Changes to John 3:16

[lattelady]

Rather than "capable of sin", I should've said "If Jesus had sinned, He wouldn't be capable of becoming my Savior." The issue of whether He was CAPABLE of sin, but without sin--or incapable of sin and without sin is improvable. But Justice, I hear what you're saying. Bottom line for me: my faith tells me that Jesus was without sin. Blameless and perfect and holy--and as such, He qualified as the ONLY one who could die in my place and secure salvation for me.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by lattelady

Rather than "capable of sin", I should've said "If Jesus had sinned, He wouldn't be capable of becoming my Savior." The issue of whether He was CAPABLE of sin, but without sin--or incapable of sin and without sin is improvable. But Justice, I hear what you're saying. Bottom line for me: my faith tells me that Jesus was without sin. Blameless and perfect and holy--and as such, He qualified as the ONLY one who could die in my place and secure salvation for me.

I agree with everything but "perfect" - can you provide a source for that or did you make it up?

The Traveler

[Justice]

Originally Posted by lattelady

Bottom line for me: my faith tells me that Jesus was without sin. Blameless and perfect and holy--and as such, He qualified as the ONLY one who could die in my place and secure salvation for me.

I see where both of you are coming from.

Perfect can be without sin, from a certain point of view. But, Jesus calls us to not only be without sin, but to be involved in doing much good. So, from another perspective, not sinning may not be enough to be perfect.

Jesus certainly did spend His time doing good for others. He sacrificed His whole life, not just His sacrifice on the cross.

Even still, I see what Trveler is saying as well. Jesus wasn't "perfect" in mortality because He had a mortal body that bled and could die. It wasn't until He was resurrected and sat down at the right of the Father in His glorified, perfected, state that He was "perfect." To substantiate this comment, Jesus did not include Himself in His examples of "perfect" in any of His comments until AFTER He was resurrected. He did say He was "perfect" to the Nephites when He appeared to them, but that was after He was resurrected. To them, He said "as my Father or I are perfect."

I really don't think you two are disagreeing, I just think you are using different words.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by prisonchaplain

Let me see if the I get it...do you believe the call to perfection hints at the LDS belief in exaltation?

Matt 5:48 screams in truth; this is not a hint. The call to perfection is exactly what Jesus taught and the only example that Jesus gave was that of the Father. Obviously perfection was understood in a much different way than our modern religious concepts seem to want to deal with. Ancient synonyms would be more along the lines of complete, whole and holy. I agree that flawless can be included – but I do not think the absent of something (called flaws) is more important than the presents of something (like love, compassion and mercy).

For some reason many religionist think all there is in eternity is being flawless. Flawless is nice but I see it as very one dimensional thinking. Let us say that the only worthwhile definition or understanding of perfect is to be flawless. Are you telling me that Jesus was a complete idiot to suggest such a thing that he and everybody else knows is impossible? Was he really that stupid? Was he lying to us? What was he thinking when he commanded his disciples to be “perfect”? Was this proof that Jesus was in fact flawed – giving a commandment that he knew was impossible? Who is he and the Bible trying to kid? How can anyone have faith in that kind of blatant and obvious stupidity?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by lattelady

Traveler,
That was my question--I don't believe it to be an odd one, nor do I think I asked it in an odd way--I was simply asking you if you believed Jesus to be imperfect (and in my mind that meant capable of sin). Scriptures says that He was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. Your comment to PrisonChaplain, "I agree Jesus was without sin" answers my question. If a person thinks that Jesus is capable of sinning, then He could not take our place on the Cross as a perfect (blameless) substitute, and could not save us. If a person were to insinuate that Jesus was capable of sin, that would make Him incapable of being my Savior (so I wanted to understand what it was you were saying). Your question, "How could Jesus die on the cross if he was perfect?" makes little sense to me. From my point of view I would ask you, "How could Jesus die on the cross if he WASN'T perfect? What difference would it have made?" What does it mean, to you, to "descend below perfection?"
I am sorry that you were hurt by Evangelicals--hurt badly. I wondered why you seem to react so strongly to me; I hope you don't base your beliefs about Evangelical Christians on that experience, though I can see how it'd be hard not to. I've simply tried to understand where you're coming from, and understand the basis for your faith.

Let me make this very clear - Jesus was not pretending to die. He was not putting on a show. His pain was real and his death was real. There was no pretending at all - everyting was real.

Now let me ask you how a "perfect" being like G-d in Heaven experience pain from humans driving spikes in his hands and feet?


Unfortunately this was not my only encounter. When I lived in the Seattle area (not far at all from where PC currently lives) there was a family of “Moonies” with 2 small girls grade school age. They open a small “Stop & Go” store on a corner in our neighborhood. There was a congregation of Evangelicals in the area that thought it was better not to have Moonies around teaching their false doctrine to everybody that walked into their store – especially children. So they mobilized and started a campaign to drive the Moonies out. The picketed their little store and threatened anyone that dare shop there. I know because I deliberately went through their picket lines. It got so bad that the poor family had to get police escorts so their children could get home from school safely. None of the Evangelical children were encouraged to play or associate in any way with the little Moonie girls.

If you would like to experience something interesting – please visit one of our Mormon conferences in Salt Lake City and see how families are treated with their children as they go to worship. Keep in mind that because of laws restricting what is allowable by born again’s it is much subdued from what use to be. In the past I have been to wedding at the Temple in SLC where born again’s were shouting unbelievable things at young couples trying to get wedding pictures on a most sacred and special day to them. It took a court order to end the effort to keep Mormons from having freedom of religion to peacefully assembly.

To be honest it seems most Evangelicals have the attitude of surprise at such things as though demonizing Moonies and Mormons as worshipers of a different Christ and not being Christian and sending all us to hell while those that accuse us may be a little strange and not from your congregation but never-the-less saved and going to heaven – because it does not matter what they do and how badly they treat others as long as they believe.

To be honest PC is the only Evangelical (and perhaps one or two others on this forum) I have ever had a good experience in an encouter, talking to and being around. They seem to be the great exception to which I am most greateful.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

We've done several strings on the misbehavior of conference protesters. Also, I remember growing that there was a Moonie-owned convenience store--Go N' Joy--that we kids wouldn't go to (though I don't remember any adults telling us not to).

There really is not much sense in defending such behavior. I've speculated in the past about what motivates such people. But, if they are wrong, then God must deal with them and there's no sense explaining the thinking behind their errors.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by lattelady

Rather than "capable of sin", I should've said "If Jesus had sinned, He wouldn't be capable of becoming my Savior." The issue of whether He was CAPABLE of sin, but without sin--or incapable of sin and without sin is improvable. But Justice, I hear what you're saying. Bottom line for me: my faith tells me that Jesus was without sin. Blameless and perfect and holy--and as such, He qualified as the ONLY one who could die in my place and secure salvation for me.

Would not an omnipotent God have the power to both sin and be the Savior?

If not, how could He be omnipotent?

[lattelady]

Traveler,
Again, I'm sorry for the horrible behavior that you've seen displayed toward you and others--by "born-again's" or "evangelicals". I would never condone such behavior, nor would I take part in it. I'm embarassed by it. God is grieved by it.
On another note, I believe that a perfect God came down to earth in human form; I believe He was completely God/yet completely man when He walked the earth. Jesus was God in a tangible body of flesh and bone. I'm certain that there isn't a man alive who wouldn't feel excruciating pain if spikes were driven through their hands or feet. Jesus was no exception (as a man)--he felt pain. He felt sorrow. He felt righteous anger. He felt hunger. He was a man. Yet he was God.
When I say that He was perfect and you ask me if I have proof for that or if I just made it up, my proof lies in my belief that He was God. So when He says "Be perfect even as my Father is perfect", He also is included in that perfection because He and the Father are One.

[lattelady]

Snow,
I know this has been debated in other threads, but for me it isn't up for debate. God doesn't sin--it would go against His very character to do so. If He were to sin, He would cease to be God, as He is, by His very nature HOLY.

[Snow]

Originally Posted by lattelady

Snow,
I know this has been debated in other threads, but for me it isn't up for debate. God doesn't sin--it would go against His very character to do so. If He were to sin, He would cease to be God, as He is, by His very nature HOLY.

Agreed that he "wouldn't" but your view is that he "can't," that he lacks the ability to do so (and remain God) - in other words, his status as the omnipotent God is conditional... and that's not a mainstream Christian view... which hold that God's existence is not conditional and depends upon nothing for its perpetuation.