Changes to John 3:16

[Misshalfway]

I am not saying that we are able to earn salvation outside the Atonement. As if any of the best efforts of even the most righteous human could merit anything without Christ. It is only in and thru Christ that salvation (both kinds) can come to any of us. Obedience is absolutely part of the covenant relationship that opens the doors to the mercy we need.

I am just hoping that those on this thread who still think we earn salvation can see that obtaining mercy thru covenant is a completely different idea.

[Misshalfway]

Traveler,

It is hard to fathom; but to insinuate that Jesus was not perfect is a pretty serious accusation, to me. It questions His diety.

I don't think Travelor is saying that. I think you are missing what he is trying to teach about the relationship of the Father and the Son in the context of the Godhead.

[Justice]

No because we don't obtain it by being good. Obedience can't save by itself. All action we take must go thru the atonement for Salvation to happen. It is thru mercy that the blessing is granted not thru merit.

You know, one thing I always hate to bring up in discussions like this because it confuses non-LDS a bit about our position, is covenants.

Ordinances are required for eternal life.

Ordinances are works, but they are also covenants.

God's people have always been a covenant people. If they did not make covenants they were not His people.

It confuses me how intelligent people outside our faith can overlook this simle truth. It means making covenants is a required works for eternal life. To hear people say they are OK or good, but not requires, seems to go against everything the Bible teaches.

[Traveler]

Traveler,

Another point at which we will disagree is: you're saying Jesus was pointing people to the Father and saying, "Be perfect, as My Father is perfect"--I agree. But you're saying THAT somehow proves that even Jesus Himself isn't perfect/flawless--only God is. I believe that the Word of God teaches that Jesus IS God. "I and the Father are one." If you've seen the Son, you've seen the Father (they are ONE). Jesus is God made man, God come down to Earth. God's Son, and God, all at the same time. The Trinity. It is hard to fathom; but to insinuate that Jesus was not perfect is a pretty serious accusation, to me. It questions His diety. Again, even the Jews understood that He was claiming to be God, and wanted to stone Him.

You have an odd (very un-Christian) way about you. What I said is that there is no Biblical scripture that instructs us that prior the the resurrection Jesus was perfect. That Jesus did not offer himself as one that is perfect when he was giving examples of who is perfect in the Bible. That is all that I said. If you want to disagree with me then show me the Biblical scripture I have missed. But please do not blame and accuse me for something I am no responsible for. I suggest you take your thought "to insinuate that Jesus was not perfect is a pretty serious accusation, to me" - if this is true and you are honest then cast your stones at who ever you believe is responsible for the Bible - not me.

Someday - perhaps we can have an open and honest discussion about religious things and why we each believe the way we do. It would help if we could get past the notions and temptations in "insinuations" and deal more carefully with what we say concerning our own beliefs. Just so you know – many years ago as a young man of 17 I was beaten and my life threatened by Evangelicals because I was a Mormon. I am alive today because of a miracle. A miracle so astonishing that some of my accusers are now Mormons. Sometimes truth can be a miracle in and of its self.

The Traveler

Edited November 3, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I'll confess to not having read the latter few pages of this string carefully, but I too wondered where you were going Traveler. You might have something else in mind, but why the emphasis that Jesus did not specifically say He was perfect. If he is God the Son (whether a separate personage or 2nd person in the Trinity would matter not here), would he not, by definition, be perfect. Also, near the end of 1 Cor. 13 we are told that some of the gifts of the Spirit will cease "when that which is perfect has come." We take that to refer to the 2nd coming. And again, in Revelation, and as taught in both of our Atonement doctrines I believe, Jesus is the spotless lamb, the worthy sacrifice.

So, maybe it's our Protestant ears that reads too much in what you are saying by stressing that Jesus told us to be perfect like the Father, not like himself--because he never said he himself was perfect--well, ... just what is the point then???

[ryanh]

Well, I too am a little confused on where Traveler is going with this point, or even what the point is, but I don't have any trouble reading into what he wrote things that are not even there.

[BenRaines]

Can we, imperfect beings, be perfect?

and to the point being made. I don't know that we can come to an agreement On Heavenly Father-God, being perfect and the Son, whom we believe to be someone else, not Heavenly Father, to be perfect. I believe that Christ lived a perfect life, without sin, without blemish, able to be the perfect sacrifice.

I do not believe that God-The Father, came down as Christ and allowed himself to be sacrificed and then went back up to heaven. Christ returned to the Father, Christ did not return to being the Father.

Ben Raines

[Misshalfway]

Yeah.... I am with you Justice. Having essential ordinances (covenants) and obedience does not negate the mercy and grace and profound nature of the gift. Entering into a covenant is the equivilant, in my mind, to Latte's analogy of redeeming the coupon. Obedience is walking back into the store and saying I want to access that gift. Obedience isn't the coupon itself. Obedience is the recognizing what the coupon is, and walking to the store and appealing to the store keeper.

Being the covenant people of the Lord. That is vitally important. The Lord did fulfill the law but he did not abolish covenants. He just raised us to a higher law in which to make vital covenants.

[Traveler]

I'll confess to not having read the latter few pages of this string carefully, but I too wondered where you were going Traveler. You might have something else in mind, but why the emphasis that Jesus did not specifically say He was perfect. If he is God the Son (whether a separate personage or 2nd person in the Trinity would matter not here), would he not, by definition, be perfect. Also, near the end of 1 Cor. 13 we are told that some of the gifts of the Spirit will cease "when that which is perfect has come." We take that to refer to the 2nd coming. And again, in Revelation, and as taught in both of our Atonement doctrines I believe, Jesus is the spotless lamb, the worthy sacrifice.

So, maybe it's our Protestant ears that reads too much in what you are saying by stressing that Jesus told us to be perfect like the Father, not like himself--because he never said he himself was perfect--well, ... just what is the point then???

Is it possible that Jesus decended "below" perfection that he might not only die for us but prove that by following his example (suffering death and being resurrected in power and glory) we, who are fallen can become perfect?

The point that I believe needs to be understood - is that being "without" flaw is different than being perfect as he was after the resurrection. Our goal is not to be "flawless" but to become "complete" with and in Christ. Or if you will - to keep our eye on the donut and not on the hole.

The Traveler

PS. Let me ask a question to emphasize my point – How could Jesus die on the cross if he was perfect? It appears to me that Jesus was being honest and truthful when in Matt. 5:48 when he gave the Father as the example of being perfect and not himself. He knew exactly what to teach and he was 100% accurate – and we should believe what he taught.

Edited November 3, 2009 by Traveler
to add the PS.

[prisonchaplain]

This helps, but I still need it fleshed out. Physically, Jesus obviously was not flawless. Yet he was without sin. I'll carry this a step further...when Jesus asked the woman with an issue of blood, who had touched him, was healed, and who's action led to Jesus feeling power drain from him...when he asked, "Who touched me?" it's very likely he really did not know. So "perfect," or "flawless" to me simply means he did not sin. Do we agree on this?

[BenRaines]

I agree PC, a sinless sacrifice.

Ben Raines

[pam]

I agree with that PC.

[Traveler]

This helps, but I still need it fleshed out. Physically, Jesus obviously was not flawless. Yet he was without sin. I'll carry this a step further...when Jesus asked the woman with an issue of blood, who had touched him, was healed, and who's action led to Jesus feeling power drain from him...when he asked, "Who touched me?" it's very likely he really did not know. So "perfect," or "flawless" to me simply means he did not sin. Do we agree on this?

You can define perfect as you like - I believe that in Matt 5:48 Jesus taught that perfect was something different or beyond flawless. In other words your defination may be without flaw but it is not perfect - it lacks completeness the full extent of truth and the understanding of what great things Christ did or sacrificed for us. Being "flawless" does not tell the whole story of Christ.

I agree Jesus was without sin - but unlike you I believe he decended below "perfection" as in Matt 5:48 to take upon him our sins - and in so doing suffer for sins - a perfect being cannot suffer for sins. But a perfect being decending below perfection and being flawless or without sin can suffer for other's sins. Therefore when we become "perfect" we cannot suffer for sins ether. I also believe this is what Jesus is trying to have us understand in scripture.

The Traveler

Edited November 3, 2009 by Traveler
add a thought

[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.

Edited November 3, 2009 by lattelady
wanted to add a thought

[Justice]

(and in my mind that meant capable of sin)

He most certainly was capable of sin. If He was not capable of sin then His temptations were meaningless, and in fact a rather pointless part of the Bible.

Now, I agree He never gave in to temptation thereby avoiding sin His entire life.

But, He was capable. :)

[prisonchaplain]

You can define perfect as you like - I believe that in Matt 5:48 Jesus taught that perfect was something different or beyond flawless. In other words your defination may be without flaw but it is not perfect - it lacks completeness the full extent of truth and the understanding of what great things Christ did or sacrificed for us. Being "flawless" does not tell the whole story of Christ.

I agree Jesus was without sin - but unlike you I believe he decended below "perfection" as in Matt 5:48 to take upon him our sins - and in so doing suffer for sins - a perfect being cannot suffer for sins. But a perfect being decending below perfection and being flawless or without sin can suffer for other's sins. Therefore when we become "perfect" we cannot suffer for sins ether. I also believe this is what Jesus is trying to have us understand in scripture.

The Traveler

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

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.