What is the deal with Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Catholics.

[kentonio]

Well, that's what I thought myself. But, when you read a bit of what Nestorius was saying... it become clear that it's a problem.

IF Christ has a full human nature, than it stands to reason that he has a sinful human nature. How do you resolve that with Christ being sinless?

Why is it necessary for him to be sinless during his life? One of the most intriguing parts of the Jesus character to me as a child was the idea that he was having to fight against human temptations and lusts just like everyone else does. If he's sinless then there's no struggle, there's no inner battle to be fought, and there's no achievement. It's just someone telling everyone what to do, without any experience of how difficult that actually is. Then all you have left is 'well god knows everything' which is a massive copout.

Then there's the problem of redemption. Christ has to be sinless in order for redemption to work. So how do you get a sinless Christ if it's known that he has a human nature? And just like everyone of us.

Again just going back to when I was a kid, I always saw the story as Jesus struggling through human temptations and achieving a sinless state at the point he was crucified. At that point he becomes a pure vessel because of his sacrifice and can offer redemption to the world.

Think of Christ as a purifying vessel, by which our sins can be purified. If the vessel that you are purifying with is contaminated - then you won't be able to actually purify people. This is why Christ is the Passover lamb without blemish.

Then he is not human in any way.

Better question, why is 'sin' considered to be an actual human trait? We were not like this in the beginning. Sin keeps us from being as we are supposed to be, not the opposite.

There's no point going down that route, the portrayal of Jesus is interesting to me, but as sin is nothing more than a human construct in my opinion, there's no ground here we can share. Let's stick to jesus eh.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why is it necessary for him to be sinless during his life?

Otherwise redemption doesn't work and we're all still in our sins. Rather than having imperfect sacrifices, our sins demand the sacrifice of something perfect in order to stand in place for all our sins for all time.

he was having to fight against human temptations and lusts just like everyone else does. If he's sinless then there's no struggle, there's no inner battle to be fought, and there's no achievement. It's just someone telling everyone what to do, without any experience of how difficult that actually is. Then all you have left is 'well god knows everything' which is a massive copout.

Why then did Adam and Eve fall if they were free of sin? Temptation is still there, Kentonio. Free of sin is different from free of temptation.

Jesus struggling through human temptations and achieving a sinless state at the point he was crucified. At that point he becomes a pure vessel because of his sacrifice and can offer redemption to the world.

This explains so, so much.

Let me think about this for a bit.

Matthew 3:

In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah:

“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’

People went out to him from Jerusalem and all Judea and the whole region of the Jordan. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you withthe Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor, gathering his wheat into the barn and burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Jesus replied, “Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness.” Then John consented.

As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

How do you square this with Matthew 3? God was already pleased with Christ at his baptism.

[Kidlicious]

Yes it's more sensual as it leaves more to the imagination
zeus commands it

"I tried to use my imagination but I was disturbed."

[Kidlicious]

Doesn't a sinful human nature influence our will as well?



The problem with this is it's like a dam. You're saying that God is a mighty hand holding back a large plume of water, and that if he were to stop holding it back, that the plume would wash everything away.

What if God, by his nature, were Good, such that evil couldn't be present at all?

Then He would not be as good as His servants. He expects us not to sin. Are you saying that's impossible?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then He would not be as good as His servants. He expects us not to sin. Are you saying that's impossible?

"What is impossible for men, is possible for God".

We can't be sinless, but we can turn away from sin.

[Kidlicious]

"What is impossible for men, is possible for God".

We can't be sinless, but we can turn away from sin.

You're trying to deflect. If we can turn away from sin and God can't that means what is impossible for God is not impossible for man.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're trying to deflect. If we can turn away from sin and God can't that means what is impossible for God is not impossible for man.

Sanctification is a process that will not be complete in this life. We become holy. We fall down and get back up again.

[Jon Miller]

Trinitarians (most Christians, including Catholics and most Protestants) hold the Trinitarian view of Christ. That He was fully human and fully divine and as being fully divine never succumbed to temptation (being tempted is not sin, falling to temptation is sin. example: being tempted by Ben to 'drive to his town and beat some sense into him' happens to most of us (the temptation comes from Ben, not from us), while actually 'going to his town and beating him' (or even fantasising about it) would be a choice on our part and a sin ).

Even most groups of Christians which are not trinitarian or not purely trinitarian (Adventists do not require members to be trinitarian, but most non-historical (historical=reactionary) members are) hold that Christ was sinless. This is because it was an important component of Pauline Christianity and is in the Bible (Hebrews explicitly). It is possible to find people who do not hold to the sinless nature of Christ, but mostly those liberal-mainline who don't believe that Christ was God (I have heard it from Adventists too, including the reactionary/historical flavor).

Since Christianity is synonymous with Pauline Christianity outside of theology, Christ is sinless in Christianity.

JM

[Bereta_Eder]

he beat up (or frowned down upon) the moneylenders in the temple though the commie smuck

[Kidlicious]

Sanctification is a process that will not be complete in this life. We become holy. We fall down and get back up again.

My definition of sanctification is surrendering everything to God. What's yours?

[Jon Miller]

Some people interpret that to mean that He physically hurt and beat the moneylenders. They are usually those who are not completely pacifists and think that there is times when it is not right to turn the other cheek.

There are some who interpret that He didn't physically hurt and beat the moneylenders, and that the whip was used to cause the animals to make an exit of the temple. They are more likely to be complete pacifists and think that there are no (or extremely few) times when it is not right to turn the other cheek.

When you look at what happened at the Garden (where Peter took off the ear of the servant). Christ didn't just say 'I should go with them', he also condemned Peter for using violence ('Those who live by the sword die by the sword'). I think that this fits the second interpretation of events in the Temple better than the first.

JM

[Bereta_Eder]

and those who live by the ear die by the ear

the issue was the moneylenders, we all know christ was an innocent cutie pie and wouldn't hurt a fly

[Proteus_MST]

Some people interpret that to mean that He physically hurt and beat the moneylenders. They are usually those who are not completely pacifists and think that there is times when it is not right to turn the other cheek.

There are some who interpret that He didn't physically hurt and beat the moneylenders, and that the whip was used to cause the animals to make an exit of the temple. They are more likely to be complete pacifists and think that there are no (or extremely few) times when it is not right to turn the other cheek.

When you look at what happened at the Garden (where Peter took off the ear of the servant). Christ didn't just say 'I should go with them', he also condemned Peter for using violence ('Those who live by the sword die by the sword'). I think that this fits the second interpretation of events in the Temple better than the first.

JM

But it was Jesus himself was the one who told his disciples to buy a sword:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
—Luke 22:36, NIV

Why would he tell them to buy swords, if he didn´t want them to use them ... a sword, after all, is a rather specialized tool that isn´t meant to be used for peaceful purposes

[Bereta_Eder]

maybe he wanted to practise sword tai chi

[Kidlicious]

"Think of Christ as a purifying vessel, by which our sins can be purified. If the vessel that you are purifying with is contaminated - then you won't be able to actually purify people. This is why Christ is the Passover lamb without blemish"
-BK

To repeat, since you have the power to choose good you're placing undo importance on the fact that he was sinless, and it's totally unnecessary for him to be incapable of sin.