Was God a transgressor?

[Obiwan]

Jesus never transgressed the law, and was able to attain divine status. That would lead me to think that God the Father can have a working knowledge of good and evil without ever having transgressed.

Be careful how you word things.... Christ DID "transgress" because he was mortal. But, he did not sin, he overcame it, did not give into it. Remember as LDS we make a difference between sin and transgression. The word transgression is often used to describe sin, but transgression isn't always sin. For example we consider the Fall of Adam/Eve as a transgression, but not sin.

Just as one example of my point, Christ himself said there are none good but the Father. Thus, Christ wasn't "perfect" in the sense that he made no error, but was perfect in that he didn't sin.

[Jason]

Be careful how you word things.... Christ DID "transgress" because he was mortal. But, he did not sin, he overcame it, did not give into it.

I suppose you have a reference for the idea that Jesus ever transgressed the law?

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

All error is not transgression.

Say I make an unintentional error in math. Of course it is not a sin, by definition. It is also not a transgression. It is just an error.

[Zakuska]

I suppose you have a reference for the idea that Jesus ever transgressed the law?

He put a sword in Peters hand and allowed him to attack the Priests servant.

[Jason]

He put a sword in Peters hand and allowed him to attack the Priests servant.

If it was breaking the law (which is open to question since it occurred during an illegal night-time arrest), then that would be Peter breaking the law, not Jesus.

[Zakuska]

If it was breaking the law (which is open to question since it occurred during an illegal night-time arrest), then that would be Peter breaking the law, not Jesus.

Christ would have been an accessory since he told his servant to buy the sword and to carry it.

[Jason]

Christ would have been an accessory since he told his servant to buy the sword and to carry it.

Is that how the Jewish law of the day would have viewed the situation?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

However, the question was not whether he ever sinned.

The question was whether he ever transgressed.

There's an enormous difference between the two.

At least as Mormons define it.

[Zakuska]

Is that how the Jewish law of the day would have viewed the situation?

Not sure what the Jewish Law was... however... when the cousin of the man who Peter attack recognized him he 'vehemently denied it'. Why was Peter so affraid of getting ratted out?

[Jason]

Not sure what the Jewish Law was... however... when the cousin of the man who Peter attack recognized him he 'vehemently denied it'. Why was Peter so affraid of getting ratted out?

That would be relevent to an argument that Peter broke the law, not Jesus.

I doubt Peter's denial had anything to do with having assaulted a guard in the garden, however. There wasn't any evidence of the assault, after all. The guard had been healed.

[notHagoth7]

Christ would have been an accessory since he told his servant to buy the sword and to carry it.

How so? When He was the rightful king...

[Jason]

Since whether Jesus broke the law by telling Peter to carry a sword is obviously debatable, do you have any more clear-cut examples or references to Jesus having transgressed the law?

[daz2]

Actually whether disobedience is sin or transgression depends on who the disobedient one is. When we (or someone we like) disobey, it is "transgression"; when others (or someone we dislike) disobey it is "sin".

[Zakuska]

That would be relevent to an argument that Peter broke the law, not Jesus.

I doubt Peter's denial had anything to do with having assaulted a guard in the garden, however. There wasn't any evidence of the assault, after all. The guard had been healed.

Do you think when Christ healed him that he cleaned up all the blood too?

John 18

26 One of the servants of the high priest, being his kinsman whose ear Peter cut off, saith, Did not I see thee in the garden with him?

27 Peter then denied again: and immediately the **** crew.

Peter denied because he didn't want to be turned in when some one recognized him as being in the Garden when the assualt had taken place.

[Zakuska]

Since whether Jesus broke the law by telling Peter to carry a sword is obviously debatable, do you have any more clear-cut examples or references to Jesus having transgressed the law?

Thats the best one because thats when Christ said the prophecy of transgression was fullfilled.

Luke 22

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

[Jason]

Sorry, I'm still not seeing it as clear-cut (). I think it more likely that Peter was worried about being charged as a seditionist, or some other crime because of his past association with Jesus rather than the garden assault specifically. And, as I said, the guard wasn't actually injured anymore, blood or no.

And Jesus saying he would be numbered among the transgressors doesn't say to me that he actually was a transgressor.

[Zakuska]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition

Peters assualt was sedition. Christ armed his men.

Sedition is a term of law which refers to overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interests of sedition.

The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist, in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).

Thats comparable to Joseph Smith calling out the Legion. Intresting Enough, Joseph Smith and Jesus where both charged with treason against the established order.

[Jason]

Sorry, still not buying it.

If this is the best reference that Jesus actually was a transgressor then I think the argument fails.

[Zakuska]

You forget what the book of acts says. (I beleive its in the book of acts) It talks about other people who had did the same thing. Lead armed inserections against the established order. Ill see if I can find it.

[notHagoth7]

Intresting Enough, Joseph Smith and Jesus where both charged with treason against the established order.

Yep. As was Jeremiah. As was Daniel. etc.

[Zakuska]

Yes here it is...

Acts 5

34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

35 And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

36 For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought.

37 After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

38 And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

40 And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten them, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

Christ did the same thing... he told his men to buy Swords... Peter assulted some one with it. There for... Christ would have been charged with seddition. He transgressed the law by arming his men. Apparently the law caught up with Peter too.

[Jason]

Christ did the same thing... he told his men to buy Swords... Peter assulted some one with it. There for... Christ would have been charged with seddition. He transgressed the law by arming his men. Apparently the law caught up with Peter too.

Guilty until proven innocent? Does being charged with a crime mean that someone is actually a transgressor?

[Zakuska]

Guilty until proven innocent? Does being charged with a crime mean that someone is actually a transgressor?

His own words convict him.

Luke 22

36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

[Jason]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Are you arguing that it was against Jewish law to encourage others to own swords?

The scripture seems to me to say that the swords will be needed by the apostles for self-defense after Jesus is gone.

Elder Talmage's take on the incident, from Jesus the Christ:

The apostles had to be prepared to meet a new order of things, new

conditions and new exigencies; persecution awaited them, and they were soon to

be bereft of the Master's sustaining presence. Jesus asked of them: "When I

sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye anything? And they

said, Nothing. Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him

take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his

garment, and buy one. For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet

be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the

things concerning me have an end." The Lord was soon to be numbered among the

transgressors, as had been foreseen; and His disciples would be regarded as

the devotees of an executed criminal. In the mention of purse, scrip, shoes,

and sword, Some of the brethren caught at the literal meaning, and said,

"Lord, behold, here are two swords." Jesus answered with curt finality, "It is

enough," or as we might say, "Enough of this." He had not intimated any

immediate need of weapons, and most assuredly not for His own defense. Again

they had failed to fathom His meaning; but experience would later teach them.

[Zakuska]

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. Are you arguing that it was against Jewish law to encourage others to own swords?

The scripture seems to me to say that the swords will be needed by the apostles for self-defense after Jesus is gone.

Elder Talmage's take on the incident, from Jesus the Christ:

What ever happend to... turn the other Cheek... bless them that dispitfully use you and abuse... so on and so forth?

It was against the law... we see that by Peter being brought in for it and others being mentiomned of doing the same thing.