ok so I'm told jesus is here to take all sins away, he was born from god to woman named mary who is a virgin, well mary would have passed down sin to him right? she is a human and all. so if jesus acquired the sin nature you guys blab on about, then how can he be sinless?
It's all about that immaculate conception thingy that the church invented so that Christ would seem to be pure and untainted by original sin, or vaginal juices. Can't have your savior being the result of a dirty, nasty sex act, can you? My question would be: How in HELL does the Church KNOW that Jesus was the result of an immaculate conception? Did Jesus talk about it? Did he remember the time God placed him in a womb in Mary? Where the HELL did that whole concept come from? How could anyone know for sure? Mary was MARRIED, wasn't she? And to be officially MARRIED back in the old days (until around 1950 or so), YOU HAD TO CONSUMATE THE MARRIAGE, otherwise it was null and void. So Mary couldn't really be a virgin now could she? Oh wait it's even better. I just read the Church's explanation of not Jesus' but Mary's birth. She is the immaculate conception, not Jesus, although the two are related. See it wasn't enough for Jesus to be born PURE. Mary too had to be PURE (the church sees ALL women as impure beings, of course). So her conception and birth were immaculately guarded by none other than GOD himself. And on top of that, Mary led a life without sin. That's another reason why she's so revered. And the reason Mary and Joseph knew Jesus was a "different" sort of child is cause they had an interview with an angel. That is the official story. I don't recall Jesus ever mentioning that. And considering that this was never official doctrine until around 1050 AD or so, it's quite a nice fairy tale, no? I file Jesus & Mary's "pure" births along with the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus...
Because he is the son of God and God made him sinless. At least from a Christian perspective. Also, some Christians don't believe in inherentsin, in which case Jesus was pure when he was born as all babies are and he then continued to be pure by not sinning.
well thanks for the answers, skip that was informing and budtoker well thanks for the answer, they dont believe in sin inheritence, what does the bible say?
Some Christians don't take the Bible literally, but more as a guide. My mom certaintly doesn't believe in everything the Bible says because of "human mistakes which may have occured when writing the word of God". She believes the Bible as faults but she reads it forms her own oppinion on matters. There are other Christians like her (that I know personally), so all Christians can't be put in the same group as Bible-following zombies.
oh i see your point, not all christians are fundie assholes haha. yeah the whole sin i always took it as things you do that cause suffering to others or yourself not some inherent thing like in your lbood. i think the whole saved thing is kinda dumb to, like i understand repentance of sins and remission, rethink and act another way, but if you still sin(do harmful things) your going to suffer christian or not, i think it all goes to karma, or reap what you sow. i dont know though just my half assed opinion. about the whole takig bible literally thing, i think it may have good morals in it, some just bullshit morals in it, some fact in it that actually happened and some shit fiction and myth. it was written by man so it cant be fucking perfect.
And I totally agree with just about everything you said. Though I haven't thought about karma enough to agree with that part or not.
its like cause and effect, action. you put a thing forward in thought, then you act upon it, and the effects come out wether good or negative as i understand it.
well its not(to me) like some force that gets you back for evil, just you know shit happens to you becuase of your actions, say you smoke a shitload you get cancer, or something like that.
Sin inheritence is Old testament which does not apply to modern christians. Mary was married,but in those times a period passed before newlyweds consumated the marriage. Mary conceived by the holy spirit during this time and when Joseph found out he was going to divorce her until the angel came to him. So Jesus was sinless. Mary was a virgin, but I do not believe that Mary or Joseph were sinless but Mary found favor with God. Skip, I think that the birth is more a matter of historical data than anything else. If it was not in the bible then people would argue about how christ came to be. further the church did not invent the birth as you say because the church did not exist at that point.
blah, ok here it is man, skip says they ddi have to consemate, you say they dont, lets see some evidence from either of you, im confused
Yes, everyone had to consumate their marriage otherwise it was null. No I've never heard of waiting to consumate in ANY culture. Right after the wedding its straight to the wedding bed, whether the culture is Jewish, Christian, Hindu or Buddhist as far as I know. Proof you want? Not hard to find. In Germany they still hang out the red stained sheets in the street the day after to prove to the village that the marriage was consumated (with a virgin of course). Since Joseph was a jew, he was supposed to consumate the marriage with Mary right after the marriage. If he delayed doing that (I guess an angel appeared right as he whipped out his hard-on - before insertion), that was his choice. But according to Jewish Law if he didn't screw Mary within a year I think the marriage was automatically annulled, which would mean Jesus was a bastard. If Joseph didn't screw Mary, yet she got pregnant, how could he be certain she was a virgin to begin with, and may in fact have gotten pregnant before marrying Joseph? In which case Jesus is definitely a bastard. The funny thing is: If Jesus was actually a bastard child, it would make NO DIFFERENCE to me at all, but obviously Christians put a lot of stock in the fact that Jesus was sooooo pure, undirtied by sex. They could never accept that Jesus was less than perfect. In fact their insistence upon this detail implies to me a coverup. Jesus was probably just like so many other children in this world. Born a bastard child, even his adoptive father eventually disappears (no mention in the bible of what happened to him). And so to create a false legend you must embellish the facts and coverup that which implies that your savior is anything less than PERFECT. I'd respect Jesus more if the TRUE story was told: That of a LOVE CHILD, who grew up to become the biggest rebel in history, who lived his life just like a hippie, preaching love to everyone. By making Jesus into this HOLIER THAN THOU creature, they've truly rewritten his story to enable others to profit from it. If the poverty that Jesus lived in was copied by ALL CHRISTIANS, then there would be NO MONEY for churches and the clergy. They would cease to exist, or would never have existed. So basically they took Jesus' teachings which were FREE for all to embrace, and started SELLING it to people any way they could. So now you must PAY for Jesus to come into your life in one way or another. And FAT RICH CHRISTIANS many who've never known a day of true hardship in their lives pretend they understand Christ and are living as he taught. What hypocricies, what lies, what coverups, what rip-offs!
yeah man, thanks for the info. jesus was one cool motherfucker ay. but what he taught, isnt all special, i mean its great but not like someone didnt teach it before him you know? christians get to hung up on looking so good and shit, they forget what jesus actually taught LOVE PEACE all that good stuff.
The Catholic Church preaches that Mary was born without original sin. That is how Jesus was born without sin. Something I remember from my days as a Catholic. Just thought I would clarify this point. I also do not believe in sin as I am now a practising Buddhist. Peace and love
interesting but i dont really go for explanations like that, seems like they're just making up bs to make it make sense when they're actually doing the opposite.
Oh ok. But where are you actually getting these "facts"? Not to say they aren't correct, but anyone could just as easily claim the exact opposite. Respectible sources on the subject would be great.
