How do they KNOW?

[Elijah John]

There is scant evidence in the Gospels that Jesus was sinless and perfect. By contrast, Jesus perfection is explicitly claimed by the authors of the Epistles.

For debate, how could they possibly know that Jesus was perfect, and never sinned in thought, word or deed? Were they witnesses to his mind? And to his every word and deed from childhood?

Isn't the claim that Jesus was perfect and sinless simply theological speculation?

[PinSeeker]

In a number of other passages in the Gospels, Jesus also emerges not without blemish. A perfect human being thus cannot become violent, embittered and intemperate, or use disparaging words about his fellow humans, as Jesus often did in anger. For example: “Ye hypocrites� (Matthew 15: 7; 22: 18; 23: 13-14 etc.), “whited sepulchres� (Matthew 23: 27), “Ye generation of vipers� (Matthew 23: 33), “for he is a liar, and the father of it.� (John 8: 44).

Ah, but the writer of this article is attributing Godly anger, which is holy, to human anger, which is sinful. This is the case with all types of emotion; there is a Godly form of every emotion we have, because we are made in the image of God. But because of the Fall (Genesis 3), we are incapable of expressing any emotion in a fully Godly (holy) way. Jesus's anger was, however, fully justified (when He displayed it) because it was God-glorifying, and not merely the result of selfishness and pride, which is 100% of the time (albeit to varying degrees) the case with us mere humans.

Further, calling men out for what they are (hypocrites, liars) when they display the things that show themselves to be those things (hypocrisy, lying) is not sin, but rather truth.

[PinSeeker]

The personality of Jesus as described in the Gospels shows clearly that he was not a perfect, a sin-free human being.

As shown in my previous posts, this is mere opinion, and very flawed at that.

And even though allowance must be made for the fact that the Gospels were not put into writing until long after the death of Jesus, and therefore must be, and in fact are, inaccurate on many points,

Again, mere opinion. And erroneous. And, using this writer's own argument against him, are we now to believe him about Jesus, since his writings are more than two millennia after Jesus lived, rather than a few decades?

it should also be remembered that death reconciles and conceals so much. Faults are diminished and forgotten in the light of all the good and splendid things that were said or done by the departed one. And thus has it also happened with the memories of Jesus. The few who had joined course with him grieved deeply over the loss of their mentor. They sought to remember the good, the splendid and the kind, while the purely human, the unkind and the imperfect receded more and more from their memory.

And the writer of this article knows this how? Did he interview them? Was he actually with Jesus and therefore does remember all the "unkind and imperfect" things He supposedly did? This is quite a laughable diatribe, and smacks of a preconceived agenda, Waterfall. You can do what you want, but my advice is to not be taken in by it.

Still, it is not a faultless figure who emerges before us in the accounts of the Gospels; for however humble, loving, helpful and patient Jesus was in his earthly life, he was still truly a human being, a son of man, and thus could not possibly be free of sin in the world of sin and death in which he lived.

Again, mere opinion, and smacking of a preconceived agenda.

The comparison of Jesus with the unblemished offering is thus groundless, it holds not, for in no way can it be reconciled with the accounts in the Gospels.

Same here; see above;

Are they wrong?

Yes.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 51 by PinSeeker]

You have given me (and others) something to think about.

I am not sure you are aware of it, but it is not a human being who is the author of Paul's discourse:

http://thelightuniversal.org/shorterroad.html

If this really is Paul speaking to us should we not then listen to what he has to say? Is he not in a better position to talk about things?

I would like to look at the story of the fig tree. How are we to understand it? You have come with this explanation:

A tree, Waterfall, is an inanimate object. Surely, it is part of God's creation, just like everything else, but it is not to be equated in importance with human beings, and therefore not to be loved in nearly the same way. Surely you would agree with that. Anyway, "Love God, and love your neighbor (other human beings)...", as in my post above. I'm being a little facetious here, but obviously, inanimate objects are not included in those commands. The lesson is concerning people, though. If people do not bear good fruit -- that is, the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control -- they will surely wither and die, but of course this will be their own doing, because they chose not to bear this fruit.

Did you read the footnote:

FOOTNOTES

1) Leviticus 17: 1 1-12 is a later addition to the preceding verse, inserted by a scholar and scribe to explain further why the blood must be struck or sprinkled upon the altar.

2) This incident is not described exactly as it happened, and therefore appears more belittling of the conduct of Jesus than it really was. When Jesus found no fruit he uttered an exclamation more or less equivalent to "To blazes with you!" And the tree of course did not wither.

The explanation of this odd curse in Mark 11: 20-25—one must "have faith in God"—actually casts an aspersion on Jesus rather than excusing and explaining his conduct. Had Jesus shown "faith" he should have prayed to God to bring forth fruit upon the tree instead of cursing it and making it wither. However, neither is possible. A curse will not cause any tree to wither, nor a prayer cause fruit to appear on a barren tree.

Is there any truth to this?

[PinSeeker]

I am not sure you are aware of it, but it is not a human being who is the author of Paul's discourse...

This... is not correct. Paul was the author of his letters to various churches (the Romans, the Corinthians, the Colossians, the Thessalonicans, etc.). Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or themselves deceived. Now, it is part of Scripture, part of the Word of God, which is all God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), so in that sense, God superintends, by the working of His Spirit in Paul, the writing of Paul's letters. In other words, experientially speaking, all Paul's words are in fact Paul's words, just as what you're reading right now are mine. Maybe it's a little easier to understand if we read Philippians 2:12-13. Paul did the willing and working, but it was God in the Person of the Holy Spirit that actually caused Paul to do God's will and convey God's true message to those to whom he wrote (and to us).

I would like to look at the story of the fig tree. How are we to understand it? You have come with this explanation:

A tree, Waterfall, is an inanimate object. Surely, it is part of God's creation, just like everything else, but it is not to be equated in importance with human beings, and therefore not to be loved in nearly the same way. Surely you would agree with that. Anyway, "Love God, and love your neighbor (other human beings)...", as in my post above. I'm being a little facetious here, but obviously, inanimate objects are not included in those commands. The lesson is concerning people, though. If people do not bear good fruit -- that is, the fruit of the Spirit, which is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control -- they will surely wither and die, but of course this will be their own doing, because they chose not to bear this fruit.

Did you read the footnote:

FOOTNOTES

1) Leviticus 17: 1 1-12 is a later addition to the preceding verse, inserted by a scholar and scribe to explain further why the blood must be struck or sprinkled upon the altar.

2) This incident is not described exactly as it happened, and therefore appears more belittling of the conduct of Jesus than it really was. When Jesus found no fruit he uttered an exclamation more or less equivalent to "To blazes with you!" And the tree of course did not wither.

The explanation of this odd curse in Mark 11: 20-25—one must "have faith in God"—actually casts an aspersion on Jesus rather than excusing and explaining his conduct. Had Jesus shown "faith" he should have prayed to God to bring forth fruit upon the tree instead of cursing it and making it wither. However, neither is possible. A curse will not cause any tree to wither, nor a prayer cause fruit to appear on a barren tree.

Is there any truth to this?

No. As for numbers 1 and 2, how does this person make this claim? It's unverifiable. Was this person actually there and direct witness to "what really took place"? No, there's no truth to it. It's actually heretical.

Grace and peace to you, Waterfall.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 53 by PinSeeker]

I must say that I am surprised of your response. Am I the only one? I have had someting to drink and is engage on a danish forum, but it do not seem like you have read my response? I do not know what to do now...but the music is playing this:



Best regard or namaste

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 54 by Waterfall]

I read every word of your posts, Waterfall. I explained in detail why the interpretations you cut and pasted from that website are in error. I answered all your questions. One could not ask for more. If you don't want to engage in any more conversation on the matter, that's fine with me; suit yourself.

Grace and peace to you.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to post 55 by PinSeeker]

Hey PinSeeker

I could have done a better job explaining things.

Are we talking about this discourse:

http://thelightuniversal.org/page75.html

The author of this discourse is not a human being:

http://thelightuniversal.org/shorterroad.html

If this really is Paul speaking to us should we not then listen to what he has to say? Is he not in a better position to talk about things?

Can you explain why we should take the story about the fig tree seriously? They do not seem to agree on what happent?

I would expect a hungry man to pray for figs and not curse the tree. To me this seems more likely to be the case:

2) This incident is not described exactly as it happened, and therefore appears more belittling of the conduct of Jesus than it really was. When Jesus found no fruit he uttered an exclamation more or less equivalent to "To blazes with you!" And the tree of course did not wither.

The explanation of this odd curse in Mark 11: 20-25—one must "have faith in God"—actually casts an aspersion on Jesus rather than excusing and explaining his conduct. Had Jesus shown "faith" he should have prayed to God to bring forth fruit upon the tree instead of cursing it and making it wither. However, neither is possible. A curse will not cause any tree to wither, nor a prayer cause fruit to appear on a barren tree.

We do not have a time machine, so...what to do? You do not find this to be true:

The explanation of this odd curse in Mark 11: 20-25—one must "have faith in God"—actually casts an aspersion on Jesus rather than excusing and explaining his conduct. Had Jesus shown "faith" he should have prayed to God to bring forth fruit upon the tree instead of cursing it and making it wither. However, neither is possible. A curse will not cause any tree to wither, nor a prayer cause fruit to appear on a barren tree.

Why not?

I would like to understand things.

[PinSeeker]

I would like to understand things.

Well, I would like to think you’re sincere in saying that. If you are, then getting far away from that website would be a good start. You say the author claims not to be human, right? Yeah, I would get away.

If you want to discuss things further, i’d Be glad to. But referencing that website will go nowhere with me.

Grace and peace to you, Waterfall.

[brianbbs67]

Its not given unto us to commune with spirits, so yes get away as it can't be from God.

[Tcg]

Its not given unto us to commune with spirits, so yes get away as it can't be from God.

According to the author of the Gospel of John, Jesus disagrees. In fact, he presents spirit possession as a positive:

• John 14:15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."

Jesus promises that his followers will be possessed by a spirit.


Tcg