POLL: Was Jesus PERFECT?

[marks]

the video about "time" on my page addresses this,@ "entropy," which is also subjective, as the lecturer goes on to show, but briefly, red and green balls separated by color but in the same box, one on one side and one on the other, = "order," whereas mixed they = "entropy."

Except to someone who is red/green colorblind, to whom order and entropy in that context would have a completely diff definition! Iow "order" and "entropy" are subjective, as are "evil" and "sin" defined with two eyes, and more obviously perhaps "offense" is also quite subjective, as is "suffering" I guess

If you can't see the order, how can you know the entropy? It still exists. But you can't see it.

Much love!

 

[marks]

The "doctrine" of many is so flawed where pastors tell us week after week we are sinners. Well speak for yourself, I am a daughter of God.

34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed. John 8:34-36

Amen! How many ways can the Bible say it . . . Jesus has freed us from sin!

Much love!
Mark

 

[bbyrd009]

If you can't see the order, how can you know the entropy? It still exists. But you can't see it.

Much love!

I can certainly agree, but I suggest that that is bc we are reflecting from a frame that we both tacitly agree upon, that being ahem "what we can see" right

Imo at least get a grasp of the notion that order and entropy are completely "in the eye of the beholder," as counter-intuitive as this seems. Bc God's "order" is surely not our order

 

[1stCenturyLady]

Amen! How many ways can the Bible say it . . . Jesus has freed us from sin!

Much love!
Mark

Many still hold to the myth that the blood of Jesus merely covers my sins, WHILE I KEEP SINNING! IOW, no real power. It is a slap in His face. He sanitizes us! He takes away even the desire to sin.

 

[marks]

I can certainly agree, but I suggest that that is bc we are reflecting from a frame that we both tacitly agree upon, that being ahem "what we can see" right

Imo at least get a grasp of the notion that order and entropy are completely "in the eye of the beholder," as counter-intuitive as this seems. Bc God's "order" is surely not our order

God subjected creation to vanity.

Yes, we only see what we see. But God chose to communicate through language, and unless we say that everything is so entirely subjective that communication is impossible, then communication in an objective sense is possible.

Which is to say that one may speak, and another hear what is spoken, and the speaker's intended message is received by the intended recipient.

If this can be, then that God subjected creation to vanity - emptiness, meaninglessness, futility - means that a particular thing happened.

Since creation was made with a certain order, then that creation declared to be vain - empty, well, when we get the functional meaning of a vain creation from Ecclesiastes, nothing is worth anthing in the end, because nothing lasts past the grave, for the man, and nothing remains for posterity, for the survivors.

All will rust and fade away, nothing will be remembered, it all goes away. That which was gathered by a man into a certain order will not remain, but will return to the disordered state from which it was ordered.

There is more than what we see, I believe. But there is what we know. Though I understand that some doubt whether anything can be known. And that is sad.

Much love!
Mark

 

[bbyrd009]

God subjected creation to vanity.

Yes, we only see what we see. But God chose to communicate through language, and unless we say that everything is so entirely subjective that communication is impossible, then communication in an objective sense is possible.

Which is to say that one may speak, and another hear what is spoken, and the speaker's intended message is received by the intended recipient.

If this can be, then that God subjected creation to vanity - emptiness, meaninglessness, futility - means that a particular thing happened.

Since creation was made with a certain order, then that creation declared to be vain - empty, well, when we get the functional meaning of a vain creation from Ecclesiastes, nothing is worth anthing in the end, because nothing lasts past the grave, for the man, and nothing remains for posterity, for the survivors.

All will rust and fade away, nothing will be remembered, it all goes away. That which was gathered by a man into a certain order will not remain, but will return to the disordered state from which it was ordered.

There is more than what we see, I believe. But there is what we know. Though I understand that some doubt whether anything can be known. And that is sad.

Much love!
Mark

well, that is maybe sad from a certain perspective, the determinist one, sure, but that doesn't mean it is sad, really. "We say 'it will rain,' God knows it might rain," and every mountain leveled, every valley filled deal with this I guess

But there is what we know

ha well I guess that depends upon what "is" is, huh?
What do we know iyo?

 

[marks]

Many still hold to the myth that the blood of Jesus merely covers my sins, WHILE I KEEP SINNING! IOW, no real power. It is a slap in His face. He sanitizes us! He takes away even the desire to sin.

Poor teaching. Jesus does not provide "atonement", He provided "propitiation".

Much love!
Mark

 

[bbyrd009]

Which is to say that one may speak, and another hear what is spoken, and the speaker's intended message is received by the intended recipient

or not, yes. "Hide wisdom from the wise" and even "stay here for the present" might be examined here, and I guess obv "speaking in tongues" might come into play also

 

[marks]

'it will rain,' God knows it might rain,"

We say, It will rain, but we don't know, so what?

"God knows it might rain"? Doesn't God know whether it's going to rain or not?

I've seen you use this couplet before, but what does it mean? Of course we don't know, but of course God does know.

?

Much love!
mark

 

[bbyrd009]

We say, It will rain, but we don't know, so what?

"God knows it might rain"? Doesn't God know whether it's going to rain or not?

I've seen you use this couplet before, but what does it mean? Of course we don't know, but of course God does know.

?

Much love!
mark

It's a Dao saying, and google wants to play ignorant when I put it in quotes, sorry.
"Doesn't God know whether it's going to rain or not?" ha certainly, but what is not being considered there is the perspective, see, God knows it's raining right now of course, somewhere; and after all, so do we huh, with just a little perspective change. You say "of course" this and "of course" that, but these are all dependent upon perspective also, right

 

[ScottA]

Sorry can't vote - got to explain:

"Was" (Jesus perfect) is the defining word. Yes, He was if we go back before the foundation of the world, or after the cross. But No, between that time when He "lowered" himself...but even then it was accounted to Him as perfect, for He did no sin.

 

[amadeus]

How can you have faith your sins are forgiven by Christ's death, if he was sinful and died only for his own sins?

I do not believe that Jesus died for his own sins. You missed my point which was about you or I being perfect by simply surrendering completely to Him continuously while we still have time.

It is only because he was sinless that he could credit his death, that he didn't deserve, to sinners who deserve death. Being God, his death was of infinite value.

I am not certain that I really understand this sentence so I won't comment on it as it stands.

 

[Dave L]

I do not believe that Jesus died for his own sins. You missed my point which was about you or I being perfect by simply surrendering completely to Him continuously while we still have time.



I am not certain that I really understand this sentence so I won't comment on it as it stands.

Perfect = sinless = value to redeem others having died for sins he did not commit.

 

[Bobby Jo]

... Or was Jesus anointing this man twice for reasons we don't know? And if for reasons we don't know, why assume it was out of "Jesus' failure"? If we don't know? ...

THIS is the BEST question to be asked within the scope of "perfection". -- As you cited a "hammer", if it takes a MINIMUM of two strikes of a "hammer" to drive a spike, then the "golf" analogy FAILS. But it is an interesting aspect for us to consider, as 1 Cor. 14 guides us:

1 Cor. 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.​

With Best Regards,
Bobby Jo

 

[amadeus]

i didn't vote for I guess a similar reason, that being that I am being called to make a value judgement that I am not qualified to make. But then the riddle of why Jesus (and Paul too for that matter) was deemed innocent after committing several crimes punishable by death is there for anyone who seeks, too. Ppl were regularly executed for much less then, and the story does not make even logical sense bc it is not supposed to.

Maybe we do believe Jesus is perfect and/or sinless some of the time and that is expressed in our actions or our inactions according to our faith. Jesus did say,

"... According to your faith be it unto you" Matt 9:29

Does our faith waver? Does it change or is it that sometimes what needs to be done is beyond the faith that we have. When people say that they have faith, they probably do, but likely they themselves do not understand the extent of their faith.

When we step out by faith, is this one of those value judgments we may deem ourselves unqualified to make... or is it that our faith as it is at the moment is simply not up to it? If not when will it be... if ever?

As to the innocence of Jesus or Paul look at King David for a possible answer after he committed adultery and murder for which the penalty according to the law given to Moses was death:

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Lev 20:10

"And when a man smiteth any soul of man, he is certainly put to death.Lev 24:17 [Young]

But see what the prophet says when David admits his sin:

"And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." II Sam 12:13

 

[bbyrd009]

But see what the prophet says when David admits his sin:

"And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die." II Sam 12:13

which is not yet the whole story, right, David maybe wished he was dead before it was all over, but regardless this puts the below,
value to redeem others having died for sins he did not commit.[/QUOTE]
in quite a diff light huh? Who said that again, oh ya,
John 18:14 Lexicon: Now Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was expedient for one man to die on behalf of the people.

and did David just get a pass, or what? David didn't need Christ?
But we can find this anytime someone "admits" in the OT too i guess

 

[amadeus]

Perfect = sinless = value to redeem others having died for sins he did not commit.

I certainly disagree with your equation.

Eventually they [perfect and sinless] will be equal in a person who is always yielding himself to God and looking to God, but, that comes with growth and maturity.

I believe that Job was perfect in the moment of the first cited verse, but not yet sinless. King David was perfect in heart toward God before being sinless. We also may be perfect in the eyes of God in a moment based on what have done with what God has given us.
Will we be so when we have finished our course here?

David spoke these words to his son:

"And thou, Solomon my son, know thou the God of thy father, and serve him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind: for the LORD searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the thoughts: if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever." I Chron 28:9

I believe that in David's words to Solomon God was speaking us so that we might understand how to be what He wants to be. Do we need an interpreter to understand His message?

"But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." Luke 12:48

 

[marks]

the video about "time" on my page addresses this,@ "entropy," which is also subjective, as the lecturer goes on to show, but briefly, red and green balls separated by color but in the same box, one on one side and one on the other, = "order," whereas mixed they = "entropy."

Except to someone who is red/green colorblind, to whom order and entropy in that context would have a completely diff definition! Iow "order" and "entropy" are subjective, as are "evil" and "sin" defined with two eyes, and more obviously perhaps "offense" is also quite subjective, as is "suffering" I guess

I'd disagree.

If you make your definitions fluid, then why do we discoures?

But IF we being with a bin of blue and green balls, each on a side, and declare that to be order, and then shake it all up to a mixture, and call that order, The colorblind does not see the objective order for lack of perception, not for lack of order.

The definition does not change. The perception does. They may not be able to separate the balls by color, but that does not mean the balls lack color, or that they cannot be separated by color, only this one, who is missing what the most o us have, cannot tell. He is blind. Yet the colors are realy.

Much love!
Marks!

 

[marks]

THIS is the BEST question to be asked within the scope of "perfection". -- As you cited a "hammer", if it takes a MINIMUM of two strikes of a "hammer" to drive a spike, then the "golf" analogy FAILS. But it is an interesting aspect for us to consider, as 1 Cor. 14 guides us:

1 Cor. 14:29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.​

With Best Regards,
Bobby Jo

I'm not so much thinking about anologies.

Do you have place in mind where Jesus failed at what He wanted to do?

Much love!
Mrk

 

[marks]

I do not believe that Jesus died for his own sins. You missed my point which was about you or I being perfect by simply surrendering completely to Him continuously while we still have time.



I am not certain that I really understand this sentence so I won't comment on it as it stands.

If Jesus sinned, His death would have paid for his own sin only. As sinless diety, His unneeded death in the Godhood,is enough to stretch out over all humanity.

There. Hopeless jubble?