Was Jesus Christ Perfect?

[the_bob_delusion]

What do you think? Was everything he did or said moral/ethical and a reflection of a perfect person?

What would a perfect person entail?

If he really was human, then was he born in sin like everyone else?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

godsandmen:"He would also not have been human."

Tell that to all the IVF babies.

godsandmen:"The whole point of Jesus being born of a woman was that he needed to be a human being. Granted, God could have put an already fertilized egg into Mary's womb, but why would he do that? 1. Why not just create a full-grown man called "Jesus" instead of having him grow in a womb like any other human? That's what he did when he created Adam, right? A full-grown man right out of the gate. Jesus is supposedly the "second Adam", so it would make more sense that way."

because a full grown man appearing out of nowhere would not have fulfilled the prophecy. The Messiah had to be born of a virgin.

** A perfect human has all the free choice and temptations -  Adam was perfect and yet he sinned. Jesus was human - he had emotions - he wept - he got angry - just like any other person.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

godsandmen wrote:"The whole point of Jesus being born of a woman was that he needed to be a human being. Granted, God could have put an already fertilized egg into Mary's womb, but why would he do that? Why not just create a full-grown man called "Jesus" instead of having him grow in a womb like any other human? That's what he did when he created Adam, right?"

Rabbit: So, now you are AGREEING that: 1. God exists; 2. God could have put a fertilized egg into Mary's womb. 3. Mary as mentioned in the Bible was REAL; 4. Jesus, the first born of Mary was REAL. 6. Adam was created by God as a full grown man and he was perfect.

Thank you for clarifying those points.

As I said in my previous post, the Messiah had to be born of a virgin in order to fulfil the prophecy.

godandmen wrote: "I don’t understand the logic of Christians thinking that, for some reason, Jesus needed to be perfect. This is simply not true. He needed to be sinless, not perfect. If fact, he needed to be imperfect, in the sense that he needed to be subject to the same temptations and ability to sin as anybody else. Had Jesus not have received this vulnerability from Mary, he would not have had it at all. And if that were the case, then he would not have qualified to be the ultimate sacrifice for sin."

Rabbit: You partly answered this question in your previous paragraph. BECAUSE Adam was perfect, and there had to be a EQUAL sacrifice made, Jesus had to be perfect too. There are many scriptures, of which I am sure you are aware, that talk about the Second Adam and the reason Jesus had to be perfect. It was because Jesus was perfect (ie sinless) that he was the ONLY one to satisfy the need.

Where do you get the idea that a perfect human has no capacity to be tempted or to sin?

Jesus had the same weaknesses as any other man. This is ANOTHER reason why he was not created as a full grown man - he had to be born, grow and learn all the things that an ordinary baby would learn.  He probably crawled before he learned to walk. He had to LEARN not to stub his toe because it hurt. As an apprentice carpenter, he probably hit his finger with a hammer more than once. He had to experience all the things that an ordinary child (and grown man) would experience in order for him to be able to sympathise with the inherent weaknesses of a human. He did that.

While he was growing up, he studied and discussed the scrolls with the priests - he had to learn - he was not born with knowledge. When God's Holy Spirit fell on him at his baptism by John, he was probably given knowledge far beyond what he had learned - but,  that's another discussion all together.

Jesus was born perfect and sinless, but that does not mean that he had no capacity to sin. It would be the same as saying Einstein was a genius, so therefore he had no capacity to make a mistake in his calculations.

godsandmen wrote:"He {Jesus} would have been 100% divine and therefore impervious to temptation and incapable of sinning."

Rabbit: Who said? The Angels were divine and some of them certainly sinned. Where do you think Satan and his followers came from? They were originally divine angels.

godsandmen wrote:"As an afterthought, keep in mind that Paul, our earliest Christian writer, never mentions any "virgin birth". The fact that our earliest Christian writer never mention this probably means the belief in the virgin birth of Jesus didn't exist in Paul's day"

Paul - our earliest Christian writer? Well, I suppose he was, in that the Disciples and other (New Testament) Bible writers (who wrote much earlier than Paul / Saul) were not classified as Christians until afterwards, but they certainly were 'followers of Christ' - so Christians in all but name. ** Or are you saying that Paul's letters were written before the other books? Please clarify that for me.

Re: No mention of virgin birth by Paul: Paul's writings take up well AFTER the birth and death of Jesus so why would he feel the need to recap what the earlier writers had covered? Paul (Saul) persecuted Christians for some years, before his conversion. I am sure he would not have wanted to dwell on that but rather look ahead.

[godsandmen]

Paul IS the earliest writer in the NT. His writings came decades before the earliest gospel (Mark) and all other NT writers. Paul was long dead before any other NT book was written. And the books ascribed to the original twelve were not actually written by them. Paul likely was completely unaware of any virgin birth. If he did, he would have mentioned that somewhere in his letters and explained to his readers the theological significance of it.

There are no legitimate OT prophecies about a virgin birth, but that's another story,

Angels are not divine. If they were, they would be part of the godhead.

Jesus was perfect (ie sinless)

Perhaps the problem here is that I make a distinction between being perfect and being sinless.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Paul IS the earliest writer in the NT. His writings came decades before the earliest gospel (Mark) and all other NT writers. Paul was long dead before any other NT book was written. And the books ascribed to the original twelve were not actually written by them. Paul likely was completely unaware of any virgin birth. If he did, he would have mentioned that somewhere in his letters and explained to his readers the theological significance of it.

Rubbish.

There are no legitimate OT prophecies about a virgin birth, but that's another story,

I'll look a few up when I have time.

Angels are not divine. If they were, they would be part of the godhead.

Godhead??? There IS no Godhead - that's a Catholic invention from the 2nd century. 

Jesus was perfect (ie sinless)

Perhaps the problem here is that I make a distinction between being perfect and being sinless. So do I, but Jesus was BOTH.

[godsandmen]

It is NOT rubbish. Paul's writings gives us the earliest Christian view of Christ that we have, and it doesn't include a virgin birth. It's probably an addition added later in part to make Jesus appear divine in a way that gentiles could accept, since they were very familiar with the concept of virgin births in their own mythologies. It was likely also added to counter the claim at that time by the Jews that Jesus was a bastard son.

Paul also did not believe in an empty tomb. If you read his writings without reading them through the lens of the later gospels, it is clear that Paul did not believe that Jesus rose from the dead in a physical body. He was raised in a spiritual body, while leaving his old flesh-and-bones corpse behind - still in the grave.

[godsandmen]

Btw, the earliest gospel, the gospel of Mark, ALSO does not have a virgin birth. The earlier you get, more more authentic it gets.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

godsandmen wrote:"And the books ascribed to the original twelve were not actually written by them."

Which books were ascribed to the original 12?

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

godsandmen wrote: "Paul IS the earliest writer in the NT. His writings came decades before the earliest gospel (Mark) and all other NT writers. Paul was long dead before any other NT book was written. And the books ascribed to the original twelve were not actually written by them."

I thought that Matthew was written before any others (c41) and that Mark wasn't written until about c60-65 after most of Paul's writings which spanned c50-64 ?? So Paul wasn't long dead and his writings were not 'decades before the earliest gospel (Mark) and all other NT writers'. Of course, John's writings were decades after Paul being c98.

[godsandmen]

I thought that Matthew was written before any others (c41) and that Mark wasn't written until about c60-65 after most of Paul's writings which spanned c50-64 ?? So Paul wasn't long dead and his writings were not 'decades before the earliest gospel (Mark) and all other NT writers'. Of course, John's writings were decades after Paul being c98.

Most scholars date all four gospels post-70 A.D. Paul's letter were much earlier.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

"Most scholars date all four gospels post-70 A.D. Paul's letter were much earlier."

do you have a link to that info?

[godsandmen]

The Books ascribed to the original twelve are Matthew, John, I and 2 Peter, the epistles of John and James.