The Sinful Savior: Why the Biblical Jesus Was Not “Sinless”

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

The Sinful Savior: Why the Biblical Jesus Was Not “Sinless”

Read as PDF

“You know that he appeared in order to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.”[1]

            Christians claim that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for their sins because he was “sinless”, a central tenet of Christianity that is succinctly stated in 1 John 3:5. But the disparate stories in the New Testament call this belief into question. We can identify a few instances where Jesus does appear to commit sins. Christian apologists respond to these allegations using a variety of excuses, one of which is that since Jesus was “God”, he could do whatever he wanted, and it would not be a “sin”. In this article, we will examine a few examples of the “savior” committing sins and also debunk the appeal to his alleged “divinity” as a way to save the “savior”.

Four Examples of the Sinful “Savior”

            Here are 4 instances in the New Testament that demonstrate that the Biblical Jesus was a sinner:

  1. Destroying private property and committing animal abuse – Matthew 8:28–34

“And when he came to the other side, to the country of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men met him, coming out of the tombs, so fierce that no one could pass that way. And behold, they cried out, “What have you to do with us, O Son of God? Have you come here to torment us before the time?” Now a herd of many pigs was feeding at some distance from them. And the demons begged him, saying, “If you cast us out, send us away into the herd of pigs.” And he said to them, “Go.” So they came out and went into the pigs, and behold, the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the sea and drowned in the waters. The herdsmen fled, and going into the city they told everything, especially what had happened to the demon-possessed men. And behold, all the city came out to meet Jesus, and when they saw him, they begged him to leave their region.”

This is an interesting story. On the one hand, Jesus’ power as an exorcist was displayed when he forced a group of demons, called “Legion” (Mark 5:9), to stop oppressing two men.[2] On the other hand, he then let the demons possess a herd of pigs, without asking for permission from the owner. As a result, the pigs were possessed and drowned in a lake. Thus, the Biblical Jesus committed two sins: the destruction of property and cruelty to animals. There is no indication that Jesus compensated the owner of the pigs (he must have been a Gentile), a violation of Exodus 22, which requires compensation for the theft and deaths of animals, though of course, the law did not include pigs since Jews could not own such animals.

  1. Disrespecting his mother – John 2:1–5

“On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.””

This story has no parallel in the Synoptic Gospels. While at the wedding in Cana, Mary, the mother of Jesus, informed him that there was no wine left for the guests. Jesus’ response can only be described as “disrespectful”. He retorted by saying “woman, what does this have to do with me?” The NRSV translation renders Jesus’ response as follows:

“Woman, what concern is that to you and to me?”

The New Oxford Annotated Bible (OAB), 5th edition, explains regarding this response that it is:

“…a literal translation of a Hebrew expression that typically signals a refusal (Judg 11.12; 2 Kings 3.13; 2 Chr 35.21).”[3]

Obviously, a refusal by a grown man to his parents is not necessarily sinful, but rather the way the refusal is expressed. Instead of calmly and respectfully refusing his mother, the Biblical Jesus responded in an aggressive and disrespectful manner, a clear violation of the commandment to “honor your father and your mother…” (Exodus 20:12).

  1. Lying to his brothers – John 7:1–10

“After this Jesus went about in Galilee. He would not go about in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him. Now the Jews’ Feast of Booths was at hand. So his brothers said to him, “Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples also may see the works you are doing. For no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world.” For not even his brothers believed in him. Jesus said to them, “My time has not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil. You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.” After saying this, he remained in Galilee. But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.”

This story also has no parallel in the Synoptic Gospels. At the time of the Jewish “Feast of Booths”, Jesus was in Galilee and was urged by his brothers to go to the feast in Judea. Regardless of their lack of faith or if they were simply mocking Jesus, this does not excuse Jesus’ deliberate act of deception: he told them that “I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come”. However, after his brothers had left for the feast, Jesus also went there but “in private”. Thus, the Biblical Jesus clearly lied, violating the command in Leviticus 19:11:

“You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another.”

            It should be noted that Jesus’ statement “…my time has not yet fully come” does not mean that he was leaving open the possibility that he may go to the feast at a later time. As the OAB explains, this phrase refers to Jesus’ death and is repeated throughout the Gospel of John (emphasis in the original):

“Jesus refers repeated to his hour, the time of his death, and also of his glorification (7.30; 8.20; 12.23; 13.1; 17.1).”[4]

            There was a simple way for Jesus to avoid lying to his brothers, if that was his intention. He could have simply said “I am not going up to this feast [YET]…” or “I am not [YET] going up to this feast…” Ironically, later scribes seemed to feel the same way! According to the New English Translation commentary on John 7:8 (emphasis ours):

“Most mss (P66,75 B L T W Θ Ψ 070 0105 0250 ƒ1,13 M sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” (οπω, oupō) here. Those with the reading οὐκ are not as impressive (א D K 1241 al lat), but οὐκ is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10. On the one hand, it is possible that οὐκ arose because of homoioarcton: A copyist who saw oupw wrote ouk. However, it is more likely that οπω was introduced early on to harmonize with what is said two verses later.[5]

Notice that the commentary admits that “not”, instead of “not yet”, is the original reading of the verse. “οὔπω” (“not yet”) was added “early on” by scribes to “harmonize” the contradiction with verse 10, when Jesus left for the festival “in private”. The late Biblical scholar Bruce Metzger also came to this conclusion:

“The reading οὔπω was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66, 75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10.[6]

It is amusing that the NET commentary still tried to save the Biblical Jesus from his sin:

“As for Jesus’ refusal to go up to the feast in v. 8, the statement does not preclude action of a different kind at a later point. Jesus may simply have been refusing to accompany his brothers with the rest of the group of pilgrims, preferring to travel separately and “in secret” (v. 10) with his disciples.”[7]

This is an absurd and comical apologetic attempt to save the sinful savior. There is no indication that Jesus refused to go to the festival because he did not want to go with his brothers.

  1. Committing petty theft – Matthew 21:1–7

“Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, ‘The Lord needs them,’ and he will send them at once.” This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’” The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.”

Besides the absurdity of having Jesus sit on two donkeys (that would be very uncomfortable), the Gospel of Matthew indicates that Jesus sent his disciples to bring two donkeys from a village to him. These donkeys belonged to someone since they were tied. Jesus did not tell his disciples to find the owner and ask for his permission before taking the donkeys, but he did tell them what to say if someone saw them. They were to simply say “The Lord needs them”! Imagine if someone tried stealing your property and you caught them in the act, and their excuse was “God needs them”. Who would buy that excuse without any evidence?

            To make matters worse, there was no indication that the donkeys were returned to their owner after Jesus had used them or any indication that the owner was compensated in any way (see below). Stealing animals, and stealing in general, was prohibited in Exodus 22 and Leviticus 19, respectively, and the Biblical Jesus clearly violated this law.

            One excuse that apologists use to save their sinful savior is to argue that the owner’s permission was implied in the phrase “…and he will send them at once”, meaning the owner would approve the borrowing of the donkeys (Matthew 21:3), and indeed, in Mark’s version, it seems that permission was given (emphasis ours):

“If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it and will send it back here immediately.’” And they went away and found a colt tied at a door outside in the street, and they untied it. And some of those standing there said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” And they told them what Jesus had said, and they let them go.[8]

Thus, Mark indicates that permission was given, but notice that the phrase “and will send it back here immediately” is part of the statement the disciples were to make if they were stopped by anyone, and not a statement of Jesus assuring the disciples that the owner would send the animals. It was a promise that the animals would be returned. This raises another problem: there is no indication in the gospels that the animals were ever returned or that the owner was compensated.

            In the Gospel of Matthew, as the story continues, Jesus rides into Jerusalem sitting (uncomfortably) on 2 donkeys (verse 7), enters the temple to drive out the money changers (verse 12), healed the blind and lame (verse 14), and then left for the city of Bethany and stayed there overnight. It is claimed by some scholarly sources that Bethany was the village from which the donkeys were taken,[9] since Mark 11:1 states that Jesus and his disciples “drew near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany, at the Mount of Olives…” (Matthew does not mention Bethany), but this is just an assumption. The village could just as likely have been Bethphage as well. There is no proof either way, though it seems more likely that the unnamed village was Bethphage, since according to both Matthew and Mark, Jesus had left Jericho (Matthew 20:29; Mark 10:46) and made his way to Jerusalem. Bethphage was located “near the Mount of Olives and to the road from Jerusalem to Jericho”.[10] This would put Bethphage “in front” (Matthew 21:2), as shown in the map below (Figure 1):

Jericho Bethphage Jerusalem map
Figure 1: Coming down from Jericho, Jesus and his disciples would have passed near Bethphage, as it was “on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho” (Source: https://bibleatlas.org/bethphage.htm).

The Biblical Jesus: A “Moral Exemplar”?

            We have seen 4 examples of seemingly sinful behavior from the Biblical Jesus. Even if Christian apologists want to argue that the behavior was somehow not sinful, the question to ask is this: since Christians see Jesus as a “moral exemplar”, would they ever act this way? Would a Christian ever snap at his mother in an aggressive manner by saying “what concern is it of yours?” and still think that this is the normal way to speak to one’s parent? Would a Christian say to his brothers “I’m not going to such and such place. You go.”, and then go “in private” to the same place while deliberately hiding his identity? Would a Christian take someone’s property because of a necessity without even making an effort to ask their permission (while prepared to give an excuse IF he was caught in the act) and then also fail to return the borrowed property? Obviously, the answer to all these questions, hopefully, is “no”.

Debunking the “Jesus is God, so he can do what he wants” Excuse

            One common excuse that Christian apologists make to dismiss the sinful behavior of their savior is to argue that since Jesus was “God”, he could do what he wanted, and it would not be considered “sinful”. For example, when Jesus spoke disrespectfully to his mother, or when he allowed demons to possess a herd of pigs, or when he told his disciples to take a donkey without asking for permission, the Christian response may be “well, since Jesus created Mary, he could speak to her any way he wanted” or “well, since Jesus owns all things, he could choose to let demons possess any animal, whether owned by a person or not, and he could take any animal for his use without asking for permission”. Strangely enough, Christians fall into circular reasoning because of this. For example, one Christian website declares that:

“Jesus had to be sinless to prove He was divine.”[11]

If being “sinless” was the “proof” needed to demonstrate Jesus’ “divinity”, then using his alleged “divinity” to prove he was “sinless” becomes a circular argument.

            Moreover, there is another fatal flaw in this argument. By appealing to Jesus’ divinity to dismiss claims of sinfulness, Christians are ignoring the fact that Jesus supposedly had 2 natures: divine and human. This is how Christians explain Jesus’ lack of absolute knowledge (as in Mark 13:32 where he admitted his ignorance of the time of the day of judgment), so why do they ignore it when grappling with his alleged sins? Indeed, the whole point of the “Son” taking on a human nature was so that he could live a “sinless, perfect” life and “pay the price for sin and offer others forgiveness and eternal life”.[12] By taking on a “human nature”, Jesus had allegedly “emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant…”,[13] so his “human nature” had all the limitations of other humans, such as being “tempted”. It also means that his “human nature” was not the owner of all things, whether his mother or all animals.

            The Smoking Gun: Jesus’ “Transgressions”

            It is ironic that the New Testament inadvertently demonstrates that Jesus was a sinner in need of God’s mercy. This is due to the clumsy use (or misuse) of the so-called “Old Testament” by the authors of the New Testament. One such clumsy use of the Old Testament can be seen in Hebrew 10:5–7:

“Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, ‘Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will, O God, as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.’’”

This quote is taken from Psalm 40. Here is Bretton’s English translation of the Septuagint (which the author of Hebrews was using):

“Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. Then I said, Behold, I come: in the volume of the book it is written concerning me, I desired to do thy will, O my God, and thy law in the midst of mine heart.”[14]

But the author cherry-picked this passage from the rest of the psalm and ignored the rest of the speech made by the psalm’s speaker.[15] The same speaker, whom the author of Hebrews insisted was Jesus, says this in verse 12 (emphasis ours):

“For innumerable evils have encompassed me; my transgressions have taken hold of me, and I could not see; they are multiplied more than the hairs of my head; and my heart has failed me.”

Thus, using the author’s own logic, the same person who said, “sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not…” also said, “my transgressions have taken hold of me”,[16] which means that Jesus had committed “transgressions”!

            This is especially made clear when we consider that both words used in the Hebrew and Greek versions of Psalm 40:12 refer to acts that violate the law. In the Masoretic text, the Hebrew word translated as “iniquities” or “transgressions” is עָוֹן, which is defined by the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) as:

“…an act, or mistake, which is not right, unjust…”[17]

It is also defined as “misdeed, sin”.[18] Similarly, the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts defines it as:

“…a common term that designates sin in general terms as ‘iniquity,’ and also denotes the guilt of iniquity, or the consequences of iniquity.”[19]

            The Greek equivalent is ἀνομία, which is defined by the Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament as:

“…as what is contrary to law; (1) as a general state of wrong lawlessness, wickedness, iniquity (1J 3.4); (2) as an individual violation of law sin, wrong(doing), (practice of) lawlessness (MT 7.23)”.[20]

Similarly, the Expository Dictionary of Bible Words defines it as “lawlessness” (literally, ‘without law’), and is translated ‘iniquity,’ ‘wickedness,’ indicating the violation of God’s law.”[21]

Thus, it is clear that if the speaker in Psalm 40 should be identified as the Biblical Jesus, as the author of Hebrews insisted, then it is undeniable that Jesus was a man of “iniquity” and “transgressions”. This association is a fatal wound in the heart of Christianity.

Conclusion

            In this article, we have seen 4 examples of the Biblical Jesus behaving in immoral ways. His “sins” include destruction of private property, cruelty to animals, disrespecting his mother, lying, and petty theft. Moreover, we debunked one of the most common counterarguments that Christian apologists make to save their sinful savior, namely by appealing to his alleged authority as “God”. As we saw, this argument is nothing more than a weak attempt at circular reasoning. Finally, we exposed the inadvertent and fatal mistake made by the author of Hebrews in using a cherry-picked passage from Psalm 40 as a statement made by Jesus. This statement, when read in context with the rest of the psalm, leads to the unavoidable conclusion that Jesus had committed “iniquities” (i.e., sins). With its savior now exposed as a “sinner”, Christianity and its doctrine of salvation have no leg to stand on.

            And Allah (Glorified and Exalted be He) knows best!


[1] 1 John 3:5. All translations are from the ESV unless stated otherwise.

[2] Matthew contradicts both Mark and Luke, who only mention 1 demon-possessed man (Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27).

[3] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Fifth Edition, ed. Michael D. Coogan (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018) p. 1922.

[4] Ibid. See also p. 1932.

[5] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7%3A8&version=NET#fen-NET-26326b

[6] Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament, Second Edition (Stuttgart, Germany: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994), p. 184.

[7] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+7%3A8&version=NET#fen-NET-26326b

[8] Mark 11:3–6.

[9] The New Oxford Annotated Bible, op. cit., p. 1812.

 [10] https://bibleatlas.org/bethphage.htm

While Bethany was also “on the road to Jericho” (https://bibleatlas.org/bethany.htm), it does not appear probable that it was the village in question.

[11] https://www.compellingtruth.org/Jesus-sinless.html

[12] Ibid.

[13] Philippians 2:7.

[14] https://biblehub.com/sep/psalms/40.htm

[15] This misquote and fatal mistake by the author of Hebrews was brought to my attention by a Muslim brother on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Isma_isma/status/1496874119320670208?s=20&t=SPQiEY_tpnkIjKAM2dqaEw

[16] As the OAB explains, in verses 11–17, “[a]cceptance of the task of proclamation puts the psalmist in fresh danger and in need of God’s help” (The New Oxford Annotated Bible, op. cit., p. 815).

[17] Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, and Johann Jakob Stamm, The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Volumes 1-4 (Electronic Edition), trans. M.E.J Richardson (Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 1999), 800.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Expository Dictionary of Bible Words: Word Studies for Key English Bible Words Based on the Hebrew and Greek Texts, ed. Stephen D. Renn (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2005), p. 518.

[20] Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Electronic Edition) (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), 57.

[21] Expository Dictionary of Bible Words, op. cit., p. 519.

104 thoughts on “The Sinful Savior: Why the Biblical Jesus Was Not “Sinless”

  1. stewjo004

    @QB

    While the psalms from Hebrew is a good being neutral regarding the pig incident couldn’t an argument be made that no compensation needed to be made because a pig is an unclean animal?

    PS
    Another reason “he’s God and can do whatever he wants” doesn’t work is he is supposed to be the only person capable of following the Law and thus bound himself to the rules he created.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. mr.heathcliff

        the pigs seem to have become a scapegoat in the story. the pigs suffer and loose their life , while the unclean spirits destination was the sea, they lived there .

        who died for the sins of the demonic possession? pigs?

        Like

      2. mr.heathcliff

        this story is a confusing one

        pig = unclean
        demon = unclean

        but then mark 7 , “he declared all foods clean”

        what the heck is going on ?

        Like

  2. mr.heathcliff

    how about the story about jesus touching the leper? jesus clearly breaks the law by touching leprous person and telling him to keep the
    healing a secret. Why would he tell the man to keep it a secret about the touching and healing? Did jesus realise that his act of touching broke the law?

    “The person who has the leprous[o] disease shall wear torn clothes and let the hair of his head be disheveled; and he shall cover his upper lip and cry out, “Unclean, unclean.” 46 He shall remain unclean as long as he has the disease; he is unclean. He shall live alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.”

    1:40-45 40A man with leprosy came to him and begged him on his knees, “If you are willing, you can make me clean.” 41Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!” 42Immediately the leprosy left him and he was cleansed. 40 He sent him away at once with a strong warning: 44″See that you don’t tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.” 45Instead he went out and began to talk freely, spreading the news. As a result, Jesus could no longer enter a town openly but stayed outside in lonely places. 

    ” Jesus knew up front that he was touching a leper. Law broke. Furthermore, he attempted to keep it a secret. Law broke. And the text goes on to tell us that Jesus was punished by being banished from the town. Why? Because he broke the Law.”

    Liked by 1 person

  3. mrrjchamberlain88

    Religious people of Jesus’s day criticised Him for breaking their interpretation of the Law. Still are to this day evidently. The only thing they could condemn Him to death for was blasphemy: claiming to be the Son of God, which would be bad if it wasn’t true.

    Like

    1. stewjo004

      @mrrjchamberlain88

      Down the line:

      1. What is being criticized is the false claim from Christians that Jesus(as) was “perfect”, “sinless” etc. by destroying this belief (as he clearly sins even in the heavily edited Bible stories) a major pillar that is Christianity falls.

      2. Being called “the Son of God” is not blasphemous according to Judaism. Many people are called it in the Bible. All the term means in context is being the heir to King David(as) as per Psalm 2:7
      https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-son-of-god-is-the-son-of-david/

      You may also go further and see my point “D” in the following article:

      The CruciFICTION Series: Part 1 – The Problem With the Gospels

      Liked by 2 people

      1. stewjo004

        @mrrjchamberlain88

        God knows best but looking at the Jews’ history…because they’re disobedient and corrupt? Basically, they knew he (as) was their king/prophet, but both sides’ positions were threatened in their minds if they did what they were supposed to.

        One group (Sadducees) were the nobles/rich who kissed up to the Romans and had deviant beliefs, the second group (Pharisees) wanted to keep the prestige of being the religious authority who the common folk looked up to. So, having to get rid of this threat conspired to kill him(as). No different from when the pagan Arabs wanted to kill Muhammad (ﷺ) for what they perceived as a threat to their livelihood and traditions.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. Vaqas Rehman

        @Stew

        To add to the discussion of why the Jews would accuse Jesus(a.s) of blasphemy if he did not actually commit blasphemy and whatever “evidence” is cited, I always remember and like to bring up this story of the prophet Isaiah(a.s)

        “It is related in the Talmud that Rabbi Simeon ben ‘Azzai found in Jerusalem an account wherein it was written that Manasseh killed Isaiah. Manasseh said to Isaiah, “Moses, thy master, said, ‘There shall no man see God and live’ [Ex. xxxiii. 20, Hebr.]; but thou hast said, ‘I saw the Lord seated upon his throne'” (Isa. vi. 1, Hebr.); and went on to point out other contradictions—as between Deut. iv. 7 and Isa. lv. 6; between Ex. xxxiii. 26 and II Kings xx. 6. Isaiah thought: “I know that he will not accept my explanations; why should I increase his guilt?” He then uttered the Unpronounceable Name, a cedar-tree opened, and Isaiah disappeared within it. Then Manasseh ordered the cedar to be sawn asunder, and when the saw reached his mouth Isaiah died; thus was he punished for having said, “I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips” (Yeb. 49b). A somewhat different version of this legend is given in the Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin x.). According to that version Isaiah, fearing Manasseh, hid himself in a cedar-tree, but his presence was betrayed by the fringes of his garment, and Manasseh caused the tree to be sawn in half. A passage of the Targum to Isaiah quoted by Jolowicz (“Die Himmelfahrt und Vision des Prophets Jesajas,” p. 8) states that when Isaiah fled from his pursuers and took refuge in the tree, and the tree was sawn in half, the prophet’s blood spurted forth. From Talmudical circles the legend of Isaiah’s martyrdom was transmitted to the Arabs (“Ta’rikh,” ed. De Goeje, i. 644).”

        https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8235-isaiah

        Also Hebrews 11:37 clearly mentions some form of this event so just rejecting the talmud wholesale out of hand is not an easy solution.

        Also see this great debate/discussion between Michael Licona and Dale Martin from 1:27:16 onwards for a talk on the issue of what exactly Jesus(a.s) might have been accused of blasphemy for.

        To be fair tho this video is 9-10 years old and unsure of how scholarship has or hasn’t developed in light of whatever new data may have come up. So be sure to cross check it as I don’t have a lot of time or energy these days to do so.

        I always find it interesting that citing the charge of blasphemy against Jesus(a.s) is considered a great evidence that Jesus(a.s) actually claimed to be God given the odd and almost paradoxical implications. I mean think about it, if the texts cited were indeed intended to mean that God would incarnate and become a man as the messiah such that it’s “obvious” then where pray tell is the blasphemy? Sure the exact doctrine of the hypostatic union may not be gleamed but the concept of God becoming a man such that a man claiming to be the messiah and God shouldn’t be blasphemous. So either the concept is not at all well articulated in scripture or the Jews were so demonstrably ignorant of said scripture. In which case why take what they say seriously at all?

        Maybe it’s just me, but I find the idea that God’s pan for humanity’s salvation from sin resting upon human sin and ignorance a bit weird.

        Also obligatory mention of how even if it can proven the gospel portrayal of Jesus(a.s) didn’t commit sins, he would have been a sinner anyway due to inheriting a sin nature via original sin and if he didn’t have one then that means God forgave it/took it away. Putting himself in a kind of sin debt as well as proving He can forgive sins without the shedding of blood.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. mr.heathcliff

      ” You’re revealing your pig headed nature with every comment. You don’t need to eat pig to act like one,”

      so why you eat pig then when u already acting like a pig? lol
      do you ever tell your black wife she is dog of israel ?

      Like

    3. mr.heathcliff

      “There are different kinds of love. Lust isn’t love.”

      so would you love someone who pinned you on floor, penetrated you and then gave you hiv?

      Like

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        Doesn’t matter whether you beat me up or what you do to me, I still have to love my enemies. The fact that thought even came to you is rather concerning. On that note, goodnight.

        Like

    4. mr.heathcliff

      “Doesn’t matter whether you beat me up or what you do to me,”

      “I still have to love my enemies.”

      there you have it. your signs of being a homosexual are showing. you would actually love the guy who gives u hiv by raping you. were you abused as a young boi?

      Like

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        Did that happen to you in jail for terror offences? You’re the one bringing this up with clearly an unhealthy interest in it.

        Like

    5. mr.heathcliff

      “Did that happen to you in jail for terror offences? ”

      see, you are getting angry now. you are demonstrating your “love”

      i asked you if you would love someone who raped you and then gave you hiv, yes or no?

      Liked by 1 person

    6. mr.heathcliff


      Doesn’t matter whether you beat me up or what you do to me, I still have to love my enemies”

      do you love the guy who gives you aids and then he gives your wife aids aswell. i want to know your position on such a situation. yes or no? remember, you cannot have even 1 percent hate. you must love lol

      Liked by 1 person

      1. He’s asking you a hypothetical scenario , moron. It’s to show how hypocritical and impractical the crosstian idea of “love” is. You don’t want to answer because you know it will expose either your hypocrisy or your deceit.

        Like

      2. mrrjchamberlain88

        A playboy mansion in the sky is hypothetical. Doesn’t make it anything other than perverse.

        Like

      3. mrrjchamberlain88

        The only One I’m afraid of is the One who can cast soul and body into hell for the kind of perverse questions you’re asking.

        Like

    7. mr.heathcliff

      “The loving thing to do would be to not dignify your perverse question with a response”

      how is it perverse? as you are being raped by your aids infected rapists, will you say “i loooove you” ???

      Liked by 1 person

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        You are digging yourself a hole you can’t get out of but I know Someone who can get you out of it

        Like

    8. mr.heathcliff

      “You are digging yourself a hole you can’t get out of but I know Someone who can get you out of it”

      you enjoy thinking about human flesh and blood?
      you love those who like rectums
      you love those who would penetrate you and give u aids
      what is the conclusion here?
      you even like to be a WILLING VICTIM of my fists

      were you abused by your priest when u were young?

      Like

    9. mr.heathcliff

      “You are digging yourself a hole you can’t get out of but I know Someone who can get you out of it”

      why do u sell ur whoredom at blogs? Your “someone” needs SOMEONE else.

      u dont know that you divide ur worship for three lovers

      three different fully gods+ human essence and sunday church ritual where u drink blood n eat flesh

      atleast represent ur “someone” properly OTHERWISE PPL mistaken u for unitarian. Silly moron.

      Like

  4. mrrjchamberlain88

    What kind of twisted logic says that healing a leper is sin? As bad as the religious people of His day who condemned Him for healing on the Sabbath!

    Like

    1. jamesmay2022

      torah say no touching leper.
      jesus DELIBERATELY violate yhwhs command by touching leper
      jesus deliberately doing sin
      it was not the HEALING , it was HOW healing was done you silly pagan moron.

      plus, we know jebus REQUIRED TO KEEP ONE part of the law pertaining to offering gift of moses.

      jesus was a sinner

      Like

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        Torah says don’t touch the leper or you might catch something. Jesus healed the leper. Imagine Him today, healing covid patients and monkeypox sufferers, and breaking social distancing rules to do so. You would rather He let people suffer than break some rule.

        Like

      2. mrrjchamberlain88

        If I touch a dead donkey I become unclean. If Jesus touches a dead donkey He could bring it to life!

        Like

    2. mr.heathcliff

      haraam khor wrote :
      I’m patient. I can wait my turn

      but you are a pig nog. notice in marks version, the woman DOES not get help because of her “great faith,” the woman sped up her waiting period because your sinful god yeebus said, “woman for such a reply..”

      so :

      we note that the woman’s request–healing for her daughter–is granted not on the basis of faith but on the basis of her argument. Jesus says, “For such a reply…”

      and :
      Any interpretation of the story that suggests that Jesus was using this woman to illustrate a point requires recognizing that he considered making a point to be more important than the welfare of a desperately ill child. It requires recognizing that Jesus considered making a point more important than basic kindness and good manners to a woman asking a favor.

      and:
      Saying that a dog may claim crumbs that fall from the table is a very, very different thing from saying that a dog is equal to a human child eating at the table. She used the time-honored technique of the oppressed and enslaved of flattering their oppressor in order to gain favor.

      Like

      1. mr.heathcliff

        “Now the Jewish Jesus must confront someone his faith and history requires him to hate. Matthew’s Jesus has some cruel fun with her and her sick daughter: “It is not proper to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” Dogs (κυναριοις) is Jesus’ Jewish hate term for Gentiles ( Matt. 7:6 “κυσιν “). Finally Jesus heals her daughter, but only after he extracts from her a verbal confirmation before his disciples and the people watching that only the Jews have God’s blessing and she and her daughter are indeed dogs (notice the play on words here θυγατηρ (young girl) with κυναριοις (small dog)).”

        haraam khor wrote :
        I’m patient. I can wait my turn

        matthews version :

        sheep (description of jewish peoples)
        children (identifies jewish people)
        dogs (identifies a woman and her ILL daughter)

        marks version :

        At least, this is what the word ‘first’ would mean if it was original to the story. Several scholars also regard it as a possibility that ‘first’ was added to the text. The woman’s retort that even dogs can eat table scraps does not follow if Jesus had initially said the children need to eat ‘first’. She is responding as if Jesus had excluded the dogs entirely, not simply made them wait their turn.

        WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN jewish children and GENTILE children ?

        jesus thinks the gentile children as dogs , lets allow new testament to define dogs :

        Other NT texts instead use κύων, always in a negative context: ‘never give what is holy to dogs’ (Matt 7.6), dogs lick the wounds of a sick, homeless man (Luke 16.21), pro-circumcision followers of Jesus are ‘dogs’ (Philippians 3.2), ‘a dog returns to its vomit’ (2 Pet 2.22; cf. Prov 26.11), and ‘dogs’ are mentioned alongside sorcerers, murderers, and idolaters (Rev 22.15). With only rare exceptions, the Septuagint also paints an overwhelmingly negative picture of ‘dogs’, and this continues into rabbinic literature.

        Like

      2. mrrjchamberlain88

        The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of Jesus’s compassion is in the deliverance of the daughter.

        Like

    3. mr.heathcliff

      “The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The proof of Jesus’s compassion is in the deliverance of the daughter.”

      thats like me ignorning your wife multiple times and then while your wife is on the floor , i tell her, it is not right to take holy bread and cast it to little bitch.

      i tell her that the sheep and children have gods favour, black people are likkle dogs.

      your wife must be receiving such love and compassion from me.

      the worse part is that i humiliated your wife in front of my friends and made them see how to treat non- white people

      then after your wife comes out with a clever rebuttal, i get someone to take her to local hospital lol

      Like

    4. mr.heathcliff

      “The proof of Jesus’s compassion is in the deliverance of the daughter.”

      thats not compassion, thats mind change. she changed ur cursed “saviours” mind.
      she got her crumbs after she agree with him that her ILL daughter is an excrement eater and the jews /humans really have yhwhs blessings by receive holy bread.

      Like

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        He didn’t even directly refer to her as a dog. He simply mockingly mimicked the official religious line and rubbished it by delivering her daughter. Actions speak louder than words.

        Like

      2. mrrjchamberlain88

        And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.” Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.
        Matthew 15:26‭-‬28 ESV
        https://bible.com/bible/59/mat.15.26-28.ESV

        Like

      3. 🤣🤣 Yeah I know the verse, stupid. But in Matthew 7:6, your fake mangod also said:

        “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.”

        The “dogs” and “pigs” is a reference to Gentiles. He deliberately used these slurs. Ergo, he was a racist.

        Liked by 1 person

      4. 🤣🤣 You moron, I didn’t they were an “ethnic group”. I said they were SLURS for Gentiles. Why are you so stupid? You should go back to school and learn some reading comprehension.

        Like

      5. mrrjchamberlain88

        Okay, if you’re going to attack me for being stupid, I guess I should take Jesus’s advice and conclude you’re a pig-dog and avoid you. Thanks for the quote!

        Like

      6. 🤣🤣 I got the crosstian to disobey his mangod (love your enemies). Calling me a “dead donkey” is not very loving. Good job, pig-dog! 🤣🤣 Now, scamper away. There’s a good boy.

        Like

      7. mrrjchamberlain88

        Love you donkey. Just like Jesus loved Herod the fox and the whitewashed tombs of the religious haters of his day.

        Like

      8. 🤣😂 You can’t love someone and then call them names, you dirty pig-dog. 🤣 Thanks for exposing your idiotic religion and its contradiction. Now, off with you. Good boy. Run away.

        Like

      9. mrrjchamberlain88

        Okay, take it you hate me. At least you’re consistent with your hateful religion. Shrek loved Donkey… deep down. Ogres have layers

        Like

      10. 😂🤣 So you want to stay now, pig-dog? Then why were you complaining about the insults, dirty boy? Your fake mangod is upset with you for your hypocrisy. You should be more concerned about that! 🙂

        Like

      11. 🤣😂 The pig-dog can’t make up his mind! Are you chasing your own tail? 😂😂 Go and repent to your fake god for disobeying his fake son and not loving your enemies. 😉

        Like

      12. 😂🤣 You’re a liar. You’re trying to hide your hatred for me and the insults that hurt your feelings. You walked right into that trap and now you’re trying really hard to not make a donkey of yourself. Poor pig-dog. Chasing his own tail! 😂😂

        Like

      13. mrrjchamberlain88

        Jesus is the one who warned me you’re the pig. You’re revealing your pig headed nature with every comment. You don’t need to eat pig to act like one, as you’re so ably demonstrating. I’ll love you and leave you to wallow in the mire.

        Like

      14. 🤣😂🤣 Awww, the crosstian pig-dog is whining again. Don’t preach to me about what your fake god said. You just need to repent for disobeying him. I mean it won’t make a difference since your god is fake, but still, your cult requires it. Be a good boy.

        Like

    5. mr.heathcliff

      scum bag,

      as if you can’t use third person to indirectly address the person in front of you.

      white boy sees asians, then says in third person , “these dirty pakis”

      in your case it is even verse, he is addressing her ill daughter as a dog, lol, he says holy bread for jewish don’t go to non-jewish CHILDREN lol

      its even worse!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. mrrjchamberlain88

        No need to sexualise spirituality. You’re just betraying yourself as a perverse person whose way dream is a playboy mansion in the sky.

        Like

      2. mrrjchamberlain88

        You don’t want to go there when your false prophet was that way inclined. Worse when they’ve not even reached puberty.

        Like

    6. mr.heathcliff

      pig faced GAY BOI.

      you wrote :
      No need to sexualise spirituality. You’re just betraying yourself as a perverse person whose way dream is a playboy mansion in the sky.

      IT IS TORAH WHICH SAYS THAT JEWS WENT AND PROSTITUTED THIER HEARTS TO DIFFERENT LOVERS. i am employing torah language of gay boi like u. you truly are a spiritual faggot. you are in relationship with three lovers IN ADDITION to human nature with a penis.

      Like

  5. jamesmay2022

    “Torah says don’t touch the leper or you might catch something. ”

    no donkey. law of clean and unclean has to do with physical and metaphysical OBEDIANCE. its not about “catching something” its about RESPECTING THE command god gave.
    so did torah say wear a glove and touch ? its says RESPECT THE laws pertaining to clean and unclean. its a command from god.

    “Jesus healed the leper.”

    by doing something which torah commanded him not to do i.e touch the leper deliberately.

    ” Imagine Him today, healing covid patients and monkeypox sufferers,”

    by DELIBERATELY breaking the command of yhwh. if healing is acheivable without touching , why touch ????

    jesus came as a false teacher and made himself above torah.

    quote:
    Again, as historians we must understand what is going on from an objective historical perspective. The 6th-5th century BCE texts that later became the book of Leviticus, written by Aaronid priests, divides the cosmos, society, and human actions into pure/impure or clean/unclean. Moreover, this whole belief system, this whole cosmic framework as seen by this priestly guild is legitimated, justified, and authenticated as True through the composition of a literary work which has this culture’s deity, Yahweh, declare this whole belief system as the foundation of the cosmos, society, and human interaction. This is powerful stuff. This piece of fiction then informs the world and truly does define what reality is!

    this SYSTEM IS BUILD INTO YHWHS creation act you moron.

    ” and breaking social distancing rules to do so.”

    you assume that it had to do with “catching” something, but it has to do with clean, unclean, holy and holy, sacred space and unsacred space. you are ignorant of this.

    “You would rather He let people suffer than break some rule.”

    you moronic pig, cant u read?

    Like

    1. jamesmay2022

      “If I touch a dead donkey I become unclean. If Jesus touches a dead donkey He could bring it to life!”

      yet your false jebus said this about you :
      https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+16&version=NRSVUE

      they will pick up snakes,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

      he disobeys yhwhs laws pertaining to holy, unholy, sacred, unsacred, clean and unclean. yhwh made the earth like this. no mixing. you never going to see a jew go to where azazel is and sacrificie a goat there. you never going to find in torah a jew grab a pig and sacrifice on yhwhs alter.

      quote:

      Torah says don’t touch the leper or you might catch something. Jesus healed the leper

      so u think they let dead lepers rot on streets? did they not bury dead lepers? it has little to do with catching something and more to do with obedience of the laws set by yhwh pertaining to clean and unclean . jesus DELIBERATELY put his hand out and he EVEN AKNOWLEDGE THE LAW of moses :

      Then Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, as a testimony to them

      Like

      1. mr.heathcliff

        25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and TOSS it to their dogs.” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the CRUMBS that FALL from their MASTER’S table.”

        the woman has clearly interpreted jesus to mean that he did not come for young children whom jesus IDENTIFIED as non-jewish dogs or even non-jews , they are NOT part of the LOST sheep., “but EVEN…..”

        she cleverly creates a LINKAGE :
        It is the woman, upon accepting her identification as an animal, who turns the metaphor around and insists to Jesus that she is still a member of the children’s household and can eat the scraps that fall from their table: ‘she is willing to abase herself in order to secure his cooperation’.11 She has to argue for her worth, if not as an equal to Israelites, at least as someone in need of whatever can be spared from their gifts from God.

        Like

  6. jamesmay2022

    “Torah says don’t touch the leper or you might catch something.”

    torah say yhwh separate world in holy – unholy – clean – unclean system.
    u dont mix clean with unclean.

    “Jesus healed the leper.”

    something achievable by “social distance” recall jesus “social distance” when it came to healing non-jewish dogs who eat crumbs.

    ” Imagine Him today, healing…. monkeypox sufferers,”

    yhwh say that when people stop following the rules from his torah, diseases will befall them. xtian nations love people who like penetrating anuses . even u sound like a faggot when u accused me of “homophobia”

    but my point was that jesus BROKE torah when there was NO NEED TO.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. stewjo004

    @mrrjchamberlain88

    “You would rather He let people suffer than break some rule.”

    Being neutral here, you believe he’s God so the rule is something he made, to begin with.

    And as noted by being God there was no need to touch in order to heal them.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. mr.heathcliff

    quote:

    However banal an observation it may be, it is true that the Christian is deeply attached to Jesus. Because of this fact, it is difficult for the Christian to hear any criticism of Jesus. This is understandable. And so the Christian, when confronted by such criticism, will usually defend Jesus. However, not every defense of Jesus is a legitimate line of defense. This brief comment will address a few lines of defense that cannot legitimately be brought on Jesus’ behalf.
    Because the purpose of this comment is not to indict Jesus, it will not reference specific acts of perceived wrongdoing, except where necessary. The reader should keep in mind that the point is not to say that Jesus was wrong to do or say any particular thing. The goal is limited, only to show that certain defenses cannot be brought in regard to Jesus. Elimination of these defenses does not imply that other defenses cannot be brought or that Jesus is guilty of any particular charge.
    One defense brought when a critic claims that Jesus either said or did something wrong is that Jews employ a double standard. The Christian claims that Moses and David sinned, and the Jews do not object to these men. This defense is untenable, however, because Jesus is supposed to have been perfect. No one claims that Moses or David were perfect men. Therefore, no double standard is employed by accepting these men with their faults. The claim that Jesus was perfect requires greater scrutiny of his character in order to establish that claim as true or false.
    A second defense, that Jesus used harsh criticism of others in accordance with the Jewish culture of that time and place, fails for a similar reason. Jesus is supposed to be ushering in a new culture not conforming to the corrupt culture that he came to fix. The man who said that one who called his brother “Fool!” and said that one should turn the other cheek is supposed to be bringing a higher standard, not conforming to the one he is criticizing. If he showed disrespect to gentiles, no defense can be brought in his favor that other Jews of the day would have been equally harsh. Jesus is supposed to be morally superior to others, not following in their footsteps.
    A third defense undermines any inquiry into the claims of Christianity. The Christian makes the truth claim that Jesus was a morally perfect being. If a flaw in Jesus’ character or an incorrect action or statement is brought to the Christian’s attention, he argues that it could not be incorrect, because Jesus was perfect. The conclusion precedes the evidence. The Christian accidentally invalidates his own assumptions when he does this. If Jesus’ actions, words, and attitudes cannot be examined then the claim to moral perfection can never be substantiated. The undermining of any examination through prejudice means that no conclusion can be reached. The claim of Jesus’ moral perfection never exceeds mere assertion.
    Each of these defenses of Jesus is illegitimate. The first two contradict the Christian teaching that Jesus was morally perfect. By justifying his speech and actions according to the mores of the time, they deny that Jesus exceeded the mores of the time. The third disallows for the testing of Jesus’ moral perfection. Because no examination of the claim can be performed, the claim can never be validated. Each of these defenses undermines the claim of Jesus’ moral superiority. They either contradict or undermine the principle they are meant to defend.

    Like

    1. mr.heathcliff

      “He simply mockingly mimicked the official religious line and rubbished it by delivering her daughter.”

      you must be the dumbest krister to date. read the above .

      SHE delivered her daughter by coming out with a clever response in which she had to accept the status she was given by her oppressor.

      Like

  9. mr.heathcliff

    instead of addressing the sins of his sinful jewish god, he FLOODED this post with 50 plus comments.

    “Oink. It’s illegal in the UK. You’ll have to create an Islamic State first.”

    the jews who followed yhwhjebus guidance from torah picked up stones to stone jeebusyhwh, they didnt even need a toratic state. lol
    i’ll just use my freedoms to kick the shit out of you

    Like

  10. mr.heathcliff

    “Did that happen to you in jail for terror offences? You’re the one bringing this up with clearly an unhealthy interest in it.”

    christian hypocrisy. lives in a country which has legalized gai marriage :

    Legislation to allow same-sex marriage in England and Wales was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in July 2013 and took effect on 13 March 2014. The first same-sex marriages took place on 29 March 2014.

    says he loves two blockes who have intercourse with each other.

    then he says i have unheathly interest?

    i just asked you about a HYPOTHETICAL situation .

    Like

    1. mr.heathcliff

      They will say that he “set her up” but ignore the verses where he said that holy doesnt go to unholy.

      “It is not right to take the childrens bread(holy) and cast it to the dogs(unholy)”

      The woman accepts that he didnt come for her . the woman says that the jews are her masters.

      So far she is agreeing with the view of her abuser ( stockholm syndrome?), then she says that she gets benefit from crumbs near feat of children.

      there was no set up here but a reinforcement of jesus’ racist views about non-jewish people.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s