Most Christians will adamantly claim that Jesus was without sin, as the Bible makes reference to his so-called "sinless nature" on many occasions such as 2Cor. 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 1Peter 2:21-22; 1John 3:5. However, Jesus himself notes that only God is "good" (Mark 10:17-18)--thereby implying that he is not "sinless" and not "god" either! The passages below indicate that if Jesus existed, then he was not lying when he implied that he was not "good" as he himself broke the laws, and under his direction laws were broken. In Luke, he forgoes the law by healing people on the Sabbath:
"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." Luke 13:14In Matthew, he has his disciples pick corn on the Sabbath which was also against the law, i.e., a sin:
"At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat." Matt 12:1In the fulfillment passages of Matthew 5:19, Jesus specifically states that:
"Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.--which means Jesus should not be in heaven at all!
Not working on the Sabbath may be one of the lesser commandments, but as Jesus said, anyone who breaks the LEAST of the commandments will be the called least into heaven. So not only does Jesus break the law, but in the passages below he tricks the people into breaking the law of stoning for adultery, and then implies that he is also a sinner--in that he does not cast the first stone:
"They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”“No one, sir,” she said. John 8:3-11
Now, many Christian scholars claim the above passages from John are an interpolation and is a later addition to the text. If this is true however, then the Bible itself is NOT a reliable source, as we have no way of knowing what, if anything written in the Bible is reliable and/or true. Furthermore, the passages which point to Jesus "sinning" are contradictory to those that claim he did not sin. Because of this, Christians will point to the passages which indicate Jesus' so-called 'sinlessness"--and ignore the passages which indicate otherwise.
As for the above passages, no one, including Jesus, cast a stone. Christians explain this by claiming Jesus "fulfilled the law," which is why he stopped the mob from stoning the woman-- but we already know this is not the case. We know that Jesus said all the laws, even the least of them, stand until heaven and earth disappear(Matt 5:17-20), and therefore, Jesus DID break the law! By applying their own version of Humpty Dumpty semantics, some Christians will go on to say that the "truest justice comes not when the Law is enforced by those who are themselves transgressors of it (as all mankind are), but when it is enforced by He who is sinless."* But what this statement says in essence is that mankind cannot enforce laws--only Jesus can--which would result in chaos. It would be a world where women were raped and murdered, yet the perpetrators were not punished because Christians believe only a so-called "sinless man" can enforce the law! It is nonsensical to the extreme. Therefore, according to what Jesus said in the fulfillment passages of Matt 5:17-20, in that all the laws stand until heaven and earth disappear, Jesus broke the laws as indicated above, i.e., he "sinned," and the claim that Jesus (as a so-called "sinless" man) is the only one qualified to enforce the law--is ridiculous.
Therefore, if Jesus existed, then he was not lying when he implied that he was not "good" as he himself broke the laws, and under his direction laws were broken--Jesus was a sinner.
As a side note, Jesus' so-called "father" Yahweh, was also a sinner, as the Bible tells us he is an angry, jealous, vengeful god--which are vices, i.e. "sins."
*http://phatcatholic.blogspot.ca/2009/02/why-didnt-jesus-cast-first-stone.html
15 comments:
"So not only does Jesus break the law, but in the passages below he tricks the people into breaking the law of stoning for adultery, and then implies that he is also a sinner--in that he does not cast the first stone:"
Its not as clear cut as you think. The Law is clear that both the man and woman must be put to death together. Here the Pharisees who caught the woman "in the very act" obviously let the man who was also in the very act go free! My conjecture, therefore, on what Jesus wrote on the ground was that passage from the Law which dictates both participants in "the very act" must be put to death together.
If I were to argue that Jesus sinned I would focus on the violence in the so-called cleansing of the temple, calling his mother "woman," perhaps the baptism which despite the disclaimer in Matthew presupposes sin since baptism is for the remission of sins and the other gospels don't mention this "Oh I'm only being baptized as an example" disclaimer.
Also calling the Gentiles "dogs" could be said to violate the principle of treating the stranger properly for you know the heart of the stranger since you were strangers in Egpyt from the Law.
"As a side note, Jesus' so-called 'father' Yahweh, was also a sinner, as the Bible tells us he is an angry, jealous, vengeful god--which are vices, i.e. "sins."
Anger and jealousy are sins in the New Testament but not in the Old Testament. If you judge the OT God by his own Law (rather than Jesus or Paul's teachings), anger and jealously don't prove him to be a "sinner".
@Anonymous 1- Actually what I said was correct. Jesus should have argued that they BOTH be put to death. Instead, what he said was IRREVERENT towards the law of stoning them BOTH--which would be a sin in Yahweh's eyes. It also does not say they have to be stoned at the same time--just that they are both stoned.
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Anonymous 3--In reference to anger and jealousy being vices--I was making reference to the Christian conception of Yahweh as being all-good, in which case Christians argue that anger and jealousy are vices, and they also claim that that their god is absolute and "unchanging". Therefore, Yahweh, when looked at from this Christian perspective, he would NOT be all-good.
With reference to the Old Testament, anger and jealousy are recognized as both virtues AND vices--depending on the context.
Christians try to use Humpty Dumpty semantics by claiming Yahweh has "righteous anger and jealousy" thereby claiming that anger and jealousy are not vices, and vices at the same time--which is illogical and inconsistent, because they also claim that anger and jealousy are "absolute" vices."
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."
Right it doesn't say "at the same time" but obviously since they already let the man go, it would be injustice to stone the woman. There is no reasonable expectation that after stoning her they were going to go hunt down the man they already let go! I would argue that when Jesus says "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" (after having written something, presumably Deut 22:22 on the ground) he is pointing out that they are sinning that very moment by letting the man go and trying to stone the woman alone. He would be sinning himself if he cast a stone at her without first apprehending the man. To stone just the woman would be to act like the Muslims...that's what they always do.
"Christians try to use Humpty Dumpty semantics..."
The reason for making things like anger and jealousy (which are temptations to sin not sins themselves) into actual sins is obvious. Christians need to be able to convince everyone that the need saving from eternity in hell. If you don't buy the original sin argument that you deserve to burn forever because some jackass thousands of years ago ate an apple (and most people don't) then they have to switch to the idea that you are bad enough to deserve it on your own. But then you say "But I'm a good guy." And they counter "Haven't you ever committed adultery?" No I haven't. "What about murder?" No. "Fine," they say, "I know you've been jealous or angry!" So things that aren't really sins are made into sins in the neverending quest to justify the idea that everyone needs a savior, even the very best moral people on earth.
@anonymous 3--You said:
"but obviously since they already let the man go, it would be injustice to stone the woman."
It says nowhere that the man was "let go" Perhaps he could run faster than the mob, and he got away. If this is the case, then I can imply from what you say that if two people commit a bank robbery, and only one is caught--well, we should let that person go too because the other person got away. How silly.
Moreover, even if this little episode was set up as a "trap" (the Romans forbade the Jews from carrying out Yahweh's death penalties) this would mean that the Romans were more powerful than Jesus, because Jesus did not or could not implement the laws that he/Yahweh created. In fact, it makes Jesus look like a manipulative sneak--looking for a way out that would not offend either the Romans or the Jews--and at the same time, showing irreverence towards his own/father's laws.
@anonymous 4--Yes--Christians are just looking for justification for their so-called "salvation" myth. And of course they want to maintain the "status quo" of sin, repent, sin repent--repeat when necessary--without any consequences to their so-called "salvation." They're in for a disappointment.....lol.
Moreover, even if this little episode was set up as a "trap"
Which it clearly was, which is why I say they let the man go. In fact, the man was probably one of their own who had sex with the woman just so they could catch her in "the very act." Or what, did people just go around having sex in the streets? How did they catch them in the very act?
And I don't really think bank robbery and adultery are analogous so the whole question about letting one bank robber go unpunished because the other got away IS silly. But when a society that punishes adultery by death routinely lets the man go and punishes only the woman...
"In fact, it makes Jesus look like a manipulative sneak--looking for a way out that would not offend either the Romans or the Jews--and at the same time, showing irreverence towards his own/father's laws."
That's the way its supposed to come off. Its the same with the question of paying taxes. "Render unto Caesar..."
As a slight pet-peave. I just have to point out that web design best practices are that when you have a link, you make the word itself the link not something like "click here."
In other words, when you say 'I am now also contributing to the "Debunking Christianity" website. For some great posts by various authors, go here.' The link should be on "Debunking Christianity" not on "go here."
@anonymous 5
It is not clear that it "was a trap." In fact, since it is not clear that any of this even took place at all, another likely explanation is that the author had some personal agenda, some point to make about Jesus and his irreverence towards the law and to counter passages here Jesus showed reverence towards the law. This is why we see so much inconsistence, contradictions, and in general bad composition.
If you do not like the robber example, let's use murder. Several people commit murder, but only one gets caught and the others get away. It would be silly to let the man who got caught go too.
Now the fact that it does not mention the man was put to death is moot. For the man was being held somewhere else, to be stoned next, because the law requires that they both be put to death.
Now the fact that it does not mention the man was put to death is moot. It is clear that the man was put to death first, because the law requires that they both be put to death. Jesus just came along afterwards when they were about to put her to death. We know this be the case because the law says to put them both to death.
Now the fact that it does not mention the man was put to death is moot. It is clear that the man committed suicide, rather than face the stoning and the shame of his sin.
Now the fact that it does not mentions the man was put to death is moot..., and so on, and so on,.....
As I said before, the author had some agenda and probably just made the story up. If all are sinners and therefore no one is to be judged or punished for any wrong doings--that would lead to complete chaos! The author in his haste to prove his point illustrates how ridiculous and inconsistent the Bible actually is.
"Now the fact that it does not mention the man was put to death is moot. It is clear that the man was put to death first,..."
Please. "It is clear..." You get to make unsubstantiable assertions that something is clear, but I don't? Mine at least is based on real-world experience, namely the fact that in Islamic countries where they still stone for adultery then tend to only stone the woman. Yours is based on a pig-headed refusal to admit when you are wrong. You have enough evidence that Jesus sinned without needing this particular passage, so just admit you stepped in it already.
@ Anonymous
Please. "It is clear..."
Duh--that is my point. It is NOT clear at all. But you keep saying "It is clear, or it's obvious that...(fill in the blank for whatever Humpty Dumty conclusions you want to come up with)
The examples I gave you are based on "real world" experiences--nothing supernatural. There are many instances where the laws were and are applied to both men and women.
Notice that you said the Islamic countries TEND to only stone women. So, even in the case that you gave, it is not clear that the man always goes free, so you have no foundation for assuming that they let the man go free, or that it was a trick. Your assumptions are not supported by the text, or your "real world" experience. As you say, it only TENDS to be. Besides that fact, I said nothing that is dependent on whether or not the man was stoned or was not stoned. The fact of the matter is, is that Jesus DID say in the passage, according to what is written that if no one else is sinless, then the implication would be to let her go--and by doing so, Jesus was showing irreverence to the laws that he/his father created! This act is also inconsistent to what Jesus said in the fulfillment passages of Matt 5:17-20 in which Jesus said anyone who breaks even the least of the laws or teaches others to do so, will be the least likely to go to heaven!
Now, I have not added anything to the passage to make my point. The fact of the matter is, whether it was a trick or not is moot. Jesus chose not to obey Yahweh's laws, and taught others to break the law.
Post a Comment