Board index ‹ Jesus

[Progeny]

If you believe that Jesus died sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice, then I argue that he could never have sinned.

Born the human embodiment of a god incapable of sin, he would have to know right from wrong immediately. He could never disobey his parents from the moment of his birth never tell his mother "no!" like all other infants do, never throw a tantrum nor be fussy and cry for no reason. Probably didn't cry even as he was being delivered in the manger.

After all the restrictions about cleanliness before entering into the inner temple and no blemishes aloud on humans or animals, I argue he could never poop himself. It just makes sense that god would never sit around in his own feces.

But without the ability to fuss when hungry or when he needed to boom boom, how did he communicate his baby needs? I argue that he must have been able to talk. Fully formed thoughts and sentences, just like Adam and Eve, perfectly expressing himself so that he wouldn't starve nor soil the ground that was made holy by the fact that he was sitting on it.

[jimwalton]

I would also agree that "[if] Jesus died sinless in order to be the perfect sacrifice, ... he could never have sinned."

I agree that he could never disobey his parents from the moment of birth.

I disagree that he was never fussy. Being fussy is not a sin, or an act of rebellion or disobedience. A baby's crying has nothing to do with sin. Pooping has nothing to do with sin. He communicated his baby needs like every other baby: crying and fussing.

As a three-year-old, however, he would not have been an unmanageable brat. He wasn't self-centered and bratty for attention. There's no reason to think he wasn't fussy as a baby; there's no reason to think he was bratty as a 3-year-old.

[Progeny]

What about, "2-year-old Jesus, pick up your toys then come eat your veggies"? Could Jesus at any age disobey or refuse his parent's directions?

[jimwalton]

No, Jesus couldn't disobey at any age or refuse his parents' directions. He would have done it. It would have sort of spoiled Joseph and Mary for child #2, don't ya think? "Why can't you be like Jesus, your older brother? He never sassed us!"

It might make the brothers hatefully jealous, don't you think? That maybe the brothers wouldn't believe in him and just despised his later claims, possibly even inciting others to violence against him? Check out Mark 3.21, John 7.5, Matthew 13.53-57, and Luke 4.28-29.

[Progeny]

So if Jesus could never disobey at any age, it was because he fully understood right from wrong from at least the moment of his birth, yes? If so, what about the rest of my argument? Why do you disagree that he could never be fussy?

[jimwalton]

Hm, I thought I did comment on the rest of your argument. I guess it depends what you mean by fussy. All babies are fussy and don't sleep through the night. They fuss when their diapers are messed and their bums are burning. That has nothing to do with sin or disobedience or knowing right from wrong.

If my "fussy" you mean obstinate, rebellious, selfish, etc., then Jesus was never that kind of fussy. It would be an assertion of self against authority, or a lack of obedience, which would be sin. He never threw a tantrum, but he could have cried for no reason. Crying isn't a sin. I'm still trying to figure out why kids cry so much, sometimes even when they're fed and rested and their diapers are changed. I don't get it. Maybe it's just to prepare parents for adolescence???? : )

But it's not sin for a kid to cry. They're not necessarily being bratty or deliberately difficult. Little kids cry, and I don't always know why, but it doesn't have to be sin.

[Cheesy Stick]

> I agree that he could never disobey his parents from the moment of birth.

Would Jesus have a psychologically normal human mind then? There is no human who has never disobeyed their parents.

> As a three-year-old, however, he would not have been an unmanageable brat. He wasn't self-centered and bratty for attention

So Jesus possessed mens rea from birth? I don't believe such a being could be described as human.

[jimwalton]

> Would Jesus have a psychologically normal human mind then? There is no human who has never disobeyed their parents.

Because sin affects us all (disobedience, rebellion, selfishness), we think it's impossible to be human and not be like that. But those traits aren't an intrinsic part of humanity (according to Christian theology), but an invasion of a spiritual condition foreign to our design. So because Jesus didn't disobey his parents, like every other human, doesn't mean he wasn't human, just that he wasn't like every other human. No other human can play basketball like Lebron James either, but that doesn't mean Lebron isn't human. : )

> So Jesus possessed mens rea from birth?

While sin is now a necessary part of the human condition, it is not necessary to the human race as human. Sin is a spiritual import to humanity that created a spiritual condition to which Jesus was neither infected nor susceptible. You inquired about mens rea. Suppose I speculated this: somehow (rhetorically speaking) take away humanity's nature to kill other human beings. Just remove it; you've got the power. Now, are we still human? We sure are. We're far better off than before. You've just removed a plague, not a requirement.

[Progeny]

We are in agreement that Jesus couldn't have been fussy due to the reasons in your 2nd paragraph. But since the angels would swoop down to prevent Jesus from stubbing a toe, I would presume that they would also swoop to prevent holy diaper rash.

Do you suppose baby Jesus ever cried because he was hungry? If he had the full understanding of god, if he would someday go on to starve for 40 days in the wilderness, if he was fully capable of understanding his mission on earth to be crucified at age 33 and not to die of hunger as a baby, then probably not.

Do you think baby Jesus ever cried instead of sleeping through the night? Aside from the lyrics of "Away in a Manger" that I cited, I still argue that he wouldn't have done this either. He was the flesh embodiment of the heavenly god that created the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th. It's odd to imagine that he suddenly forgot how to rest = ).

My point is that if god was incarnated into an infant, and was still god and incapable of certain actions, then it fundamentally limits his actions even from the moment of his birth. And to ponder on this introduces such absurdity that it may call into question the original claim of embodiment.

[jimwalton]

You have a bunch of cultural legends in your reasoning that aren't part of what the Bible teaches. The angels didn't swoop down to prevent Jesus from stubbing a toe. The angels didn't prevent diaper rash. Jesus experienced life just like the rest of us.

Did baby Jesus ever cry because he was hungry? Sure. There's no basis on which to claim that he didn't. Did he ever cry instead of sleeping through the night? Sure. That's not a sin; it's what babies do.

The lyrics of "Away in a Manger"? Pure poetry, very little biblical truth.
> If he had the full understanding of god...if he was fully capable of understanding his mission...

Luke 2.52 tells us that Jesus grew in wisdom and stature. How did he grow?
- physically, of course (Lk. 2.52)
- he grew through experience. (Hebrews 2.17-18; Luke 22.28) He was tempted, rejected, misunderstood, just like anyone else.
- Romans 5.12-19 says he grew in obedience

It says he grew in wisdom. Robertson says this is more than merely knowledge (in the ancient world, wisdom always means more than knowledge). "His physical, intellectual, moral, and spiritual development was perfect for that stage of life."

It also says "and in favor with God and men." He wasn't disobedience, rebellious, bratty fussy, or selfish.

Also remember that Philippians 2.6 says that Jesus "emptied himself" (of divine prerogatives) when he came to earth. It is a matter of great discussion what all got emptied, though certainly not his divinity. But if certain divine rights, privileges, or advantages got set aside, then your "fundamentally limits" and "absurdities" fall short of describing the reality of his incarnation.