to him. To this end, in all ages of the world and to all nations of the world he sends his prohpets, messengers and teachings to guide us home.
The wages of sin is death. Christ paid the debt for our sins. He took the punishment for our sins. The debt has been paid if we only repent and keep his commandments. Because he did this we can enter God's Kingdom. Without the atonement we would all have to pay the debt ourselves but it would never be enough. We could never go through what Christ did and live. So we could never return to God.
I certainly dont feel punished, and what willful separation, you have no free will.and since when has the eden story been about spiritual form. why would we want to, what utter crap. I am not a sheep to no one, so I wont be returning to it, I have no need to repent. and I certainly am not going to become a slave. because you believe this you will continue to kill your fellow man not mine he did'nt well not anybodys I may have sinned mans law, but not religious law as I have no religion, I am an atheist/humanist why would we want to, what utter crap. I am not a sheep to no one, so I wont be returning to it, I have no need to repent. and I certainly am not going to become a slave.
