Welcome to the ancient theological question of “Christology”. Greater minds than my own have wrestled with this, and volumes have been written since the first century.
1 Like
Perfect?
Would that be like a perfect number, which is the sum of its divisors? LOL
Would that be like the gal in “The Fifth Element” having some ultimate DNA code? Well of course that is nonsensical and the movie was a comedy.
Would perfect mean He never made a mistake? Mistakes are how we learn. If Jesus didn’t even have to learn then I would say this means He wasn’t even human. But that is contrary to Christian doctrine.
What did Jesus mean when He said, “you must be perfect even as your heavenly father is perfect.” He meant that we must be without sin because sin consists of self-destructive habits. One of the most pervasive is the one displayed by Adam and Eve of blaming others for their own mistakes rather than learning from them. There is no room for habits like this in heaven because such habits will eventually turn any place into hell.
Was Jesus born without sin? Of course. We are all born without sin. We are sinners not because we are born. But because of what we do.
So…
We are all born without sin so the same would have to be true of Jesus for Him to be the way and path we should follow.
But doesn’t the Bible say we are all sinners, which would include the newborn? Nope. The Bible does not say that. What is says is that nobody can say they are without sin. Newborns cannot say that because they don’t know how to speak yet. So what the Bible says… is that by the time we learn to speak we have sin.
Sin is an inheritance we have from Adam not in our genetic code but in the inheritance of the mind via human communication. It is in the bad examples we have set for us as we begin learning how do things by imitating those around us.
Jesus would need to be aware of what sin is in order to avoid it. In fact, this is exactly what we saw in the three temptations - Jesus using the word of God to refuse the temptations of the devil.
He overcame the temptations of the world. No, “overcame the world” does not mean He was like a drug addict to successfully drag Himself out of some hell he made of his own life. Sure, that describes many many other Christians, needing help to overcome the habits ruining their life. But the help Jesus had from the Father was to avoid such habits to begin with. And that is the optimal path He would have us follow. The example to follow is not an indulgence in sin and becoming an addict spreading destruction everywhere we go, before we get help to drag ourselves out of it. To be sure that is an example some need to follow – but not everyone. We do have to know it is never too late. But you cannot think that would be the example for all to follow.
??? Hebrews 7 is explaining how Jesus is different from the priests who must cleanse their own sins before making offerings to cleanse the sins of others. He is a priest who is already without sin who makes the purest offering to cleanse the sin of all.
Think it through… If priests must cleanse themselves before they can cleanse the sins of others, then that means they are lacking when they cleanse themselves… which would mean their cleansing of others is also lacking… right? So isn’t the point of Hebrews 7 that this lack is removed in Jesus who doesn’t need to cleanse Himself before cleansing others?
1 Like
Because I believe in the concept that God is Love. It’s as simple and complex as that.
1 Like
Because he was truly God and truly man, he could do things that only God can do, and he could do things that only a man can do 
I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I believe this because of how the church exploded immediately after. And because I believe this I believe much of what is written about his life must be true. Because the bible, including the words of Jesus, has much hyperbole, metaphor and the results of verbal history, eventually written, I do not read it as literal.
This feels like an understatement
1 Like
Christianity is a revealed language.
In other words God revealed his power in nature then his person in scripture.
But the only Bible people may read is a believer…maybe
The Holy Spirit works directly in our heart to generate faith
The Holy Spirit works indirectly through the Bible (regardless of one’s view of it)
The Holy Spirit also prompts our heart
Most of this is unknown at the time nor understood by the person.
So what’s the main reason?
The calling of God - where we respond
1 Like
That’s interesting, and no I dont think you insane.
Ive recently read about 2 leading folk/myth tellers (essentially pagans) from the UK who both rather suddenly became Christians. One was involved in ‘white’ witchcraft. The other has told his story of camping out in a forest for a few months and on the very last day of his pagan ‘retreat’ he witnessed a bright and pure light appearing and coming down to the forest floor. He was convinced it was of Jesus! And he became a Christian after this event. People like me who have had no such experiences find them odd, but Im not going to deny them given what happens to the individual afterwards. God speaks to people in different ways.
2 Likes
For me it was and still is the resurrection of Jesus. I would be genuinely shocked to discover it didnt happen.
1 Like
I don’t want to argue with anyone, I only want to share what I believe is an insight. Look at that scripture about the dove lighting upon Jesus more closely. It says that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove. There is no dove. It’s used to describe the way in which the Holy Spirit came upon Him. Why does He need the Holy Spirit to descend upon Him if He was already perfect? No need to respond, unless you want to.
Yes I think those who are significant in our lives can have a big effect on us, either good or bad. One of the most depressing things in recent years was to see how many American Christians thought Trump was great. One can understand the cynicism of the younger generation.
1 Like
He was the sinless offering. A corrupted being could not have accomplished anything by his death.
Truly like us in being tempted, but not like us in succumbing. If Jesus is both God and man, as is the traditional understanding of Him, then He is by definition unique.
1 Like
Thank you so much! I knew that others have had the same experience. Before it happened to me, I read a book wherein the author described it as happening to him. He also, knew it was God. At the time I made no bibliographic record of the book and I have been unable to find it again. That was in the 1990’s, so the book is probably out of print. So, your story is very helpful to me.
Of course, He was the sinless sacrifice. The point that I am making doesn’t deny any of that. However, when does scripture say that He was tempted without succumbing. Isn’t it after the Holy Spirit descended upon Him following His baptism by John?
When I read the scriptures - especially the New Testament - I experience the gospel message as self-evidently the truth about God from God. I don’t mean that every single assertion has this character, but that there is a cluster of teachings that is self-evident and the cluster includes (or presupposes) God’s existence and his incarnation in Christ. This experience, along with other experiences, are experiences of God speaking, and are often also accompanied by a strong sense of his presence.
The grounds of belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.
Roy Clouser
3 Likes
Is this the same Roy Clouser who sought to “plant an oasis around the oak so as to diminish the wonder that it’s there, and thus allow the reader’s attention to be focused where it belongs: on the most original philosophical theory since Kant”?
It is. Guilty as charged.
1 Like
And Phil Yancey’s was way different than Maggie’s (the second account in the tl;dr OP ; - ), but both were determinative!
What an incredible pleasure this is! I wish I could say I read your book! But I love where I see it going and if time permits I shall get to it.
I tried reading Kant’s CPR as a philosophy undergrad but it was too much for me. I did get pretty far with his critique of the ontological argument. Wrote a paper about how the argument works, that Kant did not consider the possibility for the existence of nothing, and that the argument doesn’t prove a necessary being apart from oneself.
That paper on Kant was born out of a moment where I thought I could know God through a philosophical argument apart from Jesus. What I found wasn’t theism though.
Pursued the next couple years of my undergrad thinking often about the rational possibility of solipsism, and continuing to work out the argument against atheism. And then decided I wasn’t cut out for an academic career. That was around 2005.
There are a few more things I’d like to chat about if you are interested.