Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, you didn't understand my point at all. Had Jesus claimed perfection, he would have said "Be ye therefore perfect even as I am perfect."Keep in mind, he is the great I Am if we are to believe he is the same being as God (the Trinity concept which is a false-doctrine made up sometime between 200 and 300 AD).
He's clearly not the same being as The Father or else he would just have said be perfect like Me OR be perfect like my Father and Me.
Fact:
He never claimed to be perfect like God in the NT. He claimed multiple times that God was perfect.
As to the rest, that doesn't change anything I have stated nor does it function to directly address what I've stated. You can change the word "perfect" to a made up word such as "danskty" and my point is still the same. Here, I'll do it for you:
"1. Jesus never claimed to be danksty like "The Father" in any New Testament scripture.
2. Being without sin is not the same thing as being danksty else newborn babies would be just as danksty as God which would make them omnipotent like God which is hilariously wrong."
A tacit requirement of being omnipotent is being perfect. You cannot be perfect unless you are omnipotent. This is by all definitions you want to apply to perfect including the old Greek word play game. The reason is in the meaning of omnipotence.
Your fundamental definition for perfection, as you stated earlier, was being without sin. Babies are by definition without sin (original sin does not exist). The word you are looking for is transgression. A sin is not the same thing as transgression.
Sinning requires a knowledge of your actions or thoughts being bad and then doing them anyway. Transgressing eternal laws does not require that knowledge it is only a violation of those eternal laws.
But, since babies are without sin, they are by your first use of perfect, perfect. Therefore, they are omnipotent because then they would be the same as God. It does not matter that you want the word "perfect" to mean "just a mature man" because that's clearly not the way Jesus Christ was using the word. Else he command a literally impossible command?
If you want Jesus to be perfect in the New Testament, you must prove that he claimed to be perfect like God The Father. That burden is on you to do so. Since I know nothing like that exists in the NT, don't waste your time and just admit you were wrong: it will save us time. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that Jesus was not equal to God's perfection. I have already shown that He does not place Himself on the same level. He clearly differentiates himself from God by not claiming equality when it would have been linguistically and logically simpler to do so in His Sermon on the Mount.
Edit - You shouldn't try to play "greek word games" with a Mormon because we are almost 200 years ahead of you when it comes to the Greek word games. I have tons of resources that address this very particular argument and some have been published for over a Century. 😄
Basically, you didn't understand my point at all. Had Jesus claimed perfection, he would have said "Be ye therefore perfect even as I am perfect."
That’s presumption.
Lord Jesus doesn’t have to claim perfection because perfection in the Bible doesn’t meant what you think that it means.
Perfection in the Bible means spiritually mature in terms of integrity and virtue.
Keep in mind, he is the great I Am if we are to believe he is the same being as God (the Trinity concept which is a false-doctrine made up sometime between 200 and 300 AD).
Nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say that He and His Father are the same being.
Lord Jesus says in John 10:30,
John 10:30
30 I and My Father are one.
The Trinity Truth does not affirm that Heavenly Father, Lord Jesus, and Holy Spirit are one Being—but one God (or Godhead).
The Godhead is comprised of three divine Persons, Who are equal in power, understanding, and omnipresence.
He's clearly not the same being as The Father or else he would just have said be perfect like Me OR be perfect like my Father and Me.
Lord Jesus never said that He was the same being as the Father.
God is a Spirit.
Spiritual beings have the unique ability to unite (i.e. dwell, or inhabit one another’s being, and yet still remain separate and distinct from the other person they inhabit).
I do not expect you to understand this because it is spiritual revelation, and you have to be born again by the Word and Spirit of God to understand the things of God.
Fact:He never claimed to be perfect like God in the NT. He claimed multiple times that God was perfect.
Your definition of perfect is different than the Bible’s definition of perfect.
Lord Jesus is everything that His Father is.
Lord Jesus gave His Father the glory when He dwelled among us as a Human being, because He wanted people to know His Father.
As to the rest, that doesn't change anything I have stated nor does it function to directly address what I've stated. You can change the word "perfect" to a made up word such as "danskty" and my point is still the same. Here, I'll do it for you:
All the same, but perfect in the Bible does not mean what you interpret it to mean.
Perfect never means without error or fault in the Bible, but [color=blue]spiritually mature in terms of integrity and virtue.
So the word perfect invariably pertains to one’s character not infallibility.[/COLOR]
"1. Jesus never claimed to be danksty like "The Father" in any New Testament scripture.
See above response.
2. Being without sin is not the same thing as being danksty else newborn babies would be just as danksty as God which would make them omnipotent like God which is hilariously wrong."
Newborn babies are not without sin.
They have a sin nature just like everyone else born into this world.
The Bible states,
Proverbs 20:11
Even a child is known by his deeds, Whether what he does is pure and right.
So children’s deeds or actions are knowable, or recognizable, but God is righteous and just, so He does not hold babies accountable for their sins until such time as they are able to discern right and wrong.
A tacit requirement of being omnipotent is being perfect. You cannot be perfect unless you are omnipotent. This is by all definitions you want to apply to perfect including the old Greek word play game. The reason is in the meaning of omnipotence.
Omnipotence does not have anything to do with being perfect.
Omnipotent means all-powerful.
What does all power have to do with perfection?
Again, see above definition of the word perfect to understand what it really means in the Bible.
Your fundamental definition for perfection, as you stated earlier, was being without sin. Babies are by definition without sin (original sin does not exist). The word you are looking for is transgression. A sin is not the same thing as transgression.
No, I never said that perfection had anything to do with sin.
Since you introduced newborn babies into the discussion I simply used your definition of perfection to refute your point.
Sinning requires a knowledge of your actions or thoughts being bad and then doing them anyway. Transgressing eternal laws does not require that knowledge it is only a violation of those eternal laws.
I don’t know what this has to do with the discussion.
But, since babies are without sin, they are by your first use of perfect, perfect. Therefore, they are omnipotent because then they would be the same as God. It does not matter that you want the word "perfect" to mean "just a mature man" because that's clearly not the way Jesus Christ was using the word. Else he command a literally impossible command?
No, babies are not without sin, if they were then we would not need a Savior.
Bear in mind that babies grow and develop into conscious, rational adults with a free will, or capacity to choose good or evil, right or wrong, to sin or not sin.
According to the Bible all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
By one man’s disobedience (Adam’s) many were made sinners.
In Adam all die.
Death spread to all men because all sinned.
Because of Adam we need the Savior.
We need to be born again.
Babies are not omnipotent.
Only God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is omnipotent.
If you want Jesus to be perfect in the New Testament, you must prove that he claimed to be perfect like God The Father. That burden is on you to do so. Since I know nothing like that exists in the NT, don't waste your time and just admit you were wrong: it will save us time. The burden of proof is not on me to prove that Jesus was not equal to God's perfection. I have already shown that He does not place Himself on the same level. He clearly differentiates himself from God by not claiming equality when it would have been linguistically and logically simpler to do so in His Sermon on the Mount.
It is not a matter of what I want Lord Jesus to be.
Lord Jesus is the great God and Savior, the I AM, the Beginning and End, the First and the Last.
So Lord Jesus is good without me.
Again, Lord Jesus is everything His Father is.
In the beginning was the Word (Jesus), and the Word (Jesus), was with God, and the Word (Jesus) was God.
The same was in the beginning (i.e. eternity) with God.
Edit - You shouldn't try to play "greek word games" with a Mormon because we are almost 200 years ahead of you when it comes to the Greek word games. I have tons of resources that address this very particular argument and some have been published for over a Century.
I’m not playing Greek word games, I’m refuting your claims with incontrovertible, academic sources.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
That's still not proof.
There are many, many interpretations of the Bible - and to believe the Bible is inerrant is admitting that you don't have a thinking process to speak of - especially when the Bible contradicts itself in so many ways. OT - prostitutes must be stoned to death. NT - Jesus himself makes a friend of Mary Magdalene, a prostitute. OT - rabbis or church elders are the ultimate source of religious conduct and knowledge. NT - Jesus himself tells all who will listen that the church elders are idiots and that they should not listen to them.
Or, if the Bible must be taken seriously - all of it, and not just bits and pieces... Well, I guess my Dad can sell me off when he gets low on money. Good thing my sister is already married, and good thing she managed to marry for love, because my parents, along with a village of well-wishers and planners, could have made her marry someone for financial gain even if she hated the guy.So, quoting the Bible is STILL "your say-so." Because you are just repeating [or SAYING] what you see as SO. "Proof" means something that would stand up in a court of law. That can be argued from both sides.
You know, it's okay if you can't prove your religion to be true. In fact, God doesn't want you to. He wants you to act with faith and, through your actions, make people want to ask about it. That sad [or terrific] part of religion is that you can't prove it's true. It only makes faith a more precious commodity.
There's plenty of proof that the Bible is true:
Fulfilled prophecies concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, historical records if His life, Biblical evidence, eyewitness testimony from that era.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There's plenty of proof that the Bible is true:Fulfilled prophecies concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, historical records if His life, eyewitness testimony from that era.
You never provided one non-religious historical record of the life of Jesus Christ. In fact, nothing was written about him during his lifetime.
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
You never provided one non-religious historical record of the life of Jesus Christ. In fact, nothing was written about him during his lifetime.
I did, and I have.
Here is an old link: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=420368&pagenumber=21#post14527487
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I did, and I have.Here is an old link: http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=420368&pagenumber=21#post14527487
Antiquities of the Jews dates 93-94 AD. The earlier The Jewish War, also by Josephus, does not mention Jesus at all.
Tacitus wrote after the birth of Christ as well, AD 117.
In fact, did you even read this page in full?
[list]Justin Martyr, born A.D. 100 in Palestine, called himself a Samaritan but was probably of Greek or Roman ancestry. A well-educated philosopher, he studied the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the Stoics, but decided Christianity was the only philosophy that was "safe and profitable."[/list]
None of these people are contemporaries of Christ. There is nothing written about him during his life, no vindications of his 'miracles', and everything later appears influenced heavily by the growing Christian movement. The mythological details of his life, such as his death and resurrection, birth to a virgin mother, etc. can be found in other mythologies in the world at the time.
So again, what do you have?
Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Antiquities of the Jews dates 93-94 AD. The earlier The Jewish War, also by Josephus, does not mention Jesus at all.Tacitus wrote after the birth of Christ as well, AD 117.
In fact, did you even read this page in full?
[list]Justin Martyr, born A.D. 100 in Palestine, called himself a Samaritan but was probably of Greek or Roman ancestry. A well-educated philosopher, he studied the doctrines of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras, and the Stoics, but decided Christianity was the only philosophy that was "safe and profitable."[/list]
None of these people are contemporaries of Christ. There is nothing written about him during his life, no vindications of his 'miracles', and everything later appears influenced heavily by the growing Christian movement. The mythological details of his life, such as his death and resurrection, birth to a virgin mother, etc. can be found in other mythologies in the world at the time.
So again, what do you have?
It is still an extrabiblical, historical record/fact.
Tacitus was a Roman senator and historian, who wrote about Jesus' crucifixion.