The Top Most Abused Bible Verses (Part One)

If "All Have Sinned", Does That Include Jesus?

There’s nothing wrong with you.

Yes, I realize no one is perfect, we have our good days and bad days, and we’re all a little neurotic here and there. Lemony Snicket said it well: “People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.”

When I say “there’s nothing wrong with you” what I mean is that at the most fundamental level of what you are, you’re not depraved. Despite the pointing finger of religious condemnation, you are not a sinner. You were not born bad.

One of the greatest lies propagated by religion upon humankind is that being human is a condition to overcome, disease to be cured, blight to be forgiven, and the reason for estrangement from God. Contrary to the pop-Christian “gospel”, you don’t need saved from yourself.

Today I am beginning a new series: “The Top Most Abused Bible Verses”. The first Bible verse is one commonly used to argue the so-called doctrine of “total depravity”, which states that each of us are born with a fallen nature. For 2,000 years religion has been rubbing people’s noses in the false idea of their original badness. Perhaps no other biblical teaching has inflicted more psychological harm upon humankind.

The B-I-B-L-E

With over 5 billion copies sold and distributed, the Bible takes the top spot as the most read and widely distributed book in the world. My academic background is in theology. I studied the Bible in its original languages, learned from some of the world’s leading theological scholars, and for many years taught the Scriptures. Despite all this, I discovered after leaving religion that my interpretation of the Bible was subjective. During my deconstruction process, the discovery of Modern Biblical Criticism (and Criticism of the Bible) were both disturbing and enlightening.

People will often say, “My authority is the Bible.” It would be more accurate for them to say, “My authority is what they told me at church the Bible means.” That’s not meant to be snarky. It’s just the reality of it. The same could have been said of me: my authority was what they taught me in seminary the Bible meant.

There has never been a singular or unified interpretation of the Bible. The question is always how one should interpret it, for which there are many answers depending on who you ask. Even before a single verse in the Bible is read, there is the matter of what interpretive approach (hermeneutic) should be used, and how it is properly applied. An obvious example would be whether Old Testament stories such as creation, the Fall, Noah’s ark and Jonah and the whale, should be taken literally or figuratively.

There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations globally, all following their own understandings of the Bible. As a seminary student I was confident in my interpretations of the Bible under the illusion of doing “exegesis”, which is allegedly rooting the correct meaning out of a Bible verse through an objective analysis of the text. It wasn’t until later upon realizing that I was mostly doing “eisegesis”, which is projecting bias and presuppositions into the text.

Perhaps the most fundamental presupposition people bring to the Bible is their idea of what the Bible even is or meant to be. Some of those varying views include that the Bible is…

1. the revelation of the one true God

2. the theological foundation for the doctrines of the Christian faith

3. the inerrant, infallible and sole message of God to humankind

4. God’s blueprint for daily living

5. the foundation for morality and ethics

6. authoritative answers to life’s existential questions

7. a literary anthology of varied literary genres, touching upon many themes related to religion, philosophy, human nature and ethics

8. a bunch of made-up hogwash, manufactured by religious men to control people

Most orthodox Christians would be agreeable to the first six ideas about the Bible, while #7 would be embraced by progressive or liberal Christians, and #8 by the hardcore unbelieving skeptic.

I previously wrote an extensive article on the Bible, Which Bible Should You Read? How religion messed up the significance of the Bible. I won’t repeat here what was written there. I identified fourteen factors that influence what one comes up with from the Bible.

Throughout history there have been varying views on what the Bible teaches, even the most fundamental doctrines associated with the Christian faith. The idea that there is an enduring core theology that is accepted as “Christian” is not true. What is “biblical Christianity” to one person is not to another. In previous Substack articles, I have covered many different versions of “biblical Christianity” ranging from Christian Theism to Christian Atheism.

My appreciation for the Bible has exponentially grown in my post-religion life, but for completely different reasons than my former Christian ones. People are putting the pieces together differently in the construction of their non-religious spirituality. You can believe in God but not be a theist, ascribe significance to Jesus but not be a Christian, appreciate the Bible but not believe it is the only or absolute truth. I write about these dynamics in my article, The Either/Or Problem with God.

It is a dark stain upon the Christian religion that the Bible has been used to rationalize the world’s worst horrors, including:

• slavery

• white supremacy

• genocide

• war

• religious intolerance

• victimization of the gay community

• oppression of women

• opposition to scientific progress

… to name a few.

On a more personal level, a significant aspect of my professional work over the last three decades has been counseling people in recovering from toxic religious indoctrination from the misteaching of the Bible.

I don’t necessarily think that re-interpreting or re-framing the Bible is the best pathway forward for people who have left religion and working their deconstruction process. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer to what one does with the Bible after leaving Christianity. In general I find three camps:

1. The Bible Reclamation Camp

   This camp asserts that the Bible doesn’t really mean what is commonly taught, and we should reinterpret it to mean something better.

2. The Bible Concession Camp

   This camp concedes that the Bible means what is commonly believed and we should accept the Bible as ancient literature, take from it what we will, and stop trying to facelift it.

3. The Bible Transfiguration Camp

   The Bible contains profound and liberating truths that require a person to explore deeper than the common understandings that have been handed down through the institution of the Church.

Many people who are damaged by toxic religious indoctrination may never want to crack open a Bible again. In my view, it’s a personal choice. Constructing a meaningful spirituality may or may not include the Bible. This is why I previously published the four-part series: unChristian: Deconstruction For the Rest of Us.

The ultimate authority of one’s life is not the Bible or any sacred writing. The highest truth is not confined between the covers of a book. It is not something written by men and frozen in time. It is not from a source outside oneself. One’s ultimate authority is the voice of truth within one’s own innermost being.

I titled this series, “The Top Most Abused Bible Verses”. This is a subjective list. There are countless Bible verses that have been taught in ways that deeply damage people. Whose to say what the “top” abused verses should be? It depends on who you are. For example, Bible verses that are mistaught to oppress women would likely be near the top of a woman’s list, while Bible verses weaponized to condemn the LGBTQ+ community would especially be on their list. For this series, I chose ten verses that have commonly come up in my deconstruction work with others.

I can’t possibly go into every detail for each of the Bible verses I am covering in this series. My plan is to summarize how, in my view, each of these verses are mistaught, and then offer an alternative way of understanding them.

Someone might ask: “But Jim, how do you know your understanding or interpretation is the correct one?” Great question! In my second book, Wide Open Spaces, I share my creation of the “freedom filter” in my post-religion life to determine the veracity of anything I heard or read relating to God. Jesus said that truth sets you free. If I hear or read something that induces fear, oppression or shame, I reject it. But if it evokes in me peace, liberation or well-being, I offer a posture of curiosity and openness toward it. Walt Whitman wrote, “Re-examine all you have been told. Dismiss what insults your soul.”

I’m not saying that my “freedom filter” is a superior hermeneutic for interpreting the Bible. Think of the upcoming alternative interpretations as temporary expedients - legitimate non-traditional Bible interpretations to help a person loosen themselves from toxic religious mindsets.

The Top Most Abused Bible Versus

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23

In my view, the notion of original sin is an invention of the church. It asserts that all human beings are born with a sin nature as a result of Adam and Eve’s rebellion against God in Eden. According to the doctrine, all humankind is afflicted with a sin-disease, which is genetically transmitted through human reproduction.

To believe in the traditional doctrine of original sin you would have to uphold the following:

• That the Bible’s creation story is to be taken literally – that there was an actual Adam and Eve who were the first human beings, and that the family tree of all humankind is traced back to them.

• That Adam and Eve’s act of fruit-eating disobedience against God resulted in a sin-disease that can be propagated through human conception and birth.

• The proper punishment for the sin-disease is eternal conscious torment in Hell, unless one properly understands and accepts substitutionary atonement through the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

The doctrine of original sin poses a litany of problems that even Harry Houdini couldn’t escape. How could Jesus be God, as Christianity claimed, if he was born a human? Hence the doctrine of the virgin birth – the belief that Mary was not impregnated through the sperm of Joseph, which would have been contaminated by the sinful condition, but impregnated directly by God himself.

The Catholic Church takes it a step further with the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, which asserts that Mary was not conceived by normal biological means, but God acted upon her soul, keeping her “immaculate,” at the time of her own conception. No matter how much theological Duct tape you use to try and make it work, in my view the doctrine of original sin just doesn’t add up for a reasonably thinking person.

Eve The Hero

I think we got the whole Eve and fall-of-humankind story all wrong.

In the Genesis story, commonly referred to as “the Fall,” I see it much differently from the traditional Christian interpretation. Firstly, I believe the story was meant to be taken figuratively, not literally.

The story contains several themes worth considering.

In my view, Eve is the daring and courageous one. God said don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She did it anyway. Why?

Let’s digress momentarily to consider the context here.

If the Bible was a carefully crafted and plotted propagandist document to perpetuate Theism, it failed miserably. The picture it presents of God is one who is complicated, contradictory, capricious, and at times, evil.

Why would God put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden, knowing full well that Adam and Eve would do the very thing he told them not to? Put a bunch of people in a room with two windows and say to them, whatever you do just don't look through the window on the right. What do you think they will all do? They will do exactly that.

Why would God risk the well-being of his entire created order by telling Adam and Eve not to do something he knew they would? The way the story is framed, regardless of the role of the serpent, God is ultimately responsible and the one to blame for "the Fall." You can't set a building on fire and deny culpability when it burns to the ground.

In my mind, Eve is the hero in the story. Historian, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich wrote, “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Enter Eve. God said don’t eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. She did. The world often makes its greatest advances by disobedient people who break the rules. Eve was the was first rule-breaker, and we should honor her for this.

In the story, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit. However, they never promise they won't. Should they have been obedient?

How obedient do you want your children to be? Or course you want them to be learn and operate with prudence and integrity. However, you also want them to be disobedient enough to go into the world and act with conviction and even defiance. Some rules are meant to be and should be broken.

Oscar Wilde wrote, "Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.”

Eve’s decision made complete sense. According to the text, Eve chose to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree because:

• It was necessary for sustenance - it was “good for food”

• It resonated with her aesthetic sensibilities - it was “pleasing to the eye”

• It would contribute to her growth and maturity - “desirable for gaining wisdom”

If I came to you and said, “I want to offer you something - it’s necessary to live, pleasing and satisfying, and will transform your entire way of being in the world. Are you interested?” My guess is that you would say, “Yes!” In addition to all that, Eve didn't selfishlessly claim it all for herself. She shared the fruit with her partner, Adam.

Meanwhile, notice that even though Adam didn’t have the moxie to break the rules and risk taking the fruit himself, he had no problem gladly accepting it from Eve. And yet, Adam blames both God and Eve for the whole ordeal. Adam says, “The woman YOU PUT HERE with me—SHE gave me some fruit from the tree...” Adam plays the victim card and throws his partner under the bus to save his ass, which is quite unbecoming and disgracing.

Eve also played the blame-game by telling God, “The devil (serpent) made me do it.” She has a point though; that serpent was quite crafty.

This is the only thing I wish Eve had done differently. I would have much preferred she have said to God:

“Okay, God. Here's the deal. Yes, I did it. I know you said not to eat from that tree. You also gave me a brain to use and I used it. I never promised I wouldn't. I was feeling it. So, I went for it. I put on my big-girl panties and ate the fruit. I didn't mean any disrespect to you. I was doing me. Actions have consequences. I get that now. Lesson learned.”

Taking this account metaphorically, I think the idea was to construct a story that sets up the complexities of properly executing our freedom and agency in the world. God’s edict not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is depicted as a safeguard to protect Adam and Eve from shouldering too heavy a burden of understanding the world and life in its most transparent terms. In other words, to know the world, particularly in its most frightening potentialities and possibilities, in which only God was capable of seeing. After eating the fruit we are told their eyes were opened, which means God initially had put blinders on them so they were not capable of seeing the whole deal.

The knowledge of good and evil can be seen in the story in two ways. On the one hand, you might say that ignorance is bliss. Not having this knowledge was a feature of the paradise and harmony that was depicted prior to eating the forbidden fruit/knowledge. On the other hand, Eve saw that eating the fruit would be “:gaining wisdom.” In other words, it’s best to know what the reality truly is so you know how to respond accordingly. In this sense, it should be noted that Eve was the one who chose to gain the knowledge of what the deal of existence actually was, through and through.

The story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit is not about the coming of sin into the world, but the emergence of self-consciousness, and confronting the realities of the human situation.

One worthwhile theme to gain from this story is that all knowledge carries with it a certain responsibility. You can hardly be held responsible for what you don't know, but you are responsible for what you do know, including the realization that there is more to know.

Eve took all the risks in this story. It cost her. She lost something, she gained something. It’s not easy living responsibly with the things we know. What we learn from Eve is that any paradise based upon ignorance or half the truth, is fool’s gold.

When Jesus said the “kingdom of God is at hand,” he was indicating that the “paradise” we associate with joy, peace and harmony can be experienced and manifested in a world where frightening potentialities and possibilities exist and are real. You might even say that the entire mission of Jesus was to make this point and live its truth.

Eve’s disobedience is not what corrupted the human species, but is an invitation and challenge to lean into the totality of the lived human experience... even if it requires defiance against the voices that tell us what we can or cannot do.

Are We Sinners?

One of the most quoted New Testament verses for solidifying the human original sin problem is Romans 3:23, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” The context of this verse is a discussion about reconciling the imperfections of human beings with the concept of a perfect God. The underlying issue at hand is whether it’s possible for flawed people to be in relationship with a flawless deity - an epic beauty and the beast dilemma.

What makes an article like this difficult is that to truly explicate any interpretation of a Bible verse, you have to treat it like a Russian nesting doll, which creates something of an infinite regress.

Any singular Bible verse (for example, Romans 3:23) is nested in an immediate literary context of a paragraph (Romans 3:21-26)… nested within a chapter (Romans 3)… nested within a book (Book of Romans)… nested within the author’s profile (Apostle Paul’s worldview, cultural and religious assumptions, personal background and life experience)… nested within a complete literary work (the Bible)… nested within the editing and canonization process (multiple manuscripts and multiple biblical canons), and so on.

The reason why this matters is that if your interpretation of any particular Bible verse is nested within a faulty theological framework, then this will obviously be problematic. For example, if your starting point is that all Dallas Cowboys fans are arrogant and obnoxious, this will likely influence your attitude toward someone wearing a Cowboys jersey or baseball hat. Likewise, if your starting point is that classic Christian theism is the proper view of God, then every Bible verse will be understood through this lens. Aristotle wrote, “The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.”

The traditional Christian interpretation of Romans 3:23 is understood within classic Christian theism or separation theology, which states human beings are naturally separate and estranged from God. I refute the legitimacy of this framework, and believe that Jesus never taught this. The application of Romans 3:23 in this context teaches that we must accept our innate depravity, throw ourselves upon the mercy of God, and accept the blood sacrifice of Jesus for the atonement of our sins, or otherwise remain separated from God, and condemned in the afterlife to eternal conscious torment in Hell.

However, another option is based in understanding Jesus as one who exposed the religious lie of separation from ultimate reality, defrocked the judging and condemning “God” of religion, and invited all humankind into the journey of fully realizing our highest potentialities and possibilities in being both divine and human.

The word “sin” means to “miss the goal”, which isn’t an indictment but an admonition - there are always new vistas of becoming to realize. Jesus died at an early age, presumably 33, which means he did not have the benefit of a long life to actualize the fullness of what he was as an embodiment of ultimate reality or the ground of all being.

A Word About Jesus

It’s important to put Jesus in context since there is so little we really know about him. In a previous article, What if Jesus went undercover boss at Joel Osteen's Church? I share an extensive reading list for exploring the historicity of the person, Jesus.

A few thoughts about the Jesus story in the gospels:

1. The gospels were written 70-90 years after the death of Jesus, and based upon oral traditions passed along over that period. The gospel writers used these oral traditions as the foundation of their texts. It’s likely they used the most common oral traditions as a starting point.

2. There is scholarly debate about whether the gospel writers knew Jesus personally during his lifetime or the nature of their knowledge or relationship with Jesus. For example, there is debate if the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Matthew named as a disciple of Jesus. Overall, while it’s possible that some gospel writers had direct contact with Jesus, the exact nature of their relationship with him remains a subject of debate.

3. The gospel writers were editors. They had to sift through a mountain of oral traditions and decide which stories to use and which ones to leave out. Those editing decisions could have made these decisions for a variety of reasons. For example, the gospel writers chose a limited number of Jesus stories and teachings so as to make the work manageable and of reasonable length.

4. The gospel writers were biased. They may have chosen stories and teachings for their gospels that they felt most honored the legend, message and significance of Jesus as they understood it, and conversely left out stories they felt were unbecoming to their idea of Jesus or teachings they didn’t understand. For example, if the gospel writers believed Jesus was the one and only God in the flesh, they would have edited and rewrote oral traditions accordingly. The gospels are barely a Cliff Notes version of the life of Jesus, and left out the childhood, teen and young adult years of Jesus.

5. It makes sense that the gospel writers would have not included the following possible stories in their work, either because they were not conveyed in the oral traditions or because the gospel writers felt these stories were not favorable to the story of Jesus they wanted to tell, such as:

• Jesus’ romantic interests or intimate relationships

• Jesus taking part in everyday life, which includes parties and drinking a too much wine

• Jesus becoming unhinged, pissed, or doing and saying things that would have raised eyebrows

• Jesus’ early years and all the things a normal teenager at that time/place would think, do, say or act

• Jesus’ twisted humor and bad language

Why we fault the gospel writers for this, I don’t understand. If I told the Cliff Notes version of your story to honor your memory, I wouldn’t include your two nightmare divorces, that trip to Vegas, or that time you went off on the cashier at Target. Right?

For me, if Jesus had intimate relationships, got hammered at a wedding party, or cussed out a disciple for being stupid, I wouldn’t care. None of that would impact how or why I find meaning in the legend and story written about Jesus.

Though I can understand why, It’s odd to me that Jesus claimed to be divine and human, but the gospel writers left out the human part. It could simply be that they couldn’t figure out how to properly reconcile and integrate the two, and were conflicted about it. That’s fair, right? 2,000 years we are still trying to figure it out. Unfortunately ever since, we have had the idea that being human is a bad, which basically dominated Paul’s thinking about everything.

I hold space for Jesus in my heart, not because he was more than human but because he sparked a tuneless conversation about what it could mean to be human. Of course Jesus was divine, but in the same way that we all are being rooted in the same, one and only ground of being. The real challenge Jesus left the world is not about why we can’t be as divine as he is, because we are. The real question is, why we can’t be as human as he was.

If We “All” Sinned, Does That Include Jesus?

In his New Testament gospel, Luke writes about Jesus, “Jesus advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” Wait. What? Jesus “advanced”??? I thought, according to traditional Christianity, Jesus popped out of the womb as the perfect, sinless, complete Son of God.

Apparently according to Luke, even Jesus had to grow into being Jesus. We know virtually nothing about the life of Jesus before he reached his thirties. Prior to him becoming a person of public interest, the Gospel of Luke tells us that Jesus was working out what it meant to be both divine and human. It doesn’t appear it all happened at once but was a process whereby Jesus learned to ground himself in the truth of what he was.

E.E. Cummings wrote, “It takes courage to grow up and become who you really are.” Consider the possibility that Jesus should be regarded as one who courageously leaned into the dare of becoming. Doing so cost him everything, including his life but for this he will be forever esteemed in our collective human consciousness. Jesus is the archetypal figure of cosmic evolution, representing the possibilities of what you, me, we, and the universe can become. Jesus’ main message was, “The kingdom of God is here - take it, live it, be it… now!” I unpack this idea in my article, Seeing is Believing.

Carl Jung, founder of analytical psychology sees Jesus Christ as the archetype of the fully developed self. Jung wrote, “Christ exemplifies the archetype of the self.” Even if a corrupt version of Christianity sends you packing, you will, like Friedrich Nietzsche’s Übermensch, construct another image of self-actualization in Jesus’ place.

Jesus was condemned and executed as a heretic for claiming that he and God shared the same fundamental nature. Yet we learn from Jesus that being a human embodiment of ultimate reality is a process. All things share the same fundamental ground of all being, but what it means to uniquely be a human expression of it is developmental. Realizing or actualizing our highest nature is only possible because it is there to realized, but it doesn’t actually become real in human form until we actually live it.

I put these ideas to the test in a one-year personal experiment, which I wrote about in my third book, Being Jesus in Nashville: Finding the Courage to Live Your Life (Whoever and Wherever You Are). The result was being publicly accused of heresy and the prompt cancellation of my book contract with a major Christian publisher. The book was originally published here, but recently re-published with new content here.

Luke’s verse about Jesus seems to be identifying a couple of ways in which Jesus developed as a person and presented it in two pairings:

• growing in wisdom (favor with God)

• growing in stature (favor with man)

I spent some time contemplating what this might have meant.

Jesus advanced in wisdom. This suggests that Jesus’ understanding expanded and deepened as he encountered and experienced life. Perhaps this “wisdom” is related to “favor with God” because it was a wisdom born of Jesus’ growing awareness of his divine nature and relationship to God. It seemed to me that John and Luke were both right in that Jesus’ divine identity was fully intact at birth (John), and Jesus went through a learning process to fully understand and embrace and live his identity as divine and human (Luke).

The second category of Jesus’ growth was centered on his relationship with others. Jesus advanced in stature. As Jesus was becoming more aware of himself, it was affecting his understanding, encounters, interactions, and relationships with people. Even as Jesus was growing in favor among the common folk of his day (in favor with man), he was simultaneously falling out of favor with the religious establishment. The accounts of Jesus’ adult life portray him as a person who maintained a sense of inner peace despite his circumstances, and as someone who related to others—including his enemies—with insight, empathy, compassion, and love.

One thing seems certain - Jesus grew. And if Jesus grew, maybe we do too. Perhaps these two stories of Jesus applied to everyone. Though we are born into this world one with God (or ultimate reality or ground of all being), it takes time, courage and experience to put it all together. Life is a universal living process, which includes ourselves.

The word “sin” means to miss the mark or fall short. What mark? Fall short of what? Consider the possibility that “sin” is falling short or missing the mark of realizing, accepting, being and giving expression to the truth and reality of what we fundamentally are.

Christians often say, “God hates sin.” But perhaps this could mean that God grieves anything in our lives that prevents us from knowing and experiencing our true nature. God hates anything that prevents us from embracing the freedom, goodness, beauty, peace and freedom intended for all humankind and found within ourselves. I love my daughter Jessica. I passionately desire her to know love, goodness, beauty, peace, freedom, wholeness and well-being. It’s heartbreaking to see any way she is not experiencing these, and I want to remove any obstacle in her life that would be preventing it.

Someone might say, “But Jim, there is so much evil and suffering in the world. Doesn’t that prove we are in fact sinners?”

Here’s an alternative mindset:

1. I was born a human being.

2. I have the capacity to be an instrument of goodness or corruption in the world.

3. I am responsible for my actions and their consequences.

4. My life experiences have wounded me in ways that contribute to the harmful things I do in the world.

5. I can take responsibility for who I am being in the world by addressing the root cause of my destructive and harmful mindsets and actions.

6. I am not perfect and never will be, but I can make a determined effort each day to tend to my liberation and wholeness.

7. I may face times or situations when I need help, and I will seek the help I need.

8. Even on the best days I will stumble and see ways I messed up, but I will offer acceptance, patience and compassion to myself, knowing that self-love and not self-condemnation will aid my growth and wholeness.

9. I accept that all human beings are in the same boat I'm in, and I will be ready to offer compassion to others in their challenges and struggles to be the best human being they can be.

I’m stubborn, I admit. I decided to end this article with a Bible verse that would be used to refute about everything I have written so far. Hebrews 4:14-16:

“We don’t have a priest who is out of touch with our reality. He’s been through weakness and testing, experienced it all—all but the sin. So let’s walk right up to him and get what he is so ready to give. Take the mercy, accept the help.”

Here’s how I have come to understand these words. Jesus understands the reality of growing up to become all of what we are. It’s not for the faint of heart and is fraught with trials and tribulations. The legend of Jesus is that his commitment to this process of becoming was unwavering, even to the loss of his reputation, family and his own life. In the face of death, Jesus would not recant his conviction of who he was.

Was Jesus a sinner?

I’ll answer it this way.

No, Jesus was not a sinner if you mean Jesus being born bad with a sin condition.

Yes, Jesus was a sinner if you are using the flawed view of traditional Christianity that “sin” is a violation of some subjective list of a puritan code of ethics.

No, Jesus never sinned, in that he never turned back from his calling to be what he was.

Consider the possibility that neither were you born with a sin condition. And like all human beings, including Jesus, you are not perfect according to the moral police or the pointing finger of religious judgement and condemnation. But as the verse says, when you find yourself at a place where being true to yourself is going to cost you something… think of Jesus and accept the help.

In Summary

• There has never been a singular or unified interpretation of the Bible. The question is always how one should interpret it, for which there are many answers depending on who you ask.

• The doctrine of original sin poses a litany of problems that even Harry Houdini couldn’t escape.

• Was Jesus a sinner? No, and yes.

• Eve didn’t mess up humankind, she opened the door to the nature of reality.

• Thank you for subscribing to my Substack publication. If you find what I share meaningful, consider becoming a paid subscriber. There are several perks and goodies for those who are able to support this endeavor as a paid subscriber for $5 monthly or $50 annually.

“Every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.” - Oscar Wilde