Did Jesus Ever Sin?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 29 Dec 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Hello All! I was on the Yahoo Christin Teens Chatroom the other night, and was talking to one of the Christians on there. We were discussing whether or not everything was sacred, or whether some things weren't, and the discussion veered off somewhere, and we ended up talking about Jesus and sin. I insisted that he did sin: He wasn't perfect, he was half-human, and thus he was meant to sin. That's one of the reasons why he came to Earth possibly, instead of staying in heaven with his Father... As a human, he then understands sin, understands atonment, etc, so is closer to us. Also, in one of the gospels, he overturns the tables in the money-lender's temple, out of anger. Wasn't anger/wrath one of teh seven deadly sins? Jesus even experienced doubt of his father's divine plan, both in the garden of Gethsemane and on the cross, when he cried 'Father, father, why have you forsaken me?'. We can clearly see his human side shining through in the gospels... So, what do you guys think: Did Jesus ever sin? Was he supposed to sin? Why? I apologise for using Christian terms, but it was the only way I could expess this. Kiama

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
I totally agree with you Kiama..I believe Jesus did sin..he was as you stated..part Human...How could he be a savior if he did not sin and understand sin himself..I agree with what you say!

Fuzzmello	29 Dec 2002
Jesus most certainly sinned. He was mortal, after all. Christ, on the other hand, is incapable of sin. Fuzz

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by RedWood I totally agree with you Kiama..I believe Jesus did sin..he was as you stated..part Human...How could he be a savior if he did not sin and understand sin himself..I agree with what you say! That's a relief! I was told I was confused and that I needed to read the Bible more ofen when I said this! :( To add to this discussion, before I foget: I personally don't see sin as existent. I just think we have actiosn which aren't desirable, and actions which are... Sin seems to be a 'dirty' word, and I don't mean to use it as a bad thing in this thread... I'm not saying Jesus as a bad man, just that he did things which divine beings do not usually do. Kiama

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Fuzzmello Jesus most certainly sinned. He was mortal, after all. Christ, on the other hand, is incapable of sin. Fuzz This is very thought provoking indeed Fuzzmello! I'd love you to explain it... I think I understand it, but then, it's my interpretation of what you said... Do you mean that the Jesus of the gospels did sin, but that the Jesus Christians worship now is seen as perfect and as somebody who didn't sin? Kiama

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
I am with Kiama again..Please explain the difference between Christ and Jesus? From my understanding..they are one in the same.

ihcoyc	29 Dec 2002
My understanding is that in orthodox theology, Jesus was capable of sinning, but never actually did sin. This is the point of Jesus being tempted by Satan during his forty days in the wilderness. Some interpret the effect of Jesus' death on the cross as an expiatory sacrifice, in which case Jesus had to be perfect in order to atone for the world's sins. At least, we can be sure that if Jesus was sinless, nothing the Bible tells us Jesus did can be a sin --- e.g. drinking wine, getting extremely upset at hucksters, playing games.

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by ihcoyc Some interpret the effect of Jesus' death on the cross as an expiatory sacrifice, in which case Jesus had to be perfect in order to atone for the world's sins. This is something I'd like to discuss furthur... I'm not sure Jesus was perfect... If he was, then surely he would haveknown he was definitely going to heaven after he died on the cross, and thus it would not be much of a sacrifice... He knows its gonna be okay afterwards. And also, if he was perfect, why is he in human form? Why the doubting of his Father's divine plan? Personally, I take the rather unorthodox view of Jesus as a mystic, in search of perfection. In search of bcoming like God... And to become perfect, he must cross 'the abyss': Resist temptation, and go through the crucifixion... He's definitely gonna experience doubt, etc, because that is what hapens during the perfection epxerience... The 'Dark Night of the Soul' if you will... Notice Jesus says: 'Father, why have you forsaken me?', which I would interpret as his dark night of the soul, then, just before he dies, he says 'It is accomplished', which I would interpret as his attainment of Godhead, of perfection. Any thoughts on this? Kiama

allibee	29 Dec 2002
When Jesus was asked to judge the adulterous woman and he allegedly said those immortal words: "Let any man here who is without sin cast the first stone", or words to that effect, did he himself cast a stone... I think not.

allibee	29 Dec 2002
hi Kiama, just read your last post. Actually yesturday I was on the HUGE crystalinks site and started reading about Enoch, who was supposed to be the previous 'Jesus' allibee

amyel	29 Dec 2002
Well, if Jesus was without sin, and never sinned, then from my limited readings, he'd be the first prophet that didn't. Mohammed, Buddah, Krishna - all these leaders were humans who sinned and saw sinning and searched for a way to lead a more meaningful and spiritual life. And in my non-religious upbringing, I see Jesus as one of these leaders: someone who know he wasn't perfect, who saw a better way to live and took steps to hep create a better place. Which is kinda what we are all doing, n'cest pas?

JC	29 Dec 2002
Wow. Nice Last Temptation of Christ thing going on here, Kiama. The official line from the Church is that Christ was both completely human and completely divine (the later of which may not be agreed upon by most posters.) None of that half-and-half stuff - God is not a latte. Therefore he experienced the temptation to sin - his human side - but never acted on those temptations - because he is divine. Thus I would be very careful regarding whom you suggest otherwise to; you would be saying their religion is invalid, and I doubt that's something you would want said to you regarding your own beliefs. Righteous anger - like in the temple - is not a sin. In fact, examination of the parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man upholds the concept that the lack of such anger is a sin. Secondly, are you suggesting that not wanting to die is a sin? As a complete human, Christ could not have wanted to give up his life. In fact, I would lose a great deal of respect for him if he did. However, he never acted on his stated desire to live - and that would have been a sin, to refuse the will of God.

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
I know i am not Moderator of this Specific forum.. I would like to say.. Please Keep this discussion from turning Ugly..i believe it is POSSIBLE..we can have a good discussion without everyone getting hot under the collar as allibee put it... Remember: Everyone has their own views and beliefs...Please Respect them!

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
From what I got of what Kiama said..It was not him dying on the cross...It was the DOUBT! For me: I have not read the Bible..I do know the Bible is like a puzzle..everything anywhere can be taken out of context..(this goes for eeverything in life)..I am not sure I even want to study..SO i will not be making to many comments in this thread..for the fact..that I have not read or studied the history..

amyel	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by allibee When Jesus was asked to judge the adulterous woman and he allegedly said those immortal words: "Let any man here who is without sin cast the first stone", or words to that effect, did he himself cast a stone... I think not. I think he was making two points, here, wasn't he? The first, that as humans, who are we to judge so harshly another - and he'd have had to include himself in that category, being half human; and two, that love was the path, not violence (or was that Ghandi?? I get confused). So, regardless of whether he had sinned or not, I don't think casting the first stone was part of his overall message.

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by JC Thus I would be very careful regarding whom you suggest otherwise to; you would be saying their religion is invalid, and I doubt that's something you would want said to you regarding your own beliefs. I'm not trying to invalidate anybody's beliefs or religion here, JC: I am merely wanting to explore these issues and ideas with open-mided people who aren't gonna say I'm confused. Quote: Anger is only righteou in some peoples' eyes, not in everybody's. You may see it as righteous, others may not. Thus to some, Jesus did not have righteous anger, just anger, and did sin. I'm not saying I believe this, just that whether or not something is 'righteous' is subscript to each individual's judgement. Quote: Secondly, are you suggesting that not wanting to die is a sin? As a complete human, Christ could not have wanted to give up his life. In fact, I would lose a great deal of respect for him if he did. However, he never acted on his stated desire to live - and that would have been a sin, to refuse the will of God. I didn't say I thought this: I said that this woudl suggest, to me at least, that Jesus was not perfect but that he was a human guy, with imperfections, seeking to become perfect. Kiama PS- Thanks for the unofficial moderator warning, Redwood: I agree. Discussions like this can turn nasty, so no personal attacks please!

Fuzzmello	29 Dec 2002
Now look, I'm not trying to step on any toes here. Forgive me if you are a practicing Christian. Jesus was a man born of woman, some say his name was Joseph before he took the name Jesus. He grew up to be a very advanced human being, capable of sustained compassion and empathy. This brought him wisdom. An aptitude for communication allowed him to teach in manner that ordinary folk could understand and use. Those are the marks of a master. Christ is more correctly called the Spirit of Christ or the Power of Christ. Instead of calling Christ an entity, let's call It a faculity or facility, an instrument used by Jesus and God in unison. It possesed Jesus, but was not Jesus. It is not mortal and is not bound by judgement, since It is absolutely pure. It has no need of sin or grace, since It is beyond the, let's say, standards of sin and grace. How Jesus made Himself the correct vessel for this Spirit, I can't say. What I'm saying is that He was filled, but he did not merge with the Spirit. Essentially, the man was flesh and flesh of necessity cannot realize its own divinity. So, Jesus, man of flesh, sinned as a matter of course. Christ, the Spirit, is incapable of sin. Fuzz

JC	29 Dec 2002
I'm not hot under the collar. In fact, when I came back to these forums after having been gone for a year, one of the first posts I read was about how someone - no names - thought Christianity was a sham. So I fairly expect that from some corners, and remember, I'm a Catholic with born again relatives, so I'm used to this anyway. Finally, I know Kiama has a genuine interest in theology and philosophy, so I know she isn't being malicious when she posted that. In fact, it was very nice of her to apologize ahead of time in case her terminology offended anyone. But I also know whoever she was talking to on the Christian board probably gave her a very different response. I'm trying to put that response in it's context - why the person she had this discussion with may have reacted negatively to her. And actually Fuzz, I like your explanation because I haven't heard it or anything like it before. another edit (because this thread is moving so fast it's easier than posting): No, Redwood, you haven't made it worse. In fact, we were probably typing at the same time. I should have thought of that sooner. I'm sorry I addressed this post to you.

RedWood	29 Dec 2002
Ack! J.C...I honestly did not mean you!! I was stating in General...past christianity threads have turend ugly..I was trying to prevent that is all!! Honest.. Looks Like i made it worse..and that is not what i meant.. I meant for everyone!! Just be Respectful..Was not implying anyone has done anything..Was referring to past christianity threads...Just didnt want to see the arguments and fights started.

tarotbear	29 Dec 2002
One of the problems here is defining 'sin', since it is not part of everyone's concept of life. I remember once telling some witch she was quilty of a 'sin of omission' and got all sorts of crap about 'I'm a witch I don't believe in sin' - totally missing the point that 'sin' is not necessarily anything more that a term. If Jesus was human he fell prey to all emotions and pitfalls that humans do. He didn't spend his life floating around on a cloud zapping fig trees for amusement! He spent his life with the sinners of his world. His statement about 'casting the first stone' was a subtle reminder to people who seek to find fault in others - he was not absolving himself. Jesus probably did lust after Mary Magdaline, probably did have wet dreams.. and he DID die - something Divine beings are not supposed to do. As human, he was a human.

allibee	29 Dec 2002
Would it be fair to say that if Jesus was given the temptation - to see what it was like, and to pass the test of repelling against that temptation - would he not have also been given the experience of actually sinning - to see what it was like - after all, how can you relate to others (humans) and expect them to understand where you are coming and from and to give up their lives and livelihoods to follow you, if you are so pious and pure that you have never had their experiences, I wonder. At Andrews wedding he made water into wine for the revellers, even though he/God was not ready. Was this not a sin against God. Did he never swat a disease ridden fly, that came with its tse tse germs, from his food. If he did, was this not a sin against one of God's creatures. I think it's all about the level of sin. Some are ok by the Church, some are not. Obviously the Christian Council would not have allowed anything in the Bible that would have painted Jesus in a particularly bad light really would they, lets be honest about this. I would just like to briefly mention about the righteous anger thingy, wasn't that what all the bloodshed of the Crusades were based on. Re the Stones thing: Jesus agreed and allowed himself to sit in judgment over the woman. His Judgement and carrying out of the sentence would have had to relate also to him as a man, a participant. Feel free to pick apart what I say, but please do so in a manner of honest discussion, which is how this post was made. allibee

Diana	29 Dec 2002
Sin? What is sin?

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
JC, you have a PM! :D And indeed, Redwood was saying something I should have, as moderator, said in my original post, and it wasn't intended against any specific poster in this thread. Anyway, back to the thread itelf: I really find Fuzzmello's idea interesting, and would tend to agree with it, seeing as how I see Jesus more as a mystic than as a 'Son of God', or divine being. I understand what you mean now, Fuzz, when you said that the Christ is incapable of sin, but Jesus is: Brilliant theory! The 'Christ'sounds quite alot like the Holy Spirit thing that many Christians believe in- What do you think? Kiama

Kiama	29 Dec 2002
Diana replied whilst I was replying... Shall we attempt to define sin guys? What I'll do is give a possibly definition of sin, then we can disagree or agree about it, change it slightly, and modify it until we get to a definition that is closest to th truth... If that's possible. Sin, or 'wrong action' is an action which in itself is undesirable, or which has direct and intentional consequences which are undesirable. Any ideas? Kiama Oh, here's the link to the thread Redwood started about 'What is Sin?': http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?threadid=10170 So we can continue trying to define sin there.

Fuzzmello	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama The 'Christ'sounds quite alot like the Holy Spirit thing that many Christians believe in- What do you think?Kiama Not to put too fine a point on things, they do seem a lot alike, but they are not. Christ is Christ, God manifesting Himself on this plane of existance. The Holy Spirit like Christ, is more like a divine process than an entity, except it is provided by God to His children as a means of direct communication with Him. Available to all who are willing to lay aside their egos and seek It. Through Christ, of course. Fuzz

JC	29 Dec 2002
Allibee - I agree that it's about the level of sin. Personally, I think the Xtian emphasis on "purity of mind" can be an unfortunate thing, therefore I don't consider thoughts, emotions, instincts or urges themselves to be sinful. I think the way one controls and utilizes his or her thoughts is more important. And it is true that there's alot of rationalizing within Xity. It's the most common way to try and understand the Bible. But I have to assume that other religions also have a similar level of rationalizing; in fact, I would say all major religions and philosophical schools are created specifically to rationalize. Speaking of rationalizing, the Crusades were as political as they were religious. Of course, that was a time when religion and politics were one in the same. (Not that they've been completely seperated.) I'm still not completely following you about the stones. Are you saying Jesus metaphorically cast a stone by judging the woman?

Natalya	29 Dec 2002
Perhaps if Jesus had gotten angry unjustly I could consider it a sin, but he was defending God's honour.

allibee	29 Dec 2002
No, sorry JC, not saying that, did I confuse you - sorry. I meant that by his own words and judgement/sentence, it must also apply to him.... in that he did not/could not cast a stone either, because he too was not without sin. allibee

jmd	29 Dec 2002
Great thread - must have missed it in its development! allibee, there is a difference between the first stonethrower needing to be sinless, and the sinless having to cast the first stone. Also, Christ indicated that let the first amongst the stone-throwers who is sinless cast the first stone - quite different to making any statement about his own state, or the state of others who may not have partaken in the stone-throwing. As to the difference between Christ and Jesus, I personally agree with Fuzz that Jesus was the bodily vehicle for the Christ, but would be certainly regarded as heretical in this and other of my views (even if shared with numerous other heretics :)). If the two are 'different', the question can also be asked as to when the Christ entered the Jesus body. Here, I would undoubtedly reply at the Jordan baptism. If this is the case, then was the Jesus child and adolescent and young adult sinful in his actions or thoughts? Very likely on occasions. Was there sin following the incarnation? this is an entirely different question.

allibee	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by jmd Great thread - must have missed it in its development! Yes, it all happened quite quickly, as these things do ;) Quote: allibee, there is a difference between the first stonethrower needing to be sinless, and the sinless having to cast the first stone. Also, Christ indicated that let the first amongst the stone-throwers who is sinless cast the first stone - quite different to making any statement about his own state, or the state of others who may not have partaken in the stone-throwing. I'll take your word for it and I bow to your superior knowledge on the matter, although that's not how I felt about it. Wasn't it the law in those days that the Judge actually let rip first and the others followed. Therefore, to me, it meant that he certainly wasn't about to cast the first stone because of this. But hey, that's cool. Each to his own :). allibee

ihcoyc	29 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama I'm not sure Jesus was perfect... If he was , then surely he would haveknown he was definitely going to heaven after he died on the cross, and thus it would not be much of a sacrifice. That's just it. Remember your Apostles' Creed. Jesus did not go to Heaven when He died. He went to Hell. At least theoretically, everybody, just or unjust, went to Sheol after they died. The traditional translation of Sheol, used in the Authorised Version, is Hell. Jesus delivered the souls of the just out of Hell when He visited there, at least this is my understanding of the traditional position. I wasn't there, so I can't know for sure.

JC	30 Dec 2002
Yeah, he descended into Hell and on the third day he rose again . . . This reminds me . . . Has anybody else read The Pilgrim's Path? I can't remember who it's by, but it's one of the more fascinating self-help books I've read. Each of the seven chapters introduces a concept from a different religion while building on the concepts introduced in previous chapters. The very last chapter deals with living spiritually and uses Xity as its example, ". . . not becuase Christianity presents the easiest or best way to live spiritually, but because it is the perhaps the simplest." The entire book deals with the conflicts that arise from competition between our egos, the part of us that looks to physical sateity, and our souls, the part of that connects to a higher power. The author uses the concept of the Trinity and Crucifixtion to illustrate the resolution of that conflict. The Father, of course, is the Higher Power. The Holy Spirit is the soul, the part of us connected to a Higher Power. That means Jesus Christ, the physical manifestation of God, is the ego and baser instincts. Thus, the Crucifixtion illustrates the neccesity to break one's ego to become one with or attuned to God. The concept of "breaking" is a very old one.

Trinity	19 Jan 2003
Of course Jesus sinned, for it is stated in the bible that his girlfriend was a prostitute, and without going into detail, there are many other statements in the bible where it is pointed out that he sinned.

Kiama	19 Jan 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Trinity Of course Jesus sinned, for it is stated in the bible that his girlfriend was a prostitute, and without going into detail, there are many other statements in the bible where it is pointed out that he sinned. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was involved with Mary Magdalene in any way other than her being his 'favourite disiciple'. Yes, in one passage he kisses her on the lips, but hen, he kisses lots of people in many many places all the way through the Bible! Kiama

callahwj	19 Jan 2003
This is an interesting disscussion. The first problem, as others have stated is defining sin. William Blake, the poet and artist, had some interesting quasi-gnostic views. In "The Mariage of Heaven and Hell," one of his poems, he talks about Jesus doing things that are not consistant with the ten commandments. Stoning the Adultress, for example, was part of Old Testament Jewish law. By inciting people to disobey this law, it could be said that Jesus was sinning, but jesus acted according to his conscience, I like the way blake put is "Jesus was all virtue, and acted from impulse, not rules." I think we all know in our hearts if what we does hurts others. Sin, in my eyes, is doing something, knowingly or recklessly, that will hurt others when there is a better option. I don't beleive that following some arbitrary set of laws is good and breaking them is evil. I beleive that the individual may be given a choice and choose to hurt other by his actions or negligence. This is, of course, just my opinion, and what my conscience tells me. Your mileage may vary. For the record, I myself am not a christian, although I beleive that there was a teacher called Jesus (or the hebrew equivalent) and we may never know what he acctualy taught. As to whether he sinned, that's between him and his conscience. -Bill

HOLMES	19 Jan 2003
i was thinking of the comment i read let he who is without sin throw the first stone , did jesus through throw the stone. he didn't becuase he didnt' want to throw the first stone :O) i like to think that the night before he was to die , he was celebrating it was almost over and saying woo hoo. and when he went into the garden to doubt,, as they say ( who knows we got no written account really the biible was written by 70 years after the fact , the accounts, perhpas he didn't go into the garden at all , it was added to explan doubt who knows. but i really wanted to share was that . as years go by jesus is getting increasingly human, and therefore to be human is divine. recall that it is now becoming, exploring that jesus wasn't whiite as it is beleive in the masses ( with blue eyes even) but dark with black eyes,. remember all , even jesus pooped his diapers when he was borned, peed his pants and had his terrible twos as for the matter of sin ,, we all define it in our own way, lack of love by course in miracles. the old school by bible, the heart in some new age styles (and native traditions ask where is your heart, what is your intentions ) but did he do anything really wrong ? he hated no man he loved them all, forgive them all, and finaly ,, the last thing is , the righteous anger talked about, in the church where the blew up at the money lenders turning the house of god into a mockery. perhaps it wasn't just him ,, but the divine spirit with in expressing its displeasure.

fairyhedgehog	19 Jan 2003
I believe that Jesus was a religious leader about whom many myths and legends have grown up so that it is now impossible to know what really happened. I believe that the Bible is a collection of writings by men who believed that they had been touched by God. They contain many inconsistencies and people seem to be able to defend contradictory viewpoints by appealing to these writings. When people tell me about eg Jesus, I want to ask 'how do you know ...?' And if the answer is that the Bible says so, it's a question of 'Why should I believe the Bible?' The usual answer is 'Because it is the word of God?' 'How do you know?' And we're back to 'The Bible says so.' A bit circular in my opinion. This is only my opinion and is subject to alteration without notice :)

darwinia	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by callahwj William Blake, the poet and artist, had some interesting quasi-gnostic views. Hi Bill, Not to overwhelm you with decks, but I just wanted to mention that there IS a William Blake Tarot which is excellent. It is out of print but copies of the deck and book set are still available from the author, Ed Buryn. It is a superb deck and the book is also wonderful. I bought two books that Ed listed in the bibliography as well--fabulous stuff. You can find his e-mail address on this page. http://www.facade.com/store/william_blake/

Mimers	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by JC Wow. Nice Last Temptation of Christ thing going on here, Kiama. The official line from the Church is that Christ was both completely human and completely divine (the later of which may not be agreed upon by most posters.) None of that half-and-half stuff - God is not a latte. Therefore he experienced the temptation to sin - his human side - but never acted on those temptations - because he is divine. Thus I would be very careful regarding whom you suggest otherwise to; you would be saying their religion is invalid, and I doubt that's something you would want said to you regarding your own beliefs. Righteous anger - like in the temple - is not a sin. In fact, examination of the parable about Lazarus and the Rich Man upholds the concept that the lack of such anger is a sin. Secondly, are you suggesting that not wanting to die is a sin? As a complete human, Christ could not have wanted to give up his life. In fact, I would lose a great deal of respect for him if he did. However, he never acted on his stated desire to live - and that would have been a sin, to refuse the will of God. I haven't finished the entire thread yet, but I did read JC's and basically I did not get the impression (s)he was trying to attack anyone. I can say as one who speant many years (voluntarilly) as a Born Again Christian and studied the Bible, that what JC did is provide a quite accurate post of how a Christian would view Christ and his actions. This should help everyone understand where a Christian at least is coming from if you have this discussion with one. I will add one further comment. Trying to argue these things with a Christian, or perhaps I should say a Born Again Christian is essentially futile. Their beliefs are based on blind faith. I say this with the utmost respect for each person having these beliefs. These were the best years of my life and I met some of the most wonderful and God loving people in my life during this time. I will save further comments for after I have read the thread in it's entirety. Mimers

joszefja	19 May 2003
I have to put in my two cents here. Please note: I am a Christian, but not a "Churchian" as I've heard it so eloquently put in other places in this forum. :) This is my understanding and belief about my own faith-- I am not trying to push it on anyone. If you are a Christian, probably THE primary tenet of your faith is that Christ, without sin, died for YOUR (and everybody else's) sins: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21) If Christ was a sinner himself, then he only died for his own sins-- since the "wages of sin is death." (Romans 6:7) Further, he could not be the Son of God and a third of the Trinity, since God is obviously by definition incapable of sin. So, in calling Christ a sinner, one would be calling Christianity a false religion. So if Christians you discuss this with get their backs up about it, I think it's understandable. It's basically saying to them, "I suggest your faith is founded on a lie. Discuss." :) Laura

Mimers	19 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by fairyhedgehog I believe that Jesus was a religious leader about whom many myths and legends have grown up so that it is now impossible to know what really happened. I believe that the Bible is a collection of writings by men who believed that they had been touched by God. They contain many inconsistencies and people seem to be able to defend contradictory viewpoints by appealing to these writings. When people tell me about eg Jesus, I want to ask 'how do you know ...?' And if the answer is that the Bible says so, it's a question of 'Why should I believe the Bible?' The usual answer is 'Because it is the word of God?' 'How do you know?' And we're back to 'The Bible says so.' A bit circular in my opinion. This is only my opinion and is subject to alteration without notice :) Fairyhedgehog, This is not meant to start an argument, just me with a different perspective or food for thought if you will. When we read Tarot is there any logical basis as to why it works? Does it always work? Do we know it's true history? No, at least not in my experience. Why do many of us still study and meditate on it's images? Why do we offer readings to people with the intentions of helping them? Because we have felt or witnessed it's worth. With the Bible it is the same principle. For many it is a path to a life closer to God. For them it works. It speaks to their hearts and souls. That is why. I am no longer a practicing Christian, but I firmly believe that the words and stories in the Bible have much to offer people who are willing to hear them. I wish we could know the complete truth about Christ and his life here on earth, but I do not feel that discredits the wisdom and spiritual growth that is offered in this book. It still speaks to me spiritually. In answer to Kiama's original question, yes, I believe that Jesus may have 'sinned', but that most certainly depends on what your idea of sin is. If Jesus loved Mary Magdeline and slept with her, I wouldn't call that a sin. They loved each other. There is no sin in that. As a matter of fact if he slept with her simply for pleasure I wouldn't call it a sin as long as she understood that was his intent and agreed. I agree generally with Kiama's definition. If it is done with disregard or with intent to harm another, it is a sin. I will end again,with the fact that I respect all people and their beliefs as long as their beliefs do not harm others. This post was meant solely to provide another perspective. Mimers

WhiteDrag0n	20 May 2003
Well since this is my final post, figured id spill my whole thought on the subject Since we are talking about jesus and his role in chrisitainty. Heres my thoughts (not ment to anger anyone, just my opinion) OK astral plane, most know of it, but for those who dont totally understand it ill lay it all out. Astral plane is the spiritual realm, place of souls, the dead, mystical beings. The astral is all this and more. Now the astral world has no set physical form, but you experience it how you think things "should" look. Now, take into account. Religion- ancient times people were told they were evil, sinners, going to hell unless saved. Now consider being "saved" to me is nothing more than an affirmation to having a positive astral experience, in the after-life instead of a self-created hell. So powers that be, sent a missionary of sorts For people to aspire too. Also being said missionary he was human, and there for Unperfect. Also like to add in another thought, and could probly make it a sperate post, but this is my final so ill wrap it up here God, is it perfect or infinite? Ive heard many christian based religions to state god is perfect, however god is not perfect, infinite, but not perfect. Ill explain Perfection, to be perfect something is in its best state possible, never changing, unwavering, perfect. How can god be said to be perfect when there is no reference point, no way to measure, no standard? God (or whatever you want to call it) steachs into infinity, the human mind can not comprehend infinity so it is misguidedly labeled as "perfect" for lack of understanding. Now my two cents are said, and i bit farewell to all the "acquaintances" who im on friendly terms with, i will still occasionally come to chat, but this is my final post, wish i was leaving with better memories, but alas cant have everything. WhiteDragon

Minderwiz	20 May 2003
A very interesting discussion but I fear one that cannot be resolved. The answer to me seems to depend on two things, firstly how you define sin, and secondly who (or what) you think Jesus was. Both of these require at least some application to faith and possibly dogma. For non-christians the answers to both will be different from that of christians and so different conclusions will follow. No objective answer is possible. Indeed the same discussion that we are having was undertaken by the early followers of Jesus. As Fuzz and JC point out for the Christians Jesus is the Christos, the annointed one and is marked as chosen of God. In such a role his life is to fulfill the mission God gave him - 'he sent his only begotten son.....' As the fulfillment of God's will he could not sin without the mission being invalidated, as it was not invalidated he could not have sinned, nor be capable of sinning. If you do not believe that Jesus was indeed Christos, then he was a man and could sin. It is reasonably clear that some of the early followers of Jesus did not believe in the concept of Christos. This came later mainly through the mission of St. Paul. However the splits in the early followers and their beliefs led eventually to the Coucil of Nicea and the setting out of the Credo - the beliefs that you had to hold to be fully Christian. Some of these have already been referred to and most of us are familiar with them, even if we are not Christians. Now whilst I am a strong believer in treating other people's beliefs and religions with respect, if they enter public places, including chat rooms and propound these beliefs nothing says others must accept them - they become open for discussion - which is what Kiama did and had every right to do (I would have done the same). It is the manner of the discussion that then becomes the issue - that it is carried out without deliberate offence, or malice or rudeness and deals with the ideas and acknowledges points fairly made. That is where respect comes in again. It is wrong for me to say that a Christian's faith is based on a lie (which it is not) but if they wish to advance their belief as being true, or superior, and do so publically, I certainly have the right to dispute that, providing I am reasonable a respectful in my dispute - the great Socrates is evidence of the efficacy of such an approach.

HOLMES	20 May 2003
in considering further did jesus ever sin, since this thread was reawakened.. jesus time on the earth planes wasn't his first that much is evidence in remarks that he has a prophet of the old come again, so to was john the bapist. i don't know the names, but i think one of them was elijah(was he the teacher or the student ?) the student became jesus and the teacher became john the bapist. to have an human experience is to have "sin" of some sort. john and jesus must of did somethin in their past live, so too must of buddha, and any ascended master. (a master who hasn't ascended yet is a first time master upon the globe, before he became a master he was still dealing with human experience) jesus didn't become christos until he awakend himself from the dream he wasn't love more by "GOD" as the bible would like us to believe, but was closer to the source at the time then anyone upon the earth at that time. the only way for us to know is to do a wisdom reading with the tarot much like rachael pollack did in her book forest of soul to see what his ressurection meant. or to mediate and ask him then agian the anser we will get will be for us personally :O)

XLCR	29 May 2003
I understand the immaculate conception to be proof that Jesus was without sin...our being born in sin has to do with our creating negative karma in past lives that needs to be balanced by our being re-born thereby gettin another opportunity to do things right. Jesus was not born of "sin" but of divinity - no sin. We must continue to be re born until our Karma is cleared before we "ascend" back to the father. Jesus ascended after death because there was no sin (negative karma) to clear up.

fairyhedgehog	30 May 2003
Quote: Originally posted by Mimers I will end again,with the fact that I respect all people and their beliefs as long as their beliefs do not harm others. This post was meant solely to provide another perspective. And I value that other perspective Mimers :) You certainly gave me food for thought. It's just as well we don't all agree, as this would be a very boring place if we all saw eye to eye about everything.

The Did Jesus Ever Sin? thread was originally posted on 29 Dec 2002 in the Spirituality board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Spirituality, or read more archived threads.