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]

Luke in Acts talks about Paul being with him and Paul in Collosians also talks about Luke 'the beloved physician and passing on his regards. So Paul and Luke must have been around the same time. If Paul wrote in the 60s then Luke must have written about the same time???

The only other Theophilus about that time, that I can find, is the son of the High Priest Anas, and his son was Mattathias who became the replacement for Judas.

I have to go out now but I'll look it up when I get home.

[godsandmen]

A couple of good links about the virgin birth:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm

http://www.beliefnet.com/Entertainment/Movies/The-Nativity-Story/A-Religious-Santa-Claus-Tale.aspx

[godsandmen]

Luke in Acts talks about Paul being with him and Paul in Collosians also talks about Luke 'the beloved physician and passing on his regards. So Paul and Luke must have been around the same time. If Paul wrote in the 60s then Luke must have written about the same time???

The only other Theophilus about that time, that I can find, is the son of the High Priest Anas, and his son was Mattathias who became the replacement for Judas.

I have to go out now but I'll look it up when I get home.

There is no evidence that Luke the physician wrote either the gospel of Luke or Acts. That was pure guesswork on the part of early Christians.

The argument for an early date for Acts hinges on two things: 1) Paul is still alive at the end of the books, and 2) the "we" passages, where the author includes himself in some of Paul's adventures. But I think both of these things are literary devices employed by the author to make it LOOK much earlier than it was, thereby giving it more credibility.

There is clear and undeniable evidence that the author of Acts used the writings of Josephus for some of his source material. I won't go into this evidence, but I find it very convincing. Since Josephus' works were not published until the 90s A.D., Acts could not have been written earlier than that. There is also much in Acts that fits better in a second-century situation than in a first-century one.

I would recommend two books on the subject:

THIS ONE by Richard Pervo, probably the world's most respected scholar on Acts.

And THIS ONE by Joseph Tyson.

Both are excellent books. I am convinced Acts was written as a reaction to Marcionism, which was spreading like wildfire in the early second century. But that's way too much to get into on a discussion board.

[godsandmen]

Okay, so you don't want to talk. That happens a lot to me. Here's a summary of evidence that Luke was dependent of Josephus"

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

[rabbitearbandicoot]

sorry, just woke up. Spent most of the night in hospital so had a sleep this afternoon.

I have read the first of those links about dating Acts - I am still not impressed by what it said.

I haven't read the second one yet, but I will read the Luke and Josephus one first and get back to you.

[rabbitearbandicoot]

read the link on 'A Religious Santa Claus' also read the comments underneath that link - more impressed with them.

read the link on Josephus / Luke - all nice theories - nothing proves that Luke copied Josephus, or even makes me doubt that Luke is genuine. I still believe that Luke was written while Paul was still in prison so that would make it consistent with my date for Luke c56-58

[rabbitearbandicoot]

read the other link - the virgin birth -

"The Jewish Christians rejected the virgin birth. They were the original religious group formed by Jesus' followers who established a Jewish group in Jerusalem. They were led by James the Just. He was the brother of Jesus, and thus could have been expected to know of any miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth."

rejected is a strong word - Where did they reject the virgin birth? Unless I am missing something, this is another 'because they didn't mention it .. it mustn't be true' argument and you already know my view on that. eg There have been hundreds of books written about World War 1 - different writers attach different significances to different events and omit events that another writer regards as significant PLUS from the other viewpoint, can you say that because A looks like they cover the same or similar details and write in a similar fashion to B, they must have copied or at least have known B????

[rabbitearbandicoot]

now, you're not talking??? It happens a lot to me too.

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

godsandmen wrote about Revelations and John: "His 144,000 "virgins" is a good indication of that. Far be it for them to be married!

I am very interested in hearing/reading your explanations of these statements that you made earlier"

**************
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."

and later godsandmen wrote:" 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."

This statement seems to contradict your earlier one. If there are 3, then there could be many others despite your earlier protestations that there couldn't possibly be any.

**************