Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Was Jesus a sinner like everyone else?

bibleberean said:
Jesus says that those who not believe in Him are lost...

Jesus must have been a "fundamentalist". :D


You are arguing from sources that were propaganda in a sectarian battle. We do not have certainty about what Jesus believed. Is it possible that Jesus was a loony fundamentalist as you believe? Yeah, of course it is, but so what?
 
Drew, on the soul/body dualism issue that you were talking about recently, it seems to me that idealism would be the most economical way for a Deity to create. One argument against it, is that we experience apparently “mind independent†structure. However, if we assume theism, such structure could be in, “the mind of Godâ€Â, rather than an external physical world. Can anyone think of any good argument against idealism? I am not saying it solves the causal problem that you mentioned.
 
Divine names,

No one is going to call Jesus a "looney fundamentalist" in this forum.

I am not kidding!

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

Keep this in mind and that goes for anyone who is going to attack Jesus in this Christian forum!
 
bibleberean said:
Divine names,

No one is going to call Jesus a "looney fundamentalist" in this forum.

I am not kidding!

Rule 2 - No Flaming:
You will not post any messages that harass, insult, belittle, threaten or flame another member or guest. This will include misquoting another member out of context. You may discuss another member's beliefs but there will be no personal attacks on the member himself or herself.
*Amended to include* .... Any person(s) who comes to these forums to attack Christianity or Christians personally will be banned based on the discretion of the Admins & Mods.

Keep this in mind and that goes for anyone who is going to attack Jesus in this Christian forum!


You quoted me out of context. I didn't say Jesus was a loony fundamentalist, I very clearly said, "We do not have certainty about what Jesus believed."

What I said-

"Is it possible that Jesus was a loony fundamentalist as you believe? Yeah, of course it is, but so what?"

I said it was possible that Jesus was a loony fundamentalist, as you believe.
 
bibleberean said:
Are we learning? ;-)


I am learning that you talk nonsense about the Bible, and when asked to explain and support your position you change the subject.
 
bibleberean said:
Are we learning? ;-)
Interesting question. You made the following claim:

bibleberean said:
The Manna and the law concerning the gathering of Manna was for the Hebrews while they were in the wilderness. It has no bearing on the Jews once the Manna stopped coming.

There is a marked difference between how the law applied to the Hebrews in the wilderness and when they came to possess the "promised land".
I responded with these Scriptures:

"Then the LORD said to Moses, 13 "Say to the Israelites, 'You must observe my Sabbaths. This will be a sign between me and you for the generations to come, so you may know that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. 14 " 'Observe the Sabbath, because it is holy to you. Anyone who desecrates it must be put to death; whoever does any work on that day must be cut off from his people. 15 For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day must be put to death. 16 The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. 17 It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'

"(27) Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. (28) Then the LORD said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? (29) Bear in mind that the LORD has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." (30) So the people rested on the seventh day. (Exodus 16:22-30 NIV)".

When does the part come when we "learn" about your defence for your claims above?
 
I never said that the Jews were not to keep the Sabbath.

I said that eating on the Sabbath is not against the law.

Eating when you are hungry is fine.

Jesus said that his disciples were guiltless.

I believe Him...

Since when is eating on the Sabbath against the law?

The disciple were not harvesting grain to store but eating when they were hungry.

They were not gathering Manna on the Sabbath as there was no Manna.

That is what I was pointing out. The point was made that it was against the law to gather manna on the Sabbath. All I said was that no longer applied.

As far as work goes it was always lawful to do good on the Sabbath as Jesus has said.

Mark 3:4-6 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

Jesus did not sin nor in this instance did his disciples.

Another example...

Luke 13:11-18 And, behold, there was a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and was bowed together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus saw her, he called her to him, and said unto her, Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity. And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God.

And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

The Lord then answered him, and said, Thou hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering? And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?

And when he had said these things, all his adversaries were ashamed: and all the people rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by him.

Jesus was not a sinner.
 
bibleberean said:
I never said that the Jews were not to keep the Sabbath.

I said that eating on the Sabbath is not against the law.

Eating when you are hungry is fine.

Jesus said that his disciples were guiltless.

I believe Him...

Since when is eating on the Sabbath against the law?

I don't know if you are unable to understand the issue... how many times does it have to be explained that this is not about merely eating on the sabbath?

Jesus does indeed seem to claim that this disciples hadn't done anything wrong. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THEY HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW. Jesus does seem to accept that the law had been broken, but argues that there were mitigating circumstances. Can you understand the distinction?

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.

What you are saying here contradicts what Jesus was saying. Are you going to explain yourself?



bibleberean said:
They were not gathering Manna on the Sabbath as there was no Manna.

That is what I was pointing out. The point was made that it was against the law to gather manna on the Sabbath. All I said was that no longer applied.


Why on earth would it be specific to manna, when the rule was about not working on the sabbath?
 
My answers are in the thread. If you don't agree with them and my conclusions that is fine with me. :D
 
DivineNames said:
Jesus does indeed seem to claim that this disciples hadn't done anything wrong. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THEY HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW. Jesus does seem to accept that the law had been broken, but argues that there were mitigating circumstances.
I agree with these statements. The whole tenor of Matthew 12 suggests that Jesus is saying: Rules, even ones that come from mouth of God, are too crude an instrument to prescribe proper behaviour in all of the complicated situations that life provides us. Love seems to be the overarching principle. Its allright to do good on the Sabbath even if it involves good old fashion work.
 
bibleberean said:
The shewbread was not lawful for David to eat but as Drew pointed out circumstances made him "guiltless" for eating under the circumstances.


Where does it say in the O.T. that the shewbread was not lawful for David to eat?

(4) But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread hereâ€â€provided the men have kept themselves from women." (5) David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!" (1 Samuel 21:4-5 NIV)

It doesn't say it was unlawful when describing the incident. In fact, it seems to suggest it wouldn't be a problem, as it says, "providing the men have kept themselves from women", which they had.

What law had they broken? Please quote the Old Testament to support this.
 
The Shewbread was for the priests but apparently under special circumstances a dispensation could be given and then it could be eaten.

The bread was special and Holy it would be unlawful for someone to eat this bread for just any reason.

That is why the priest gave to David.

The law can be over ridden under certain circumstances.

1 Samuel 21:4-6 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

I have the words of Christ in the New Testament to support this.

Matthew 12:3-4 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?

I grow bored.
 
bibleberean said:
My answers are in the thread. If you don't agree with them and my conclusions that is fine with me. :D


No bb, you haven't given "answers".
 
bibleberean said:
I have the words of Christ in the New Testament to support this.


I asked you to support the claim from the Old Testament, can you do that?

Why would we trust Christ on this point? Didn't Christ get the name of the high priest wrong?
 
That Jesus went on the Sabbath through the grainfields with His disciples was itself a violation of Jewish tradition, though not of Scripture. And the fact that they became hungry shows that they were not in the fields for the purpose of finding something to eat. They were simply passing through. Because they would have eaten only ripened grain, the time was probably late March or early April (when grain normally ripened in the Jordan valley) and therefore near Passover.

Roads as we know them today were few, and much travel was done on wide paths that went from town to town and passed through many pastures and grain-fields. As travelers walked along, they passed within an arm’s length of the crops on either side. Inns were rare even in small towns and villages and were nonexistent between them. If a traveler did not take enough food with him or found his trip extended for some reason, he had to live off the land. The Lord recognized such need in a provision of the Mosaic law: “When you enter your neighbor’s vineyard, then you may eat grapes until you are fully satisfied, but you shall not put any in your basket. When you enter your neighbor’s standing grain, then you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you shall not wield a sickle in your neighbor’s standing grain†(Deuteronomy 23:24-25).

The disciples were not reaping on the Sabbath, which was forbidden by Mosaic law (Exodus 34:21), but simply satisfying their hunger according to the provision of Deuteronomy 23. Rabbinic tradition, however, had ridiculously interpreted the rubbing of grain together in the hands (which the disciples were doing; see Luke 6:1) as a form of threshing; and they regarded blowing away the chaff as a form of winnowing. The Talmud said, “If a person rolls wheat to remove the husks, it is sifting. If he rubs the heads of wheat, it is threshing. If he cleans off the side adherences, it is sifting. If he bruises the ears, it is grinding. And if he throws it up in his hand, it is winnowingâ€Â

The disciples had left everything to follow Jesus and had no source of income other than occasional gifts from their families and fellow believers. When they became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat, they were perfectly within their scriptural and social rights. They lived by faith, and the divine law of the land provided for just such sustenance. Jesus did nothing to discourage the disciples and probably joined them in eating the grain.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

:)
 
DivineNames said:
(4) But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread hereâ€â€provided the men have kept themselves from women." (5) David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever I set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!" (1 Samuel 21:4-5 NIV)

If this was about something unlawful, why does it say they can have it IF...
 
The Indictment

But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to Him, “Behold, Your disciples do what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath.†(Matthew 12:2)

One wonders what the Pharisees were doing out in the grainfields themselves or what the vantage point was from which they saw Jesus and His disciples. It may be that certain exceptions were made for these self-appointed guardians of tradition, just as policemen have the right to temporarily break certain laws while performing their duty.

The charge that Jesus’ disciples were doing what is not lawful to do on a Sabbath was itself sinful, because it put human tradition on a par with God’s own Word. Rabbinic tradition was not legitimate Jewish law, but many centuries of observance had given it that status in the minds of most Jews, especially the legalistic scribes and Pharisees. God’s Word was honored in name and was the supposed basis for the traditions. But Scripture was not studied and obeyed directly; it was rather used as a means to justify the traditions, many of which actually contradicted and “invalidated the word of God†(Matthew 15:6).

The Pharisees indicted the Lord and His disciples for disobeying their distorted, man-made traditions, thus perverting God’s intention for the Sabbath, which was to provide man with a special day of rest, not a painful day of burdens.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

:)
 
The Instruction

But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath, and are innocent? But I say to you, that something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.†(Matthew 12:3–8)

Have you not read what David did …? was deep-cutting sarcasm, because the account of David to which Jesus referred was, of course, from Scripture, about which the Pharisees considered themselves the supreme experts and custodians. They must have winced in anger as Jesus said to them, in effect, “Don’t you teachers of Scripture know what it says?â€Â
In responding to the Pharisees’ false charge, Jesus instructed them about God’s purposes for the Sabbath, particularly about three things it was not designed to do.

Like the other nine Commandments, the one to observe the Sabbath was given to promote love toward God and love toward one’s fellow man. The first three pertain to showing love of God through reverence, faithfulness, and holiness. The other seven pertain to love of other people through personal purity, unselfishness, truthfulness, and contentment and through respect for their possessions, rights, and well-being.

The scribes and Pharisees, however, knew nothing of love-for God or for men. They were legalistic functionaries, trapped in their own system of endless, futile traditions. Instead of fulfilling the law by loving their neighbors as themselves (Leviticus 19:18; cf. Romans 13:8-10), they attempted to fulfill it through loveless and lifeless traditions.

Jesus here reaffirms that the Sabbath was given for God’s glory and for man’s welfare. It was never intended to restrict the expression of love through deeds of necessity, service to God, or acts of mercy.

The Sabbath Does Not Restrict Deeds of Necessity

But He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he became hungry, he and his companions; how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone? (Matthew 12:3-4)

David was the supreme hero of Judaism, loved and honored even above the patriarchs and prophets. He was the great king, poet, and warrior. Jesus reminded the Pharisees of a familiar story about David and his companions as they fled for their lives south of Gibeah to escape the jealous and vengeful Saul. When they came to Nob, where the Tabernacle was then located, they asked for food. Ahimelech the priest gave them the consecrated bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those with him, but for the priests alone, because there was “no ordinary bread on hand†in the Tabernacle (1 Samuel 21:4).

The bread of the Presence was baked weekly, and each Sabbath twelve fresh loaves (representing the twelve tribes) replaced the previous ones, which could be eaten only by the priests. On that particular occasion, however, an exception was made on behalf of David and his men, who were weak from hunger. God was not offended by that act, and He did not discipline either Ahimelech or David. The Lord was willing for a ceremonial regulation to be violated when doing so was necessary to meet the needs of His beloved people.

If God makes allowances for His own law to be broken under certain circumstances for the welfare of His people, Jesus said, He surely permits purposeless and foolish man-made traditions to be broken for that purpose.

Source: MacArthur, John F., Matthew: The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press) 1989.

:)
 
Back
Top