It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

According to Paul, Jesus was a sinner

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Looking at porn is not a sin.




posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

If you look at it with the intent of being aroused it is - if you are looking for self-gratification.

Everything we do is supposed to be for God. How would you justify porn?


Malachi 2:15 (ESV)
15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union?[a] And what was the one God seeking?[c] Godly offspring. So guard yourselves[d] in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.
edit on 2/11/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

We have to have a release, not doing so could mean health issues, prostate cancer for example. If God gave us the urge to masturbate, why would you ignore it? God is telling you to do it.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
If Jesus is exactly like me, he had the urge to masturbate and DID masturbate. What would he have masturbated to? Women (maybe men?). So I guess he broke his own rule about lust.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So when you are walking through the mall and you see someone who is attractive, you immediately feel raging, uncontrollable lust? I disagree. If we felt that, then there is some truth the idea of rape culture and women as wanton sluts. That is patently false. My mind remarks on it and I move on. It only becomes lust if I fixate on that first glimmer of possible interest and add fuel.

And the difference between food and sex is that you do not have to have sex to survive where you do need food. You can make up all the stories you want about how it's better for your health, but something being better for your health doesn't make it necessary for survival.

edit on 11-2-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
If Jesus is exactly like me, he had the urge to masturbate and DID masturbate. What would he have masturbated to? Women (maybe men?). So I guess he broke his own rule about lust.


Seeing how God's very first commandment was "Be fruitful and multiply", I would guess that Jesus "did the right thing" or cut the thing off, as in "If your eye offends you, pluck it out", and "There are those who chose to be eunuchs".

I'm going for the chance that Jesus would probably have handled his physical duties appropriately and had a wife, a son and a daughter. (a dog and a cat) The perfect "Holy Family".



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Yet some people can't control those urges whether they want to or not. Is a medical condition (sex addiction) a sin even if the person has no control over it? Or is sex addiction just an excuse for those people?



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

That's a stretch. lol

That is kind of like saying my desk lamp prevents elephant stampedes.

I don't know if we can say that, as a matter of fact, ejaculation helps prevent prostate cancer (that it is factual). And we certainly cannot reason that, by extension of ejaculation helping to prevent prostate cancer, heart disease, or whatever else you might want to add on to it, that it (ejaculation) therefor mandates masturbation, and masturbation is therein justified.

It is not even logical, and I know it's not Biblical.

Also, every urge is not good. People have all kinds of urges: like the seven deadly sins.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
How can you go without sinning in a society like we have. Everyone sins, we are expected to lie and usually repeat what we are told without actually checking if it is the truth. You would be crazy within months if you found that almost everything in society is not the whole truth. Being that everyone would consider you crazy and paranoid for actually checking everything out and they would just say that it's the way it is, don't let it drive you nuts. Most people do not realize that so much of what we know as the truth has been cut with lies.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep




I don't know if we can say that, as a matter of fact, ejaculation helps prevent prostate cancer (that it is factual). And we certainly cannot reason that, by extension of ejaculation helping to prevent prostate cancer, heart disease, or whatever else you might want to add on to it, that it (ejaculation) therefor mandates masturbation, and masturbation is therein justified.


I don't see why not. Sorry, but I don't see masturbation as a sin.



posted on Feb, 11 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Correct, "original sin" is Roman Catholic dogma.



heh... I wish that were true...

Original sin is not just a roman catholic thing... the Protestant orthodox reformed church believes in it as well...




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

How do you interpret:



Exodus 20:5-6 (KJV)
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.




Numbers 14:18 (KJV)
18 The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.


Seems like God believes it. Unless that is not what original sin is? Birth defects?

Unless this is your original sin?:


Genesis 8:21 (KJV)
21 And the Lord smelled a sweet savour; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.


And you can put this one in either category:


Romans 5:14 (KJV)
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

They died but not to the same sin of Adam (The penalty for sin being death, so they did sin, but not the sin which was "do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" nor of the sins against the 10 commandments since they had not been issued yet. And so man, even without it being expressly said, finds bad things to do, like Cain.)
edit on 2/12/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Well first the OT isn't God... or inspired by God in my opinion...

Second original sin is a fabrication of Paul... Nothing Jesus taught...

Third... thanks for pointing out a lovely contradiction... Nothing new when it comes to the OT though

Original sin does not exist...

That would imply that children are already sinners, but Jesus said children are like those in heaven... and apparently sinners can't go do heaven... so




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Pssh. You think the OT and Pauline books are not scripture? Remind me to never listen to you.

Also, where is the contradiction? Sin is doing what you know is wrong. It is not just doing what has been forbade. What you should take from that post is that, without even being told what is bad, man finds bad stuff to do, hence lending credence to original sin/evil heart (if your interpretation of original sin is within the 2nd class). If original sin is of the first class, then iniquity being placed onto the children can be anything born of wickedness, like birth defects, or any other damage to the flesh.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Pssh... I didn't ask you to listen to me, Nor do I care if you do...

And I didn't say they weren't scripture... I said the OT isn't God... And don't even get me started on Paul... but again, don't listen to me remember?


Also, where is the contradiction?


not that I didn't know about it before hand, but thank you for the reminder...

The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation

vs

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.

Oh, and the god of the OT isn't merciful... or forgiving... he/she/it knows nothing of either of those traits despite what he/she/it claims... all one has to do is read the books of the OT to figure that one out... but that isn't a popular option


What you should take from that post is that, without even being told what is bad, man finds bad stuff to do, hence lending credence to original sin/evil heart


Perhaps... but that wasn't because of a mythical person named Adam

its in our nature to "sin"... so to speak... we do what pleases us


If original sin is of the first class, then iniquity being placed onto the children can be anything born of wickedness, like birth defects, or any other damage to the flesh.


except Jesus said it was the work of God... not because of the sin of Adam...

Pauls doctrine vs Jesus... not that you'd understand that

And in actuality such things are because of previous lives... and the actions done there in...

Though, again don't listen to me remember.... what do I know




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
What does ATS think? Remember, Paul says Jesus was made identical to us IN EVERY RESPECT, sin included.

Taking the minor point first, it's well recognised today that Paul was not the author of Hebrews. The writing style is different, the way of approaching theology is different. So quoting Hebrews as "Paul says" is not accurate.

The text does not say "sin included", and the church has never thought that it meant "sin included".
The premise has been that he was a second Adam, a fresh start.
He was born of our nature in the sense that he was born flesh-and-blood, but he was without sin in the same way that Adam was originally without sin.
That's why he could make the "perfect offering" which Hebrews talks about, and the sinful priests who preceded him could not.

So ch4 v15 says that he was tempted "without sin".
Ch9 v14 says that he offered himself "without blemish".
Ch7 v26 says that he have a high priest who is "holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners".

The word "tempted" is ambiguous, because there are two facets to "temptation".
There is the external suggestion "why don't you do this?", coming from someone else or from circumstances.
Then there is the internal response, the "feeling tempted" to do something.
When we read "was tempted", we don't separate the two, because our experience tells us that they always come together. We can't have an external temptation without "feeling tempted".
"Was tempted, but without sin" means that he experienced the first facet withut the second.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:13 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Why can we not have an external temptation without feeling tempted?

IF someone tempts me with something I have no interest in... the external temptation is there without the feeling or need for whatever is being offered




posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 01:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon
All right, that might be true in some circumstances.
I was just explaining why people automatically read "was tempted" as including the internal response.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

To reconcile everything, you add in reincarnation, huh?

Why do innocent people die? "Reincarnation."

Idk how to reconcile Duet 24:16, not when in consideration of the death of babies (to my knowledge, it does not withstand that), unless it is pre-justice for a pre-crime - but that is pure speculation. And I guess reincarnation could fit, but then that is pretty much pure speculation too.

I guess Duet 24:16 requires something that isn't directly mentioned in the Bible.

But with that said, I don't won't you to get the wrong idea and think that I am agreeing with you, or that am throwing out verses or books simply because I do not have answers. I mean, I do believe in the concept of original sin - I think it is birth defects, and the alike, but it is not the cause of innocence lost, if there is such a thing.

Also, when you said:

Well first the OT isn't God... or inspired by God in my opinion...


I thought you were saying they weren't scripture, since I would consider scripture to be only what is divinely inspired.



posted on Feb, 12 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep


To reconcile everything, you add in reincarnation, huh?

Why do innocent people die? "Reincarnation."


Well no... reincarnation is why people return to the physical...

Karma is why innocent people die... but there is no innocent people according to the bible, so lets just say its why decent people die


Idk how to reconcile Duet 24:16, not when in consideration of the death of babies (to my knowledge, it does not withstand that), unless it is pre-justice for a pre-crime - but that is pure speculation. And I guess reincarnation could fit, but then that is pretty much pure speculation too.


its easy to reconcile... Its Pauls writing... simple enough

heres another one

Jeremiah 31
But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge

its not speculation... reincarnation has long been a part of Judaism...(and Jesus was a jew) its only Christians that reject it, even though if you know where to look, one can see that Jesus taught it as well... Its was removed from his teaching because the concept gives power to the individual as opposed to the church... and they wouldn't want that


I guess Duet 24:16 requires something that isn't directly mentioned in the Bible.


not so much... like I said, its mentioned if you know where to look

Christians will try to tell you its not of course...


But with that said, I don't won't you to get the wrong idea and think that I am agreeing with you, or that am throwing out verses or books simply because I do not have answers. I mean, I do believe in the concept of original sin - I think it is birth defects, and the alike, but it is not the cause of innocence lost, if there is such a thing.


Believe whatever you want... But know that original sin is a fabrication of Paul


I thought you were saying they weren't scripture, since I would consider scripture to be only what is divinely inspired.


And what is considered "divinely inspired" is only what the church tells you is... which is laughable to say the least...

Man tells you what is divinely inspired... how ironic is that?

Scripture is what a "religion" considers holy... that's about it...

Oh right... but remember, don't listen to me...


edit on 12-2-2015 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join