"My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" Was Jesus Really Sinless?

[Vicki Q]

Indeed it would appear that my core point- the Psalm as interpreting the crucifixion events rather than being evidence of Jesus disobedience remains intact. It still remains a remarkable piece of writing.

Xtians have ransacked the Jewish scriptures to find stuff they can interpret as types of Christ, but it all still depends on interpretation rather than actual foretelling.

This is probably correct. The Easter events came as a massive shock to the disciples. It was afterwards when they tried to make sense of it all that they went back to the OT to work out what had happened and why.

They found themselves looking at the promises to Abraham, the Suffering Servant passages, God's promise to return to His people; and they concluded that it had all happened, but in a very, very different way to what had been assumed would happen.

Jesus words on the cross relate to a Psalm which explains all this...but in retrospect as you say. The Psalm is giving the events the all important context. If this weren't such a conservative atheist forum, I might gently suggest that maybe the Gospel writer put it in to explain Jesus' death to those who didn't get it. But you prefer your Xians to be fundies, so I won't...

By that line of "reasoning," you have to admit the beautiful princess really did prick her finger and fall asleep for a 100 years just like the good fairy said she would, so Sleeping Beauty must be true. No book can fulfill its own prophecy.

That's a good argument that would certainly be true if the book's genre is fictional. However the NT genre is that of a Greek bios ('biography'), albeit of a sub-type unique to that genre.

I would not use the not uncommon “All the prophecies came true so it proves Jesus is God” type of argument, and you're right to challenge its use.

But consider this: God said that things would be done that were done, but in a very different and far more universal way was than had ever been thought. That gives rise to some very interesting questions indeed.

 

[vorlon13]

Did Jesus himself ever claim sinlessnessism ??

If his followers are just making up shit again, I would not be surprised.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Xtians have ransacked the Jewish scriptures to find stuff they can interpret as types of Christ, but it all still depends on interpretation rather than actual foretelling.

This is probably correct. The Easter events came as a massive shock to the disciples. It was afterwards when they tried to make sense of it all that they went back to the OT to work out what had happened and why.

They found themselves looking at the promises to Abraham, the Suffering Servant passages, God's promise to return to His people; and they concluded that it had all happened, but in a very, very different way to what had been assumed would happen.

Jesus words on the cross relate to a Psalm which explains all this...but in retrospect as you say. The Psalm is giving the events the all important context. If this weren't such a conservative atheist forum, I might gently suggest that maybe the Gospel writer put it in to explain Jesus' death to those who didn't get it. But you prefer your Xians to be fundies, so I won't...

By that line of "reasoning," you have to admit the beautiful princess really did prick her finger and fall asleep for a 100 years just like the good fairy said she would, so Sleeping Beauty must be true. No book can fulfill its own prophecy.

---

That's a good argument that would certainly be true if the book's genre is fictional. However the NT genre is that of a Greek bios ('biography'), albeit of a sub-type unique to that genre.

I would not use the not uncommon “All the prophecies came true so it proves Jesus is God” type of argument, and you're right to challenge its use.

But consider this: God said that things would be done that were done, but in a very different and far more universal way was than had ever been thought. That gives rise to some very interesting questions indeed.

 

The basic problem with god characters is that people have to believe the BS that countless unknown con men and dummies have spewed throughout the centuries about such entities.  Right now the world has over seven billion people flittering about all over the place.  Maybe a dozen are crazy enough to believe that they pal around with some god character.  The other seven billion have never, ever, have had such an experience  with their imaginary buddy unless they were wigged out on some psychotic drug like flakka.  But for some unknown reason billions of them eagerly believe the BS that unknown con men and dummies have made up about their favorite imaginary deities.  The whole thing just proves how crazy billions of people are.  

So if some unknown nut attibutes routine acts to his favorite deity were are supposed to believe him?  Just remember this:  not one deity of any kind has ever done anything godly since he was created by a con man to fool his fellow dummies.  Even the Bible says that but then it lied about its own favorite deity and gave it magic powers.  

[Vicki Q]

Did Jesus himself ever claim sinlessnessism ??

If his followers are just making up shit again, I would not be surprised.

It's a very good question. In some ways it is hard to know what to say on this. On a Xian forum I would simply quote bits of the NT. However if I do that here, the reply would be that the Early Church were simply putting their views in Jesus' mouth. I'm not sure that a discussion using standard historical criteria to identify probable relevant Gospel data would be short or productive here. (Boring)


So lets work from the other end. To claim sinlessness for any human being who had lived a public life in very recent memory, as Paul did, is a remarkable enough thing to say.

The Gospels continued this in a rich variety of forms with a rich variety of sources. For example, John spoke of Jesus as the Word made flesh, functionally equivalent to sinlessness. In Heb 4:15, 7.26; 1Pet 2.22 the claim is explicit. The roles the Early Church assigned to Jesus only work on the assumption of sinlessness.

So the data is very strong and goes all one way. When we say the earliest followers of Jesus believed that he was without sin, we can regard that as a fixed point historically. They may have been wrong, but they believed it.

This in turn suggests that claims made in the Gospels about things Jesus said to that effect (e.g. John 8:46) were indeed things Jesus claimed about himself. That he saw himself in roles for which sinlessness was a prerequisite.

Either way, it is a very strange and incredibly meaningful claim, that has powerful implications for how we see Jesus.





(Your sig) I might suggest that your stance against triclavianism as undermining “the soteriological foundation of Faith” doesn't perhaps fully appreciate the nature of faith, it's relationship to praxis, and the role of covenant behind dikaiosyne.


Any news on the tequila? (post#26). I could really use some.

[vorlon13]

My sig is there because to me it was wordy and incomprehensible.

If you're seeing deeper meaning beyond that, may God have mercy upon your soul.

[Randy Carson]

Did Jesus himself ever claim sinlessnessism ??

If his followers are just making up shit again, I would not be surprised.

John 8:42-47
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says.The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

[Vicki Q]

My sig is there because to me it was wordy and incomprehensible.

It's certainly wordy, but it's not incomprehensible.

There is a supposedly a doctrine (triclavianism, although this is the first I've heard of it), that says Christ was crucified with three nails. You apparently choose to oppose it, even though your critics say doing so doesn't help someone's 'savedness', even though it is an irrelevance, because not to do so could crucially impact their 'savedness', and could even lead to a declaration that their baptism should not have happened.

Probably best tackled after tequila.

(And I learned that ebaptization is not online baptism. Perhaps there's a gap in the market for this rather dubious sacrament?)

If you're seeing deeper meaning beyond that, may God have mercy upon your soul.

I hope He will.


If you like wordy; from my current book (Paul and the Faithfulness of God):


“The main aim is now to show, through brief consecutive exposition, how the sevenfold doctrine of justification is presented in these passages and how the seven themes of Paul's soteriology, by which we mean 'forensic', 'participatory' and above all 'covenantal' eschatology, with their apocalyptic anthopological, salvation-historical and transformational meanings all resonating, cohere and nest within one another throughout.”

It's actually brilliant when unpacked.




Off to get the tequila now.