Was Jesus perfect?

[Bettenoir]

I've read the NT a few time's and have come to the colclussion that he wasn't perfect despite what he said. In fact he manages' to break at least 2 of the 10 commandment's,giving that it's written that if you break one you have broken them all, then he broke them all.

I would have no problem with him being less than perfect because he had done some exellant thing's but i do have a slight problem with him saying he is perfect when he clearly is not.

what are everyone's elses view's

Bette

[mentored1]

Hello Bette! Look forward to the discussion!

I've read the NT a few time's and have come to the colclussion that he wasn't perfect despite what he said. In fact he manages' to break at least 2 of the 10 commandment's,giving that it's written that if you break one you have broken them all, then he broke them all.


I'll admit that I can't think of 1 instance that hasn't been addressed by apologetics or commentaries... What comes to mind for you?

Basically I think that the Bible testifies that he was without sin and blameless before God (Heb4:15; 2Cor5:21; 1Pet2:22; et al)...

So either the testimony of the Bible about him is flawed or the violations of commandments have another explanation...

I would have no problem with him being less than perfect because he had done some exellant thing's but i do have a slight problem with him saying he is perfect when he clearly is not.

what are everyone's elses view's

Bette

For what it's worth I think the Biblical testimony of Christ as perfect is fine and acceptable; it's whether or not it's literal that I still wonder about... Creating such a perfection and a dramatic / tragic story as the Christian Gospel requires a belief (faith) in the supernatural God of Scripture; or it requires that the story is part of the human legacy of mythology and mystical storytelling... The latter, IMO, is no less valid than the former but it does change the view a bit...

Take care

[Bettenoir]

I'll admit that I can't think of 1 instance that hasn't been addressed by apologetics or commentaries... What comes to mind for you?

He has stolen a Donkey and he had aproblem with honoring his mum,he also has a habit of being angry at people wich is not very loving

Basically I think that the Bible testifies that he was without sin and blameless before God (Heb4:15; 2Cor5:21; 1Pet2:22; et al)...

So either the testimony of the Bible about him is flawed or the violations of commandments have another explanation...

Or a little of both

For what it's worth I think the Biblical testimony of Christ as perfect is fine and acceptable; it's whether or not it's literal that I still wonder about... Creating such a perfection and a dramatic / tragic story as the Christian Gospel requires a belief (faith) in the supernatural God of Scripture; or it requires that the story is part of the human legacy of mythology and mystical storytelling... The latter, IMO, is no less valid than the former but it does change the view a bit...

I don't agree with you that it's perfect,i think it's ok but not perfect.I don't see how event's that happend so long ago can be acuratly protrayed.Especilly since it was written by human's and we as a speices are flawed.
Take care

You too

[mentored1]

Thanks for your replies Bette - appreciate the discussion.

He has stolen a Donkey and he had aproblem with honoring his mum,he also has a habit of being angry at people wich is not very loving

In regards to the Donkey: didn't the owner of the donkey ask about it and when told the 'Lord required it' he allowed it to be taken? That's sort of ambiguous as to whether it was stolen or not...

Regarding his mom: it seemed to be an illustration of which he taught about forsaking even loved ones to follow God because loved ones can prevent a person from understanding God fully. Then we don't know what happened in full detail either; at that instance (I think I'm thinking of the same thing) when he said 'who is my mother?' to the crowd around him as his mother waited outside he was teaching the crowd that all those that did the 'will of God' were spiritual family as strong as flesh and blood (or stronger?)...
At least he practiced what he preached!

In the descriptions of his anger towards people I was under the impression from my studies that it was in regards to false teachings, the Pharasees, and others who were willing forsaking God for some other object or teaching... and deceving others to do the same... After all there is never indication in the Bible that God is only love... just that love is one of his characteristics...

I must confess that I have my own doubts, as I mentioned, regarding the nature of Biblical writings but I think that some of your objections raised have a reasonable explanation...

For what it's worth I think the Biblical testimony of Christ as perfect is fine and acceptable; it's whether or not it's literal that I still wonder about... Creating such a perfection and a dramatic / tragic story as the Christian Gospel requires a belief (faith) in the supernatural God of Scripture; or it requires that the story is part of the human legacy of mythology and mystical storytelling... The latter, IMO, is no less valid than the former but it does change the view a bit...

I don't agree with you that it's perfect,i think it's ok but not perfect.I don't see how event's that happend so long ago can be acuratly protrayed.Especilly since it was written by human's and we as a speices are flawed.

As a self-contained unit there are explanations and reasons that can patch up may holes and misunderstandings - all that is due to the dazzling number of interpretations that have been given to similiar Biblical passages over the centuries... So taken as a whole there's very little that can't be addressed in some fashion... That's what I mean by "perfect" - the Biblical record's testimony of God and Christ can be reconciled well enough to deal with any flaws...

I have a hint of the same doubt regarding the authenticity of the details - specifically the supernatural events - of Scripture... If such incredible events did indeed happen then they might have left a big enough impression to be recorded... After all we have pretty good records of the rise and fall of the Roman empire: would not the parting of an entire sea or the revival of a dead person to life leave a similiar imprint on the mind of those that saw it?

Of course if it is metaphorical / allegorical it has a stronger sense of survival because the meaning (the "seen-through" aspect of the story) can weather changes, translations, and so forth...

We are definitely flawed which makes this whole business murky at best.

Take care

[shunyadragon]

Thanks for your replies Bette - appreciate the discussion.



In regards to the Donkey: didn't the owner of the donkey ask about it and when told the 'Lord required it' he allowed it to be taken? That's sort of ambiguous as to whether it was stolen or not...

Regarding his mom: it seemed to be an illustration of which he taught about forsaking even loved ones to follow God because loved ones can prevent a person from understanding God fully. Then we don't know what happened in full detail either; at that instance (I think I'm thinking of the same thing) when he said 'who is my mother?' to the crowd around him as his mother waited outside he was teaching the crowd that all those that did the 'will of God' were spiritual family as strong as flesh and blood (or stronger?)...
At least he practiced what he preached!


We are definitely flawed which makes this whole business murky at best.

Take care

I agree generally with your explanations and the fact the gospel records are not necessarilly complete or able to be understood in only one context.

There are more problematic instances in Jesus's testimony like his statements as to who he was the intended audience for his message (Jew, gentile or all humanity?) and his reluctance to heal a woman.

I believe Jesus Christ had a message and was a messiah, but understanding this requires it be put in a far greater context of the vaste history of humanity all over the world, and not the narrow archaic worldview of traditional Christianity.

[Chytraeus]

To start with, it has been fairly well proven that the Gospel's were in fact written by eye wittnesses, and that the theory that they were written generations after the fact by writting down what had been a verbal tradition is now as out of fasion as bell bottom blue jeans. But not only that, Scripture testifies that although they were written down by fallable humans, God inspired them and made them perfect. But I will take it as a given that those on this thread do not believe that. The only question I would have is, what is more likely, that more than 40 different authors wrote 66 different books over more than 1,000 years, and yet thay all agreed on the nature of God and how He goes about saving rebelious mankind? Did this come about by human effort (we can't even get two people standing side by side watching the same event to agree) or was there a Divine will behind it?

As far as the Donkey thing, I think Mentored1 answered that quite well. As far as the way He treated His mother, He never disrespected her. He said some things at times that might have hurt her feelings a bit, but they were all out of love and respect. In fact, He cared for her so much that when He was dying on the cross He took time to make sure that she would be cared for, as He instructed His disciple John to take her into his home as his own mother. Since during crucifixion every breath is unbelievably painful, that was an act of extreem love.

And as far as his anger goes, well, it just showes how little we understand true love. The people Jesus became angry with were stubbornly rushing to their own distruction, and taking as many as possible with them. Jesus had tried reason and pursuasion and proof, but none of these methods worked. And on top of that, He didn't become angry with them until their bull headedness began to interfere with those who were letting Jesus help. The only exception to that rule is when He cleared the temple with a whip. However, under the circumstances, His response was actually quite restrained. The Priests had filled the courtyard of the temple with a market place of religious trinkets and supposedly proper sacrificial animals at exorbitant prices. This part of the temple was supposed to be reserved for non-jewish worshippers, but with all the haggeling over prices and noise of the animals, one could hardly think there, let alone worship and pray. This was total desicration of Israel's most holy site. If He had called down lighting to kill all the merchants and priests He would have been within his rights, but He just chased them out and accused them of turning His Father's house into a theive's den.

Of course, accusing Jesus of being less than perfect is nothing new. The Pharisees did it too. They accused Him of violating the Sabbath day of rest because He kept healing people, thus doing work. In fact, one time Jesus even made some clay out of dust and spit to make a man a new set of eyes on the Sabbath. Jesus responded to them by asking if it would be better to let the people suffer another day just so He would seem to be breaking a rule about resting on the Sabbath.

Of course, the point about Jesus being perfect and without sin is not just a, "My messiah is better than your messiah." The point is, He claimed to be giving His life for the sins of others. That would not be possible if He had sins Himself. Then He would only be able to give His life for His own sins. However, the psalmist tells us that a man can never buy back his own soul. The price to redeem a sinner is too high for anyone to ever be able to buy back his own soul. So, even if Jesus were a perfect man, His death would not have been enough to redeem even one sinner, let alone the entire world for all history.

Therefore, there is the other claim of Jesus. Not only is there the claim that He was perfect, but there is the claim that He was God. As Paul says in Collasians, "In Him the fullness of the godhead dwelt bodily." Or as John says in the Gospel, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Now we do not just have a perfect man dying for sinners, but we have God Himself in human flesh dying for all sinners. He had to be a man, so that he could take the sins of men (and women) on himself. He had to be God so that he could take them all. For God is not just perfect, but He is infinate. Therefore, His death on the cross could pay for any number of sins, because it was a payment of more worth than all the sins of the world required.

Therefore, my friends, He died for your sins as well. If you acknowledge your sins, and believe that Jesus died to take them away, then you too will be forgiven and receive eternal life. Amen.

[Champagne]

Hello, I used to be a fundamentalist Christian- I no longer am. But I have never lost my love for Jesus. In fact, I believe that I love him more now than ever. Now that I've divorced him from the Yahweh of the OT, and that I no longer believe Jesus was God, nor that he even claimed that he was.

Was he perfect? I don't know. And to me, it really doesn't matter. All I know is he exhibited love in the face of hate, he did not resist evil, he was willing to give up his life for others. He never condemned anyone, in fact, just the opposite. his message was so antithetical to our natural human nature. All of us, no matter what our religion or culture, have a natural inclination that we need justice- that we need to stand up for our rights- that we need to punish and attack those who seek to hurt us. Jesus taught a completely different message, one that is very difficult to put into practice. I am very touched when I think of him in Gethsemane, when the Roman soldiers were taking him away. Peter, naturally, wanted to protect him and drew his sword and cut off the ear of a Roman soldier. Jesus rebuked Peter for doing that, and not only that, he healed the soldier's ear. Why would he do that? Nobody would fault Peter for trying to protect Jesus. However, Jesus clearly said he was wrong to do so- Jesus was the perfect example of loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you, resisting not evil...that in and of itself is testament of what kind of person he was. Although it is difficult to put his teachings into practice, when I do, it is infinitely rewarding.

I also think of his parable of the GOod Samaritan. The Samaritans were NOT Jews , they were despised by the Jews. And yet, Jesus said that the Samaritan who helped the person who was hurt was better off, and more acceptable to God, than the Jewish rabbis who ignored that person.

Anyway- I will always stand up for and defend Jesus. I do not believe he was God, nor do I believe that he thought he was GOd. But that doesn't detract from his message and actions.

[shunyadragon]

To start with, it has been fairly well proven that the Gospel's were in fact written by eye wittnesses, and that the theory that they were written generations after the fact by writting down what had been a verbal tradition is now as out of fasion as bell bottom blue jeans. But not only that, Scripture testifies that although they were written down by fallable humans, God inspired them and made them perfect. But I will take it as a given that those on this thread do not believe that. The only question I would have is, what is more likely, that more than 40 different authors wrote 66 different books over more than 1,000 years, and yet thay all agreed on the nature of God and how He goes about saving rebelious mankind? Did this come about by human effort (we can't even get two people standing side by side watching the same event to agree) or was there a Divine will behind it?


Bell-bottoms must be in. There is little basis for believing that the gospels were written be the apostles. For example, the Book of John was obviously written later by a fairly sophisticated educated writer based on testimony of others, considering the time it was most likely second hand testimony referring to the 'beloved disciple'. John unfortunately was a fisherman and not likely able to write such a literary work. The testimony of the Bible of written by falliable men is more reasonable, because perfection does not work well based on the scripture we have today.

[dizzle]

He never condemned anyone,

Are you sure about that?

[Chytraeus]

Bell-bottoms must be in. There is little basis for believing that the gospels were written be the apostles. For example, the Book of John was obviously written later by a fairly sophisticated educated writer based on testimony of others, considering the time it was most likely second hand testimony referring to the 'beloved disciple'. John unfortunately was a fisherman and not likely able to write such a literary work. The testimony of the Bible of written by falliable men is more reasonable, because perfection does not work well based on the scripture we have today.
What do you base these statements on. I would think that if a commentary was written in the middle of the second century about a book that the author clearly thought was written by the apostle himself during the first century, and it is fairly likely that he knew more about when and by whom it was written than you do. And as for John being an uneducated fisherman, I have met some amazingly educated fishermen, carpenters and concrete workers. Since the scriptures say nothing about their education, you are just stereo-typing these men, which is easier than facing the facts and dealing with reality.

[runecrow]

I believe He was perfect. He was/is the Lord God. Also, the sacrificial lamb could have no blemish. Besides, from what is recorded (and from which the conclusion must be drawn and analyzed according to the frame of reference provided) there is no doubt about it.

1- The donkey belonged to Him anyway. Everything does. He can take what He wants because it's all His.

2- I'd need to see a citation showing a Levitical dishonoring of His mother to comment on that. I am not aware of one.

3- Equating being angry with people as not very loving is a subjective statement that has no real substance.

[autigerfan]

I think Jesus often went out of his way to show that he was superior to the laws. One of his primary themes was to point out that the Jews often cared more about the law than the spirit of the law.

[quaist]

Jesus was born as a human. Humans are sinners, humans make mistakes, humans repent. He was in a human body, with a human soul, so he got to make sins and mistakes. The soul doesn't sin, but the flesh does. That's my point of view.

[spiritmech]

"He never condemned anyone"

Wow. The level of Biblical illiteracy here is astounding.
sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

The level of Biblical illiteracy here is astounding.Equally astounding is the pervasive yet naive assumption that the New Testament represents anything approaching an accurate narrative/documentary/biography.

[spiritmech]

Equally astounding is the pervasive yet naive assumption that the New Testament represents anything approaching an accurate narrative/documentary/biography.

That's a different question altogether. Of foremost importance is "what does it say?" This is an hermeneutical question, prior to that of interpretation. To say that Jesus is never mean, or never hurtful, and is just a nice loving guy is a lack of understanding of what the Bible says.

You don't have to listen to what it says, but don't misrepresent it.
sm

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of foremost importance is "what does it say?" This is an hermeneutical question, prior to that of interpretation. Presumptions about the authorship and quality of the text pervades Biblical hermeneutics. Every time you encounter a phrase like "Jesus said", you are dealing with a wholly baseless statement of faith rather than fact.

[spiritmech]

Presumptions about the authorship and quality of the text pervades Biblical hermeneutics. Every time you encounter a phrase like "Jesus said", you are dealing with a wholly baseless statement of faith rather than fact.

Yeah, this isn't even worth arguing about with you. These are two separate questions. It's quite obvious people like to make assertions without being aware of what the text even says. Does the text even matter to a nonbeliever? Possibly not. But it's silly for someone to say, "I love Jesus, he was so nice!"

At that point you're not talking about the Jesus of the Bible. You're talking about Nice Happy Fun Jesus In My Head.
sm

[Hitch]

I've read the NT a few time's and have come to the colclussion that he wasn't perfect despite what he said. In fact he manages' to break at least 2 of the 10 commandment's,giving that it's written that if you break one you have broken them all, then he broke them all.

I would have no problem with him being less than perfect because he had done some exellant thing's but i do have a slight problem with him saying he is perfect when he clearly is not.

what are everyone's elses view's

BetteYou need the vaseline behind the ear treatment.

[Jayhawker Soule]

At that point you're not talking about the Jesus of the Bible. You're talking about Nice Happy Fun Jesus In My Head.smAs opposed to those talking about the Jesus in the head of the apologists and their redactors.

Perhaps something concrete. How do you interpret the story of the moneychangers?

[Hitch]

As opposed to those talking about the Jesus in the head of the apologists and their redactors.

Perhaps something concrete. How do you interpret the story of the moneychangers?What story of what money changers?

[Jayhawker Soule]

What story of what money changers? ..., e.g., gMk 11:15-17

[Hitch]

..., e.g., gMk 11:15-17
What makes you think this part is reliable and accurate?

[Jayhawker Soule]

What makes you think this part is reliable and accurate?Where have I made such a claim?

[Hitch]

Where have I made such a claim? You implied so when you brought it up.

[Jayhawker Soule]

You implied so when you brought it up.Nonsense - I "implied" only that this pericope may be instructive in demonstrating how "presumptions about the authorship and quality of the text pervades Biblical hermeneutics".

[Hitch]

Nonsense - I "implied" only that this pericope may be instructive in demonstrating how "presumptions about the authorship and quality of the text pervades Biblical hermeneutics".Hmmmm then you picked this specific passage because you think it is less reliable?