Jesus Sinned!

In my previous debate with Kohai (Jesus is Messiah http://www.debate.org...), Kohai said in round 4 regarding Isaiah 9:6 that Jesus could not be the one who fulfilled this prophecy for he was not a king. Here are his exact words: "This is obviously talking about a king, thus the phrase, "the authority is upon his shoulder." It is obvious Jesus was and is never a king." Now he argues in this debate that Jesus was a "king," saying, "It is a fact that Jesus fulfilled all these descriptions and prophecies. He became a "king" (over the Christian church)" Before I go any further, let me ask my opponent on a serious note, have you changed your mind regarding weather Jesus was a king? Or are you willing to defend contradictory positions just to win a debate? I don't want to impute bad motives to my opponent, so I'll just have to let him clear up this apparent discrepancy between his positions taken in these two debates regarding Jesus' kingship. If he now admits Jesus became a king, then he can't maintain in the Messiah debate that Jesus can't fulfill Isaiah 9:6 because he never was a king. I therefore invite redears to vote Pro in the debate "Jesus is Messiah." http://www.debate.org... Now, on to his arguments for this debate. 1.Jesus repudiated the laws of kosher food (Mark 7:18-19), but he did not sin. In the Old Testament, God promised that the covenant (the law itself) would be replaced by a new covenant or set of laws. (Jeremiah 3:16; 31:31-34) Hosea 2:11 foretells the removal of the Jewish holydays. Amos 8:4-10 tells us when the entire sabbath and the new moon would cease to be valid celebrations before God, namely, when the sun goes down at noon covering the land in darkness, and the people mourn. This was fulfilled on the day Jesus died, when the sun went dark for hours and the people mourned just as prophesied. (Matt 27:45-46; Luke 23:27, 43) This means that God had always purposed to bring an end to various laws of the Old Testament. Removing a law is not the same thing as breaking the law. Jesus, as God, had the right to remove the dietary laws of the Torah for he himself was Yahweh in the flesh. Notice also that in Mark 7 Jesus is not actually seen eating anything recognized as unclean under the law of Moses, hence, was not breaking the law. Neither were his disciples. Jesus was refuting the "traditions" of men about washing the hands before a meal, which is not a requirement written by Moses and the other prophets. When though, Jesus goes on to declare all foods clean, he isn't breaking the law, but changing the constitution. My question to Con is, doesn't he (as God) have that right? Even in the Old Testament the very laws on diet have already been changed by Yahweh. When he made man in Genesis 1 and 2 only a vegetarian diet was authorized, but he changed this law in Noah's day to allow man to eat meat. (Gen 1:29-30; 2:16; 9:3) 2.Jesus never repudiated the laws of honoring one's parents. The key to understanding Matthew 10:34-36 comes in verse 37. Jesus is saying that we have to love him more than our relatives, which makes sense if we are going put God first and not our sinful relatives. Most people in the world are unbelievers, and when few of them become Christians, these ones end up in division against their relatives because the way of live they live for Christ is completely opposite the way of life of the family. They are criticised by their relatives for their new faith, and at times are called of God to even condemn the unreighteousness of their kin. (1 Pet 4:1-4; Titus 1:9) Telling your parents when they are wrong, even reproving them to show them God's view on matters is not dishonoring them. It would be a real dishonor to see them sinning and not correct them. Loving Jesus more and taking his side over that of relatives casues much division. Jesus never dishonored his mother. At Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus was showing the man that spiritual family is even more important that fleshly relations. Jesus didn't deny Mary was his physical mother, but showed doing God's will is the important thing. Jesus was full grown man and the Messiah as well as God himself; he had no obligation to stop his activity to go out and greet her. Luke 14:26 falls into a category of "extreme language," the language of absoluteness used to express a preference, and may refer to disattachment, indifference, or nonattachment without any feelings of revulsion involved. For example, at Genesis 29:30, 31, "hated" is clearly used synonymously with one who is loved less. If Jacob hated Leah in a literal way, it is unbelievable that he would consent to take her as his wife at all. Secular works also contain the same sort of hyperbolic language. Fitzmeyer's Lukan commentary offers this example from Poimandes 4:6: "If you do not hate your body first, O child, you will not be able to love yourself." suppose that this teaches literal hatred of the physical body? It does not -- it emphasizes the need to give preference to the whole self before the body alone. Literal hate of the body would have us cutting it with razors or hitting it with blunt objects -- an extreme practiced in some Eastern faiths, but not among the Greeks. Another example comes from a war song in the Poetae Lyrici Graeci (see James Denney, "The Word 'Hate' in Lk. 14:26," Expository Times 21, 41-42): it is said that in battle, men "must count his own life his enemy for the honor of Sparta" -- is teaching literal hate of one's own life? No! It's emphasizing the need to make one's life secondary for Sparta's sake. One more from Epictetus 3.3.5: "The good is preferable to every intimate relation." This is just a more abstract version of Luke 14:26! Pro is using one word out of one verse to tell us what Jesus taught while ignoring the many many passages where he preached love for one's family and neighbors. In general, the odd passages should be interpreted in light of the mass amounts of clearer ones. Critics often attack citations in the Bible that use exclusive or hyperbolic language. (i.e., "all", "none", "utterly") Such language may be legitimately construed as rhetorical, whether in modern times ("Everyone likes chocolate ice cream.") or ancient times ("Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.") So "hate" not need be in the absolute sense at Luke 14:26. This kind of talk was common in the Ancient Near East. 3.He violated the traditions the Pharisees of his day added to the Sabbath by picking grain, but there is no law in the Torah which forbids picking grain on this day and I challenge Pro to find it. Jesus broke the man-made rules of the Pharisees, not the laws of God. 4. Pro says "he again violated the Sabbath by healing a man's arm," now please show us where in the Old Testament the law forbid healing on the sabbath! Jesus also gave examples from the Old Testament about David eating the bread that was only for the priests to show the law wasn't supposed to be a burden, and made allowance for emergencies. God was reasonable, not cruel and unbeding. Special circumstances permitted exceptions. Exodus 35:3 forbids the lighting of fires on the sabbath, but Yahweh allowed the priests to light fires for the sabbath burnt offering. (Num 28:9-10; Matthew 12:9-13) Such exceptions are legal, and don't constitute sin, Jesus healing was of this sort and what's more, is nowhere forbidden in the Torah on the sabbath. Nehemiah 10:30-32 and Numbers 15:32-36 don't mention healing as forbidden on the sabbath. 5. As for defying and disobeying the rabbis of the Sanhedrin, and repudiating their authority, the Torah teaches defiance to any man who is teaching or living conntrary to the word of God, which is exactly what those rabbis were doing. Yahweh had the right to reprove them even with stern words, and since Jesus is Yahweh, he has that right according to the Torah. I'm out of space and will answer the rest of Pro's argument next round.