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 wrote: "They may have had stacks of scrolls, but not about Jesus. The Jesus story was too new to have been recorded in scrolls. Nope. The new Christians from Paul's ministry were almost completely ignorant, as was Paul himself, apparently."

The Jesus story, as you put it, was 50 years old when Paul started writing. What makes you think (or rather KNOW) that nothing was written about it before that??? 

godsandmen wrote:"Paul writing hundreds of letters is just ridiculous. If he did, we would have those letters, or at least we would have references to them by later Christian authors. But we don't. Paul didn't write any other letters, and many of the so-called letters of Paul (like Colossians, Ephesians, and the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul at all."

See, you're only seeing what you want to see - I said 'Paul and others'.

Also, the assumption that 'we would have those letters' is also in error. How many thousands of scrolls must have been written - about every conceivable thing -  that have not survived to this day?? The congregation notes taken from teachings that they received would have been one-offs and probably never copied - the odds against those surviving are pretty great, don't you think??

Also, the assumption that Paul would go on his ministry, convert a few people in this town and that and then leave them to their own devices with no scrolls to study is ludicrous.

Anyway, back to the OP - Yes, I think Jesus was perfect and sinless, unless you classify  getting angry with the money changers as a sin.

Good night all.

[cueperkins]

Right then........

...And spotteth twice they the camels before the third hour, and so, the Midianites went forth to Ram Gilead in Kadesh Bilgemath, by Shor Ethra Regalion, to the house of Gash-Bil-Bethuel-Bazda, he who brought the butter dish to Balshazar and the tent peg to the house of Rashomon, and there slew they the goats, yea, and placed they the bits in little pots. Here endeth the lesson.

Let us praise God. O Lord,...

ooh, You are so big,...

so absolutely huge.....

Gosh, we're all really impressed down here, I can tell You.

Forgive us, O Lord, for this, our dreadful toadying, and...

barefaced flattery.

But You are so strong and, well, just so super.

 Amen.

[godsandmen]

godsandmen wrote: "They may have had stacks of scrolls, but not about Jesus. The Jesus story was too new to have been recorded in scrolls. Nope. The new Christians from Paul's ministry were almost completely ignorant, as was Paul himself, apparently."

The Jesus story, as you put it, was 50 years old when Paul started writing. What makes you think (or rather KNOW) that nothing was written about it before that??? 

godsandmen wrote:"Paul writing hundreds of letters is just ridiculous. If he did, we would have those letters, or at least we would have references to them by later Christian authors. But we don't. Paul didn't write any other letters, and many of the so-called letters of Paul (like Colossians, Ephesians, and the pastoral epistles were not written by Paul at all."

See, you're only seeing what you want to see - I said 'Paul and others'.

Also, the assumption that 'we would have those letters' is also in error. How many thousands of scrolls must have been written - about every conceivable thing -  that have not survived to this day?? The congregation notes taken from teachings that they received would have been one-offs and probably never copied - the odds against those surviving are pretty great, don't you think??

Also, the assumption that Paul would go on his ministry, convert a few people in this town and that and then leave them to their own devices with no scrolls to study is ludicrous.

Anyway, back to the OP - Yes, I think Jesus was perfect and sinless, unless you classify  getting angry with the money changers as a sin.

Good night all.

The Jesus story was 50 years old when Paul started writing

Actually Paul's first epistle, 1 Thes., was written about 51 A.D.. That's less than twenty years after Jesus.

Also, the assumption that Paul would go on his ministry, convert a few people in this town and that and then leave them to their own devices with no scrolls to study is ludicrous.

But that's exactly what happened. He did try to keep in touch with them through his letters, and he often sent people to check up on them, but that's all he could do.

All that stuff about lost scrolls is pure speculation and special pleading, and there is no evidence for that. Paul's readers would have known very, very little. His letters, which were copied and passed around between the various churches he founded, would likely have been all they had.

[godsandmen]

But if this charge is true [that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night], and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. 

(Deuteronomy  22:20-21)

[rabbitearbandicoot]

The Jesus story was 50 years old when Paul started writing. 

Actually Paul's first epistle, 1 Thes., was written about 51 A.D.. That's less than twenty years after Jesus.

I am not sure about that date but, anyway ... 51 AD - let's see... that's 51 years after Jesus. The Jesus story started at his birth.

All that stuff about lost scrolls is pure speculation and special pleading, and there is no evidence for that.

All that stuff about Paul and others NOT writing scrolls that have since been lost is ALSO pure speculation. I am pretty sure that the term lost means they haven't been found, so there's no evidence either way. I am pretty sure that Paul could have squeezed in a bit of time to write more than 14 letters in his lifetime.

On another point, have any of his previous letters been found?? You know, when he was persecuting the Christians?

[rabbitearbandicoot]

an interesting point regarding the order of writers, Luke opens his writings by saying:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

I don't know about you, but that sounds suspiciously like Luke may be talking about previous versions of the Jesus story? It doesn't leave any doubt in my mind that the Gospels (or at least some of them) were around when Luke started to write.

[godsandmen]

There is no reason to believe he wrote any letter when he was persecuting Christians. If he did, none have been found and nobody in antiquity ever mentioned any such letters. There are, I believe, three letters of Paul that have been lost. One was a letter to the Corinthians prior to 1 Corinthians (referenced in 1 Cor. 5:9), one is a letter to the Laodiceans, and a letter to the Alexandrians. Whether Paul wrote any more letters than these is impossible to say. No other letters by Paul were ever mentioned in antiquity.

[godsandmen]

an interesting point regarding the order of writers, Luke opens his writings by saying:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

I don't know about you, but that sounds suspiciously like Luke may be talking about previous versions of the Jesus story? It doesn't leave any doubt in my mind that the Gospels (or at least some of them) were around when Luke started to write.

I agree. Luke's gospel came third, so yes, there was others prior to his. But Luke was written very late. It is unattested in any Christian writings before the second half of the second century. Luke-Acts are addressed to a certain "Theophilus". In my mind there is no doubt that this is a reference to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who lives in the middle of the second century.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

godsandmen wrote: "Luke-Acts are addressed to a certain "Theophilus". In my mind there is no doubt that this is a reference to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who lives in the middle of the second century."

and why would a Bishop have needed to learn about the story of Jesus ??? I would think he would have a reasonable idea long before he became a bishop. I don't know the alternative but I am reasonably sure that you have the wrong Theophilus. According to what I have read Luke was written about 56-58AD and Acts 61AD so long before the 2nd century - unless you have other information.

[godsandmen]

Theophilus was born a pagan, and eventually became convinced of Christianity by reading the Old Testament, believe it or not. Since he was probably unfamiliar with much of the Jesus story, he needed to learn a few things, which is likely why Luke-Acts was addressed to him. He probably wasn't a bishop at that time, but became one later on.

According to what I have read Luke was written about 56-58AD and Acts 61AD

That's because you are reading the stuff coming from fundagelicals. Critical scholars don't believe this. As I said, Acts is unattested in any Christian or secular writings earlier than the second half of the second century, which is good indication that it was probably written shortly before that time.