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?

[godsandmen]

Godsandmen, it's nice to see some logical thought and research applied to this subject.

Thank you. That means a lot to me. I know I can be a bit of a downer, so whenever I get a compliment, I treasure it!

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Godsandmen wrote: ”There are 13 letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament.”

I thought Paul wrote 14 books? Which of these do you say was not written by Paul? 

Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Hebrews

Godsandmen wrote:” Paul never mentions the gospels. If the gospels existed during his time, he surely would have mentioned them. Paul knew that Jesus had been crucified, but he never mentions any miracles, any parables, any exorcisms. He never mentions the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the three Wise Men, Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan etc etc.

Rabbit: And why would he? Paul was writing to an already established congregation who knew all about the life and times and teachings of Jesus. Why would he need to rehash all of that? When the Pope writes a letter to Cardinal Pell (if he does??), does he start by explaining how Jesus lived and died, does he feel it necessary to talk about the ‘miracles, any parables, any exorcisms, the Lord's Prayer, the Transfiguration, the Sermon on the Mount, Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, the three Wise Men, Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents, Galilee, Nazareth, Pontius Pilate, Judas Iscariot, Gethsemane, Calvary, the Temptation by Satan ‘ and does he remind Cardinal Pell of the numerous things that have gone on in the Church since then??? The letter would be 100 boxes of A4 paper. Absolutely ridiculous to say that Paul should have done anything other than what he did in his letters, which, in most cases weres either congratulating the elders of the already established congregations for their accomplishments or admonishing them for their failings – or both.

“Paul's view of salvation is diametrically opposed to that of the synoptic gospels.”

Please explain.

“but he had nothing but contempt for James, Peter, and the rest of the people who actually knew the flesh and blood Jesus. “

Please explain.

[2012foolfool2012]

Can't you come up with some new trolling topics. Religion is so boring.

Like who gets to move to Mars when the earth is dead? The rich people? The beautiful people? Only people who have never had welfare? Who who?

[godsandmen]

On the contrary rabbit, Paul's readers would have known next to nothing about the historical Jesus. Nice try though. I can tell you consulted with your favorite apologists.

The fact is though, this was a long time ago, and it was nothing like it is today. Keep in mind that the people Paul preached to had never heard of Jesus Christ before. Paul's readers probably know nothing about Jesus, other than what Paul himself told them. And it's not like they could have just checked with their New Testaments, since they didn't exist yet. No, they were ignorant at best. This "established congregation" had probably only heard about Jesus from Paul, and Paul never stayed in any one place for very long. He kept moving. Their knowledge would have been minimal at best. You would think, given this situation, that Paul would have made it a point to recount the stories of Jesus as many times as he could possibly fit it into his letters, but he didn't.

Almost 2 A.M. where I live. Goodnight all.

[godsandmen]

Paul's view of salvation vs. the synoptic gospels should be obvious. Matthew clearly taught that salvation was by works, not "faith". In fact, Matthew made it even more difficult, in that he insisted that the thoughts of the heart are just as important as the actual deeds. If you even lust upon a woman, you have already committed adultery in your heart, etc. Matthew never even hinted at Paul's version of salvation. In fact, Matthew was probably written to refute Paul, as was Revelation and certainly James.

Okay, NOW I bid you all goodnight.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

godsandmen wrote:"On the contrary rabbit, Paul's readers would have known next to nothing about the historical Jesus. Nice try though. I can tell you consulted with your favorite apologists."

Why would they have know next to nothing about Jesus? You assume a great deal when you make these blanket statements.

I consulted with no-one. I followed my own logic. Someone congratulated you on your logic. If you cannot see the LOGIC in what I said above about the Pope writing to his Cardinals then I can't help but feel your logic needs some work.

[the_bob_delusion]

THe point is if God visited you think everyone would've payed attention. Apparently everyone just forgot. 

[rabbitearbandicoot]

Paul's view of salvation vs. the synoptic gospels should be obvious. Matthew clearly taught that salvation was by works, not "faith". In fact, Matthew made it even more difficult, in that he insisted that the thoughts of the heart are just as important as the actual deeds. If you even lust upon a woman, you have already committed adultery in your heart, etc. Matthew never even hinted at Paul's version of salvation. In fact, Matthew was probably written to refute Paul, as was Revelation and certainly James.

Okay, NOW I bid you all goodnight.

Now, you are putting words in Matthew's mouth. It was Jesus who said that in The Sermon on the Mount - Matthew just recorded it.

 Revelation was written to refute Paul ?? You do come out with some funny stuff.

[godsandmen]

Refresh my memory. What did you say about the pope writing to his cardinals?

Why would they have know next to nothing about Jesus?

I already told you. It was not like today where there is a church on every corner. This was all very new to them. They new next to nothing, except for what Paul himself told them. And since Paul was constantly on the move, it would be easy to forget what he said. Paul should have talked about the life of  Jesus constantly, if only to drill it into their minds, yet he said almost nothing about the historical Jesus. Something is seriously wrong here.

[tasfleur]

Stands and applauds Cue at post #80, and Godsandmen as well ...  🙂