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".

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 28 by Elijah John]

I see no mention of Jesus in that scripture? Indeed if I recall correctly Jesus, John and the events during Jesus' baptism indicate something exceptional was happening during Jesus' baptism. Is that all you have? A scripture about John baptising other people who were not Jesus or do you have something that actually mentions the subject of the discussion?

JW

You don't have to accept the evidence, but it is evidence. That is enough, don't you think? Unless John was performing a different kind of Baptism for Jesus only, or Jesus sought out John and his baptism of repentance simply for the sake of theological theatre, and not for repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

If Jesus never sinned, why would he pull a stunt like that? If he did not consider himself in need of repentance and the forgiveness of sins?

Yes, there is other evidence as well, namely the consensus of Historical Jesus scholars. But I realize you wouldn't accept that, just as I don't accept the supposedly authoritatative interpretation of the Watchtowner Society.

But here is their line of thinking. That Jesus was baptized fits the criteria of embarassement in order to establish the authenticity of an event. That is one criteria that HJ scholars use, but there are others as well. The criteria goes something like this. If Jesus was never baptized for repentance, why include the event in the narrative in the first place? That wouldbe embarrasing, as it would put Jesus in a very human, arguably inferior to John, position. So it was necessary to re-interpret the event and use it as a launching pad for a higher Christology. The part about "it is you who should be baptizing me", and "behold the lamb of God" etc. are considered apologetic insertions, in order to restore Jesus to the superior position that Gospel Evangelists wanted to portray.

But I realize this is at odds with your orthodoxy, so..it seems we are at an impasse.

[Overcomer]

Brianbbs62 wrote:

If one calls a rose, a pickle, every one still knows its a rose...

That is a wonderful line! Thank you for making me smile!

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by Elijah John]

I see no mention of Jesus in that scripture? Indeed if I recall correctly Jesus, John and the events during Jesus' baptism indicate something exceptional was happening during Jesus' baptism. Is that all you have? A scripture about John baptising other people who were not Jesus or do you have something that actually mentions the subject of the discussion?

JW

You don't have to accept the evidence, but it is evidence.

Yes it is evidence. It's WEAK evidence. It's evidence that doesn't even mention the person or the event we are discussing. It's unconvincing evidence that fails in any way to provide any indication any related information has been considered.

WHAT HAPPENED AT JESUS BAPTISM?

Is there any indication in the bible that Jesus was like everybody else? Did the events indicate this was the "ususal baptism"? Did the words of John indicate Jesus was indeed a fitting candidate for "his" kind of baptism? (Do you know what John said when Jesus approached him?, If so what do his (John's) words indicate?) Did anything "exceptional" happend afterwards?

The answers to all the above questions combined provide clear indication whether or not Jesus' baptism was different or not. Have you considered the above?

Unless John was performing a different kind of Baptism for Jesus only [...].

Well let's see, did John recognize that another kind of bapstim would exist?

MATTHEW 3:11

‘I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire.’

Who might be the first to lead the way with this alternative baptism of "holy spirit and fire"? What happened after Jesus himself was baptized? (clue: It involved a dove). Again, do the events indicate that Jesus' baptism was "another kind of baptism" or not?

EVIDENCE v CONVINCING EVIDENCE

So we have have a frankly superficial analysis which amounts to "Well A applied to B so it must apply to C". Ignoring not only that there is no statement specifically confirming this but also ignoring all the events surrounding C including the words of John HIMSELF and one that takes into account all the above. If one has a choice between a conclusion that contradicts both the indications of the specific even AND the wider context or one that harmonizes with events, specific statements made and the scriptural context, which do you choose?


JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 33 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, it is clear that the evidence I presented is not convincing to you, nor is the reasoning and evidence of Historical Jesus scholars. And it is also clear that your sectarian orthodoxy and dogma is not convincing me.

We're spinning our wheels here. Perhaps we could get some other voices, other than WTS voices, to weigh in now.

[tam]

Peace to you!


Can I get you to clarify what you mean by "morally" perfect, EJ?



Thank you!

[brianbbs67]

Ok, I have heard this. Mikvah was ritual cleansing, for purification(which would in clude sins). How could you be pure, without being purified? That said, Christ was only doing what every other Hebrew would do, ritual cleansing(Apparantly, John(Elijah) was quite popular). And it fulfilled the prophecy i listed already.

So, the big question is, did Christ fulfill prophecy or did he do what prophecy was and thus fulfill it?

[Elijah John]

Peace to you!


Can I get you to clarify what you mean by "morally" perfect, EJ?


Thank you!

As opposed to physically or mentally perfect.

"Morally perfect" as in always thinking and doing the right thing. And, perhaps, always having done so all throughout one's life. Never having sinned, at all.

[Elijah John]

Ok, I have heard this. Mikvah was ritual cleansing, for purification(which would in clude sins). How could you be pure, without being purified? That said, Christ was only doing what every other Hebrew would do, ritual cleansing(Apparantly, John(Elijah) was quite popular). And it fulfilled the prophecy i listed already.

So, the big question is, did Christ fulfill prophecy or did he do what prophecy was and thus fulfill it?

Ritual purity is not, was not the same as moral purity. Folks could become ritually impure simply by touching a dead person. Or a woman by having her period. In cases like those, the person in question was not necessarily morally impure, as neither of those occurances were considered "sin". But they were considered ritually impure, until, that is, they took their Mikvah.

[tam]

Peace to you EJ,

Peace to you!


Can I get you to clarify what you mean by "morally" perfect, EJ?


Thank you!

As opposed to physically or mentally perfect.

"Morally perfect" as in always thinking and doing the right thing. And, perhaps, always having done so all throughout one's life. Never having sinned, at all.

Thank you.


Okay then, do remember this verse?

He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, Isaiah 7:15


So He knew to choose the right and reject the wrong, from at least a very young age: by the time he was old enough to eat curds and honey.



**



Do you also remember His words here:


“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."



I don't think you will deny that Christ was perfect as His Father in heaven is perfect. He did exactly what He said was required in order for one to be perfect as God is perfect; and in order to be sons of their Father in heaven: love your enemies.

He even gave His life for those who were (yet) His enemies; and asked His Father to forgive them. Even upon the cross, He asked forgiveness for them. He cursed no one; persecuted no one. He did not seek vengeance against them. He did not demand life for life (in fact He GAVE life FOR life; as the law should have been applied).



**


I responded to some of your questions in my original post on this thread. But as for the baptism of water (the one that John was performing, even though John is not the only one who baptized), as far as I have understood, that was for Israel. To wash away the sins from the law covenant (and perhaps to make room for the new covenant to come). Baptism of holy spirit is the baptism we need to be truly sanctified in Christ; and Christ is the One who performs that baptism.

But Jaheshua was also Jew, born in the flesh and under the law (which He kept and even surpassed), and so, as He said, it was right for them (Him and John the Baptist) to do it that way.


And on that matter, JW (peace to you) brought out some good points above:

Is there any indication in the bible that Jesus was like everybody else? Did the events indicate this was the "ususal baptism"? Did the words of John indicate Jesus was indeed a fitting candidate for "his" kind of baptism? (Do you know what John said when Jesus approached him?, If so what do his (John's) words indicate?) Did anything "exceptional" happend afterwards?

Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Overcomer]

tam quoted this verse:

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven."

And Jesus lived that out. As sinners, we are all born as enemies of God. Yet Jesus chose to die on the cross for us, taking our sins and the punishment for them on himself.

Paul put it this way:

Rom. 5:6-8: "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."