J
JimG
Guest
No, it would not. Anger can be justifiable.
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
I think the issue has been fully discussed, and I will leave it at that, with just two final points of Catholic theology:
- Jesus is a human being because he has a human nature.
- Jesus is not a human person. He is a divine person.
N
nmgauss
Guest
To feel anger is justifiable, but being violent because of that anger is not justifiable. What if some of the moneychangers had been seriously injured or killed as a result of Jesus’ tirade? Would He then have impunity because He was Divine? Maybe, since He regarded Himself as God incarnate, He could model himself after Yahweh of the Old Testament.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
I have given you the source twice. Go back and review my posts. Your comment here is mystifying. My contention from the very beginning was that Christ could not sin because he was God, the Second Person of the Trinity. But in your comment here you seem to be saying that it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin. That is exactly what I have been saying. But in an earlier post you seemed to be saying that Christ could sin.
So let me say it again, Christ could not, even in theory, sin - because he was God. And God, even in theory, cannot sin. Yet Christ was fully human ( Dogma ). So, the ability sin is not essential to the definition of human nature ( my personal theory ), it must be some kind of accident ( philosophically speaking in the Thomistic sense ) given to man’s nature by God, occasioned by the necessity for a period of trial for all men - except Christ.
Again, my source was the Catholic Catechism by Fr. Hardon. My edition is paper back.
Regards
Linus2nd
T
Tom_Baum
Guest
Linusthe2nd
You wrote, “Again, my source was the Catholic Catechism by Fr. Hardon. My edition is paper back.”
Wouldn’t this be Fr. Hardon’s take on the Catholic Catechism rather than the Catholic Catechism?
You wrote, “Again, my source was the Catholic Catechism by Fr. Hardon. My edition is paper back.”
Wouldn’t this be Fr. Hardon’s take on the Catholic Catechism rather than the Catholic Catechism?
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
To show displeasure and anger is not a sin if the anger is righteous.
It can hardly be argued that Christ’s anger was not righteous.
It stands to reason that Christ was not going to kill anyone by driving them out of the temple.
These “what-ifs” get us nowhere.
Now if scripture said that Christ had whipped somebody or clobbered somebody senseless, you might have a point. But there is no witness to that effect.
The reason for showing righteous anger is to alert the targets of your anger that they are in big trouble. That seems like a kindness in the end. How much more trouble can you be in than to make a mockery of the house of God?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
No, Fr. Hardon wrote this book himself. It is not the official Catechism of the Catholic Church. He wrote his own Catechism at the request of Pope Paul VI. He was a well known Theologian and writer though he was osrasized by the Jesuits and liberal Catholics in general.
Linus2nd
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Since God and Jesus are one, neither could Jesus sin.
While it is God’s nature not to sin, God creates creatures whose nature allows them to sin.
Thus he created Adam. But it is not how he created Jesus. Jesus could do many thing that Adam could not do, including the miracle of the loaves and the fishes and raising Lazarus from the dead.
Does this make Jesus more of a Superman than a fully human second Adam?
J
Jeanne1184
Guest
I’ve thought about this a great deal. One of the major stumbling blocks contributing to my agnostic years was Jesus tossing the tables at the Temple. I simply couldn’t reconcile that temper with Love/Perfection. I tried to fit ‘righteous anger’ around it, but it didn’t fit.
Then there’s the rebuke of the pharisees and the snarky remarks to the Apostles about how dense they were not to get the underlying meanings of His parables. Then His barely concealed contempt for Mary (mother). And lets not forget the one that just plain bugged me, “Jesus wept.”
This isn’t something I’ve come to a solid understanding about, but my tentative theory is that Jesus was maybe a prodigal-type Son (2nd Adam?) who was born and connected to Heaven early in life. And that He wasn’t Perfected as a Man until His death - at which point He became the ‘Bridge’ between Heaven and Earth for us. On more fanciful days, I picture Him as the NT ‘overwrite’ of the rainbow in the OT. Probably more like the Bifrost Bridge in Norse mythology, though.
Just as Adam spoke directly with God in the Garden of Eden, perhaps Jesus spoke directly with His Father in the NT.
Speaking of Jesus, Paul said, “And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (I Corinthians 15:45).
There are some parts of the Bible that say Jesus is the Holy Spirit - and others that make Him sound as a separate Being.
So, I think it’s possible that Jesus was ‘man’, but a very Connected one but not Perfect on Earth - but certainly under God’s Protection and Guidance. Kinda like we would be with the Indwelt Holy Spirit - we’d still sin (not gravely) but we’d be under Grace.
What a difference a day can make - one day I wouldn’t look at a Bible because of all the inconsistancies and now even the puzzles are a delight to ponder.
Then there’s the rebuke of the pharisees and the snarky remarks to the Apostles about how dense they were not to get the underlying meanings of His parables. Then His barely concealed contempt for Mary (mother). And lets not forget the one that just plain bugged me, “Jesus wept.”
This isn’t something I’ve come to a solid understanding about, but my tentative theory is that Jesus was maybe a prodigal-type Son (2nd Adam?) who was born and connected to Heaven early in life. And that He wasn’t Perfected as a Man until His death - at which point He became the ‘Bridge’ between Heaven and Earth for us. On more fanciful days, I picture Him as the NT ‘overwrite’ of the rainbow in the OT. Probably more like the Bifrost Bridge in Norse mythology, though.
Just as Adam spoke directly with God in the Garden of Eden, perhaps Jesus spoke directly with His Father in the NT.
Speaking of Jesus, Paul said, “And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (I Corinthians 15:45).
There are some parts of the Bible that say Jesus is the Holy Spirit - and others that make Him sound as a separate Being.
So, I think it’s possible that Jesus was ‘man’, but a very Connected one but not Perfect on Earth - but certainly under God’s Protection and Guidance. Kinda like we would be with the Indwelt Holy Spirit - we’d still sin (not gravely) but we’d be under Grace.
What a difference a day can make - one day I wouldn’t look at a Bible because of all the inconsistancies and now even the puzzles are a delight to ponder.
D
DeaconPaulY
Guest
“But in your comment here you seem to be saying that it is Catholic Doctrine that Christ could not sin.” No, I was quoting you at the time. I have try to be charitable about this but I’m not getting through. you have an authoritative way of writing that I find troubling. I have looked at many of your posts and I would urge you to write them in a way that suggests that they are your opinion and not dogma. With respect to the case at hand, while I can’t check your source because I don’t have the book, a book by a learned priest is hardly “Catholic Doctrine” as you so authoritatively asserted. I’ll stick with the Magisterium of the Church for Catholic Doctrine. as stated in the CCC (470), while quoting Gaudium et Spes 22 paragraph 2, “For by His incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every man. He worked with human hands, He thought with a human mind, acted by human choice(23) and loved with a human heart.” that was decided authoritatively in the Third Council of Constantinople: “and so His human will, though deified, is not destroyed”: Denzinger 291 (556). He had a completely 100% human will they gave him the choice of whether or not to sin. Because he was so conformed to the will of the Father, the result was that he did not sin. That’s not opinion - that’s Church teaching. That’s my final post on the matter. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul
N
nmgauss
Guest
Showing anger and being violent because of it are two different concepts. In the Gospel according to John (Douay-Rheims Version 1899):
15 And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.
So “the tables he overthrew” and with “a scourge of little cords he drove them all out of the temple.” This act probably resulted in accidents where people were injured. There is no account given of injuries, but any violent act is prone to causing injuries.
Also, by perpetrating “the money of the changers he poured out”, this is tantamount to robbery, because the money lying on the floor was susceptible to being scooped up by anybody.
How could these actions not be sinful? Jesus reacted violently rather than setting up a preaching station and conducting a peaceful demonstration. The latter is reasonable, but the former is a result of one’s emotions running amok, thus resulting in sin.
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying that “you have turned the temple into a den of thieves”. It is not the commerce that is thievery, but Jesus stealing the goods being sold that is thievery.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Christ was incapable of Sin. This is the thesis I have set fourth and defended in posts 79, 82, 86, 87, 88, 94, 95, 100, 109, 122, and 126. I have defended it as the Ordinary Teaching of the Magisterium, not as Defined Dogma. Everyone here should know that we are to adhere to the Ordinary teaching of the Church and not only to what has been formally Defined. To support my thesis I have shown that since Christ was God, he could not, even in theory, sin. That is the bottom line. To support this reasoning I quoted the opinion of Fr. John Hardon stated in his The Catholic Catechism ( paper back edition, pgs 140 141).
On further research I have found this opinion defended in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott ( English Edition, Tan Books, fourth edition, May 1960 ). The reader may find the thesis defended on pgs 168-169, Christ’s sinlessness and Impeccability. " …Christ’s sensual nature was, therefore, completely subordinate to the direction of reason. The Fifth General Council of Constantinople, rejected the teaching of Theodor of Mopaueestia, that Christ…’ was burdened with the passions of the soul and with the desires of the flesh. ’ "
Ott states that the Fathers saw that Christ’s Hypostatic Union with the Father demanded that He was Impeccable, that " Christ has not merely not actually sinned, but also could not sin. " ( Sent.fidei proxima ). That, indeed, He was Impeccable from conception, that " …From the Hypostatic Union there arises a physical impossibility of sinning and from the Beatific Vision a moral impossibility that is , it involves such a close connection with God in knowledge and love that a turning away from God is actually excluded. "
Ott, for those who do not know, is an acknowledged and universal expert on Catholic Dogma. So while this teaching does not rise to the level of Dogma, it certainly flows from it in the opinion of the most trusted Theologians.
Some have said, " well I have never heard that before, " as though that implies that it could not possibly be Catholic Doctrine. The reason some have not heard of it before is because it simply has not occurred to some. But someone has brought it up here. I must confess that I have thought of it before and came to the conclusion I did before even learning of the support of others on the subject and for the reasons I have given. It just makes sense that Christ, because He was God, could not have sinned. That seems common sense to me. We also have to remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, does not contain all that Catholics must believe. We must adhere to all that the Magisterium teaches by its Ordinary Magesterial Authority, as well as proclaimed Dogma, whether it is in the Catechism or not.
Linus2nd
On further research I have found this opinion defended in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott ( English Edition, Tan Books, fourth edition, May 1960 ). The reader may find the thesis defended on pgs 168-169, Christ’s sinlessness and Impeccability. " …Christ’s sensual nature was, therefore, completely subordinate to the direction of reason. The Fifth General Council of Constantinople, rejected the teaching of Theodor of Mopaueestia, that Christ…’ was burdened with the passions of the soul and with the desires of the flesh. ’ "
Ott states that the Fathers saw that Christ’s Hypostatic Union with the Father demanded that He was Impeccable, that " Christ has not merely not actually sinned, but also could not sin. " ( Sent.fidei proxima ). That, indeed, He was Impeccable from conception, that " …From the Hypostatic Union there arises a physical impossibility of sinning and from the Beatific Vision a moral impossibility that is , it involves such a close connection with God in knowledge and love that a turning away from God is actually excluded. "
Ott, for those who do not know, is an acknowledged and universal expert on Catholic Dogma. So while this teaching does not rise to the level of Dogma, it certainly flows from it in the opinion of the most trusted Theologians.
Some have said, " well I have never heard that before, " as though that implies that it could not possibly be Catholic Doctrine. The reason some have not heard of it before is because it simply has not occurred to some. But someone has brought it up here. I must confess that I have thought of it before and came to the conclusion I did before even learning of the support of others on the subject and for the reasons I have given. It just makes sense that Christ, because He was God, could not have sinned. That seems common sense to me. We also have to remember that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, does not contain all that Catholics must believe. We must adhere to all that the Magisterium teaches by its Ordinary Magesterial Authority, as well as proclaimed Dogma, whether it is in the Catechism or not.
Linus2nd
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You say Jesus must be viewed as a criminal. I suppose so. He certainly turned the tables on the secular humanists!
I’m sure that you, a secular humanist, view that as a criminal act.
N
nmgauss
Guest
If Christ was God, which God was he? If God never changes, then it seems to me that the premise that the God of Abraham and Moses (Yahweh) is the true God and not the one invented by Christians, God could violate some of the Ten Commandments. Indeed, killing was done on a huge scale by Yahweh and he encouraged Joshua to massacre people. It could also be argued that causing crop failures is stealing. Could Yahweh commit a sin?
In logic, the premise is the foundation of the argument, and if the premise is wrong, the conclusion is likely to be wrong. The Neoplatonism adopted by Christians is highly theoretical without much in the way of supporting evidence. Create it in your mind and it becomes the truth. That is the teaching of Plato.
With the strong emphasis on morality, all one has to do is set up a premise that supports one’s morality. Then invent characters whose behavior supports your morality. In the days of Moses, Yahweh was a tyrant who punished the Jews severely for violating his requirements. Today, God (Yahweh) is a sinless character. So by equating Jesus with God, He also becomes sinless. The fact that he commits acts of violence and theft is ignored. As long as He has been created in our minds as being sinless, even as being fully human, acts of violence can be ignored because it is impossible for Jesus to have sinned. This is circular logic.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
You really are going off the deep end here. What act of violence did Jesus commit? Whom did he whip or clobber into submission, or wound unto death?
If you are referring to the temple scene, that is not an act of violence, since we are not told anyone was hurt. Driving people out of the temple is no more violent than escorting thieves out of a jewelry store with a billy club in your hand. Yes, Jesus was policing the temple. He was not a thief in the temple. The money lenders were the thieves.
Get you head on straight and stop telling falsehoods and indicting Jesus for criminal behavior!
N
nmgauss
Guest
First of all, they were money changers, not lenders. Their function was to enable people to give to the Temple in acceptable money. How was that thievery?You really are going off the deep end here. What act of violence did Jesus commit? Whom did he whip or clobber into submission, or wound unto death?
If you are referring to the temple scene, that is not an act of violence, since we are not told anyone was hurt. Driving people out of the temple is no more violent than escorting thieves out of a jewelry store with a billy club in your hand. Yes, Jesus was policing the temple. He was not a thief in the temple. The money lenders were the thieves.
Upsetting tables and scattering money all over for others to grab is thievery. Driving livestock into the streets for others to pick off is thievery.
Driving people out with whips with the likelihood of injuries is sinful. Who gave Jesus the authority to act with force?
I am not saying that Jesus was not justified in acting this way, but he inflicted harm on others, and that is sinful.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Referring to Jesus as a sinner is sinful. Who gave you the authority to call God a sinner?
Is God also a murderer because he causes all of us, sooner or later, to die?
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Well M., I don’t debate with the contentious, the skeptic, or the humanist or agheistic ideologue. Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and when you are serious, come back.
Linus2nd
D
demcg24
Guest
D
demcg24
Guest
This is the highest question of Christianity. Christ was devine. As such he knew everything, even at conception. It is very hard to understand, but he could be tempted, and as a human, would have felt the temtation, but he was devine, so his divinity made it very easy to avoid sin. Does that make him human, yes.
- Status