In another thread the question was asked if one could believe in a "Jesus" who drank alcoholic wine and still be saved. The response to that question was that if one believed in a "Jesus" who acted contrary to what the word of God said then that person was believing in a different "Jesus". The implication of course is that one could NOT be saved by a different "Jesus" than the one whom God hath sent. (At least that is what I understood his answer to be.) Also during the various interchanges in the same thread one responder mentioned that he thought "Jesus" may have even said a 'cuss word' while tossing the money changers out of the temple but that would not affect his view of this "Jesus" being sinless. Both of these responses led me to wondering about this topic. Bible Boy said he would give that thread 24 hours before closing it but then changed his mind and closed it without warning just a couple posts later. (****RATS! Just when I had laboured through 24 pages of "No sir!" and "Yes sirree!" I lost my chance to weigh in.) My query for the BB is this. Most of us agree that Jesus was sinless, but EXACTLY what does that mean? Some define cussing as sin. Some defiine drinking booze in any form as sin. Some do not. Examples of this apparent dichotomy within Christendom abound but I will not belabour the point. I am sure my readers are intelligent enough to understand the issue. Does your definition of sin also define the character of the "Jesus" you believe in? How does this affect biblical salvation? The question was sarcastically asked of one poster whether he thought if one believed "Jesus" drank alcoholic beverages could one be "saved". Can one be sincere in their profession of faith yet in error as to the character of Jesus and still be saved? I say no. What say ye?