According to Paul, Jesus was a sinner

This will be a short post, just getting this out there for discussion.

I was reading another thread that had this passage from Hebrews in it:

Hebrews 2
17 Therefore, it was necessary for him to be made in every respect like us, his brothers and sisters, so that he could be our merciful and faithful High Priest before God. Then he could offer a sacrifice that would take away the sins of the people.

If Jesus was made in EVERY respect like us, that can only mean one of two thing:

A. Jesus was a sinner just like every one of us.

B. We can become sinless just as Jesus supposedly was.

Both options are supported by scripture.

For option A there is Jesus' baptism by John. Baptism is symbolic of washing away previous sins. Jesus could have sinned before his story picked up and became a changed man so he decided to be baptized as a symbol of this change. John washed away his sins by baptizing him.

For option B there is this from John:

1 John 3
9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.

Those who are born of God CANNOT continue sinning, meaning if we are born of God we can become like Jesus.

Then again there is the possibility that both are right, meaning when you are born of God your past sins are forgiven and you start anew and for all intents and purposes you become sinless through God's act of forgiveness. Maybe this is what Jesus' baptism symbolizes, him being forgiven by God for his sins committed in the 30+ missing years.

What does ATS think? Remember, Paul says Jesus was made identical to us IN EVERY RESPECT, sin included.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sin is an action and a conscious choice. Being made in every sense like us does not mean He does our actions or makes our choices.

However, it does say that He became sin for us.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sin is not just action, it can also be thoughts.

Matthew 5
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to Jesus, lusting after a woman (thought) is adultery and thus a sin. No action required.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: chr0naut

Sin is not just action, it can also be thoughts.

Matthew 5
28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

According to Jesus, lusting after a woman (thought) is adultery and thus a sin. No action required.

Lusting after a woman is a conscious choice.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sin isn't what we are, it is what we do.

(Simpler)

a reply to: chr0naut

Not really. When I see a big pizza with all the toppings I like and I get hungry and want to eat it, was my hunger and desire to eat it a conscious choice made by me? No, it was an unconscious reaction to what I saw. I do not choose to desire that pizza, my brain made the desire for me.

What about if I see someone die a gory death. Is my disgust a conscious choice made by me or is it an unconscious reaction to what I saw?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sin isn't what we are, it is what we do.

(Simpler)

What about original sin? Supposedly, Jesus needed to born from a virgin to avoid the apparent "sexiness" of original sin.

Lust - an intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

If they describe it as unrestrained in the dictionary, that implies you must have some element of control over it. After all, for something to be unrestrained implies you could restrain it.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sin isn't what we are, it is what we do.

(Simpler)

What about original sin? Supposedly, Jesus needed to born from a virgin to avoid the apparent "sexiness" of original sin.

Except virgin, is a mistranslation...

And according to the OT there is no original sin...

Deut 24
16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

So many pieces of the puzzle to put together to realise the creation of the God man

a reply to: ketsuko

I disagree. Lust is no different from someone who is "starving". Starving is an intense or unrestrained hunger, I cannot control that my body feels hunger, it is an unconscious reaction to no food being eaten. Can I somehow stop my body from being hungry (besides eating)? A conscious choice would be to eat to cure that hunger, but hunger itself is not a choice, just as lust is not a choice. In my opinion.

a reply to: Akragon

Correct, "original sin" is Roman Catholic dogma.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

lust is not a choice. In my opinion.

Every 16 year old boy in need of a book to cover an unexpected and uninvited "bulge" agrees with you!

If Jesus wad made just like us and could consciously choose not to sin then it goes to reason that we can too. Christians will argue that line of thinking all day because they believe sin is unavoidable.

Maybe that's a better way of conveying what I mean. If we are identical to Jesus, we have the same capabilities as he does.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

A. is not even an option, imo - it is misinterpreted scripture.

He was sinless until he took our sins upon himself - he did not "become sinless after having shed his natural born sin", as you're trying to put it.

Option A. goes against the very foundation of Christian doctrine.

1 Peter 2:24

Option B. is kind of right, I would say, but it should be understood spiritually, not physically - our spirits/desire/heart can become cleansed, but the flesh profits nothing. Meaning, we will still have temptation, the heart of man, urges, human desire, but in our spirit, we will be quickened - we will hate the sinner heart of ourselves, those "animalistic urges", our evil hearts.

1 Corinthians 15:45

John 6:63

Romans 7:15-24

Edit:
The way I think of it is like our hearts are multifaceted (able to have many faces / desires / spirits) like the soul having many different personality traits merged as one (as in the way your perception changes by different triggers/ego types if you will) or it can have multiple personalities which make up the totality of the soul.

So then you can have the spirit of man, yet another facet created by having Christ within you, which quickens a "facet", so as to create "a new man"; yet still, you retain facets that "trigger" or influence you which are "the human nature" or "man's heart".

Does that make it easier to conceptualize?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Option A. goes against the very foundation of Christian doctrine.

So maybe Christian doctrine is wrong? No, that's IMPOSSIBLE!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: chr0naut

Not really. When I see a big pizza with all the toppings I like and I get hungry and want to eat it, was my hunger and desire to eat it a conscious choice made by me? No, it was an unconscious reaction to what I saw. I do not choose to desire that pizza, my brain made the desire for me.

What about if I see someone die a gory death. Is my disgust a conscious choice made by me or is it an unconscious reaction to what I saw?

To see something and passively reject it would not be sin. To obsess over it, returning again and again to thoughts of it would be. The difference is choice.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Sin isn't what we are, it is what we do.

(Simpler)

What about original sin? Supposedly, Jesus needed to born from a virgin to avoid the apparent "sexiness" of original sin.

Perhaps that wasn't the reason at all.

a reply to: chr0naut

I'd argue that the thoughts that come into my head are not my choice but an unconscious process. If I smell something and a thought or memory comes into my head because of that smell, did I choose to think that thought or memory? No, it was an unconscious reaction to stimuli being triggered. Same goes for lust, if I see a woman I am very attracted to, did I choose to be attracted to her? No, it was an unconscious reaction to seeing her. Sin would be to put those thoughts into action. I choose not to put those thoughts into action, meaning I choose not to sin. This goes for any sin, I either choose to commit it or I don't. Jesus chose not to commit sin, I do too. After all, I am identical to him in every respect.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Option A. goes against the very foundation of Christian doctrine.

So maybe Christian doctrine is wrong? No, that's IMPOSSIBLE!

Is it Christian doctrine?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: chr0naut

I'd argue that the thoughts that come into my head are not my choice but an unconscious process. If I smell something and a thought or memory comes into my head because of that smell, did I choose to think that thought or memory? No, it was an unconscious reaction to stimuli being triggered. Same goes for lust, if I see a woman I am very attracted to, did I choose to be attracted to her? No, it was an unconscious reaction to seeing her. Sin would be to put those thoughts into action. I choose not to put those thoughts into action, meaning I choose not to sin. This goes for any sin, I either choose to commit it or I don't. Jesus chose not to commit sin, I do too. After all, I am identical to him in every respect.

Fair enough but if you type in the URL of a porn website, it is a choice.