The "perfection of Jesus" myth

[Elijah John]

Is the notion of Jesus' moral perfection a myth?

Consider some New Testament evidence.

-

Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone.

-Jesus underwent John's baptism "of repentance for the forgiveness of sins If Jesus was perfect, why would he need to repent of anything?

-

Let the dead bury their own dead

Is Jesus teaching against the Law here? Isn't there a Mosaic injunction to bury one's parents when they die? Is is a sin to tell people to break the Law? Isn't it a sin to call people names? (let the dead...)

For debate...

1) was Jesus indeed, morally perfect? If so, how do you account for this New Testament evidence to the contrary?

2) is there any other NT evidence that refutes the notion that Jesus was perfect?

3) Why is it so important for so many believers to cling to the notion that Jesus was perfect?

4) Does Jesus get a pass on all these things, because he is thought by many to be "God"? If he made the rules, can't he break them as well?

5) If Jesus did indeed keep the Law perfectly, isn't "being God" an unfair advantage in doing so?

------

Disclaimer, by attempting to establish the fact that Jesus was not perfect, the OP in no way is suggesting that Jesus was not a Godly, righteous or moral man. One can be all of those things without being "perfect".

[JehovahsWitness]

We both make distinctions between Jehovah and Jesus. Neither of us believe that Jesus is "God". Since this is the case, what right does Jesus have to call people names, especially after telling others not to do so?

Jesus wasn't "calling people names" he was accurately describing the religious leaders of his day (and pronouncing judgement on them) something he had a perfect right to do as God's anointed son, Messiah and future High Priest. In short he outranked them and they worked for HIM. He was assessing their performance and found them soarly lacking.

One standard for us, another, lower one for him?

I hate* taking the position of highlighting Jesus supposed flaws [...]

I'm sure you do, but if that is where your personal theology leads you, that's where it leads you. Indeed I'm surprised you haven't questioned the Almighty, since as Tim says, God has some pretty choice things to say about people too. If, when you are confronted with a particular bible passage, instead of questioning your reading you conclude that it is Jesus that must be "flawed" then that's just part of your belief system; Don't hate it, own it!

One standard for us, another, lower one for him?

Why are you making this a question? I of course reject the premise of the question but if you accept it, shouldn't this be a statement on your part rather than a question?

... it is very disturbing that so many mythologize him (without ever having questioned) by calling him "perfect" and in so doing, rob him of his humanity.

In your opinion. I do not agree with any of the sentiments you make here apart from the fact that I do indeed believe Jesus to be perfect.

Calling Jesus "God" or "perfect" or "firstborn of all Creation" is, in effect, pretty much all the same. It all smacks of a mythologized Jesus.

See above

*(though I don't recognize Jesus moral perfection, I have no doubt that Jesus was far superior morally than I am or any other human, for that matter)

Then how do you reconcile this with him calling the religious leaders "snakes" and telling someone to "Let the dead bury their dead"?

[JehovahsWitness]

We both make distinctions between Jehovah and Jesus. Neither of us believe that Jesus is "God". Since this is the case, what right does Jesus have to call people names, especially after telling others not to do so?

Jesus wasn't "calling people names" he was accurately describing the religious leaders of his day (and pronouncing judgement on them).



Jesus exposing the Religious leaders as "hypocrits", "vipers" "whitewashed graves" was not done in order to win an argument; his (Jesus) scriptural reasonings and peerless logic "won" every argument he had with those men. Neither were Jesus' words spoken rashly without due consideration of the facts. His statements were factually sound. So, Jesus was not "name calling" neither was he authorizing his followers to do so.



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Why is my understanding wrong, and your's right?

I haven't said mine is right, I haven't explained Jesus' words (let the dead bury their dead") at all, because the OP doesn't ask what Jesus words mean. I have simply asked you whether you have considered if the "flaw" could lie in YOUR reasoning rather than Jesus' behaviour? Is that a possibility? What is "questionable" about this?

WHEN DID YOU STOP BEATING YOUR WIFE? QUESTIONING THE PREMISE

Your post here is, based on a premise I do not accept. It is comparable to someone saying:

"Since the world is flat, how do you explain boats not falling off the edge of the ocean"

What do you expect me to say. Yes, the world is flat and the boats don't fall off because of a magnetic ring issuing from the plant Zlophek?! The question is based on a premise I don't accept so I cannot address the question, only challenge the premise upon which it is based.

For debate...

1) was Jesus indeed, morally perfect? If so, how do you account for this New Testament evidence to the contrary?

What "evidnce to the contrary"? You have yet to present any "evidence to the contrary". I cannot present a counter argument to the premise without hearing the arguments supporting said premise. Your point in this (and many other threads) is often the equivalent of

Since A means A, how do you reconcile it with B. You do not ask "What do you believe A means?" You do not ask what B means. You TELL us what A and B means and ask us to reconcile the two.

There is no way to participate in the thread without derailling it by questioning the premise and there is no way to answer the question without questioning the premise - which is why I often choose not to engage.

[Elijah John]

We both make distinctions between Jehovah and Jesus. Neither of us believe that Jesus is "God". Since this is the case, what right does Jesus have to call people names, especially after telling others not to do so?

Jesus wasn't "calling people names" he was accurately describing the religious leaders of his day (and pronouncing judgement on them).



Jesus exposing the Religious leaders as "hypocrits", "vipers" "whitewashed graves" was not done in order to win an argument; his (Jesus) scriptural reasonings and peerless logic "won" every argument he had with those men. Neither were Jesus' words spoken rashly without due consideration of the facts. His statements were factually sound. So, Jesus was not "name calling" neither was he authorizing his followers to do so.



JW

So, when Jesus does it, it is rational argument, even when he says it with tangible anger. When we do it, it is sin, according to the Sermon on the Mount. What if the folks we call "fools" are actually fools? Would Jesus approve of us calling them such, then, in cases like that?

How is that not giving Jesus a "pass" or holding him to a lower standard than he preaches?

Who's giving Jesus a "pass"? You, JWs and orthodox (small "o") Christians. You do this by circular reasoning. Jesus was perfect, is your assumption. Evidence to the contrary is presented, you deny the evidence and attack the "understanding" of the one who presented it. And you end up right where you started.

Also, you denied something you said, here:

quote="JehovahsWitness"]

Isn't it a sin to call people names? (let the dead...)

Not if the name is accurate, no.

(JW reply from post #2)

Then in post # 9 I asked you if it is no sin if the name called is "accurate"

And you replied

no, I did not say that

[JehovahsWitness]

Isn't it a sin to call people names? (let the dead...)

Not if the name is accurate, no.

Fair enough - I will clarify: Most people and groups have names. Calling a person by a name is therefore not a sin. It is not wrong to call a person a name (even one they may find offensive) [1] if one has the right to do so, [2] if is not used to "win an argument" and [3] is done with due objective consideration of the facts. In this case one is not engaging in "name calling" (see definition above) but one is accurately describing an individual or group; in short they are calling a person or people a name (naming them, catagorizing them) which is what Jesus did, rather than arbitrarily attempting to offend them.




Hope that clarifies my point,

JW

[Elijah John]

There is no way to participate in the thread without derailling it by questioning the premise and there is no way to answer the question without questioning the premise - which is why I often choose not to engage.

Not so, that would not be a derailment, if your arguments were well supported. And do you ever question your own assumptions and premises? You begin with the assumption that Jesus is perfect. You have to deny plain evidence to the contrary, or else run afoul of the WTS. How does one argue with that?

Have you ever publicly questioned any doctrine or policy of the Watchtower? Here on these boards? If so, where?

Is the WTS really that perfect and infallible? If so, why do you believe this?

Let me ask you this, what would constitute Biblical evidence that Jesus was not perfect? As you seem unconvinced by the evidence I provided.

But let us review a few points, which if you addressed them, I missed.

-Why did Jesus submit himself to John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins if he never commited any sin to repent of?

-Why did Jesus say "no one is good but God alone"? (I think Timothy answered this one but it seems a stretch and splitting hairs with definition of words)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

Yes but my point is the OP does not ask for the premise to be questioned it presents a scenerio for analysis. If the OP had asked "What did Jesus mean when he said XYZ" that would be one thing, but it doesn't, you don't even ask "Is this plain evidence to the contrary?" You TELL us it is and ask us to discuss your conclusion; Jesus' perfection is declared "a myth" and alternative views are not invited. In short, you invite discussion of your view; that's fine, you have a perfect right to want to discuss Jesus "flaws", but I have no more interest in discussing "Jesus 'evident' flaws" than discussing why God's name is Molech.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

Yes but my point is the OP does not ask for the premise to be questioned it presents a scenerio for analysis. If the OP had asked "What did Jesus mean when he said XYZ" that would be one thing, but it doesn't, you don't even ask "Is this plain evidence to the contrary?" You TELL us it is and ask us to discuss your conclusion; Jesus' perfection is declared "a myth" and alternative views are not invited. In short, you invite discussion of your view; that's fine, you have a perfect right to want to discuss Jesus "flaws", but I have no more interest in discussing "Jesus 'evident' flaws" than discussing why God's name is Molech.

Sorry, but I did ask in the opening line of the OP. Please re-read. Then I presented my case. Anyone is free to agree or disagree, but we do need evidence, or reasons why the evidence presented is not valid.

[brianbbs67]

Is the notion of Jesus' moral perfection a myth?

Consider some New Testament evidence.

-

Why do you call me good? There is none good but God alone.

-Jesus underwent John's baptism "of repentance for the forgiveness of sins If Jesus was perfect, why would he need to repent of anything?

-

Let the dead bury their own dead

Is Jesus teaching against the Law here? Isn't there a Mosaic injunction to bury one's parents when they die? Is is a sin to tell people to break the Law? Isn't it a sin to call people names? (let the dead...)

For debate...

1) was Jesus indeed, morally perfect? If so, how do you account for this New Testament evidence to the contrary?

2) is there any other NT evidence that refutes the notion that Jesus was perfect?

3) Why is it so important for so many believers to cling to the notion that Jesus was perfect?

4) Does Jesus get a pass on all these things, because he is thought by many to be "God"? If he made the rules, can't he break them as well?

5) If Jesus did indeed keep the Law perfectly, isn't "being God" an unfair advantage in doing so?

------

Disclaimer, by attempting to establish the fact that Jesus was not perfect, the OP in no way is suggesting that Jesus was not a Godly, righteous or moral man. One can be all of those things without being "perfect".

The baptism(mikvah) was a ritual cleansing pool symbolically for was clean of sins. Most Isrealite settlements would build one very earlier in the building process. John baptizing Christ was required to fulfill prophecy , regardless of whether Christ sinned or not. Mathew 3:-15-16. 16 refers to Is. 11:2 and 42:1.

The dead, to me refers to the spiritually dead.

1. He is regarded as the lamb without blemish. Is that the same as sinless(which is Only defined as transgression of the law), perhaps so.

2. I think the verse you listed is a good answer for that.

3. Idk why some believe so. It is probably because many believe he is God incarnate? I would add though, perfection in the Law, is not necessarily perfect. God gave us a few(613) laws or maybe 10 as some read. I wonder how many He holds too, just existing as Him. In other words, He gave us simple rules to live by to be acceptable to Him. Not that we would be Him.

4. I think being a strait shooter and completely honest when addressing wrong is a valid position. If one calls a rose, a pickle, every one still knows its a rose...

5. Yes being God would be pointless, really. So, God can fulfill His law? Of course ! Jesus being a man is what made it miraculous.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]

Yes but my point is the OP does not ask for the premise to be questioned it presents a scenerio for analysis. If the OP had asked "What did Jesus mean when he said XYZ" that would be one thing, but it doesn't, you don't even ask "Is this plain evidence to the contrary?" You TELL us it is and ask us to discuss your conclusion; Jesus' perfection is declared "a myth" and alternative views are not invited. In short, you invite discussion of your view; that's fine, you have a perfect right to want to discuss Jesus "flaws", but I have no more interest in discussing "Jesus 'evident' flaws" than discussing why God's name is Molech.

Sorry, but I did ask in the opening line of the OP. Please re-read. Then I presented my case. Anyone is free to agree or disagree, but we do need evidence, or reasons why the evidence presented is not valid.

Fair enough, I must admit I overlooked your preamble in favor of the debate questions. No I don't believe the perfection of Jesus is a myth. My reason? because the BIBLE explicitly states that Jesus was without sin. There that's done.

For debate...

1) was Jesus indeed, morally perfect? If so, how do you account for this New Testament evidence to the contrary?

Am I expected to debate "evidence to the contrary" when I see no evidence to the contrary?

For debate...

2) is there any other NT evidence that refutes the notion that Jesus was perfect?

No there is no "other" evidence, because the word "other" implies some evidence has been accepted (by the person answering the question) and they are hitherto addressing additional evidence.

If I say: " I made toast today, therefore it is evident I am God" And ask participants to debate OTHER evidence I am indeed God, participation without questioning the first point represents acceptance of the premise.

It is not my job to re-write the OP but do not expect me not to notice where a question is worded in a way that automatically compromises my own position (thus I will either challenge or refrain).