The Biblical New Testament Jesus is a Sinful Savior? Provide Refutation

[Guest Brushstroke]

This is going to get controversial, but for the sake of persevering for the sake of understanding "what is" and "what isn't" at the cost of disrespecting Jesus these serious questions need to be addressed since people are fallible and don't know for sure. Hence why they question and doubt.

https://quranandbibleblog.com/2022/02/27/3527/

https://quranandbibleblog.com/2018/06/03/was-jesus-sinless-eh-not-quite/

I found these what seems like a dedicated Muslim Website (Not sure if Sunni-Salaafi Wahhabism inspired however) dedicating an entire refutation of the Christian theological claim that is a central tenet where The Biblical Jesus is not Sinless.

Sinless by definition have differing meanings in both Christianity and Islam. The Christian understanding is that if a Creation is Sinless they might as well be God themselves (aka associating partnership to God thus Shirk) thus Jesus is God from their understanding. In Islam however, just because a creation of God is Sinless doesn't indicate any association to Him since as creations of God they are prone to change and affected by the laws of time & space. God does not change Malachi 3:6 and is beyond time and space. Hence, Jesus is not God.

Nevertheless, here are the Biblical passages the Devout Muslim Author Faiz known by his username as quranandbibleblog is making his arguments regarding the following 5 passages along with their refutations the author intends to provide to refute the central Christian Theological Tenet.

The author uses Matthew 8:28-34 where Jesus is destroying private property and committed animal abuse to the Pigs which is a violation of Exodus 22:1-15 regarding the property rights given that they are meant to be read with respect to Mark 7:14-19 where Jesus declared all Foods are Kosher. This includes Pigs. So it comes across that Exodus 22:1-15 should be read under retroactive continuity with respect to The New Testament.

The author uses John 2:1-5 where Jesus disrespected his own mother Mary which is a violation of Exodus 20:12. Thou shalt honor your mother and father.

The author uses John 7:1-10 where Jesus lied to his own brothers which is a violation of Leviticus 19:11.

The author uses Matthew 21:1-7 where Jesus and his disciples committed petty theft. Violation of Exodus 22 & 19 all around regarding Theft is Wrong. Thou shalt not Steal.

The author uses John 2:13-16 to prove Jesus is committing what seems like an act of terrorism against The Jews during the Jewish Passover. He made a whip out of cords to drive out the moneychangers with their cattles, scatter their coins, beat their cattles which were being used for buying & selling with his cord whip for good measure, and overturning the moneychanger's tables throughout the Temple Courts. This is all in the middle of a Jewish Passover going on where business was being conducted of the Jews and their moneychangers following what seemed like standard Torah mandated practices. And Jesus with his righteous anger drove the Jews, the moneychangers, and their cattles out of the Temple Courts with his cord whip. Christians will justify Jesus's righteous anger with respect to Matthew 21:13 where the Moneychangers were Thieves conducting illegitimate business practices in the Temple Courts hence why Jesus did what he had to do since the Jews were violating their own laws given Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:34. However, when you read Matthew 21:1-7 and then right afterwards start continuing on reading until Matthew 21:13 which is the same Chapter all around once understanding the Christian justification it seems that Jesus and his disciples are no different to the Moneychangers regarding Thievery. They are all thieves then and it comes across as hypocritical for Jesus to chastise the moneychangers when He & his disciples were no different.

I would like these passages to be refuted. The point of this topic is for any Christian or any Muslim who finds the author Faiz's conduct as a Devout Muslim to refute or question these passages please.

It does highlight out that the Biblical New Testament Jesus is not Sinless thus, the Islamic Jesus in the Quran is more respectful in regard. Some Christians for whatever baffling reason use the Quran to justify Jesus's Sinlessness through Surah 19:19 and Surah 3:46 based on the Arabic transliterated term "Zakiyyan" which means Pure when the Muslim understanding of Sinlessness is fundamentally opposed to that of the Christians. The Surahs especially 19:19 don't prove anything really since Human Babies under Islamic Theology in general are also "Zakiyyan" just as much as Jesus. So does this mean that Muhammad knew Jesus was Sinless, thus by extension Christians are giving credit where credit is due that the Quran is true in this account. If so, then shouldn't it constitute as a Holy Book? Or is it still an Unholy Book? Are there no passages in both the Old and New Testament being very clear that Jesus is Sinless?

What is and What isn't please? I'm so confused.

[Silas]

On 3/4/2023 at 11:49 PM, Guest Brushstroke said:

This is going to get controversial, but for the sake of persevering for the sake of understanding "what is" and "what isn't" at the cost of disrespecting Jesus these serious questions need to be addressed since people are fallible and don't know for sure. Hence why they question and doubt.

https://quranandbibleblog.com/2022/02/27/3527/

https://quranandbibleblog.com/2018/06/03/was-jesus-sinless-eh-not-quite/

I found these what seems like a dedicated Muslim Website (Not sure if Sunni-Salaafi Wahhabism inspired however) dedicating an entire refutation of the Christian theological claim that is a central tenet where The Biblical Jesus is not Sinless.

Sinless by definition have differing meanings in both Christianity and Islam. The Christian understanding is that if a Creation is Sinless they might as well be God themselves (aka associating partnership to God thus Shirk) thus Jesus is God from their understanding. In Islam however, just because a creation of God is Sinless doesn't indicate any association to Him since as creations of God they are prone to change and affected by the laws of time & space. God does not change Malachi 3:6 and is beyond time and space. Hence, Jesus is not God.

Nevertheless, here are the Biblical passages the Devout Muslim Author Faiz known by his username as quranandbibleblog is making his arguments regarding the following 5 passages along with their refutations the author intends to provide to refute the central Christian Theological Tenet.

The author uses Matthew 8:28-34 where Jesus is destroying private property and committed animal abuse to the Pigs which is a violation of Exodus 22:1-15 regarding the property rights given that they are meant to be read with respect to Mark 7:14-19 where Jesus declared all Foods are Kosher. This includes Pigs. So it comes across that Exodus 22:1-15 should be read under retroactive continuity with respect to The New Testament.

The author uses John 2:1-5 where Jesus disrespected his own mother Mary which is a violation of Exodus 20:12. Thou shalt honor your mother and father.

The author uses John 7:1-10 where Jesus lied to his own brothers which is a violation of Leviticus 19:11.

The author uses Matthew 21:1-7 where Jesus and his disciples committed petty theft. Violation of Exodus 22 & 19 all around regarding Theft is Wrong. Thou shalt not Steal.

The author uses John 2:13-16 to prove Jesus is committing what seems like an act of terrorism against The Jews during the Jewish Passover. He made a whip out of cords to drive out the moneychangers with their cattles, scatter their coins, beat their cattles which were being used for buying & selling with his cord whip for good measure, and overturning the moneychanger's tables throughout the Temple Courts. This is all in the middle of a Jewish Passover going on where business was being conducted of the Jews and their moneychangers following what seemed like standard Torah mandated practices. And Jesus with his righteous anger drove the Jews, the moneychangers, and their cattles out of the Temple Courts with his cord whip. Christians will justify Jesus's righteous anger with respect to Matthew 21:13 where the Moneychangers were Thieves conducting illegitimate business practices in the Temple Courts hence why Jesus did what he had to do since the Jews were violating their own laws given Exodus 22:21 and Leviticus 19:34. However, when you read Matthew 21:1-7 and then right afterwards start continuing on reading until Matthew 21:13 which is the same Chapter all around once understanding the Christian justification it seems that Jesus and his disciples are no different to the Moneychangers regarding Thievery. They are all thieves then and it comes across as hypocritical for Jesus to chastise the moneychangers when He & his disciples were no different.

I would like these passages to be refuted. The point of this topic is for any Christian or any Muslim who finds the author Faiz's conduct as a Devout Muslim to refute or question these passages please.

It does highlight out that the Biblical New Testament Jesus is not Sinless thus, the Islamic Jesus in the Quran is more respectful in regard. Some Christians for whatever baffling reason use the Quran to justify Jesus's Sinlessness through Surah 19:19 and Surah 3:46 based on the Arabic transliterated term "Zakiyyan" which means Pure when the Muslim understanding of Sinlessness is fundamentally opposed to that of the Christians. The Surahs especially 19:19 don't prove anything really since Human Babies under Islamic Theology in general are also "Zakiyyan" just as much as Jesus. So does this mean that Muhammad knew Jesus was Sinless, thus by extension Christians are giving credit where credit is due that the Quran is true in this account. If so, then shouldn't it constitute as a Holy Book? Or is it still an Unholy Book? Are there no passages in both the Old and New Testament being very clear that Jesus is Sinless?

What is and What isn't please? I'm so confused.

One note: when the demons possessed the pigs it was the pigs themselves who threw themselves over the cliff

it was not Jesus who commanded them to do this. 

and I do not need to defend the money-changers or those engaged in usury against the whip of Jesus--which is symbolic, in and of itself, as a way to lead the profligate back to the grace of God

but I would ask, what truly is sin? Because to me, it is not some accidental or legalistic thing --it is a willing rebellion against the will of God. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/5/2023 at 9:19 AM, Guest Brushstroke said:

(Not sure if Sunni-Salaafi Wahhabism inspired however) dedicating an entire refutation of the Christian theological claim that is a central tenet where The Biblical Jesus is not Sinless.

Hi according to "article index" of his site it's a  Sunni-Salaafi Wahhabism inspired  site & person  which has focused on christanity which surly Shias don't agree with satemants of his site  which he has used typical procedure of denying infallibilty of shia Imams for denying infalibilit of prophet Isa (عليه السلام) through wrong & incorrect interprataaton of everything .

 

[Guest Brushstroke]

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi according to "article index" of his site it's a  Sunni-Salaafi Wahhabism inspired  site & person  which has focused on christanity which surly Shias don't agree with satemants of his site  which he has used typical procedure of denying infallibilty of shia Imams for denying infalibilit of prophet Isa (عليه السلام) through wrong & incorrect interprataaton of everything .

 

Hi there Ashvazdanghe. Once again thank you for letting me know. One website to block it off alongside BloggingTheology as well.

11 hours ago, Silas said:

One note: when the demons possessed the pigs it was the pigs themselves who threw themselves over the cliff

it was not Jesus who commanded them to do this. 

and I do not need to defend the money-changers or those engaged in usury against the whip of Jesus--which is symbolic, in and of itself, as a way to lead the profligate back to the grace of God

but I would ask, what truly is sin? Because to me, it is not some accidental or legalistic thing --it is a willing rebellion against the will of God. 

Hi Silas. What is Sin and how is it defined within Judaism, Christianity, & Islam? That is a good question.

Judaism's View of Sin

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-jewish-view-of-sin/

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2830/jewish/What-Is-Sin.htm

https://www.jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/sin-atonement-and-salvation/

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/leviticus-1711/

To sum up What Sin is in Judaism from my understanding it is known as Chet which translates to "Missing the Mark" and discussing what Chet is would be dependent on four factors.

The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni on Psalms 25) which constitutes as one of The Oral Laws alongside The Talmud describes a sort of "panel discussion" in which this question is posed to four different authorities — Wisdom, Prophecy, Torah and G‑d — each of whom gives a different definition of sin. According to Wisdom sin is a harmful deed. According to Prophecy it is death. The Written Law which is The Torah sees it as folly (aka foolish action & decision making). And G‑d sees it as an opportunity (perhaps opportunity implying a chance for those to redeem themselves to Him).

There are 2 types of sins in Judaism: Intentional & Unintentional. For Unintentional Sins to be forgiven in the eyes of G-d Animal Sacrifices or Flour Sacrifices have to be done in the Temple altar (Leviticus 5:11, Leviticus 4, and Numbers 15:22-31). There's also Yom Kippur which is known as the Holy Day for Jews where G-d forgives Unintentional Sins. For Intentional Sins, Teshuva (Repentence through Prayer) needs to be done otherwise the person is cut off from his people or they shall be put through death depending on how severe was the Intentional Sin.

Regardless of this complex case for Judaism's view of Sin, the bottom line from what I understand is that Sin is simply an act that defies the commandments of G-d whether intentionally or unintentionally.

 

Christianity's view of Sin

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/sin/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sin-christian/

https://carm.org/answers-for-seekers/what-is-sin/

In Christianity, however this is where things get dark as to what is Sin. Sin according to most Christians means a state of being. The Origin of Sin is that Adam disobeyed God when God gave Adam the commandment to not eat the Forbidden Fruit. But Adam was persuaded by the temptations of Satan, where He and his wife ate the Forbidden Fruit knowing fully well that God commanded Adam not to. God chastised Adam & Eve for defying Him and banished them from Paradise to the Earth we all live in. This is known as The Original Sin Doctrine that most Christians agree fully though there are outliers amongst the Christians who don't believe this doctrine such as Pelegianists and Semi-Pelegianists who are Heretics. Some Protestants are Semi-Pelegianists.

We are all Sinners from the birth of our existence due to Adam's disobedience. This is where Jesus The Messiah came as God and Man and God's Son simultaneously under the Hypostatic Union Doctrine to become The Ultimatum Sacrifice for the Israelites and Humanity as a whole so that Humanity be saved from the Sin of Adam. Basically God cannot forgive Humanity unless they believe in The Sacrifice of Jesus The Messiah.

Christian's don't want to think about the implications where this also means Human Babies are born Sinners and must be baptized in the name of Jesus The Messiah or Jesus Christ. This is one of the many reasons why some people abandon Christianity altogether for how much of an outlier and dark implication this brings for Humanity. All because of Adam's disobedience.

 

Islam's view of Sin

Sunni Islamic Version

https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/concept-sin-islam/

https://sunnah.org/2008/07/18/freedom-from-sin/

https://alsunna.org/how-do-i-repent-from-sins-i-did.html#gsc.tab=0

https://www.islam.ru/en/content/story/understanding-concept-tawbah-islam-repentance

Shia Version

https://www.al-islam.org/tags/sin

https://en.wikishia.net/view/Sin

To sum for what Islam's view of Sin is that Sin is an act of transgression against the laws of God. This is interesting as it seems to share the same meaning as Judaism. So much so that the Islamic concept of Tawbah is very reminiscent of Teshuva in Judaism. Except in Islam's case Tawbah comes across as an extreme version of Teshuva where both Intentional and Unintentional Sins are forgiven through Prayer, Fasting, Remembrance of God, & Charity. If this is the case for Tawbah in Islam then what is the purpose of Animal Sacrifice in Islam?

Unfortunately I couldn't find any definitive answer for this, however from my understanding so far when reading the Quran Surah 37:101-108 Animal Sacrifices in Islam comes across more so as a means for the Muslims attempting to give up their own Free Will to God and for the sake of Charity via distributing the sacrificed meat to the community. The reason why I think this is that Abraham loved his son who was a blessing from God, but God tested Abraham to see if the love he had for his son is greater than the love he had for Him. The sacrifice Abraham made to God from my understanding is him giving up His own Free Will in order to practice Unquestionable Obedience to God. This is an interesting conflict of interest that I understand why Islamic Scholars debate about this matter. Is Free Will a curse or a blessing? Is Free Will the root of all evil? Which one should you choose to love more? The blessings that God gave you or love God for giving you those blessings in the first place? Can Man make the choice to simply give up the ability to make their own choices and decisions? Truly a Paradoxical case for Islam from my understanding similar to Buddhism where Desire is the root of all evil and one must destroy their own desires to be free from want.

 

Fair enough on your understanding there Silas regarding the Moneychangers as Christians believe those moneychangers were thieves under Matthew 21:13 who deserved to be terrorized for their transgressions of the Jewish law.

Still this is kinda problematic given that under New Testament Book Chronology Paul's Letters came first and given Romans 13:1-7 Governments and Rulers must be obeyed. While it can be dismissed given Jesus's case not necessarily defying the Jewish law, this does seem to come across as Jesus violating the law of the Romans against the Jews. Especially when the Romans occupied the land of Judea and enacted their own rulings all throughout the state during Jesus's time period.

As for your understanding of Matthew 8:28-34 while I understand what you mean how do you reconcile for 31-33

NIV translation

31 The demons begged Jesus, “If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.”

32 He said to them, “Go!” So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.

33 Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.

 

Couldn't Jesus who is God under Christian Theology simply kill the Demons or cease them to exist after exorcising them out of the 2 Israelite men who were being possessed? Demons are pure evil supernatural creatures who have fallen under God's Grace given Christian Theology. Why did Jesus allow the Demons to go ahead and possess the pigs that were clearly owned by a farmer? As for those who were tending for the pigs this implies that a farmer owned those pigs. So, did Jesus ever payed in anyway back to those who tended the pigs? A farmer (possibly a Roman Gentile) clearly owned those pigs so did Jesus compensated in any way to them under the Roman Law of his era of time?

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/7/2023 at 8:04 PM, Guest Brushstroke said:

To sum for what Islam's view of Sin is that Sin is an act of transgression against the laws of God. This is interesting as it seems to share the same meaning as Judaism. So much so that the Islamic concept of Tawbah is very reminiscent of Teshuva in Judaism. Except in Islam's case Tawbah comes across as an extreme version of Teshuva where both Intentional and Unintentional Sins are forgiven through Prayer, Fasting, Remembrance of God, & Charity. If this is the case for Tawbah in Islam then what is the purpose of Animal Sacrifice in Islam?

Unfortunately I couldn't find any definitive answer for this, however from my understanding so far when reading the Quran Surah 37:101-108 Animal Sacrifices in Islam comes across more so as a means for the Muslims attempting to give up their own Free Will to God and for the sake of Charity via distributing the sacrificed meat to the community. The reason why I think this is that Abraham loved his son who was a blessing from God, but God tested Abraham to see if the love he had for his son is greater than the love he had for Him. The sacrifice Abraham made to God from my understanding is him giving up His own Free Will in order to practice Unquestionable Obedience to God. This is an interesting conflict of interest that I understand why Islamic Scholars debate about this matter. Is Free Will a curse or a blessing? Is Free Will the root of all evil? Which one should you choose to love more? The blessings that God gave you or love God for giving you those blessings in the first place? Can Man make the choice to simply give up the ability to make their own choices and decisions? Truly a Paradoxical case for Islam from my understanding similar to Buddhism where Desire is the root of all evil and one must destroy their own desires to be free from want.

 

Hi/ Salam 

Imam Jafar us-Sadiq reportedly said to an inquiry about the position of the Prophet's Ahl al-Bayt with respect to the mentioned controversy. The statement of Imam Sadiq was meant to suggest that humans are neither absolutely free and sovereign in their actions nor compelled by Allah into doing things they do; that there are things that humans can freely affect owing to their relative free will and things that they don't have control over; and that human responsibility is judged based on things that have been within his power not outside it.

Free Will and Fatalism in Shia and Sunni Views 1

Quote

FREE WILL AND FATALISM

Dr. al-Tijani starts out by expressing his own experience with the concepts of Free Will (Qadariyyah) and Fatalism (Jabriyah). He was always baffled, as I was, by what the Sunni scholars preach in sermons and by what their books state about everything being the Will of Allah: Drinking wine is the Will of Allah, sleeping, killing, evil, adultery,  marriage, knowledge, health, accidental death, and even whether you end up in hell or heaven was judged before you were born!

How can that be? How can Allah state in the Quran: “Allah is never unjust in the least degree: If there is any good (done), he doubleth it, and giveth from His Own Self a great reward.” (2)

Then Allah states: “Whoever works righteousness benefits his own soul; whoever works evil, it is against his own soul: Nor is thy Lord ever unjust (in the least) to His servants.” (3)

Again, among many other places, Allah asserts: “Verily, Allah will not deal unjustly with man in aught: It is a man that wrongs his own soul (and other souls).” (4)

How can these verses be reconciled with what the Sunnis preach? It is either that Allah is right, and the scholars are wrong, or vice versa. Of course, for the believer, the answer to that question is quite obvious. However, the Quran also states: “But ye will not, except as Allah wills; for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom.”(5)

And Allah states: “…For Allah leaves to stray whom He wills, and guides whom He wills…”(6) What kind of contradiction is this? Exalted be Allah from contradicting Himself. It is this kind of mental torture and struggles that I went through every day: On the one hand, Allah asserts His Justice, yet on the other, He asserts His Will to do as He pleases because He is the Creator.

 

Quote

THE SUNNIS AND THE QUESTION OF DESTINY

Dr. al-Tijani narrates a brief encounter with a Sunni scholar that asserts that EVERYTHING is the will of Allah. So Dr. al-Tijani countered his argument with the following: First, marriage is NOT the Will of Allah because Allah says: “…..Marry women of YOUR CHOICE…..”(7)

Second, divorce is NOT “written — i.e., not the Will of Allah” either: “A divorce is only permissible twice; after that, the parties should either hold together on equitable terms or separate with kindness….”(8) That is, the parties are AT LIBERTY to separate or maintain a relationship; they are NOT forced or coerced. Third, adultery is NOT the Will of Allah either: “Nor come nigh to adultery: For it is an indecent (deed) and an evil way.”(9)

You are AT LIBERTY to commit or refrain from adultery. Fourth, drinking alcohol is also NOT the Will of Allah: “Satan’s plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: Will ye not then abstain?” (10)

 

Quote

Dr. al-Tijani answered: “We are not quarrelling about whether Allah CAN do whatever He  wishes or not; we are debating whether or not Allah FORCES people to do things, and then punishes them for it?” The scholar answered: “You have your religion, and I have mine!” and the discussion was over.

Two days later, Dr. al-Tijani returned and said: “So if your belief is that Allah executes EVERYTHING, and His servants have NO choice whatsoever in the matter, why, then, don’t you apply the same reasoning to the matter of the Caliphate; and [surrender to the point] that Allah chooses whomever He  wishes?”

https://en.al-shia.org/free-will-fatalism-shia-sunni-views-1/

 

The Second Spurious Argument:Constraint and Free Will

The Second Spurious Argument:Constraint and Free Will

Some people find a problem with the Shias in that they believe neither in constraint nor in free will but that they adopt an interpretation in between and that they refute the Ash’arite concept of constraint.

The Answer

The Ash’arites from among the Sunnis, believed in constraint and the Mu’tazilites, also Sunni, believed in free will. The Shias, following their Imams (a), adopted an intermediary position between the two. First of all, we will try to refute constraint and free will by resorting to Qur’anic verses, then we will investigate those traditions that have come from our Imams (a) negating the two of them and establishing the intermediary position between the two.

Shias’ Interpretation of the Conception of Intermediacy

Quote

First: Man’s existence, and all his actions, whether from his body or his soul, has its source in the Creator, Exalted and Elevated is His Might. He has given man the ability to do good or bad and to choose the good that takes him to the elevated stations of the Highest Ones whose ranks cannot be attained without freedom of will.

Thus, if man is the cause of his actions, and Allah is the cause of man’s existence, his abilities, and his will to do or not to do, then Allah is a remote cause of man’s actions.

Second: The power of the Maker encompasses the actions of man. Thus If He wants to prevent man from choosing certain actions or to let him act in other ways He can, He says,

Another proof confirming the Shia concept of intermediacy between constraint and free will is when Allah says,

... and you did not smite when you smote (the enemy), but it was Allah Who smote. (Qur’an 8:17)

This verse clearly ascribes the smiting to man himself for Allah says, when you smote,” at the same time it includes the opposite for Allah also says and you did not smite” this negates the ascription of the act to man thus proving the concept of intermediacy.

https://www.al-islam.org/spurious-arguments-about-shia-abu-talib-tabrizi/second-spurious-argument-constraint-and-free-will

[Fear Not Love]

 

The Gospels declare that the Spirit of God the creator and father has no flesh neither is it possible for his holy spirit to have sinful nature. 

angels or evil spirits are able to have a sinful nature, but when we get to Jesus, does not the scriptures teach that Jesus did also have the fleshly nature of sinful man and that Jesus was capable of committing sin  -    but was without sin and was perfect in all his ways  ?

we see that Jesus Christ was not only born of the Spirit of God but he was also born of the flesh of man -  of the seed of man. 

Why would we want succumb to Roman Catholic ideologies that teach such theories and  man - made  doctrines that being born without a physical father somehow makes someone created without sinful fleshly nature  ?    

Both Adam and Eve were born without the sex act, born without a human father nor a mother  -   were Adam and Eve created without a sinful nature  ?

I am just asking because,  when we rely upon Catholic doctrine that has saturated most every aspect of our historical faith that exists, as dribble down and trickle or the seeping effect of Catholic traditions, we can find ourselves stunned and incapable of rendering the word of God in its truthful context.

Heb 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. 

I just hope to have an understand that the Sprit of  God cannot be tempted in all points nor enticed or  “  attracted  “  to tempting situations  -  but this was the nature of the flesh of Jesus  -  he was made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to   the   flesh..

Jesus was created in the flesh to be tempted in all points, to be enticed and “ attracted  “  to tempting situations involving sinful nature.

 The scriptures teach that the law was weak through the flesh and that God sent his own son -    in  the  likeness of  sinful  flesh   and  for  sin,  - 
  and Jesus condemned sin in the flesh:
in  the  likeness of  Mary   … …    reproduction  of  sinful  flesh
Rom 5:14      … .. death reigned … … … … … even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

2co  5:   21     for he hath made him  to  be  sin  for  us,   who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

if  Jesus  was  sent  to  the  world  to  be   fashioned,  created  and made  in the image  and  similarity  and  likeness  of  sinful  flesh being born of  the seed of  sinful man -    ,,    for  sake  of  our  sin  he  was  made     -  he  died   unto   sin
God sent his own son -    in  the  likeness of  sinful  flesh,  and  for  sin, 

We see that scriptures say that Jesus was  made  / created   inside  Mary  as  the  seed   DNA  and genetic hereditary of  her ancestors  going back to king David

Heb 9:13  for if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer  sprinkling the unclean,  sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:    :14  how much more shall the blood of Christ,  who through  the  eternal  spirit offered himself  without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God  

Jesus did not offer himself through the bodily nature unto God  -   but,  through  the  eternal  spirit he offered himself …… 

Act 2:30    God had sworn with an oath to him, that  of  the  fruit  of  his  loins,  according  to  the  flesh,   he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 

Jesus explains,     I must submit and give up my own desires my own nature and  my fleshly temptations I must deny.  i cannot do anything, whatsoever - of my own,     -    saying that it is the father only, that does the miracles and the works.

saying - why do you call me " good " ? -        - "   there is  no  one  good   but God alone "

Joh 5:30    i can of mine own self do nothing:   as i hear,  i judge:   and my judgment is just; because i seek     not  mine  own  will,   but the will of the father which hath sent me. 

   i  am  not  relying  upon  the  power  of  my  own  qualities  passed  down  from  my  mother  -  

not relying upon the status of being born or created   -    without an earthly father 

  i have no power  but to  deny my  own  personal  will  and  submit to the will of the spirt of God

  does the Bible teach that Jesus could never be justified in the flesh  alone: -   

 but  only  through  the  eternal  spirit  -   he was offered as a      “    perfect  “    holy sacrifice  without spot to God, 

only  through  the  eternal and  not  by  his  flesh  and  blood  and  his own will which was made in the likeness of sinful flesh

Joh 6:63  it is the spirit that quickeneth;    -     the flesh profiteth nothing:        -    the words that i speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

  the    “   word of God  “    from the beginning  that  was  with  God  and  was  God  whom  that Jesus existed as, before he was born of God’s spirit  -   as the only born son of God  ?  

[Son of Placid]

Destroying private property and committing animal abuse, and on and on. 
This is interesting you have this in common with atheists. That's where I saw it last.
 It's been explained over and over and anyone who doesn't get it yet isn't going to.

Your author either forgot or hasn't read far enough yet to know the first charges could be laid twice. What about working on the Sabbath, or petty theft on the Sabbath?
If you had any more insight than to throw out someone's else's gibberish as somebody else's challenge, you could have made a much longer and comprehensive list.  
Need help?