A sinless, perfect Jesus?

[Elijah John]

It seems a common position in orthodoxy that Jesus was sinless and perfect. I'm wondering where do we get this doctrine? I see little evidence of this in the Gospels. Perhaps the unknown author of Hebrews? Or was it from Paul's letters?

The doctrine seems essential for Paul's blood-atonement theology or the doctrine of Jesus divinity, but really, why else would it matter?

Prophets, rabbis and teachers can be righteous, even if they are not perfect.

What is the New Testament evidence for Jesus perfection, pro and con?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]


1 Peter 2:22 He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.

... Seems Paul and the unknown author of Hebrews considered Jesus sinless. .....

What about the passage in the Letter of PETER?

Yes, Eloi listed Scriptures so support the doctrine, all from the letters of Paul and from the unknown author of Hebrews. I countered with some Gospel references which do not support the doctrine of a sinless Jesus. I think the Gospels have more weight.

Peter? OK, Peter too. But it is doubtful that the letter attributed to Peter was actually the apostle Peter, and therefore not an eyewitness. By the time the epistles were written, seems a mythologized Jesus was well on his way. Whether he liked it or not.

At least the JWs do not accept the mythic Divine Jesus. But still, the Jesus you folks revere is far from human. "Firstborn of all Creation though him all things were made" and all that. Or, as DI would say, a "demigod".

[Elijah John]

Also, how would any of the NT writers know that Jesus never, ever sinned? After all, 30 years without a NT witness is a long time. And I'm sure his family had some stories to tell.

Again, this is not to say that Jesus was not a righteous man, even before his ministry. One can be righteous without being perfect. None of the other prophets claimed perfection, and neither did Jesus. If he did, where?

[JehovahsWitness]

Peter? OK, Peter too. But it is doubtful that the letter attributed to Peter was actually the apostle Peter, and therefore not an eyewitness.

What is the New Testament evidence for Jesus perfection, pro and con?

Emphasis MINE

So would it be fair to say when you ask for "New Testament" evidence you in fact meant evidence from the 27 books in the "New Testament" excluding those attributed to the Apostle Paul ... and Peter?

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts (of the Apostles)
[strike]Romans[/strike]
[strike]1 Corinthians[/strike]
[strike]2 Corinthians[/strike]
[strike]Galatians[/strike]
[strike]Ephesians[/strike]
[strike]Philippians[/strike]
[strike]Colossians[/strike]
[strike]1 Thessalonians[/strike]
[strike]2 Thessalonians[/strike]
[strike]1 Timothy[/strike]
[strike]2 Timothy[/strike]
[strike]Titus[/strike]
[strike]Philemon[/strike]
[strike]Hebrews[/strike]
James
[strike]1 Peter[/strike]
[strike]2 Peter[/strike]
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation

Does the list above accurately represent acceptable possible sources of New Testament evidence?

NOTE It takes a bit of time for me to research and write up my answers so forgive me if I ask in advance which books in the NT you view as a source of evidence . So far, those remaining are the gospels, the letters of John and Jude and the book of revelation (10 of the 27).

By the time the epistles were written, seems a mythologized Jesus was well on his way.

So, when you ask for New Testament evidence are you in fact asking for evidence from the New Testament excluding ALL the epistles?


Clarification would be appreciated,



JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 13 by JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I said NT evidence. But part of the point I am attempting to make is that aside from the epistles, there is scant evidence for the notion of a sinless, perfect Jesus.

Why would anyone give more weight to the opinions of Paul and unknown authors of the epistles over the Gospels?

But it's not just you, don't it beat all the Church (RC included) has gone and done just that vey thing!

And again, how would the authors of the epistles KNOW that Jesus was sinless?? Paul never even met him in the flesh. Doubtful the others did either. And even if they did, did they have access to his every thought, for every second of his life? Even pre-ministry? I would really like an answer to these questions please.

Otherwise, Paul and co are simply giving us theological speculation and opinion.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, I said NT evidence. But part of the point I am attempting to make is that aside from the epistles, there is scant evidence for the notion of a sinless, perfect Jesus.

I don't really care about the point you are trying to make, what you are asked for was information from what you referred to as "The New Testament". The NT usually refers to 27 books in the Christian canon. If certain NT sources are not to be taken seriously, would it not be more constructive to clearly stipulate what you consider to be a reliable NT sources and then ask for specifics from those ? Otherwise ...

Are you not asking for information from the a specific source and then rejecting the information from said source as being unreliable?

Someone (not you someone on the world wide web) could ask for example ...

Where did the gospel of Mark say Jesus was perfect. This person might add "All the epistles and the other gospels are fictional additions, myths so unreliable sources of information so please don't refer to them ?

I say this because I have a few scriptures from the gospel of John, Acts and the book of Revelation in mind but don't want to waste time if they will be dismissed as not "New Testament" enough to be taken seriously.

Why would anyone give more weight to the opinions of Paul and unknown authors of the epistles over the Gospels?

Emphasis MINE

When you say "Gospels" do you mean all FOUR Gospels (because that is what is generally meant) or do you mean only the synoptics? And do you mean all three of the synoptic including Luke and Matthew or just Mark?




JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 15 by JehovahsWitness]

OK, what do ya got from the GoJ? And also, how would anyone know if Jesus ever sinned in thought at all, ever? Were they witness to his mind? For his entire life? Answer this please. Or for that matter, were they witness to his every act? Even from childhood? I wonder if Mary and Joseph agreed that he was sinless when he wandered off at 12 to visit the Temple, unattended.

But I guess the Commandment to honor one's parents do not apply to the perfect child or man. Right?

I don't think you get questions or observations like this from the pulpit, so I commend you for enduring our skepticism. Hopefully, it is skepticism born of rationality that makes sense.

[brianbbs67]

First we must define sin. Sin is breaking the law of Moses(Gods law). No more, no less. Jesus seems to have followed Torah as written and confronted the Leaders who placed traditions on men that prevented them from following the law.

! John 3:4 is one that defines sin.

Even Paul is thankful for the law as he states he would not have known what sin was without it.

So, yes, Jesus was sinless keeping Torah perfectly to show us the law is perfect and not a burden(yoke is light) and gives us liberty.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 3 by Elijah John]


1 Peter 2:22 He committed no sin, nor was deception found in his mouth.

... Seems Paul and the unknown author of Hebrews considered Jesus sinless. .....

What about the passage in the Letter of PETER?

Yes, Eloi listed Scriptures so support the doctrine, all from the letters of Paul and from the unknown author of Hebrews. I countered with some Gospel references which do not support the doctrine of a sinless Jesus. I think the Gospels have more weight.

Peter? OK, Peter too. But it is doubtful that the letter attributed to Peter was actually the apostle Peter, and therefore not an eyewitness. By the time the epistles were written, seems a mythologized Jesus was well on his way. Whether he liked it or not.

At least the JWs do not accept the mythic Divine Jesus. But still, the Jesus you folks revere is far from human. "Firstborn of all Creation though him all things were made" and all that. Or, as DI would say, a "demigod".

To dismiss Peter's letter as being unreliable because it might not have been written by Peter is really, to my mind, a rather weak way to upend an argument which you do not want to accept. You have no kind of proof that Peter did not write that letter, so I think it would be wise to accept it as part of the inspired Word of God. If, indeed, Peter DID write that verse about Jesus, we would be foolish to disregard it.

[onewithhim]

Also, how would any of the NT writers know that Jesus never, ever sinned? After all, 30 years without a NT witness is a long time. And I'm sure his family had some stories to tell.

That's a LOT of assumption, EJ.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by Elijah John]


We haven't to establish what you mean by "New Testament " and "Gospel" evidence yet. Are you saying that the Gospel of John is reliable evidence about the life of Jesus? What about Revelation?

It's best to establish the reliability of our sources before delving into specifics.

Emphasis MINE

What is theNew Testament evidence for Jesus perfection, pro and con?

(Can you confirm none of the epistles can be submitted as evidence?)



Thanks,