Christ wasn't perfect?

[searching_questioner]

I have't read all of the previous posts, so possibly someone may have already made this small, pedantic, but possibly important point - is a person with the prominent scars of major wounds still in their hands and feet physically perfect? I would think not. I understand that this is not the point that the original poster was making, but it might be worth pondering.

[james12]

Jesus was surely without sin, but that in and of itself, misses the point of his perfection. It simply directs us to what he was not. But who was he and what did he become? For he surely had to grow while here in his mortal tabernacle. Note these words regarding his pain in Gethsemane, “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly” (Luke 22:44) What? Because he was suffering he prayed more earnestly? How is it possible that he wasn’t already completely in earnest? Wasn’t he was perfect? This is where we must disabuse ourselves of our false constructs surrounding the word and idea of his perfection. I think it can easily creates barriers between ourselves and him. It sanitizes him.

Why don’t we instead see his personality? This to me is more valuable. It is in the details where we see his finesse, the completeness, the beauty, of who he is. At the pool of Bethsaida he seeks out the man who has been trying for years to be healed. He does not heal them all. Instead he heals this one man who cannot possibly reach the pool in time. Do we see the beauty of what he has done? When he finds out about John’s beheading he wants to be alone but the crowed needs him. He ignores his own sorrow and instead he spends time with the multitude. Only in the late hours and early morning does he find time to grieve. He is invited into a Pharisees home and skips washing his hands. He cares about the Pharisee and seeks to break the false notions of religion the man is under. He does not care about propriety. How utterly free is this man!

But if we only focus on his lack of sin, we may not see that he was indeed human. And it is precisely because of his humanity that he is so exquisite.

[applepansy]

But if we only focus on his lack of sin, we may not see that he was indeed human. And it is precisely because of his humanity that he is so exquisite.

Christ being perfect doesn't make him less human to me. Just the opposite. He was perfect despite all the struggles we have as human beings and therefore I have hope that some day I can be perfect too.

[Tough Grits]

I think this is a very interesting thread.

We stand at a unique perspective...looking back at the life of Christ, after his birth, a sinless life, atonement, death, and resurrection.

Looking back on his life from the point in time from which we are now standing, Christ was perfect. That is because we are looking at his mortal life/mission from a beginning/end perspective.

His birth, in and of itself, would not have been as spectacular if he did not live up to measure of his creation and fulfill all that the Father asked.

As I think of the life of the Savior, pre-mortal and mortal, if I hit "pause" at any point on the timeline of his life, I testify that up to that point he was perfect in fulfilling what he had been expected to fulfill...to that point.

To say that he was not perfect until he suffered is (to me) the equivalent of hitting "pause". Yes, he was perfect at that point. Just as--I feel--he was perfect up to any other point to which we could pause on the timeline of his life. But his story did not end at the point of his suffering in the garden of Gethsemane. He still had much more to do--his physical suffering, his death, his visit to the Spirit World, his visit to the Nephites, and his ascension to God. Even now, from where we stand in the timeline of the earth, he still has much to do! He still has to return to earth and reign for a thousand years.

From the perspective that I now stand, a couple thousand years since his birth, life, death, and resurrection, all that matters to me is that he came, he lived, he served, he obeyed, he suffered, he died, and he was resurrected. From the point in time from which I now stand, Christ was and is perfect.

He fulfilled all righteousness. He did all that Heavenly Father asked. It should not matter at which point I pause on the timeline of his life, because I know that he did all that he was asked up to any point to which I could pause.

I think how we are defining or understanding the word perfection is key. As for me, I would have had to have raised my hand and testified that Christ was and is perfect. He did all that the Father asked at each point in his life. That he lived an entire life without sin, that he lived an entire life consistently and humbly obeying the will of God, and that he atoned, died, and was resurrected so that all mankind will also be resurrected and so that all mankind can have the opportunity to live with God once again is more than good enough for me.

To me, I can't hit "pause" when it comes to the life of Christ. His whole life--pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal--is what has everlasting significance to me. I can testify without any qualms that Christ was and is perfect.

Edited April 29, 2013 by Tough Grits

[applepansy]

I think this is a very interesting thread.

We stand at a unique perspective...looking back at the life of Christ, after his birth, a sinless life, atonement, death, and resurrection.

Looking back on his life from the point in time from which we are now standing, Christ was perfect. That is because we are looking at his mortal life/mission from a beginning/end perspective.

His birth, in and of itself, would not have been as spectacular if he did not live up to measure of his creation and fulfill all that the Father asked.

As I think of the life of the Savior, pre-mortal and mortal, if I hit "pause" at any point on the timeline of his life, I testify that up to that point he was perfect in fulfilling what he had been expected to fulfill...to that point.

To say that he was not perfect until he suffered is (to me) the equivalent of hitting "pause". Yes, he was perfect at that point. Just as--I feel--he was perfect up to any other point to which we could pause on the timeline of his life. But his story did not end at the point of his suffering in the garden of Gethsemane. He still had much more to do--his physical suffering, his death, his visit to the Spirit World, his visit to the Nephites, and his ascension to God. Even now, from where we stand in the timeline of the earth, he still has much to do! He still has to return to earth and reign for a thousand years.

From the perspective that I now stand, a couple thousand years since his birth, life, death, and resurrection, all that matters to me is that he came, he lived, he served, he obeyed, he suffered, he died, and he was resurrected. From the point in time from which I now stand, Christ was and is perfect.

He fulfilled all righteousness. He did all that Heavenly Father asked. It should not matter at which point I pause on the timeline of his life, because I know that he did all that he was asked up to any point to which I could pause.

I think how we are defining or understanding the word perfection is key. As for me, I would have had to have raised my hand and testified that Christ was and is perfect. He did all that the Father asked at each point in his life. That he lived an entire life without sin, that he lived an entire life consistently and humbly obeying the will of God, and that he atoned, died, and was resurrected so that all mankind will also be resurrected and so that all mankind can have the opportunity to live with God once again is more than good enough for me.

To me, I can't hit "pause" when it comes to the life of Christ. His whole life--pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal--is what has everlasting significance to me. I can testify without any qualms that Christ was and is perfect.

Well said. Thank you.

[justinc]

Jesus "knew no sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21)

[skalenfehl]

Forgive me for not having read through the entire thread and it has probably been mentioned already and if so, I'll add to that testimony. Christ indeed was sinless, but did not attain "perfection" as He knows it until after He resurrected/ascended to His Father in Heaven to claim His rights of mercy and crown of glory. In His sermon on the mount, he told the Jews to be perfect even as Father in heave is perfect. When He visited the Nephites in Bountiful after having ascended to His Father, he told them to be perfect even as He, Himself is perfect as well as His Father in Heaven who is perfect. Our Savior was judicious with his wording with every teaching moment, prophecy, parable and doctrine, which He taught.

My two cents.

[Guest DeusCaritasEst]

Jesus, of course was perfect, as he was the the unblemished Lamb of God.

[RipplecutBuddha]

Jesus was perfectly free from sin while in his mortal life, however that is the only measure of perfection he had before his death and resurrection.

He was still capable of sin, thus why Satan tempted him. He was still capable of death, thus why he willingly surrendered his life on the cross for us all.

No longer can Jesus be tempted to sin. No longer can Jesus be threatened with death and the grave. He has conquered his two imperfections and rightly claimed exaltation by the hand of his Father. By our understanding of perfection, Jesus was only perfect after he had spoken to Mary, forbidden her to touch him, and then ascended to the presence of Heavenly Father, to present himself as the completed, and necessary, perfect sacrifice to absolve sin from all mankind that would choose to follow Him.

To us he was perfectly innocent, or free from the penalties of sin. Yet he was mortal. Mortality is, by definition, a state of imperfection. It is no inaccuracy to say Jesus was not perfect during his life, however we need to be careful because he did live the one and only perfect adult life ever to be lived in this world.

[applepansy]

Jesus was perfectly free from sin while in his mortal life, however that is the only measure of perfection he had before his death and resurrection.

He was still capable of sin, thus why Satan tempted him. He was still capable of death, thus why he willingly surrendered his life on the cross for us all.

No longer can Jesus be tempted to sin. No longer can Jesus be threatened with death and the grave. He has conquered his two imperfections and rightly claimed exaltation by the hand of his Father. By our understanding of perfection, Jesus was only perfect after he had spoken to Mary, forbidden her to touch him, and then ascended to the presence of Heavenly Father, to present himself as the completed, and necessary, perfect sacrifice to absolve sin from all mankind that would choose to follow Him.

To us he was perfectly innocent, or free from the penalties of sin. Yet he was mortal. Mortality is, by definition, a state of imperfection. It is no inaccuracy to say Jesus was not perfect during his life, however we need to be careful because he did live the one and only perfect adult life ever to be lived in this world.

It was my understanding the sacrifice Christ made for us was in Gethsemane and on the Cross. Are you saying he wasn't perfect until AFTER those events. Because to be eligible as the sacrifice for justice he had to be perfect BEFORE those events.

[RipplecutBuddha]

It was my understanding the sacrifice Christ made for us was in Gethsemane and on the Cross. Are you saying he wasn't perfect until AFTER those events. Because to be eligible as the sacrifice for justice he had to be perfect BEFORE those events.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, because he did not need to be perfect in order to accomplish the atonement.

He had to be without blemish, without broken bones, and innocent of any sin. That is all.

Notice that Jesus never once claimed any measure of glory or perfection of himself until after his resurrection. During his ministry he consistently deferred his authority to that of his Father. He told the Jews "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

But he told the Nephites, whom he did not visit until after his resurrection "Be ye therefore perfect even as I, or your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

in order to be perfect, one has to be incapable of change or alteration. After all, if change or improvement is possible, by definition perfection has not been reached.

There is a vast difference between perfection, and perfect innocence. Had Jesus been fully perfected prior to fulfilling the Atonement, he would not have been able to fulfill it. A perfect being cannot die. Death is the separation of the spirit and body. Jesus had to be capable of death, else the sacrifice of an innocent life could not have been made.

A perfect being cannot sin. However being free from sin is not indicative of perfection other than perfect innocence. Jesus had to be capable of sin, else Satan's temptations in the desert would have been futile and thus no trial at all.

During his mortal ministry, Christ was capable of dying because he was mortal, as we all are. His gift from the Father was that no man could take his life from him without his express consent.

The only perfect being, in the full sense of the term, is a resurrected and fully glorified being.

During Jesus' ministry, the only being who fit that description was the Father. It was not until after Jesus' resurrection that he also 'had all power in heaven and in earth', and had fully recieved his complete inheritance from the Father, a completely perfect and exalted spirit forever united with a perfected and immortal body.

[circusboy01]

I once was told that He wasn't perfect because he was tempted. I replied that wasn't a sin. If he would have given in to that temptation, that would have been different. This was from an LDS person that said it. She said being tempted meant He was not perfect. I disagree. So, perhaps some misunderstanding like this could have happened?

He was not tempted. To be tempted He would have had to have thought about doing what the Devil suggested. Even if only for a fraction of a second.

This did not happen. So He was not tempted.

[RipplecutBuddha]

He was not tempted. To be tempted He would have had to have thought about doing what the Devil suggested. Even if only for a fraction of a second.

This did not happen. So He was not tempted.

The bible says Jesus was tempted, so he was tempted. it is not sin to be tempted.

[Dravin]

He was not tempted. To be tempted He would have had to have thought about doing what the Devil suggested. Even if only for a fraction of a second.

This did not happen. So He was not tempted.

Unless you're making some sort of distinction that they do not, the scriptures disagree with you:

28 Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

11 And he shall go forth, suffering pains and afflictions and temptations of every kind; and this that the word might be fulfilled which saith he will take upon him the pains and the sicknesses of his people.

22 He suffered temptations but gave no heed unto them.

[Guest Patric7olicoe]

Yesterday in RS one of the sister said many didn't know but Christ wasn't perfect.

[Blackmarch]

I can understand your first two points but not the third because Jesus started by creating our world and universe.

sorry about the delay.

Mainly referencing his mortal life, using a comment from about the only comment in the NT about his life between his early childhood up to when he started his ministry. Whether or not he had to descend in some form to take a place among us, or not he grew from one point to another greater point.

[applepansy]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, because he did not need to be perfect in order to accomplish the atonement.

He had to be without blemish, without broken bones, and innocent of any sin. That is all.

Notice that Jesus never once claimed any measure of glory or perfection of himself until after his resurrection. During his ministry he consistently deferred his authority to that of his Father. He told the Jews "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

But he told the Nephites, whom he did not visit until after his resurrection "Be ye therefore perfect even as I, or your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

in order to be perfect, one has to be incapable of change or alteration. After all, if change or improvement is possible, by definition perfection has not been reached.

There is a vast difference between perfection, and perfect innocence. Had Jesus been fully perfected prior to fulfilling the Atonement, he would not have been able to fulfill it. A perfect being cannot die. Death is the separation of the spirit and body. Jesus had to be capable of death, else the sacrifice of an innocent life could not have been made.

A perfect being cannot sin. However being free from sin is not indicative of perfection other than perfect innocence. Jesus had to be capable of sin, else Satan's temptations in the desert would have been futile and thus no trial at all.

During his mortal ministry, Christ was capable of dying because he was mortal, as we all are. His gift from the Father was that no man could take his life from him without his express consent.

The only perfect being, in the full sense of the term, is a resurrected and fully glorified being.

During Jesus' ministry, the only being who fit that description was the Father. It was not until after Jesus' resurrection that he also 'had all power in heaven and in earth', and had fully recieved his complete inheritance from the Father, a completely perfect and exalted spirit forever united with a perfected and immortal body.

See bolded. I don't agree. Your definition of perfect leaves no room for growth.

I'm still of the belief that Christ was perfect in this life. Perfect in obedience., perfect in innocence, etc. His Sacrifice for us is what "perfected him". He had to be perfect or without sin/blemish to qualify as the Sacrifice He made so the demands of justice are satisfied.

You say:

The only perfect being, in the full sense of the term, is a resurrected and fully glorified being.

This is where we are running into the difference in definition between "perfect" and "perfected". There is a difference.

[RipplecutBuddha]

See bolded. I don't agree. Your definition of perfect leaves no room for growth.

I'm still of the belief that Christ was perfect in this life. Perfect in obedience., perfect in innocence, etc.

Yes, I agree with this completely, however perfectly innocent of sin is only one dimension of the perfection he, and all of us, are capable of achieving.

His Sacrifice for us is what "perfected him".

I aslo agree with this completely.

He had to be perfect or without sin/blemish to qualify as the Sacrifice He made so the demands of justice are satisfied.

This is incorrect and contradicts your second statement. If his sacrifice perfected him, then he could not be perfect prior to his sacrifice. The two cannot both be accurate.

Yes Jesus was perfectly free from sin. Yes he was perfectly innocent. In this we both agree completely.

However, that is not the full measure of perfection we are to seek, even according to Jesus' own words. He did not cite himself as an example of perfection until after his resurrection and visit to the Nephites.

You're using 'perfect' as a word to describe his state of innocence, or freedom from sin, when that word applies to so much more. Jesus was mortal. Mortals, by definition are not perfect. Mortals are subject to death. Death is an obstacle to perfection because the spirit and body are separated.

Jesus had to be capable of death in order to be sacrificed. Had he been incapable of dying, no sacrifice could be made. Thus by definition, the sacrifice had to be of a perfectly innocent, yet mortal, being.

You say: This is where we are running into the difference in definition between "perfect" and "perfected". There is a difference.

You are correct, however Jesus was not perfect during his moral ministry. As you stated yourself, the process of the atonement is what perfected him. He was perfectly innocent of sin from birth, and the only being to ever to do so. However, he was not fully perfect in the complete sense until after his resurrection and completion of the Atonement.

[applepansy]

This is incorrect and contradicts your second statement. If his sacrifice perfected him, then he could not be perfect prior to his sacrifice. The two cannot both be accurate.

Yes they can. Perfect is not Perfected. Again where is the room for growth between the two and between this life and the next if perfect is the same as pefected?

Yes Jesus was perfectly free from sin. Yes he was perfectly innocent. In this we both agree completely.

However, that is not the full measure of perfection we are to seek, even according to Jesus' own words. He did not cite himself as an example of perfection until after his resurrection and visit to the Nephites.

You're using 'perfect' as a word to describe his state of innocence, or freedom from sin, when that word applies to so much more. Jesus was mortal. Mortals, by definition are not perfect. Mortals are subject to death. Death is an obstacle to perfection because the spirit and body are separated.

I'm using the same word countless GAs have used in many conference talks.

Jesus had to be capable of death in order to be sacrificed. Had he been incapable of dying, no sacrifice could be made. Thus by definition, the sacrifice had to be of a perfectly innocent, yet mortal, being.

You are correct, however Jesus was not perfect during his moral ministry. As you stated yourself, the process of the atonement is what perfected him. He was perfectly innocent of sin from birth, and the only being to ever to do so. However, he was not fully perfect in the complete sense until after his resurrection and completion of the Atonement.

I still come back to Christ was perfect.

[applepansy]

I think I just found my next Empty Nester Family Home Evening topic.

[Upcountry]

Definitions matter.

Exalted mean in the top level of the Celestial Kingdom.

Perfect means without mistake. Perhaps perfect is also without sin.

Apparently, Christ's family did not think he was particularly perfect. They did not seem to hold him in particular awe.

Perhaps sinless means something else.

So what is the definition of sin? Perhaps sin is committing a crime against someone's free agency - a crime against another Child of God

Christ may have been the only one capable of the Atonement because He was the "Only Begotten" chosen before the world began and having a special Father. This is different from "perfect".

This discussion seems similar to the one about "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin". All that matters is that The Father accepted the sacrifice of The Son.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Upcountry
Wanted to add a thought.

[applepansy]

Definitions matter.

Exalted mean in the top level of the Celestial Kingdom.

Perfect means without mistake. Perhaps perfect is also without sin.

Apparently, Christ's family did not think he was particularly perfect. They did not seem to hold him in particular awe.

Perhaps sinless means something else.

So what is the definition of sin? Perhaps sin is committing a crime against someone's free agency - a crime against another Child of God

Christ may have been the only one capable of the Atonement because He was the "Only Begotten" chosen before the world began and having a special Father. This is different from "perfect".

This discussion seems similar to the one about "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin". All that matters is that The Father accepted the sacrifice of The Son.

Reference please :)

[Upcountry]

If the word definition requested is of Exaltation, I guess I am unable to do so.

However, this word "Exaltation" is extensively used. Somewhere, no doubt, there is an LDS dictionary definition. It seems to be a different definition from "Saved". If "saved" means to be in the Celestial Kingdom (because it requires baptism), and Exaltation is better than saved (perhaps because it requires Celestial marriage), then my definition seems reasonable.

If the word you wish to define is "sin", that seems to be open for discussion. Likewise the word "perfect".

One reason I am on this site is to find out these things.

Please help. I am not trying to be a pain. But precise definitions of words are extremely hard to find.

Thanks,

Upcountry

[bytor2112]

Please help. I am not trying to be a pain. But precise definitions of words are extremely hard to find.

Thanks,

Upcountry

Sounds like you struggle with some fairly basic doctrine...the Gospel Principles manual might be a great place to start..............here.

Good luck!

[Vort]

Definitions matter.

Exalted mean in the top level of the Celestial Kingdom.

"Exalted" means "living as God lives". It is not even well-established that the celestial kingdom consists of various levels, as is so commonly assumed. (In my opinion, that idea does not even make sense.)