It's said Jesus' sacrificed himself to save us...

[InChrist]

If Jesus is encouraging people to be perfect, that's a pretty good indicator that it is in fact possible. Otherwise it would be a foolish admonition. The quote from Romans just says that everyone previously erred, not that perfection is impossible in a general sense. Note the tense, which is not actually perfect but aorist, contrary to what English translators tend to do with it. That's typical of Paul, for whom the world has just undergone a radical transformation and all traditional boundaries have been dissolved. Note also that Paul never talks about what people can't do.

Yes, Jesus encouraged people to be perfect. Would He do otherwise? He certainly wouldn't tell people to sin. Although the standard is perfection no one reaches God's standard. Have you ever met a single person who is absolutely perfect all the time, never making a single error or harming anything or anyone? The quote from Romans 3 in context says what it means; that all fall short of God's perfect standard. The verses above state...

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.(vs.9) and As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”(vs.10-12). The following verses state that it is through faith in Christ that a person is redeemed and justified... being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(vs. 24-26)

Elsewhere the scriptures reiterate that all sin and are imperfect...If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us ( 1 John 1:-10). Yet, the scriptures repeatedly reveal perfection is available in Christ...Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus ( Colossians 1:28).

 

[JayJayDee]

You are discussing something that was not claimed. I understand why people are said to have to obey, but if God has to adhere to his own laws he must be limited.

Not limited at all...because God's laws are perfect, it is no problem for him to abide by them himself. Why would he require us to do something he is not prepared to do also? I think that God knows his own capabilities.....don't you?

 

[raph]

Jesus came to this world, to proclaim a message, that would educate and enlighten humanity. Since this message was contrary to all that was known, and the only way to proclaim that message was to get crucified, he gave his life for the message. The only way to not get killed, would be to stop claiming, that he was the messiah. He kept being steadfast, therefore he gave his life, to save his sheep.
The other thing is this: Jesus perfection was devine in nature, "trapped" in a human body. After he gave up (sacrificed) his body, his spirit was freed and his perfection was clearly visible. As a human, he could reach people, who saw him in person. When no longer in that physical body, he reached people all over the world, his spirit healed the sinner, gave the blind people eyes to see, enlightened the hearts of people, and even appeared to people, all over the world, wherever he wanted. That spirit, who sacrificed his body, still is an inspiration and a helper in the hearts of all humanity. And his perfection still is the cause of sinners becoming holy.

 

[InChrist]

But that's precisely what happens when you take things out of context. Context changes meaning. Context is everything.

Yes, I understand you are saying context is everything and things out of context have different meanings. I asked if you would like to explain how you believe the verses , Matthew 5:48 and Romans 3:23, were used out of context or to imply different meanings than the intent of the verses in context with entire passages.

 

[JoStories]

Not limited at all...because God's laws are perfect, it is no problem for him to abide by them himself. Why would he require us to do something he is not prepared to do also? I think that God knows his own capabilities.....don't you?

How do you know what God can and cannot do? What capabilities? I don't believe anyone can claim to know what God wants or can do. IMO, that seems a bit arrogant to think that one can speak for God. But that's just me.

 

[JayJayDee]

How do you know what God can and cannot do? What capabilities? I don't believe anyone can claim to know what God wants or can do. IMO, that seems a bit arrogant to think that one can speak for God. But that's just me.

I am saying nothing more than what the Bible tells us.

God's capabilities are demonstrated in creation....Paul wrote "His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.” (Romans 1:20)

No one has to speak for God....he speaks for himself in his written word. All we have to do is read it.

 

[JoStories]

I am saying nothing more than what the Bible tells us.

God's capabilities are demonstrated in creation....Paul wrote "His invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.” (Romans 1:20)

No one has to speak for God....he speaks for himself in his written word. All we have to do is read it.

Ok, now what you wrote makes sense however, I have to say that it makes sense to you, not me. For me, while I do find truth in some parts of the bible, I don't view it as having been written by God. I like the sermon on the mount, and in particular, the interpretations by Matthew Fox. I've never really cared for much of what Paul wrote, for my own reasons. But thanks for your reply.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, Jesus encouraged people to be perfect. Would He do otherwise? He certainly wouldn't tell people to sin. Although the standard is perfection no one reaches God's standard. Have you ever met a single person who is absolutely perfect all the time, never making a single error or harming anything or anyone? The quote from Romans 3 in context says what it means; that all fall short of God's perfect standard. The verses above state...

What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.(vs.9) and As it is written:
“There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none who understands; There is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one.”(vs.10-12). The following verses state that it is through faith in Christ that a person is redeemed and justified... being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.(vs. 24-26)

Elsewhere the scriptures reiterate that all sin and are imperfect...If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us ( 1 John 1:-10). Yet, the scriptures repeatedly reveal perfection is available in Christ...Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus ( Colossians 1:28).

Your post makes no sense. You're saying that Jesus encouraged us to be what we can never be. Why would Jesus do that???

To "be perfect" must mean something other than what you think it means. In fact, Jesus is talking about love. God is perfect in love, and desires us to abide in perfect love -- not perfect in obeying, or law keeping, or sinlessness.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I understand you are saying context is everything and things out of context have different meanings. I asked if you would like to explain how you believe the verses , Matthew 5:48 and Romans 3:23, were used out of context or to imply different meanings than the intent of the verses in context with entire passages.

Because Matthew and Romans have nothing to do with each other, either in terms of theology, or intent, or intended audience.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Your post makes no sense. You're saying that Jesus encouraged us to be what we can never be. Why would Jesus do that???

To "be perfect" must mean something other than what you think it means. In fact, Jesus is talking about love. God is perfect in love, and desires us to abide in perfect love -- not perfect in obeying, or law keeping, or sinlessness.

Yes, the concept of perfection must be something other than just being infallible in a human sense. If it's all about following rules and living up to standards, then it's the Law all over again. Nothing has changed. Christianity as a tradition is pointless. It also means that the concept of perfection is utterly useless except as an excuse to be misanthropic, as it's defined strictly in opposition to the human state. Not to mention that if perfection must mean infallibility, which would require that we not have limited human consciousness and sensory apparatus, then we were never perfect. And if we were imperfect to begin with, then where does God get off expecting such grand things from creations that were never designed to deliver them?

I must agree, admonishing people to do something that is literally impossible is not an activity that merits admiration. I don't know why people would want to disrespect Jesus by interpreting him that way. Nor is it useful to imagine God as this celestial martinet who demands utter perfection from beings who can never give it to him. That makes God delusional. Just more projection from the human experience, thinking God is just a big dude with the same vices and such that humans have. And yes, demanding that people do X and being upset when they don't do it is entirely a human flaw. There's nothing inspirational or transcendent about that.

The perfection of love must be the answer, as it's the thing that Paul points to as dissolving all boundaries. He also calls it Christ and the aspect of God within us. It is also the thing that does not taste death, for it was never born, so it does not die. Our true nature, beneath all this superficial stuff, is perfect, but we only see it and manifest it through universal love. And I would add that in perfect love there is no sin, for to love is to understand the truth of things, and sin is action performed without understanding (not an action of disobedience to authority, contrary to popular superstition).

 

[sojourner]

Yes, the concept of perfection must be something other than just being infallible in a human sense. If it's all about following rules and living up to standards, then it's the Law all over again. Nothing has changed. Christianity as a tradition is pointless. It also means that the concept of perfection is utterly useless except as an excuse to be misanthropic, as it's defined strictly in opposition to the human state. Not to mention that if perfection must mean infallibility, which would require that we not have limited human consciousness and sensory apparatus, then we were never perfect. And if we were imperfect to begin with, then where does God get off expecting such grand things from creations that were never designed to deliver them?

I must agree, admonishing people to do something that is literally impossible is not an activity that merits admiration. I don't know why people would want to disrespect Jesus by interpreting him that way. Nor is it useful to imagine God as this celestial martinet who demands utter perfection from beings who can never give it to him. That makes God delusional. Just more projection from the human experience, thinking God is just a big dude with the same vices and such that humans have. And yes, demanding that people do X and being upset when they don't do it is entirely a human flaw. There's nothing inspirational or transcendent about that.

The perfection of love must be the answer, as it's the thing that Paul points to as dissolving all boundaries. He also calls it Christ and the aspect of God within us. It is also the thing that does not taste death, for it was never born, so it does not die. Our true nature, beneath all this superficial stuff, is perfect, but we only see it and manifest it through universal love. And I would add that in perfect love there is no sin, for to love is to understand the truth of things, and sin is action performed without understanding (not an action of disobedience to authority, contrary to popular superstition).

^^^This.^^^

 

[lovemuffin]

It seems worth pointing out that I'm not sure the Greek teleios has exactly the connotations that the English "perfect" has. We tend to hear it as implying a sort of immutable flawlessness, and no doubt insofar as the comparison is to God ("be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect") it is clear that God is supposed to be that. But telos refers to to the goal or aim of something, it's completeness, rather than directly to the idea of flawlessness (apsogos). Human "completion" is not necessarily the same as Divine completeness in every possible way, especially if the Divine is supposed to be immutable. But rather the injunction is to reach a mature and complete human state that is like God's insofar as it is merciful and good to all. This also seems to make more sense with the subsequent injunction to always forgive. Presumably there would be no need of forgiveness if we were all called to be flawless in that sense, rather than perfect in love and forgiveness.

 

[Vishvavajra]

It seems worth pointing out that I'm not sure the Greek teleios has exactly the connotations that the English "perfect" has. We tend to hear it as implying a sort of immutable flawlessness, and no doubt insofar as the comparison is to God ("be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect") it is clear that God is supposed to be that. But telos refers to to the goal or aim of something, it's completeness, rather than directly to the idea of flawlessness (apsogos). Human "completion" is not necessarily the same as Divine completeness in every possible way, especially if the Divine is supposed to be immutable. But rather the injunction is to reach a mature and complete human state that is like God's insofar as it is merciful and good to all. This also seems to make more sense with the subsequent injunction to always forgive. Presumably there would be no need of forgiveness if we were all called to be flawless in that sense, rather than perfect in love and forgiveness.

Yes, thanks for bringing that up. It just so happens that the Latin perfectum also means "finished/complete," which is how it eventually took on the meaning of "flawless" in modern English. But it's very important to remember that in antiquity it didn't have the latter sense, just the former, which is synonymous with the Greek you mentioned. To interpret the Biblical use of "perfect" in the modern sense is to introduce an anachronism, which is a poor basis for any doctrine.

The idea of God as perfect (Gk. teleios) comes from philosophers like Plato, who seem to understand it in the sense of "is exactly what it's supposed to be, with nothing further required"—hence unchanging, eternal, self-sufficient, and all the other criteria for ultimate existence according to the pre-Socratics. There is no need for an external rubric like a set of laws in order to judge perfection in that sense—in fact it pretty much precludes it, since that which is perfect is perfect in itself, not with respect to things outside itself.

I'm inclined to take a more mystical view of what human perfection looks like and its relation to God's perfection, even to the point of doubting whether there is ultimately a difference. As for forgiveness, it's not only an act of love but also a recognition of the ultimate non-difference between self and other. In that sense it is an expression of our true perfect nature shining through the apparent imperfections. I'm reminded of the Buddhist adage that dirty water is basically clean water than happens to have some dirt in it; a cluttered room is a spacious room that happens to have some stuff in it; a defiled mind is a pure mind that... Well, you get the idea.

 

[lovemuffin]

We're likely in agreement re: mysticism, but I figured I'd not reach for the stars in that post, since it would require more than just a brief thought on one verse

 

[InChrist]

Your post makes no sense. You're saying that Jesus encouraged us to be what we can never be. Why would Jesus do that???

To "be perfect" must mean something other than what you think it means. In fact, Jesus is talking about love. God is perfect in love, and desires us to abide in perfect love -- not perfect in obeying, or law keeping, or sinlessness.

Even when it comes to love, the agape selfless perfect love of God, everyone falls short. I am saying that Jesus encouraged people toward perfection, despite that reality that we all sin and fall short because this gives us an awareness of our inability to keep the law, be sinless, or be perfect on our own and draws us to Him alone who saves and through whom perfection is available.

 

[InChrist]

Because Matthew and Romans have nothing to do with each other, either in terms of theology, or intent, or intended audience.

I do agree that it is important to rightly divide the Word of God, But on the other hand it is just as important to consider the whole counsel of God. I think Matthew, Romans, and the entirety of the scriptures certainly are connected and have plenty to do with each other.

 

[Awoon]

I looked up the word "perfect" in Strong's Concordance and the meaning is "complete."

 

[sojourner]

Even when it comes to love, the agape selfless perfect love of God, everyone falls short. I am saying that Jesus encouraged people toward perfection, despite that reality that we all sin and fall short because this gives us an awareness of our inability to keep the law, be sinless, or be perfect on our own and draws us to Him alone who saves and through whom perfection is available.

What does "perfection" mean for the gospel writer?

 

[sojourner]

I do agree that it is important to rightly divide the Word of God, But on the other hand it is just as important to consider the whole counsel of God. I think Matthew, Romans, and the entirety of the scriptures certainly are connected and have plenty to do with each other.

No. they're simply not connected in the way you're using them. In fact, the texts (with the exception, perhaps of the synoptics) are fairly disconnected, and cannot be adequately exegeted together.

 

[sojourner]

The other thing is this: Jesus perfection was devine in nature, "trapped" in a human body. After he gave up (sacrificed) his body, his spirit was freed and his perfection was clearly visible.

That's patently not what Paul thinks about resurrection.