Was Jesus a sinner like everyone else?

[bibleberean]

Jesus never made a "poor excuse" for anything in His earthly life.

Vic already pointed out that eating was not a sin on the Sabbath.

Eating grain in a grain field isn't any more work than dipping bread in a dish and eating it.

Jesus was without sin. That is the way it was and that is the way it is.

Those who call Jesus a dodger or an excuse maker are son's and daughter's of Satan.

John 8:44-47 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

The reason most of the skeptics slither through these forums is to blaspheme our Saviour and sow strife.

 

[Drew]

Here are some of the verses that have been discussed:

3 But He said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he and those with him hungered?
4 How he entered into the house of God, and he ate the Loaves of the Presentation, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?

To me, the surrounding context makes at least one thing clear: Jesus is defending the actions of disciples. I think that most of you would say that this makes the actions of the disciples not sin. However, Jesus clearly states the actions of David were not "lawful". How do resolve this problem?

I would ask DivineNames to ask him/her self the following question: Can a plausible case be made to the effect that Jesus is not advocating a breaking of the law? I think the answer is yes - Jesus is not supporting a breaking of the law. But, in order to make this case stick, certain conclusions will be reached which I suspect will be somewhat unpalatable to some who have been disputing DivineNames' position. In particular, we have to conclude that laws and "rules" generally have limitaitons in prescribing human behaviour.

I think that Jesus is effectively saying: Laws are imperfect, they have certain limitations in their ability to guide our choices. Someone who argues "picking grains is work, and work is forbidden on the Sabbath" can at least be sympatized with in respect to the claim that work is involved. In a strict technical sense, picking grains does seem to count as work. Laws have to be expressed in words and it would be highly impractical to "list all the exceptions and special cases". So we get the simple law: Do no work on the Sabbath.

When Jesus validates the actions of his disciples, he is effectively saying one cannot look at "laws" and "rules" in a strict technical sense, the world just is not that simple. So even though picking grains seems like work in a strict technical sense, other considerations apply (such as, obviously, God's love and mercy towards the hungry disciples who picked the grains).

So I think to simply state that "picking grains is not work" is a little dodgy. I think Jesus is pointing out the impossibility of making general "rules" to govern human behaviour. And He has picked a very good test case - strictly speaking the word "work" would normally include the picking of grains. But the world is not so simple.

So while I agree with those who claim that Jesus is neither sinning nor breaking the Law, I think we have to remember this other lesson: One cannot develop formulaic laws to govern human behaviour. I think that Jesus is effectively saying just this.

Here is the part that might not be well-received by those who oppose DivineNames in this discussion" In order to make the case that Jesus was not sinning, we must also conclude that no Biblical rule is really "simple" or not subject to some element of interpretation or does not have unstatesd "exceptions".

Let's say that Christian Fred marries Christian Jane after a 3 day courtship. Then they both realize that this was a tremendous mistake. Many here will say: "too bad, they are stuck" - Jesus has given us a rule about divorce and Fred and Jane do not qualify.

I will let the reader draw the obvious conclusion....

 

[Drew]

Once again:

3 But He said to them, Have you not read what David did, when he and those with him hungered?
4 How he entered into the house of God, and he ate the Loaves of the Presentation, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests only?

Jesus seems to admit that David broke the Law. He says "which it was not lawful for him to eat". Do any of you dispute this? And yet later in the text, He says, "If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent." This strongly suggests that Jesus holds David to be "innocent".

Some will argue that David, in fact, was not breaking the Law and was declared innocent by Jesus on that basis. I find that argument difficult to accept, in light of Jesus' own words desclaring that David had done something "unlawful".

I think that a more reasonable conclusion to draw was that Jesus was showing the limitations of the law in guiding human behaviour. Jesus invokes Hosea 6:6 "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings", effectively saying "higher level principle sometimes come into conflict with the law and in those cases the law can indeed be broken without guilt."

And here comes the controversial stuff. Many of us today make the same mistake as the Pharisees in Matthew 12. We grasp onto "rules" from the scriptures and consider them to be the "last word". So for example. we have Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man" as if it were a mandate for capital punishment.

If we heeded Jesus' teaching of Matthew 12, we would stop to consider the implications for capital punishment of Jesus' quotation of Hos 6 "I desire mercy" and perhaps think differently about capital punishment.

 

[DivineNames]

Eating grain in a grain field isn't any more work than dipping bread in a dish and eating it.

As I understand, what is banned are certain activities directly/somewhat indirectly, connected with building the Tabernacle. The Torah includes the commandment to stop work on the sabbath alongside the instructions on building the Tabernacle, see Exodus 31 and Exodus 35. In general, it is the type of activity that is banned. At least, that is how its understood by Jews.

Also, Jesus doesn't seem to deny that picking grain on the sabbath is (generally) forbidden. Instead, he seems to be arguing for an exemption for his disciples. So he certainly is trying to give an excuse, and the excuse is poor.

bibleberean, if Jesus really knows what he is talking about, why did he get the name of the high priest wrong??

 

[DivineNames]

Vic already pointed out that eating was not a sin on the Sabbath.

I have already pointed out, twice in fact, that this is not the issue.

 

[DivineNames]

Those who call Jesus a dodger or an excuse maker are son's and daughter's of Satan.

I am sure that you believe this. What I believe, is that religious fundamentalism is a genuine evil. Fundies are very much committed to irrationality of course, but there is also the danger that they will be spiritually and morally corrupted by it. In my view, people like yourself have been corrupted by evil.

 

[bibleberean]

Jesus never makes "poor excuses". Only a non believer would say something as blasphemous as that.

Matthew 12:1-9 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.

The priests work and offered sacrifice in the temple and are blameless. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh and is greater than the temple because the temple was in fact built for Him.

But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. And when he was departed thence, he went into their synagogue:

Eating on the Sabbath was not against the law. They were not harvesting grain but eating what they needed. The Jews did not get that fact then and they don't get that fact now. Why would I want to believe what an apostate Jew who is not even capable of keeping the law today thinks? 8-)

Why would I put much stock in what a person who blasphemes Christ and doesn't believe in the Old or New Testament thinks or believes?

Proverbs 17:16 Wherefore is there a price in the hand of a fool to get wisdom, seeing he hath no heart to it?

 

[Drew]

Also, Jesus doesn't seem to deny that picking grain on the sabbath is (generally) forbidden. Instead, he seems to be arguing for an exemption for his disciples.

I could not agree more that Jesus is arguing for an "exemption" - He clearly states that it was "not lawful" for David to eat the food in the Temple. If Jesus says it was not lawful, then it was not lawful. So to defend the actions of David, he has to be arguing that breaking the letter of the Law is OK in certain circumstances.

So he certainly is trying to give an excuse, and the excuse is poor.

Here is where we disagree. Jesus is not making an excuse - He is pointing out that the "Law" is subject to exceptions / interpretation based on other considerations.

 

[DivineNames]

Laws have to be expressed in words and it would be highly impractical to "list all the exceptions and special cases". So we get the simple law: Do no work on the Sabbath.

I agree that you have a point with this. However, did Jesus really have a legitimate reason for why the law shouldn't apply? Is the argument that he gives really any good?

Firstly, it seems to be disputed that David actually broke the law as Jesus claims. Secondly, David was in fear of his life and needed food, this can not be said about the disciples of Jesus. They merely wanted to have a snack. The analogy isn't that good.

 

[DivineNames]

The priests work and offered sacrifice in the temple and are blameless. Jesus is God manifest in the flesh and is greater than the temple because the temple was in fact built for Him.

As I told you, its not work that is banned, not exactly, so your argument is false. The priests do not do any activity that is banned. They are not breaking the sabbath law. They are commanded to offer sacrifices, they are keeping the law when they do this.

 

[bibleberean]

David was hungry. He ate food in the temple. The disciples were hungry they ate while walking through some grain fields.

The disciples were not harvesting grain and laying it up for later they were simply eating. Jesus knowing the hypocrisy of the Jewish leadership was chewing them out for "condeming the guiltless".

Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

The shewbread was not lawful for David to eat but as Drew pointed out circumstances made him "guiltless" for eating under the circumstances.

The disciples of Christ on the other hand were not breaking the law because they were not harvesting grain to lay it up on the Sabbath day but simply eating which every Jew does anyway.

Luke 14:3-6 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day? And they could not answer him again to these things.

The Jews today are no different then they were then. Stiff necked and hard hearted.

Jesus never makes "poor excuses". He has no need to to as all skeptics will know when they are trembling on their knees before the God they spent their worthless lives mocking.

Philippians 2:9-11 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

 

[DivineNames]

They were not harvesting grain but eating what they needed. The Jews did not get that fact then and they don't get that fact now.

You are trying to deny that it would be forbidden, when Jesus himself didn't deny that this was (generally) the case.

 

[bibleberean]

They were not harvesting grain but eating what they needed. The Jews did not get that fact then and they don't get that fact now.

You are trying to deny that it would be forbidden, when Jesus himself didn't deny that this was (generally) the case.

I don't have to "try". 8-) I am not denying anything. It is not against the law to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus used examples of when the laws do not apply and do apply to defend the actions of the "guiltless".

Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.

Perhaps ye have not known what this meaneth? :D

 

[DivineNames]

bibleberean, if Jesus really knows what he is talking about, why did he get the name of the high priest wrong??

Why trust what he is saying, when he doesn't seem to have a clue about the story in the O.T.??

 

[DivineNames]

I don't have to "try". 8-) I am not denying anything. It is not against the law to eat on the Sabbath. Jesus used examples of when the laws do not apply and do apply to defend the actions of the "guiltless".

Jesus didn't deny that it would be (generally) forbidden to pick grain to eat on the sabbath. Instead, he argued for an exemption.

You are saying something completely different- that it would be OK for anyone to pick grain on the sabbath, if they were hungry and just picked what they wanted to eat.

 

[bibleberean]

Eating is not work... it is eating... All Jews eat on the Sabbath....

Picking grain and putting it in your mouth is not working any more than dipping food in a dish and putting it in your mouth is...

The Jews were being hypocrites. (as usual) and the skeptics can't see it as ususal...

Luke 14:3-5 And Jesus answering spake unto the lawyers and Pharisees, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath day? And they held their peace. And he took him, and healed him, and let him go; And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?

:smt102

 

[DivineNames]

Picking grain and putting it in your mouth is not working any more than dipping food in a dish and putting it in your mouth is...

OK, but Jesus himself didn't deny that it would be (generally) forbidden to pick grain to eat on the sabbath. What you are saying, is not what Jesus said.

Also-

As I understand, what is banned are certain activities directly/somewhat indirectly, connected with building the Tabernacle. The Torah includes the commandment to stop work on the sabbath alongside the instructions on building the Tabernacle, see Exodus 31 and Exodus 35. In general, it is the type of activity that is banned. At least, that is how its understood by Jews.

It is not "work" that is forbidden exactly.

 

[bibleberean]

ing: ing:

 

[DivineNames]

bibleberean, if Jesus really knows what he is talking about, why did he get the name of the high priest wrong??

Why trust what he is saying, when he doesn't seem to have a clue about the story in the O.T.??

Are you going to answer this?

 

[DivineNames]

are you going to answer any of the points made? :D