Man can be perfect or imperfect by themselves

[akilae]

It's possible for man to be perfect or imperfect by themselves

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking about this earlier today, and it is the culmination of a number of things I have read.

I have read over and over that man is erred. To be human is to be flawed, I believe based upon the Christian belief, this is viewed to be correct right?

So I will make this statement:

A-If you are human, then you are erred.

I believe we can all agree on this correct?

Alright, well now I'll jump into the interesting parts .

If the story is true, God as Jesus became human. He was a man.
Therefore, as a human, Jesus was also flawed correct?

Based on hypothesis A, therefore we get this.

B- Jesus was a man, therefore flawed.

However we run into numerous writings which state Jesus was perfect If to be man is to be flawed, which I am sure most would agree on, then logically therefore Jesus being perfect is above man. Now being above man (better) or being below man (worse) is not man. I venture to say this; Jesus was not a man. Either statement A is wrong, or Statement B is wrong. Since Jesus clearly was a man, therefore it is most likely statement A is wrong of the two, or at least the more wrong.

This is an interesting argument because it is based on the Islamic argument against Jesus which basically states that Jesus couldn't have been God because he was man, which based on the statements could be true.

Now here is where I believe I can solve this dilemnsa If Jesus was a man, and was perfect, then therefore statement A must be amended.

A2- If you are human, then you are either perfect or imperfect.

Based on the fact Jesus was a man, subject to the same problems we all have (if you say he isn't then I'm sorry you are arguing he was not a man, who we would all agree on is flawed) then statement A works concerning Jesus, and as he is a man like the rest of us, therefore works for us as well.

Logically, a man could be perfect or imperfect based on our nature. We are not innately imperfect, it is entirely possible to be perfect on our own, just following natural courses.

Now here is the problem. Logically this works completely, and I Think we can all see that, however, if you agree man could be either imperfect or perfect on their own, you are disobeying verses in the bible.

If you state man is flawed, and Jesus is a man and therefore flawed, you are contradicting verses in the bible.

If you state man is flawed, but Jesus is not, then Jesus therefore was not a man, he was something more. Near human perhaps, but decidedly not a man, which also contradicts the Bible and verses.

Either way, you're going to run into contradictions, which shows err in the Bible.

I'm curious what you guys think, as this is also an argument presented in my book.

I located this on another forum I attend. What do you guys think?

 

[Free]

Premise/conclusion B is flawed. If that is dealt with properly, the whole argument falls apart.

 

[lovely]

Jesus wasn't born of Adam's seed, and so He was not born into sin as we are. He was born of God.

 

[akilae]

Premise/conclusion B is flawed. If that is dealt with properly, the whole argument falls apart.

How is it flawed?

If man is erred, as part of the definition of being human, and Jesus is a man, then he is subject to the same condition being erred. As is such, if he is NOT subject to err, then he is not man, as he does not err. However, if he is man, and does err, then that means a new definition of man must be presented, where he can therefore be erred, or not erred. Perfect, or imperfect essentially.

Jesus wasn't born of Adam's seed, and so He was not born into sin as we are. He was born of God.

Then he is not human, as he does not err as we do. He is above human, but not human, that is if part of being human (man) is that we err.

 

[lovely]

By one man sin entered...Adam. Jesus came in the flesh, became man, but he did not inherit Adam's sinful nature, because it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary.

 

[akilae]

By one man sin entered...Adam. Jesus came in the flesh, became man, but he did not inherit Adam's sinful nature, because it was the Holy Spirit that overshadowed Mary.

If we agree that being man is having sin, then if Jesus is a man, he has sin. If he has no sin, he is not man.

Basically, and i'll put this in logic format;

If man then sin.
Jesus was a man.

P- Man
Q-Sin
R-Jesus

So:

P ----> Q
R-----> P

(R---->P) ----> Q

Logically then, Jesus has sin. If he does not, then he is not man (P), which we can all agree has sin.

 

[Free]

Premise/conclusion B is flawed. If that is dealt with properly, the whole argument falls apart.

How is it flawed?

If man is erred, as part of the definition of being human, and Jesus is a man, then he is subject to the same condition being erred. As is such, if he is NOT subject to err, then he is not man, as he does not err. However, if he is man, and does err, then that means a new definition of man must be presented, where he can therefore be erred, or not erred. Perfect, or imperfect essentially.

The whole argument ignores that Jesus is the God-man. He is man and he is God. You want to split that and say he is one or the other and that is why you are running into this problem, that is the flaw.


You must be zenjael: http://www.christianforums.com/t7371764/

 

[akilae]

You must be zenjael: http://www.christianforums.com/t7371764/

Yep, sorry for the ruse. Thought it might be more polite to not barge onto a forum in a fashion, carrying another thread from another forum. Thought it might look arrogant, so preferred to do it somewhat more humbly. Clearly it didn't work, and I apologize. I am merely looking for a satisfactory refutation.

If Jesus is man, and really is man like the rest of us, then he has sin. If he is man-God, he is still man, and still has sin. If he is man-God and does not have sin, then therefor he is not man. If you acknowledge he is man but sinless,

then you are stating that man can be perfect or imperfect.

Once again, apologize for the ruse, simply looking for a good answer and didn't want to appear arrogant. I had no intention to go 'this is my idea' on this forum.

apologies.

 

[lovely]

I agree with Free, but I am trying to make it clear to you that sin entered through Adam, and Jesus was not born of Adam's seed. He was born of God. So, in the flesh he was not corrupt.

 

[akilae]

I agree with Free, but I am trying to make it clear to you that sin entered through Adam, and Jesus was not born of Adam's seed. He was born of God. So, in the flesh he was not corrupt.

What I get from this is man has sin as a condition. Every man in the world has it, it is part of our being.

As I understand it Eve sinned as well, doing the same thing Adam, receiving the same punishment as Adam, also being affected by original sin. Anybody birthed from her descent also receives it, so the argument is somewhat trite. As Eve had original sin, then Jesus being born from anybody who is human, would inherit sin.

And regardless, Mary was a descendant of Adam as well, meaning she also inherited original sin, giving it to Jesus when she bore him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[lovely]

I absolutely agree that Eve, Sarah, Mary, etc. were all sinners through Adam. The were all born from the seed of Adam. Jesus was born of the seed of God. The woman does not provide the seed. Mary was sinful, but the Bible says that through Adam sin entered in, and Jesus was not born of Adam, but of God. Anyway, I don't want to be misunderstood as someone who is saying that women are not sinners. I am saying, though, that Jesus was not born a sinner, because the seed that of which He was conceived was God, not Adam....by whom sin entered. I am trying to be clear, but I feel as if I am failing somehow.

 

[akilae]

The woman does not provide the seed.

True, but is just as responsible as the man is for the progeny. Under your statement you are basically saying men, and men alone bar the weight of original sin. This can't be if original sin passes heriditarily (typo lol), as it would therefor be only men who are the carriers, when this isn't the case.

And this opens a tricky question, if according to you only men carry original sin to their offspring, what happens when they make artificial sperm and there is no father? Is the child born sinless? You may scoff at that, but they are only a decade or two off from doing that.

Or what about a clone of a human, one carried solely by a mother? Under your logic the clone would not bear original sin either.

So... basically within two decades the human race if it uses cloning and artificial sperm could cleanse itself quite easily of original sin.

 

[Rick W]

Why would Mary have to pass anything along to Christ?
She was the bearer of the Son of God yes. Jesus never called Mary "mother" but "woman".

 

[Cornelius]

Why don't we rather look at what the Bible says ? :

Heb 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

So Jesus the Son of man, was not perfect to start off with.

Jesus was the Son of man, through Mary (she gave him a body) Heb 10:5 .......a body didst thou prepare for me; The "me" is the Son of God.

He was not perfect to start off with, yet He was without sin.1Jn 3:5 ....in him is no sin.


God made Jesus perfect through sufferings.

Isa 53:2 For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
Isa 53:3 He was despised, and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised; and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

 

[akilae]

God made Jesus perfect through sufferings.

Then logically through suffering, which we all have, so too can we all become perfect from it.

Why would Mary have to pass anything along to Christ?

Because women carry orignal sin also, they carry it as much as anybody else.

She was the bearer of the Son of God yes. Jesus never called Mary "mother" but "woman".

Oh come now, now you're more or less arguing that not only did Jesus not have a mother, he was ungrateful towards her as well.

 

[Cornelius]

God made Jesus perfect through sufferings.

Then logically through suffering, which we all have, so too can we all become perfect from it.

[quote:30nz6tar]Why would Mary have to pass anything along to Christ?

Because women carry orignal sin also, they carry it as much as anybody else.

She was the bearer of the Son of God yes. Jesus never called Mary "mother" but "woman".

Oh come now, now you're more or less arguing that not only did Jesus not have a mother, he was ungrateful towards her as well.[/quote:30nz6tar]

Perfection is reached by faith in the fact that Jesus overcame the world for us. And yes, we too through suffering are perfected too. We have to learn to die to self. When we have died to self, Christ who is perfect, can live through us. So its not our perfection, but HIS.

If you want to reach perfection by yourself, you will fail. If you believe God can bring you to perfection through Christ, then you can.

.......................

Science: The mother of any child does not share the same blood supply as the child in the womb. Mary could not deliver sin to Jesus through her blood, because Jesus had His own blood. (Google infant blood systems relation to the mother)

Since the Bible tells us that the "life is in the blood" (Leviticus) that is where the sin lives too. That is why it had to be a virgin birth. No blood was shared from another human .

 

[akilae]

Perfection is reached by faith in the fact that Jesus overcame the world for us.

I do not speak of that sort of perfection, as that is one you never actually know you attain until you die. You can think you do all you want, but you never actually know for 100% certain you have it. As a philosopher, if you cannot know an answer exactly, then I pay it no mind. There's no need to waste time over it if you don't know for certain. It simplifies quite a few things, trust me. Rather than faith perfection I am speaking of natural perfection. Man can do it by themselves, which you agreed with me on by stating through suffering we can.

If you believe God can bring you to perfection through Christ, then you can.

This argument feels rather silly to me. Why would God create faulty humans and then punish us for his mistake?

 

[david_james]

God didn't create faulty humans. We are given free will. He punishes people for choosing to reject Him and His laws.

 

[akilae]

God didn't create faulty humans. We are given free will. He punishes people for choosing to reject Him and His laws.

Oh come now, that's like building a computer that doesn't have to listen to you, and when it doesn't, you beat the heck out of it.

 

[david_james]

It does have to listen. To not give it free will, I would have to program it to listen. However, I want it to choose to listen.