God's allowed to change his mind, how do you know that he hasn't made someone purer than Jesus as a test? It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that he won't, and I don't see why he'd have to tell us, to be fair. In fact, is it not entirely possible (and non bibliocontradictory[wrd?]) that God has made purer humans, but that they have served differing purposes to the one Jesus served? Surely without bliblical proof that says otherwise, it would be naive to ignore this possibility?

-- Tri (triodeo@hotmail.com), April 28, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment.

-- (bump@bump.bump), April 28, 2004.

God's allowed to change his mind, how do you know that he hasn't made someone purer than Jesus as a test?

{This statementimplies that Jesus was Made by God.Jesus was God, theirfore he woudl ahev tomake soemone purer than himself. Tjis, of course, is the old "can God make a rock he cant lift" paradox, that is solvable in tgat he cnanot do what is logcally agsisnt his own nature. }-Zarove

It doesn't say anywhere in the bible that he won't, and I don't see why he'd have to tell us, to be fair.

{Jesus was completley withou sin. I tis impossile to be purer than that. AHypothettically, one can say "As pure" but canot be "More pure." To be more pure woudl require Jesus to have soem defect in comparrison, an since Jesus was blameless before the Lord, the idea is impossible the best you coud come upw ith woudl be equelly pure. You see, ourity has a limit, Jesus happens to be thay limit, you cant get purer than Jesus, just liek if you seperated all the impurities out of a glass of water, it woul be ure water, and another glass cannot exceed it in Purity. Another glass coudl be as oure, but not more pure. Or Godl, if you smelt 100% of the impurities out of one nugget, then turn around and tdo the same wiht another, they are both 100% pure, but one is not more pure than the other.

Also, the Bibekl does speak agisn thtis.

Romans 3:23 is an oft cited quote.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;}-Zarove

In fact, is it not entirely possible (and non bibliocontradictory [wrd?]) that God has made purer humans, but that they have served differing purposes to the one Jesus served?

{No,see above. ou cannot be purer than oen with no sins. Jesus was oure because he had no sins at all. To exceed jesus woudl eman that JEsus woudl ahv to have had at leats oen sin so you can outdo him. If Jesus had no sins, then it is impossible to be purer than he.

Just liek if I take a test with 100 queatsions, and get all 100 right. You can coem along and alo get 100 right, and we wodl both be 100% correct. However, one of us is not more right than the other, and you cannot be more right than me in this instance.}-Zarove

Surely without bliblical proof that says otherwise, it would be naive to ignore this possibility?

{What possibility, this is absurdity.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 28, 2004.

Zarove

Great answer, but please try typing the response in word next time and then using spell check. Your post was really hard to read. All the same, again, outstanding response.

Pax Steve

-- Steve Y (stephen.yavorski@wpafb.af.mil), April 28, 2004.

Hebrews 7:26-28 refers to Jesus having his own sins.

Mark 10:17-18, Matthew 19:16-17, and Luke 18:18-19 clearly show Jesus telling a follower that no-one is good, not even himself, and that only God is good. Jesus' words, not mine, 'ave it.

Matthew 5:22, Jesus tells people that whoever calls anyone a fool will burn in hell. In Luke 11:37-54, Jesus verbally berates the Pharisees, calling them fools, amongst other things.

Mark 11:2-4, Matthew 21:2-3 and Luke 19:30-31 feature Jesus telling two disciples to go and steal a colt. If questioned, they're to say it's in the name of Jesus. If not, they're to steal it.

Okay, from your perspective, he cannot sin. However, as a human living on earth, and if judged by impartial standards of what is a sin, Jesus sinned. God or not, he still sinned, by his own admission.

-- Tri (triodeo@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

Hebrews 7:26-28 refers to Jesus having his own sins.

"It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent, undefiled, seperated from sinners, higher than the heavens. He has no need, as did the high priests, to offer sacrifice day after day, first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once for all when he offered himself. For the law appoints men subject to weakness to be high priests, but the word of the oath, which was taken after the law, appoints a son, who has been made perfect forever. - Hebrews 7:26-28."

What a moron. I doubt he even went over these passages. Look at this first one which points out how Jesus is "innocent, undefiled, seperated from sinners, higher than the heavens" and "who has been made perfect forever."

Try again Tri.

-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

You completely overlook the essential and obvious fact that explains these acts on the part of Jesus - that He is GOD. If a man takes the life of another man, it is murder. No man has the right to decide when another human being will die. God however does have that right. So you cannot judge God by mere human standards.

In Mark 10, Jesus challenges the man He is speaking to, to recognize who He really is. He does NOT say "I am not good". He says "why do YOU call me good, when only God is good?". The correct answer of course is "because YOU are GOD". The man's response to that question, like our response to it, is a measure of the depth of his faith.

Again, in Matt 5, Jesus says that mere human beings, who have no way of reading the hearts and minds of other human beings, have no business making judgements about one another. However, GOD can and does read the hearts and minds of men, and He alone is in a position to make such judgements. "Judgement is mine alone says the Lord your God".

In Mark 11, GOD has foreknowledge. Mere men do not. Jesus KNOWS that the owner of the colt will voluntarily allow it to be used by Him, so there is no question of stealing. The disciples who are sent are merely facilitating the act of this man's voluntary contribution. And what a unique honor that was for him!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), April 29, 2004.

As it has een pointed outm these verses speak not of Jesus's sins.

Hebrews 7:25-28

26. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

27. Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

28. For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

The first Verse mentions that he was sinless and undefiled.

This makes him different than the High Priests whp offer sacrifices first for thir oen sins, then the peoples. The Priests sinned, not Jesus.

Mark was also covered.

17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

This, in your assumption, means jesus is saying he isnt good, btu God alone. owever, he is askign this queasyion to someone who doesn't knwo this. It's like a story I heard as a child, where a King disguised himself as a peasent, and left the Palace to see what was spoken of him.

while away, he met corrupt officials runnign a dstant part of his Kingdom, the peope lived in misury and povery while the cirrupt officials grew wealthy and powerful int h name of the King.

He tried unsuccessfully to return tot he King's palace to mount a proper course of cxtion, bty was entrapped in the town, so he hatched a enw plan. The King grew outraged, and helped to spur a rebellion.

Soon, peopel began bowing to him, as his movement grew more powerful. Then, some bowweed to him as they woudl a King, and he asked htem " Why do you bow to me, is none else due this Homage but the King?" and they answered and said " The King is ecvil, for he is the master of our endslavers, and you our liberator."

The King realised that these men tghat he himself was fighting represented the Kign to the rebels eyes, and pressed the rebellion, til he won the area back, then revealed his true identity.

Nonetheless, he knew that, when they payed homage ot him, they knew not that he was the King, and thus was taken aack by theur respect to him as a King.

The same principle applies here. This man thought Jesus but a man, and it was this peception Jesus was callign nto queatsion.

The same ap;lies for Mathew 19:16-17, and Luke 18:19-20, both presented in order below.

16. And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17. And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

18. And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?-Mathew

19. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.-Luke.

Then you say this...

"Matthew 5:22, Jesus tells people that whoever calls anyone a fool will burn in hell. In Luke 11:37-54, Jesus verbally berates the Pharisees, calling them fools, amongst other things. "

Mathew 5:22

22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

and Luke

37. And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. 38. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed before dinner. 39. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness. 40. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? 41. But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you. 42. But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 43. Woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye love the uppermost seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets. 44. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are as graves which appear not, and the men that walk over them are not aware of them. 45. Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.

46. And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers. 47. Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. 48. Truly ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds of your fathers: for they indeed killed them, and ye build their sepulchres.

49. Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute: 50. That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

51. From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

52. Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.

53. And as he said these things unto them, the scribes and the Pharisees began to urge him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things:

54. Laying wait for him, and seeking to catch something out of his mouth, that they might accuse him.

Supposedly, since Jesus caled them fools, he sinned. This si because he said woever calls soemone a fool sins. This is, of course, poor exegesis at work again. Callign omeone a fool is no sin, if it is well deserved. Calling someone a fool fo spite, or out of malice,anger, and contempt is what palces one in danger, becaue your own heart suffers form evil and mischeif, callign someone a fool for their own workings and imaginations hwoever is not a sin, lest God himself be guilty, as he in scriptures has called men fools, or lest David's psalm must be removed for its sinful content when he said " A fool hath said in his heart, their is no God."

Calling a spade a spade is not a sin, callign someone a fool who has so proven themselves to be such is no sin, only if one says such to one out of contempt or malice, for no real cause, shall it be counted as risk.

Even in the verse you site, it only said ne shall be in dneger of counsil, not that one is to be conemned a a sinner.

Below is the usual "Colt theft" story that shows how limited your midn really is on such matters.

"Mark 11:2-4, Matthew 21:2-3 and Luke 19:30-31 feature Jesus telling two disciples to go and steal a colt. If questioned, they're to say it's in the name of Jesus. If not, they're to steal it. "

This is not really how the verses make it out to be. Instead, the fact that the man, who woudl ask, woudl gladly offer the animal to Jesus shoudl they ask, proves its nto theft.

Most people , rather Chrfistain or not, who have studied this pasage, simpleu beleive Jesus arranged the use of the animal in advance.

Think, if thy where stealign the animal, why would they be able to get by with it if caught by soimpley saying "JEsus said to" tot he man? Why woudl this man care who issued the order to steal the colt?

Imagine the scenario. Lets name the man Othniel.

Othenil oen day sees two strane men untying his colt, and runs tot hem, syaing " hey, why are you takign my colt!". they say " Jesu needs it." So he says " OK, Take him."

That's not how theft works.

Likewise, it si inlikly he wosud let them take the animal just because they mentioend Jesus. More than likely, the whole colt incedent was arranged in advance by JEsus, and all the Apostles in this instanc where doig was fulfilling an arangement that had alreayd been made.

Just like we know Jesus arranged for a room for them to stay in when in Jerusalem. we hae no acocunt of Jesus goign tot he Inkeeper and aranging the room, jut as we have no record of him arrangign the colt's usage, but we know he can't steal a room at an inn, and probabely had it arranged in advance.

Why do you assume this is theft? easy, it makes Jesus a sinner. Thus proviing yout point.

Reality is that no part of the narrative lends itself tot hat interpretation, and oen can easily say the Colt was alreayd arranged to go when Jesus arrived.

Unless you can show us that this was not the case, and htis was clealry theft, then your case does not stand.

"Okay, from your perspective, he cannot sin. However, as a human living on earth, and if judged by impartial standards of what is a sin, Jesus sinned."

How?One wonders. Let me guess, you pulled this crapola off the Internet website "Religious tlerence."

Form my percpspective, the "Colt theft" was not a theft at all, but a preasrranged incedent. Form religious tolerences viwpoint, Either your are a Liberal Chrisdyain who accepts that jesus sinned, or you excuse this sin by sayign he is God.

Form OBJECTIVE standards, assumign Jesus was justa a man and not God, we still have no direct record of his sin. And the Colt Stroy is pretty far fetched.

"God or not, he still sinned, by his own admission. "

Find oenplace where he admitted to sinning. Find oen place that records him sinning.

No, the "Colt theft" wasn't a sin, because the Colt was not stolen. The Colt was more likely rented, in advnace, then procired for the pupose, just like the inn. Hebrews eos not record sin.

Exaclty where did Jesus admit to sinning? Exaclty where did he sin? And why doy ou lakc the mental capacity to see through this cheap arguemnt yourself?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004.

Critics of Christyainity, be they Pagan, Atheist, agnostic, or "Liberal" Christain, enjoy attmpting to tear down the faith of beleivers by siting errors or probelms witht he beleifs of a typical Chritain.

One suhc claim tjat ires me seems to have its origin on the Religious Tolerence webste, but has made its rounds on he Internet, and shall be addressed belwo. This incedent is the entrance into Jerusalem, where Jesus alledgedly steals a Colt, or rather, orders a theft, thereby makign him a theif, and thus a sinner.

Supposeldy, their are two lines of thought on this, the Liberal and conservitive lines, according to Rleigiosu Tolerence. The Liberal side accpet that Jesus wa a man, and on occassion sinned.This they can prove through citing scruptures, liek his Colt theft.

The OCnservitive side beleives, at leats accordign to Reliigous Topelrnece, that since Jesus was God he coudl not sin, therefore an action done by a man that woudl be sinful is not sinful if done by God, theroefroe jesus;s theft fo the Colt was nto a sin because he is God.

The Conservitive argument, of urse, admits Jesus sinned f held to human standards. If held to human acocuntability, jesus was a sinner, and the only absolution for his was thta he was God.

I wil dispence withhtis argment, and accept the objective standards, thus, if Jesus commited adultery by seepign with a married woman, I woudl nto say " hes God, he cant sin", I owudl admit Jesus snned by commitign adultery.

Now, that said, I must, acocridng to our critivns, conceed That Jesus sinned, for though we have no record of adultery beign commited, we do have a record of his theft of a Colt.

They alledge that he stole a colt, because the aimal was not his and he took it, the very basis of theft.

However, was this incedent theft? If he was granted permission for the use of the Animal , it is not theft. Thus, for Jesus to hav sinned, he woudl ahv had to take the animal without permission of the nimals Master.

Let us see if this is how the Bibel records the incedent.

Mathew Chapter 21

1. And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2. Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

{It is at this poin the critcs say " See, Jesus orders a theft", but the story goes on.}-Zarove 3. And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them.

{Important red flag note: If soemone asks, tell him Jesus asked for the animals and he will send them. If he man willignly sends his animals, it is not a theft. Critics overlook this.}-Zarove 4. All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, 5. Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass. 6. And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, 7. And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.

The next account they likewise overlook.

Mark Chapter 11

Mark 11

1. And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples, 2. And saith (Jesus) unto them,Go your way into the village over against you: and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat; loose him, and bring him.

{Here, the Critic, like Trio, claims Jesus ordered the theft of th Colt frememner, thefi is talign soemn elses property without pwrmission. So, did Jesus take the olt without permission?}-Zarove 3. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye that the Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him hither. 4. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without in a place where two ways met; and they loose him. 5. And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? 6. And they said unto them even as Jesus had commanded: and they let them go.

{Please note the last part of Verse 6. "And they let them go." IF the owner o the Colt let them go then how is it theft? If I entered into a car lot, and started a car, and the owner said Why are you doign this?" and I said "Stan needs the car" and they said "OK, go on then." Then its not theft. Theft requires the takign of a possession wihtout permission. This was clearly done with ppermisison.

Here is where the OWNERS came up and talked withhte disiples. Notice, the OWNERS came up and started speakin to them. thus, if thee OWNER denies permission to take the animal, it is theft, and the critic wins, and Jesus is a sinner. Notice: Important: This is critical totheir case!!! Note, I am not saying " Becuase hes God theft is OK, but if he had nto been God it woudl be sin>" I am saying " If Jesus was NOT God this si still not sin.}-Zarove

7. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him; and he sat upon him.

The next acocunt is the last, it is in Luke.

29. And it came to pass, when he was come nigh to Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount called the mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples, 30. Saying, Go ye into the village over against you; in the which at your entering ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither.

{Here Jesus tells them to brign a Colt. Now, acordign ot he critics, hsi is clealry an order of theft. why they lack the resonign capacity to think "Maybe Jesus prearranged the use of the Colt earlier." I don't know, tot hem its obviosuloy heft, and clesalry the verses below that tate the animal was taken withhte permisison of the owner is omited so Jesus coudl be sinful.

Note, they like saying "Religiosu Conservitives" turn a blind eye to such pasages,w here they ar einsetad guolty of turngin a blind eye and leaping to conclusions to prove hteir points.}-Zarove 31. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

{Notice: Important: Jesus aid " If anyone aksks, tell them i need it." Thsi si in all three accounts. It doesn't soudn much liek theft to anyone at this poin except the critics.This palys a crucial role later.}-Zarove 32. And they that were sent went their way, and found even as he had said unto them. 33. And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt?

34. And they said, The Lord hath need of him.

{Same wihhte above, the owners spoike tot hem. The owners had everty oportunity to stop them In thefirts two acocunts they flatly gave permisison, and here they say and do nothing. }-Zarove

35. And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon. 36. And as he went, they spread their clothes in the way.

-----------------------------------------------------

Now that this has been covered, I agreed above to sick to objective standards. Thus, iw oud not iuse the " Since he is Go its not sin, but if he had no been God it woudl be sin" Line of reasoning.

I ask now though, sincerley, did Jesus stealthe Colt?

The ciritc says Jesus stole the Colt and is thus guilty of the sin of theft and thus is not sinless.

The problem is, in two acounts the owner gave permission for the use of the animal, an din the thirs no record of any comment. None record any objection tot he takign of th animal.

Instead of asusming Jesus stole the Colt, which is imposisble since he clealry had permssion, maybe its mor elogical to assume he had prearranged the use of the animal.

Critics won't think that way, as they are confedent Jeuss is a colt theif, and think that the only way around htis is the "Hes God, he cant sin, but woudl be sin for a normal person" arment.

Clealry the Critics, like Trio, cannot think.

Sorry, this account, in both Mathew and MArk, clearly record the owner of the colt offerign permission for the use of the animal, thereby destoryign the theft arguemt.

Jesus did nto steal the colt, nor is his theft negated by him beign God. Jesus was allowed to sue the animal by the owners, rahte rhtis wa sprearranged, or rather they just relaly rpsected Jesus, matters little, since their is clealr proof int he pasages themselves that he didnt steal the Colt. Only an idiot cn read this and think it is theft.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004.

try again.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 29, 2004.

Zarove's answer is reposted over here: JESUS THE COLT THIEF

-- (check@over.there), April 29, 2004.