Friday, August 30, 2013

Sinless Jesus?

Christians will often hang the sacrifice of Jesus to 'pay for' sins on the notion that he was sinless.
Thus, he was the 'perfect' sacrifice. Lets overlook the fact that there is no actual evidence for Jesus, or that the simple idea that a human sacrifice is disgusting and unnecessary to boot. Lets instead focus on the idea that he was supposedly sinless.

I must say that I find it funny that so much attention and importance is placed on a character that hasn't been verified to exist. But furthermore, this claimed 'sinless nature' is never explained in the Bible. It simply asserts that was, and goes no further.

But as with most everything in the Bible, the claim is riddled with problems. The first is 'original sin'. The Bible claims that all are 'infected' by original sin due to the sin of Adam and Eve disobeying God in the garden of Eden. This sin (somehow) flowed down the line, causing all to be born with sin. A ridiculous concept on it's own, but one that also complicates things here.

The Bible never really goes into detail about original sin, or how it is passed on. There's just the doctrine that all born since the story of Adam and Eve in the garden, have been born with it. But, the supposedly sinless Jesus was born since then, so he should have been born with original sin as well. If he has that sin, then he can't be the 'perfect sacrifice', that Christians somehow believe to be necessary. If he wasn't the 'perfect sacrifice', his 'death' wouldn't wipe the slate of sin clean. That would make Jesus' death a pointless one, and destroy the entire concept of Christian forgiveness.

So (assuming any of this ever happened) either he was somehow born without original sin, there is no original sin, or he was a pointless sacrifice that changed nothing. I'm a fan of the middle explanation for reasons twofold. First, because original sin is an absurd concept. And also because the Bible is just contemporary mythology. But let's play devil's advocate...

Let's assume that Jesus was somehow born without original sin. There main explanation some believers offer is that the sin is passed down through the father's line. Jesus didn't have a biological human father, so no sin. But remember, this is all guesswork on the Christian's part. The Bible doesn't support this claim at all. Okay, so no daddy, means no sin. How does that work? DNA!... um... somehow.

Adam supposedly had 'perfect' DNA (that sounds a little too 'master race' for my liking), but when he sinned, his DNA was corrupted (somehow) and so the sin is henceforth in our DNA through dear old dad. Um... what? Maybe genetics aren't their strong suit. We are a huge mix of generations of DNA. Even if Adam was the sole original conveyer of the 'sin DNA', that wouldn't last very long at all.

Remember, we are a product of the combination of the genes passed on from both of our parents. they were the product of their parents, and they were the product of theirs. If girls are born with original sin as well as boys, that means that it is in their DNA as well. If it's in their DNA, they can pass it on as well. This means that 'original sin' can't be passed by the father's line exclusively. The only was Mary could be cleared of passing sin on to Jesus, would be if sin doesn't pass on to women. And if women are born without sin, what was the point of Jesus?

But let's just say that somehow Jesus was born without sin. Is it realistic to claim that he remained sinless? Remember Mathew 5:27-29?
You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.…
 Okay, so by Jesus' standards, thinking lustfully is the same as adultery. Pretty crazy to me, but let's run with it. And no, I'm not going to go the Mary Magdalene route.  Sure, if she meant what some think she meant to Jesus, then he would be very guilty of sin. But by the same token that lust = adultery, then hunger = gluttony (also a sin).  I don't think that anyone is prepared to claim that Jesus never felt hunger, especially considering the fasting that was required at times.

I could go on, but I hope that this has gone to show that even if there was a Jesus, his claim of sinlessness is one that should be very much in doubt. So much so, that any Christian should be far from certain about their own 'salvation'. So instead of hanging everything on something that someoneelse claimed to do (or not do), lets focus on what we can do.

Plus, is perfection really all it's cracked up to be? Our shortcomings provide us with endless opportunities for personal growth and improvement.

 -Brain Hulk

Please share, subscribe, comment and follow us on your favorite social networking sites!
facebook | google+ | twitter

No comments:

Post a Comment