Re: Jesus Was Perfect?
Originally posted by chithappens
FeceMan mentioned this before the topic I created was moved:1 Peter 2:22-23
"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly."
and also
1 John :4-5
"4Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin."
I did not mention anything about sinlessness. I said The bible never says that Jesus is perfect. Because even this is said:
"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying.......that is to say, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Matthew 27:46
Now "sinlessness" and perfectness are two different things. Losing your faith in God, even if temporary, is an "imperfection.
Way to twist my words 🤣
Right,
"Be Ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect."
Matthew 5:38
I have discovered an interesting logic regarding this.
The Mormans have scriptures that correspond to this.
"Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."
3 Ne. 12: 48
Apparently, Jesus Christ could not claim perfection until he was in his perfect immortal body. In the New Testament when Jesus Christ had made his statement in Matthew, he was still a mortal. In Third Nephi of the Book of Mormon when he visited the Americas after his resurrection, Jesus Christ was in his Exalted Immortal body. Therefore he could claim a “perfection” on par with the Father's.
Again, this "perfection" is not perfection in the way we understand it. How can we "be...perfect" if we "all fall short of the glory of God"? It, to me, is a paradox of sorts and the only way I can make it logical in my mind is to say that this "perfection" spoken of is simply living your life as well as possible so that you can obtain your part in an exalted resurrected body, similar to Jesus Christ's resurrected perfection.
Edit-
It looks like Feceman was getting at the same things I was...except he said it better...it is the vessel known as the mortal body that relates to this perfection...as indicated in my above observation.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: FeceMan does not twist words.Assertation: Jesus was imperfect as much as a human vessel is imperfect; aside from that, he was sinless and blameless (and thus perfect).
Re: Re: Jesus Was Perfect?
Originally posted by dadudemon
[B]logic regarding this.The Mormans have scriptures that correspond to this.
"Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect."
3 Ne. 12: 48
Apparently, Jesus Christ could not claim perfection until he was in his perfect immortal body. In the New Testament when Jesus Christ had made his statement in Matthew, he was still a mortal. In Third Nephi of the Book of Mormon when he visited the Americas after his resurrection, Jesus Christ was in his Exalted Immortal body. Therefore he could claim a “perfection” on par with the Father's.
Again, this "perfection" is not perfection in the way we understand it. How can we "be...perfect" if we "all fall short of the glory of God"? It, to me, is a paradox of sorts and the only way I can make it logical in my mind is to say that this "perfection" spoken of is simply living your life as well as possible so that you can obtain your part in an exalted resurrected body, similar to Jesus Christ's resurrected perfection.
Re: Re: Jesus Was Perfect?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right,"Be Ye therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect."
Matthew 5:38
Apparently, Jesus Christ could not claim perfection until he was in his perfect immortal body. In the New Testament when Jesus Christ had made his statement in Matthew, he was still a mortal. In Third Nephi of the Book of Mormon when he visited the Americas after his resurrection, Jesus Christ was in his Exalted Immortal body. Therefore he could claim a “perfection” on par with the Father's.
Again, this "perfection" is not perfection in the way we understand it. How can we "be...perfect" if we "all fall short of the glory of God"? It, to me, is a paradox of sorts and the only way I can make it logical in my mind is to say that this "perfection" spoken of is simply living your life as well as possible so that you can obtain your part in an exalted resurrected body, similar to Jesus Christ's resurrected perfection.
1) That is not Matthew 5:38. I'm looking at a Bible right now. Matthew 5:38 is talking about the law of Moses and "eye for an eye" stuff.
2) Well that was a proclamation to become perfect rather than saying "at this moment, you are perfect."
3) Leviticus 11:1-8
"The the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "give the following instructions to the Isarelites: The animals you may use for food include those that have completely divided hooves and chew the cud. You may not, however, eat the animals named here because they either have split hooves or chew the cud, but not both. The camel may not be eaten, for though it chews the cud it does not have split hooves. The same is true of the rock badger. and the hare, so they also may never be eaten. And the pig may not be eaten for though it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud. You may not eat the meat of these animals or touch their dead bodies. They are ceremonially unclean for you."
-AND -
Isiah 66:17
"Those who 'purify' themselves in a sacred garden, feasting on pork and rats and other forbidden meats, will come to a terrible end," says the Lord.
- Both tell you not to eat pork, yet:
Mark 7:14-23
"Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen." he said, " and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you ear; you are defiled by what you say and do. Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made.
"Don't you understand either? he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.
And then he added, " It is the thought-life that defiles you. For from within out of a person's heart comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."
-so-
You mean to tell me that someone who decides what God's law REALLY says is not of sin at all?
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Was Perfect?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: FeceMan does not consider any Mormon text to be canonical.
That doesn't matter for this topic. This is simply a logical rationalization in MY mind of the logic that you have agreed with yourself. I need to use more than one source sometimes to make things make sense in my mind...Some things are out of bounds during that process but I still use different religions to help.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: The verse of which you speak where Paul writes about all having fallen short of the glory of God pertains to humans, not to Christ.
I did not use that verse in anyway to refer to Jesus Christ; it was solely referential to humans falling short. Obviously, Jesus Christ does/did not fall short.
EDIT- I thoroughly enjoy the format you use when you debate things. Even if people tell you to stop or make fun of it...don't...It is genius AND it makes more sense to where your remarks are coming from. Props.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
jesus's existance is a historical person is very doubtful. if he existed, he wasnt perfect at all. just very good at heart/non violent. paul on the other hand.....................
Interjection: [Laughter.]
Declaration: Paul was a human and thus subject to the Fall of humanity. That does not, however, make invalid his writing.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Statement: Jesus's existence as a person...doubtful?Interjection: [Laughter.]
Declaration: Paul was a human and thus subject to the Fall of humanity. That does not, however, make invalid his writing.
yes. the person described in the bible. historically extremely hazy evidence, none of which is even close to decisive. just like the character of pythagoras is very doubtful to be a real single person described in records. {btw, self consoling laughter is a form of dellusion}
so a person subject to the fall of humanity has the authority to elaborate on facts which can only be elaborated on initially by a person who is NOT subject to the fall of man? clear contradiction. his writings are rife with contradictions, fallacies, ignorance and arrogane. he was a stupid old politician.
Originally posted by leonheartmmNot hazy evidence at all. The Talmud alone should be confirmation. Then we have Tacitus, Josephus (which is slightly hazy, but not really under proper textual criticism), Pliny the Younger, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Lucian, and Celsus. Furthermore, we have evidence of the martyring of all the disciples except for John. You have a valid assertion as to why they would willingly sacrifice themselves for a made-up a man that they claimed to know first hand? Of course, they had nothing to gain and people never question the historicity of Christ. Interesting that a 21st century non-scholar would know more about the existence of Jesus than the people that actually lived at that time.
yes. the person described in the bible. historically extremely hazy evidence, none of which is even close to decisive. just like the character of pythagoras is very doubtful to be a real single person described in records. {btw, self consoling laughter is a form of dellusion}so a person subject to the fall of humanity has the authority to elaborate on facts which can only be elaborated on initially by a person who is NOT subject to the fall of man? clear contradiction. his writings are rife with contradictions, fallacies, ignorance and arrogane. he was a stupid old politician.
Also, self-consoling laughter is not a form of delusion. I'm 100% positive I am more qualified than you to comment on it based on the fact that you would even assert something that blatantly false. Furthermore, that was no self-consoling laughter and your attempt at an ad hominem has miserably failed.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Not hazy evidence at all. The Talmud alone should be confirmation. Then we have Tacitus, Josephus (which is slightly hazy, but not really under proper textual criticism), Pliny the Younger, Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, Lucian, and Celsus. Furthermore, we have evidence of the martyring of all the disciples except for John. You have a valid assertion as to why they would willingly sacrifice themselves for a made-up a man that they claimed to know first hand? Of course, they had nothing to gain and people never question the historicity of Christ. Interesting that a 21st century non-scholar would know more about the existence of Jesus than the people that actually lived at that time.Also, self-consoling laughter is not a form of delusion. I'm 100% positive I am more qualified than you to comment on it based on the fact that you would even assert something that blatantly false. Furthermore, that was no self-consoling laughter and your attempt at an ad hominem has miserably failed.
my my, sum1 is worked up. jewish scriptures of the time can not be taken as evidence. and it would be interesting to note that the state of israel officially denies much of the claims made by catholics and evangelists about the proclaimed references in ancient historical texts.
we have CHRISTIAN evidence for the martyrdom of the disciples. and chhristian PROCLAIMED evidence, just like many sects claim christianity is totally reconcileable with modern science. im sorry, i dont have the stomach for such fallacies. as for your point about a 21st century scholar, that would only hold true if the character of christ and his chronology was proven true. needless to say, the opposite is true, and yes, i atleast have common sense enough to avoid making thousands of errors and contradictions when writing the bible and portraying events about him. they were biased sources with personal beliefs which were used to persecutive ends. and people die for their false beliefs everyday, many christians die and KILL for jesus when they have never seen him. so that logic is baseless.
and please, take it easy, i was merely referring to the literal definition of delusion{i seriously doubt, bases on that post that your qualified to make ANY claim like you do let alone show the non existing understanding of modern psychology} not the psychological one. it is merelely, believing in a lie, literally, and by laughing feceman was trying to overcome the fact that in the absence of evidence, he had nuthing credible to offer as opposition to my post.
the same way your deluding yourself into believing that if you suck up enough to him by falsely discrediting me, and my apparent "attempts" 🙄 , you will not spend the night alone in your bed.
{just so u know, FAR more qualified people than you including bertrand russel, john dewey, noam chomsky, and hundreds of others with well repute among the general sceptical philosophical community at large consider it very improbable that the historic character of christ existed}
have a nice day.
The Talmud is not a Jewish scripture of the day. And it is readily available for you to do research. You have brushed off with a hand without any knowledge on the subject. Therefore, you are ignorant. It is not Christian proclaimed evidence I speak of at all. It is secular archeology. Roman documents are secular and have been found and are readily available to the public. The vast majority of scholarly opinion is against you on this one.
Second, you bringing up contradictions is off-topic, plus it is false and you still have yet to prove even one. If it were so obvious as you ignorantly claim you would quite easily provide one that stands scrutiny. I mean there must be some unexplainable gem to take down Christianity right? Apparently not = fail.
Third, the logic does not fail because they would have been quickly discredited if Jesus never existed. The Romans would never have mentioned his crucification, the Jews who hated him would not have written about him etc., etc. Fact is that none of these are explainable by anything you have offered shows that you are very ignorant on the subject and gullible to atheist activists. I can understand people not believing the Bible to be true, but your claims are idiocy paramount.
Also, I am rather qualified and apparently you have poor comprehension skills. Feceman was laughing at the idiocy of your statement. Feceman has previously showed evidence attesting to the existence of Christ. You have shown no evidence to the contrary. Thanks for playing that game because you lost.
Also, that is not the literal definition. Modern psychiatry requires that the belief is caused by illness. We call this pathological. An elementary modern psychology definition of delusion is a false belief that is maintained despite compelling evidence to the contrary. Since there is compelling evidence for the historical existence of Jesus and no evidence against it I believe you can do the math on who is suffering from a delusion.
Next, I am not sucking up to Feceman. You are simply being ignorant and fallacious. That is what I am addressing.
Lastly, none of the people you named are more qualified in matters of archeology. They are philosophers and their beliefs on the matter are rather immaterial. Furthermore, they had little to say on the subject so your point is moot.
After reading leonheartmm's rebuttal, I thought he had it in the bag...but after reading Nellinator's second rebuttal...it is clear that he has delivered some serious pwnage.
Okay...Jesus the man existed...that much is for certain. The question is his Divinity and this is where theology parts with anthropology.
Re: Re: Re: Jesus Was Perfect?
Originally posted by chithappens
1) That is not Matthew 5:38. I'm looking at a Bible right now. Matthew 5:38 is talking about the law of Moses and "eye for an eye" stuff.2) Well that was a proclamation to become perfect rather than saying "at this moment, you are perfect."
3) Leviticus 11:1-8
"The the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "give the following instructions to the Isarelites: The animals you may use for food include those that have completely divided hooves and chew the cud. You may not, however, eat the animals named here because they either have split hooves or chew the cud, but not both. The camel may not be eaten, for though it chews the cud it does not have split hooves. The same is true of the rock badger. and the hare, so they also may never be eaten. And the pig may not be eaten for though it has split hooves, it does not chew the cud. You may not eat the meat of these animals or touch their dead bodies. They are ceremonially unclean for you."
-AND -
Isiah 66:17
"Those who 'purify' themselves in a sacred garden, feasting on pork and rats and other forbidden meats, will come to a terrible end," says the Lord.
- Both tell you not to eat pork, yet:
Mark 7:14-23
"Then Jesus called to the crowd to come and hear. "All of you listen." he said, " and try to understand. You are not defiled by what you ear; you are defiled by what you say and do. Then Jesus went into a house to get away from the crowds, and his disciples asked him what he meant by the statement he had made.
"Don't you understand either? he asked. "Can't you see that what you eat won't defile you? Food doesn't come in contact with your heart, but only passes through the stomach and then comes out again.
And then he added, " It is the thought-life that defiles you. For from within out of a person's heart comes evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, eagerness for lustful pleasure, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you and make you unacceptable to God."
-so-
You mean to tell me that someone who decides what God's law REALLY says is not of sin at all?
Can we revisit this?
The the most plausible reasons that the nation of Israel wasn't allowed to eat pork weren't really applicable. Furthermore, Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses and we are subject to a new covenant, not the old. Third, at an early church council in Jerusalem, Peter decided that the Gentiles were not subject to the Law of Moses.
Finally, Jesus was God had changed His covenant with us. This was prophecied by Jeremiah in the OT. I can't remember the exact verse right now though.