3

Did Jesus commit any sin pertaining to the Sabbath?

I flagged this question as a "Truth question" and it was declined. Why?

It seems like a classic Truth question, in the vein of "Is X a sin?" It doesn't specify a specific denomination. Any Christian denomination that believes Jesus to be sinless will say Jesus did not sin (obviously) but will do so for slightly different hermeneutical reasons. A good reformed answer will probably look different from a good Catholic answer. And the current accepted answer is a personal opinion.

  • I am not sure, for I am not the person who rejected your flag. However, I guess that it is not a truth question, because the question deals with biblical hermeneutics. – Double U Feb 2 '15 at 3:13
  • 1
    I wasn't involved in reviewing that one, but I tend to agree with you. However, I'm not going to use the mod hammer to override a decision made by others that are out there actively reviewing. If it's to be closed, I'd rather the community do it. – David Stratton Feb 2 '15 at 3:55
4

I agree with your judgment call on this one.

To be clear, no moderator was involved in handling your flag. The flag put it in the review queue and enough people there counter-flagged it (disagreed with the flag) that it got dismissed before a moderator even saw it.

And I disagree with whoever the community reviewers were. Here's why.

Yes, it's a pretty clear cut "truth" question. Given the question alone, it would be possible to answer it in a way that is appropriate for this site by outlining what various Christians believe about this issue. One or two answers ever attempt this. However the answer that was accepted by the OP does exactly the opposite of what we are looking for here—it disavows giving an answer based on extant Christian doctrines and goes straight for the "truth" argument. The fact that such an answer was not only solicited but marked as the accepted answer clearly demonstrates the intent on the asker to look for a truth position rather than learn about extant Christian teachings. The addition of other answers starting out with "I [dis]agree with X" is another clear sign that at least some of the answers are off track and the fact that they are not NAA material (they properly address the question that was asked) puts the question at fault.

I have gone ahead and unilaterally closed the question and invite anyone who disagrees to post here with their reasoning for how this question fits our site guidelines.

-2

I believe there is a distinction between "is X a sin" and "per the laws at the time, was an action against those laws?" The major difference being, sins are not legal laws today - nobody gets arrested for adultery. Whereas the act would have gotten you stoned during the time of Jesus. The community agrees with this distinction.

Furthermore, this question is a year old. It has been the practice of the SE to not revisit older questions. I am disappointed that a mod would encourage action on this question for this reason.

  • 1
    ① If that distinction was supposed to be part of the question it is completely unclear. In fact it clearly asks what "we" think rather than about laws at the time. Furthermore you accepted an answer that clearly outlines a biblical argument for something being a sin or not that has nothing to do with Jewish laws at the time. ② We don't make a practice of rooting out old questions to shut down but we do deal with them when they come up. This one surfaced because it collected a new answer and caught people's eye on the front page. Such questions have always been dealt with appropriately. – Caleb Feb 2 '15 at 14:59
  • @Caleb, the community felt differently and the question was reopened once already. I do not understand why we want to reinvent the wheel. – The Freemason Feb 2 '15 at 16:19
  • 1
    The question has never been closed or re-opened before. In any event even if it had been I'm not re-inventing any wheels, I only proceeded per site norms. – Caleb Feb 2 '15 at 16:23
  • I was mistaken, I thought it was. However it being flagged as a truth question and declined by a reviewer and the fact that it's over a year old should remind us that we have better things to do. Which at this point, reminds me that I have better things to do than to keep this going. Good day. – The Freemason Feb 2 '15 at 16:30
  • 1
    I'd be willing to hear feedback from any of the people who reviewed it earlier today when it hit the queue, but so far I have yet to see any convincing argument why I should have made a different call than I did. In the mean time if you're interested it having it re-opened you should consider fixing the issues I raised. And I remind you it's not a year old, it's on the front page. Now. That's why it started getting attention in the first place. – Caleb Feb 2 '15 at 16:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .