"Messianics" - what do you mean by sinless?

Apparently their definition is the epitome of cherry picking selectivity for "sinless" since their New Testament depicts Jesus as committing a number of sins. Do not forget that he also admonished apostles to violate two mitzvot ( honor father and mother and timely burial of the dead) when he told one to leave a dead parent unburied to follow him.

There are several other "sins" that the New Testament depicts Jesus as committing, too.. but that one is two sins with one instruction.

AND he was also proven to be a false prophet by prophesizing that those then living would still be alive to witness certain events that have still never happened.

And I can't help but point out the obvious that your target person has tried to move the goalposts to avoid the obvious dilemma of your question and to your pointed detail of:

to a person voluntarily and without purpose deciding to take such a long Shabbat stroll that he allegedly feels himself forced to break the basic laws of Shabbat by picking from standing grain??

Shameful that he has falsely accused those of us who do understand Tanakh from the perspective of its contents and content and has arrogance enough to claim to know what is in God's eyes when he directly insults and lies about Judaism, Jewish history and Tanakh.

He doesn't even seem to recognize the difference between no murder to

do not "kill".

He refers to Jesus as a deity and then tells Jews that we do not understand who God is and that we do not understand what the Tanakh says! He arrogantly implies that he can see through God's eyes, but that when Jews read the Hebrew and understand what all Israel heard, what all Israel declared in response to God's voice and what the unalterable and eternal Torah says in context that we've all been wrong for the past four thousand years.

The replacement theology of the New Testament remains as impotent today to negate God's eternal Torah as it did when the apostate Hellenized and Romanized Jews and Roman citizens created it for the purpose of negating the Jews as a nation people and for assimilating them into the empire. While the Jewish nation was ultimately brought down after great struggle, the Roman church found its' greatest successes in assimilating nation peoples who had no laws prohibiting polytheism, incarnate mangod saviors and human sacrifice. God, however, forbids human sacrifice and calls it an abomination, and Jews believe God did not lie to us when God told us that God does not become a man and no man becomes a god. We also believe the prophets who condemned the notion of humans as incarnate gods, and that's why the New Testament worked hard to try to change the meaning of one lengthy narrative that condemned the notion of any human being divine into a story that's no where in the authors words in their context at all..they turned Isaiahs story about that into a fanciful tale of their Devil they equate to Satan being named Lucifer and him being a fallen angel..when there is no mention of HaSatan at all in that narrative.

Rather than address what you have said and asked directly he evades by accusing you of at least two things I can say with certainty are not applicable to you, even though I don't know you personally, I've read enough of your questions and answers to see that they are false evasions.

His "real issue" is a complete fallacy and deflection combined with weasel wording and a whole laundry list of fallacious debate techniques.EDIT. Since most of the Christians responding have managed to type so much to evade the obvious here, I think I'll take the opportunity to get to the heart of the matter by addressing some of the deflections. How he has the chutzpah to tell the asker who displays a superior knowledge of Tanakh to his misinformation to read Tanakh, is the epitome of arrogance, too. I can't also help but notice that in most of the responses that purport to answer the q, they've evaded with moving the goalposts and bringing up missionizing efforts to convince you that Jesus is a messiah or a god ( and Christians can't even agree on that point if he's God or not ) and bring up misrepresentations of prophecies and other things that actually reveal ignorance of Tanakh. In one instance, however, because I've informed the respondent before, one answer deflects with the narrative brought up about the donkey prophecy not out of ignorance, but willful misrepresentation.

The prophetic vision of the Messiah riding into Jerusalem on a donkey in the New Testament has had the significance and meaning of the prophecy completely ignored/dismissed and shifted to trying to say that because Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey that was evidence he was the messiah. That's *** backwards...pun intended. The importance of the Mosiach riding a donkey into Jerusalem as the prophets explained was illustrating the great humility of the Davidic KING. Jesus was certainly not depicted as humble in their New Testament, but the important thing is he was never a ruler, never an anointed king, therefore by definition, never any kind of messiah, let alone the Davidic messiah whose humble and just rule abiding completely by Torah precept, not altering it or negating it, and whose job remains completely unfulfilled in the world. In the ancient world in many lands only royalty or exclusive military chariot drivers could use horses for transportation, the common man was forbidden from doing so. Any person could ride into town on a donkey and countless people did. Jesus riding into town on a donkey was no more proof of him being an anointed king than it would be if my son rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. IF Jesus had been an anointed king, then his showing his connection to the common man riding the donkey would show how humble he was. This would be the equivalent of President Obama eschewing taking the presidential jet, Air Force One to travel across the country and instead ride a Greyhound bus and enter Washington DC from the bus terminal. The prophecy about the donkey is one that shows us that the future Davidic messiah will be a man of great humility. His method of travel doesn't prove he's the messiah, that's clear in the actual narrative. The New Testament is entirely dependent upon redefining for itself every core concept and every aspect of Torah and Tanakh. The New Testament authors had the dilemma of that prophetic vision of the messiah and the only way to get around it was to make the prophecy center on the donkey, not on the actual contextual meaning..the humility of the KING.

the UNkosher one refers to the commandment not to add to or take away from the mitzvot, yet every thing he tries to do in his misinformation campaigns under questions asked about Judaism and especially those that solicit for the set of books written for the exclusive purpose of converting Jews AWAY from our eternal covenant of Torah in Judaism to their replacement theology centers upon just that, adding to it things God forbids in direct commandments and trying to take away the obligations and purpose of the covenant of Israel. ..to entice believing Jews to worship a man as a god and violate the very core of our covenant. To rely upon human sacrifice for appeasement to a mangod instead of following what God told all Israel at Sinai and the steps of teshuvah outlined in Torah, to impose idolatry upon Passover, a holy observance that marks Israel's rejection of the Pharaoh as a god by spilling the blood of his patron deity upon their doors in defiance to him and in allegiance to God to show the impotence of a false mangod to the real God of Israel.

God is never exclusive to any one people in Torah but obligates Jews to be exclusive to God. Believing Jews will never abandon God to worship a man as a god.

The Christian Bible's depiction of Jews and Judaism is not something that Jews can take serious especially since so many things were fabrications created to instill animosity to Jews, such as the non existent "custom" to "pardon a prisoner for Passover".

The money changers at the Temple were performing a service for those who had traveled great distances, Jew AND Gentile alike, to make sacrifices ( not all "blood" sacrifices, either) and provide charity for the poor at the Temple. The Roman occupiers also believed that any money exchanged there should have profits going to the pagan Roman temples, too, so the idea that the money exchange being corrupt reads more likely as the same kind of sour grapes demonizing deception that they employed in ragging on the Pharisees who were demonized because they refused to permit idolatry to be imposed into Judaism and who stressed literacy of the Torah for ALL classes of people.

ANY answer is also dependent upon telling us that we believe things we do not believe to insult us for his own fallacies, that is also quite revealing as NOT from God in Torah who obligates us not to bear false witness.

The righteous of all nations merit blessing and all humans remain equal before our Creator and have equal and direct access to HaShem. Torah teaches us that even the righteous polytheist who does not believe in God is blessed of God...but it clearly isn't righteous to try to mislead and misrepresent Torah and lead people AWAY from God.

There is no prophecy that the Davidic messiah will be without sin in his life, but that he will follow Torah and thus, live the example of how to enact teshuvah and learn from one's mistakes and not make the same sins and not lead others into sin.

The Davidic messiah will HONOR Torah, not purposely violate it with sin. That's the difference. There is no prophecy that he will be sinless. The greatest prophets are shown sinning at some point, but also shown in repentance and return. God is just and merciful.

Sin is lawlessness & lawlessness is sin.

All unrighteousness is sin.

Yahushua was neither lawless nor unrighteous so therefore He never sinned.

He died for our sin, the righteous for the unrighteous.

Matt 9:12b-13 "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. BUT go learn what this means: I desire mercy & not sacrifice. For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

THis was said to the Pharisees of the day, who complained that Yahushua ate with Tax collectors & sinners. This happened just after He invited Mattiyahu a tax collector to "Follow Me"

I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability. We believe that Christ Jesus is the Son of the Living God, and "the earth is the Lord's and fhe fullness thereoff." Since Christ is the son of G-d He also the heir, so the tree, really belongs to G-d who created all things. The fig tree, there was no fruit found on it. so he cursed the fig tree. It take it as being symbolic of Israel not producing fruit for the Lord G-d as Isreal is His vineyard promised to Abraham and his descendants. So with us christian that if we do not produce fruit in or out of season, the Lord prunes us or chastises us, in order to produce more fruit like being merciful, kindness, helping the poor, etc. metaphor.

As Christ was co-creator with the lord G-d at the beginning, He is Lord of the shabbath, and because His disciples were hungry showed His compassion to them, As David ate the bread on the altar, which was not kosher either.

He didnt steal a horse, He told His disciples to fetch a donkey to tell the man that the Lord had need of it. Why should the Lord G-d His father not be able to put it in the man's heart and mind that his donkey was needed? remember that Christ Jesus and the Father are one. Christ does the work of His Father in heaven. and the riding on a donkey into Jerusalem was another prophesy fullfilled - behold your king riding on a colt"

It is written something about "the zeal for the house of G-d" and christ seeing them cheating the people in the temple drove them out, this is why He said "My Father's house is a house of prayers, but you have made it a den of thieves." The zeal for His father's house" a prophesy fullfilled

He was once again Co-creator with the Lord G-d His father, He was the giver of the laws, human beings did not take mercy and no stealing into consideration when they were applying the laws.

Hope this helps G-d bless

oh and zvi When Christ says " My time has not yet come," He isnt lying. It means He doesnt do our bidding but in His time. As the honour and praise belong to Him. some of your rabbis do talk about the first and second Adam as with the first Adam came death and sin into the world with the second Adam Christ Jesus eternal life as He conquered death and sin for us.

Mama pajamas if you in your heart have already decided that Christ is not the Messiah, then no matter what we tell you wont make a difference. as your heart is hardened against anyone who tries to explain what Christ meant.by telling the people the time of His return. He told them "that of this hour and day, no one knew, but only His father in heaven" the people then like you thought it was that He would return in that same generation but if you examine it closely it is not what He said.

He gave signs, and yes we do look for His return but certain signs had to in line in order for us to know which generation. some people believe it started in the year 1900 with the first world war, then the second world war the beginning of tribulations, then the restoration of Israel, nations rising up against nations, N. vietnam against the S.Vietnam, N.Korea against S Korea, arabs against the Jews, etc. that lawlessness would increase, love would grow exceedingly cold. and the roaring of the seas, Tsusami's etc. and this generation in the 1900 are still alive. Though since we do look for His second coming we also keep the faith, knowing that Christ does not lie as he was send by the lord G-d of Israel, and that His Word is Truth.

Jesus would call that straining out the gnat whilst swallowing the camel. Why do you think the Jewish people went into exile for 2000 years? That must have been for a serious crime in the sight of God, worst many times than what led to the Babylonian captivity. Surprising all those rabbis down history with their great knowledge never noticed that, or considered why.

"Whoever commits sin also commits Lawlessness & sin is Lawlessness."

Y'shua never committed Lawlessness, He always kept the Torah of YHWH.

Therefore He never sinned.

It seems to me that answering what a sinless person is requires context.

Firstly the Christian texts by apostles were written without direct contact with Jesus, but much later, based on material they had gathered from secondary sources. Others have written volumes on this based on MANY inconsistencies in the texts.

In fact the proof to this can be seen in any Catholic church, but only an orthodox Jew would recognise the error as such.

Since the apostles were Hellenised and had little idea about Torah laws, they had written things down which Jesus probably never said or did since there is a good reason to believe he was just an angry, but very orthodox Jew.

The concept of sin for Jesus was undoubtedly more linked to Yom Kippur, and sinat hinam, baseless hatred. In fact even the Proto-Indo-European theory suggests the root for the etymology of sin to be S-N-T, the same as sinat in Ivrit, which is bitter hatred in English (from sana - hate). To Jesus everything else were transgressions of specific mitzvot (commandments) called avairot. However, to someone who doesn't speak Ivrit, sinat would have been the ultimate 'sin' if they asked an orthodox (i.e. not Hellenised) Jew. And so sinat, or sin, entered the European languages as the 'umbrella' term for 'transgression' in meaning.

If this is to be taken as Christians do, than Jesus was indeed a sinner since he certainly hated Romans and Greeks, but, he had nothing to worry about on Yom Kippur as there was certainly a reason for this hate.

On the other hand Christian texts do no specify what 'sin' is. Falling short - hamartia, hamartema, hamartano is a Greek word that in various forms occurs around 250 times and is the most common way in the Christian texts to express the concept of sin. In other words the early promoters of Christianity got a gist of the concept of aveira, but not quite, since nine other Greek words are used to express what amounts to 'sin', in some cases referring to what to the orthodox Jesus would have been specific legal definitions, such as opheilema, i.e. debt. Now, exactly how many Christians have credit cards? Credit is debt, therefore all Christians with credit cards are sinners!

However, given that in Roman Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from Jewish religious law, but not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments it is difficult to understand that logic for Christians to keep a day of rest as Sunday, which they don't anyway according to the laws of Shabbat. In fact one can argue that Jesus himself, had he indeed 'arisen from the dead' on the first day of the Jewish week did so because resurrection would have created a new life, and since creating new things is not allowed on Shabbat, he resurrected on a weekday! To then move Shabbat to the weekday is not only to make it devoid of the intended holiness, but to dishonour the intent of the resurrection!

Sundays didn't exist than anyway because (from Wikipedia) The ancient Romans traditionally used the eight-day nundinal cycle, a market week, but in the time of Augustus, the seven-day week also came into use. The two weeks were used side-by-side until at least the Calendar of 354 and probably later, despite the official adoption of Sunday as a day of rest by Constantine in AD 321. Mithraism kept Sunday holy in honor of Mithras. On 7 March 321, Constantine I, Rome's first Christian Emperor (see Constantine I and Christianity), decreed that Sunday would be observed as the Roman day of rest:

On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost.

Constantine however "enjoined the observance, or rather forbade the public desecration of Sunday, not under the name of Sabbatum or Dies Domini, but under its old astrological and heathen title, Dies Solis,

familiar to all his subjects, so that the law was as applicable to the worshippers of Hercules, Apollo, and Mithras, as to the Christians. There is no reference whatever in his law either to the fourth commandment or to the resurrection of Christ. Besides he expressly exempted the country districts, where paganism still prevailed, from the prohibition of labor, and thus avoided every appearance of injustice."

Since no Christian keeps Shabbat even on the Sunday according to the Jewish laws that Jesus would have kept, one could say that all Christians are siners, or rather 'Suners', if you pardon the pun.

Another point about sinning is that at the end of the Talmudic masekhet Sanhedrin there is a passage that Mashiakh is sitting by the gates of Yerushalaim, tending to a myriad of his wounds. Aside from the question of why he is in a place of a pauper, one answer to the explanation of his wounds is that each is a personal sin. One can no attain a high office without paying a heavy price, and in the case of Mashiakh, i.e. Redeemer, one cannot redeem sins of the People of Israel without the personal experience of the redemption process. In Jewish law this is a specific concept, and is discussed A LOT in the Talmud, but in other, more accounting-type terms. Being crucified in no way teaches one about this process. This is because REDEMPTION is to recover possession or ownership of by payment of a price or service. What was Jesus claiming ownership of?

Jews have something to recover, and some would say have already paid a fairly terrible price for it. What are the Christians claiming ownership of?

The answer is a paltry area of real estate in the Old City of Jerusalem. And so Christians can not hope to see a Christian redeemer, just like the Muslims who never claimed the Land of Israel, never mind the Torah which the Jews have also lost and are yet to claim.

This question is actually deeply theological and you should understand that any discussion on an internet forum hardly does it justice. My advice is to find a local university or theological seminary and message a bunch of professors about this.

In general, my rebuttal to you would be; Can God sin? The answer of course is no because sin is intrinsically related with breaking God's law.

(The Messiah, Jesus, also claimed to be God)

EDIT----------------------

Obviously many of you don't understand this...if Jesus claimed to be God, then he can do whatever he wants and it wouldn't be considered sin. You are all mostly failing to realize that sin is only sin because it breaks God's law. God can do what he wants and it doesn't count is sin because he is himself God. Its a basic logical contradiction.

to be sinless is to be perfect - the OT law notwithstanding

our Saviour was indeed perfect - as perfect God, he perfectly fulfilled the OT law and prophets

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

so you will understand if we believe God's perfect word over an ordinary and imperfect mortal man's

Jhn 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Let me say this first – If you read Tanach - there are many things that God did where you could easily ‘accuse’ Him of not being sinless too! (Atheists do this all the time – genocide, Moses killing 3,000 of his own people, etc.) So you are talking about some things here about Yeshua when in reality atheists would have a much easier time with YOU and God in Tanach.

With that said - Let us learn about bit about the culture there first.

When the fig leaves appear about the end of March, they are accompanied by a crop of small knobs, called taqsh by the Arabs today, a sort of fore-runner of the real figs. These taqsh are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. They drop off before the real fig is formed. But if the leaves appear unaccompanied by taqsh, there will be no figs that year. So it was evident to Jesus, that the absence of the taqsh meant that there would be no figs when the time of figs came. For all its fair foliage, it was a fruitless and a hopeless tree. It was not going to bear fruit.

But Yeshua is making a point by means of prophetic drama, acted-out parable. Tanach examples include Jeremiah, who bought and broke a clay bottle (Jeremiah 19), and Ezekiel, who made and then burned up a model of Jerusalem (Ezekiel 4-5). If you knew Tanakh, you will see that MANY TIMES God uses physical things to illustrate spiritual truth.

Here is another quote from Tanach:

"When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, IT WAS LIKE SEEING THE EARLY FRUIT ON THE FIG TREE..... Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring." Hosea 9:10, 16

God even said He would KILL the children of Israel (literally) for yielding no fruit. (Sadly this happened with the Babylonians.) Killing children vs. killing a tree that was almost dead anyway. So did not God violate “Thou Shalt not kill?” Hmmm…..

Next – the grain..

To understand what is at issue in these accounts, it is helpful to understand something of the rabbinical tradition that lay behind the Sabbath-breaking charges leveled against Jesus and His disciples. The Pharisaic tradition, by Jesus' day, had developed into an array of petty rules having to do with the minutiae of the law. It focused on physical works that had little to do with the spirit and intent of the law—and which, in fact, often violated the law

You see, much of the Halakah is not directly supported by Scripture, but is intended as a "hedge" about the law, to prevent any possibility of its being broken.

Ironically, in an attempt to ensure their law-keeping by putting a "hedge" about the law, the leadership themselves were breaking the law, for God had said: "You shall not ADD to the word which I command you…." (Deuteronomy 4:2).

For instance - If a laying hen laid an egg on the Sabbath, it could not be eaten. But if the hen had been kept for fattening and not laying, the egg could be eaten. It should be noted that, unlike the Pharisees (whose numbers were relatively few), most Jews of Jesus' day paid little attention to these petty rules.

When the Pharisees complained about Jesus' disciples plucking and eating heads of grain on the Sabbath, Jesus (as He often did) was able to point out the contradictions in Pharisaic law. Jesus noted how David and his followers, famished and fleeing for their lives, ate the shewbread when no other food was available, though it was normally ONLY for the priests to eat - according to Moses.

Of course, the Sabbath commandment is in a separate category from the sacrificial ordinances. Yet since Jewish law permitted the feeding and watering of animals on the Sabbath to relieve unnecessary suffering, this principle would LOGICALLY and naturally extend to human beings..

This controversy would never have been possible were it not for the Pharisees' exaggerated views about actions forbidden or allowed on the Sabbath. The priests in the Temple worked on the Sabbath, yet were guiltless.

Somehow, they (and you) missed the point that God instituted the Sabbath not only to give human beings rest from physical labors, but also to give them a time to devote to God by doing His works and serving Him. The disciples' actions were clearly not a breach of the Biblical, but of "Rabbinic Law."

The law does not forbid works of service towards God. Indeed, the very reason we are commanded to cease from our own works on the Sabbath is so we may devote the time to the work of honoring and serving God;

that we may "turn your foot from the Sabbath, from doing YOUR pleasure on My holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy day of the Lord honorable, and shall honor Him, not doing your own ways, nor finding your own pleasure, nor speaking your own words" (Isaiah 58:13). Here it is clear that it is our own works—the course of our everyday business—that we are to avoid on the Sabbath.

OK - I am limited on space so I will reply to just one more accusation:

The Temple cleansing.

Are you that ignorant of who God is? The temple was God’s residence. What if there were some Jewish people in Brooklyn who set up shop in front of a Synagogue (in a gentile area) and had a big megaphone and sold something – and on Yom Kippur no less. Would not the Rabbi(s) inside rush outside and get them away as fast as possible! In Brooklyn, I can see the Lubavacher even having a ROIT no less if they refused to move! And you know what – they would be RIGHT to force them to move!

If you knew God – and how HOLY He was – and how the Temple had been turned into a religious WALMART and the gentiles (who could only go as far as the outer courts where this happened) only saw this as who God really was, a salesman. Would not righteous indignation rise up in you? (Read some of the history of that time period and you will see all the corruption there was. The priesthood was even bought and sold via Rome.)

And God expects indignation for Him to outweigh anything. Moses even told the Levites to KILL those who were making God look bad! (see Exodus 32). (so Moses violated Thou Shalt not kill I guess?.....)

And God Himself was so indignant at my people in History that He even sent people to the temple and yelled at them while they were walking in!

"Then Jeremiah said to all the officials and all the people: “The LORD sent me to prophesy against this house and this city all the things you have heard. Now reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God. Then the LORD will relent and not bring the disaster he has pronounced against you.." (Jeremiah 26.12)

A crazy man at the Temple! Yet this is who God is! He sent Jeremiah to warn Israel. Of course they did not listen and God eventually allowed a gentile nation to destroy the Temple.

So since my space really is waning, let me conclude with this, I could answer all your other questions too, but that is not the real issue. The real issue is your heart. You do not understand the God of Israel and who He is because you do not read all of Tanach. You look at Yeshua from your 21st century mindset and not from God’s eyes. Read Tanach. I state again - there are many things that God did where you could easily ‘accuse’ Him of not being sinless too!

And finally, what will God accuse you of when you meet Him one day? Be well my friend.

He also lied (about going to a wedding).