How Human Was Jesus?

[Robert F. Smith]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/05/my-take-jesus-was-a-dirty-dirty-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

[The Nehor]

Anything he missed out on the rest of his life he got in Gethsemane and the Cross. He knows every disease and feeling of filthiness possible. He was more then one of us. He was all of us.

[teddyaware]

Anything he missed out on the rest of his life he got in Gethsemane and the Cross. He knows every disease and feeling of filthiness possible. He was more then one of us. He was all of us.

Quite true.

Here's something to ponder relative to the earthly human experience of the Lord: Joseph Smith said (I'm paraphrasing) that what many people consider to be sin isn't sin at all, but rather many of the imperfect thoughts and acts of men are actually mistakes -- not malignant sin. In light of this fact, the Lord, as he was growing in grace and knowledge, may have made some mistakes, especially when he was young. As a result, he may know as a consequence of his own imperfect choices what it feels like to be remorseful, regretful, ashamed, penitent, apologetic, foolish, humiliated, etc. So if he did made mistakes of omission and commission, he would know through his own painful experience what it feels like to be a fully human. If I rightly understand the following quote from Paul, it would seem he didn't become perfect all at once at an early age.

"8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Heb 5)

I speculate in making the above point. Nevertheless, even though the scriptures teach us he was sinless, it would seem to me that that fact doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have been capable of making mistakes . But I must say that if it is true that he did make mistakes, it would move me to love him all the more.

Edited January 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

I saw this article yesterday, and while a bit put-off with how casually he described the Savior, I do agree that He suffered the same human conditions as far as having the same dietary, hygeine, grooming and other self-care habits as everyone else He served. The same with His twelve disciples, and I've always sensed that they were not far from the norm in these matters as compared to the rest of their society. I do think that, due to His extraordinary ability to receive grace for grace and learn what works and what doesn't, Jesus must have been on the high end of the bell curve so as to stay as healthy (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) as possible throughout His ministry. But He certainly had to work at it like anyone else would (one of the devil's temptations touched on His option to approach life carelessly without expecting negative consequencs). As mentioned above, He did fully suffer the human condition, descending below all things in His atoning work.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

As Milan Kundera put it in The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

If He had a mouth, He had to eat. And if He ate, He had intestines. But that thought always gave me a fright, because even though I come from a family that was not particularly religious, I felt the idea of a divine intestine to be sacrilegious. Spontaneously, without any theological training, I, a child, grasped the incompatibility of God and s*** and thus came to question the basic thesis of Christian anthropology, namely, that man was created in God's image. Either/or: either man was created in God's image -- and God has intestines! -- or God lacks intestines and man is not like Him.

The ancient Gnostics felt as I did at the age of five. In the second century, the great Gnostic master Valentinus resolved the damnable dilemma by claiming that Jesus ate and drank, but did not defecate. S*** is a more onerous theological problem than is evil. Since God gave man freedom, we can, if need be, accept the idea that He is not responsible for man's crimes. The responsibility for s***, however, rests entirely with Him, the Creator of man.

Needless to say, this is only a problem if one defines "Godness" through the prism of Alexandrian absolutes which divorce "mere" humans from the Divine by grafting in unbiblical presuppositions about a singular monotheistic necessary Uncaused Cause that transcends any hope of understanding. I far prefer the view in the D&C (which is really just a reemphasis on the Biblical teachings) that "when the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves." [Emphasis added.] A human with body, parts, and passions. That's not a demotion of the Divine, that's an exaltation of human potential.

Edited January 8, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Mansquatch]

Not only was He fully one of us, but He did it by constant choice. For everyone else, we made a one time decision to be fully mortal, for Christ it was a trial during His whole life to remain human.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/05/my-take-jesus-was-a-dirty-dirty-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

Don't know of any physical illness, but he did come to experience so he could be a righteous judge...I can see that.

[teddyaware]

Don't know of any physical illness, but he did come to experience so he could be a righteous judge...I can see that.

The following verse of scripture indicates the Lord would be susceptible to human illness:

"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." (Alma 7)

Edited January 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Questing Beast]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

Yes Jesus of Nazareth was one of us. The concept of "God" or a god being born as a mere mortal was already thousands of years old by the time of Jesus. So was the belief that "God" or a god could die to redeem or save his people. Physically there was no difference in any of these "gods" from normal people. It was only their identity that was unique. The difference between Christianity and previous religions that also believed their gods came to earth as mortals, is that we are also "gods" and are like Jesus Christ in that respect: and he promised that those who followed him would become one with him as he and his/our Father are one; and we will become heirs of "all that the Father hath". That's the lure, the unique promise of Christianity: that we are gods ourselves "enjoying" a mortal experience. Of course, Mormonism is the only growing religion that actually teaches this doctrine today; all other denominations and sects of Christianity deny godhood to our fallen species....

[CV75]

I speculate in making the above point. Nevertheless, even though the scriptures teach us he was sinless, it would seem to me that that fact doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have been capable of making mistakes .

What do you think this would mean in terms if the Atonement -- do mistakes need to be atoned for? I can see it a couple of ways:

1) Mistakes are innocent enough, but their consequences can have terrible/horrible consequences, and the Atonement reverses these consequences in the resurrection. Christ overcame His own death, so I suppose He could overcome His own mistakes.

2) Could Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit have been a mistake with no ill intent (her attention was on the delightfulness of what was being offered the moment she ate it) even though her action had dire consequences? Under the circumstances, is Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit a mistake as well, since he did it in a moment of duress/distress?

[Freedom]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/my-take-reclaiming-jesus-sense-of-humor/

[3DOP]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

I don't know why anybody would think that Jesus' body would be impervious to dirt or germs. The only thing original I could find with Johnnie Moore's repeated references to a "dirty God" was that it seemed like a juvenile attempt to mix personal hygiene with theology. Oh Jesus might have had B.O.! Hahahaha. I am not amused. Although some of us avoid discussing the bathroom habits of the Messiah, it shouldn't be taken as a concession that we think He never used the bathroom.

Edited January 8, 2013 by 3DOP

[The Nehor]

But was he just a stranger on the bus trying to find his way home?

[teddyaware]

What do you think this would mean in terms if the Atonement -- do mistakes need to be atoned for? I can see it a couple of ways:

1) Mistakes are innocent enough, but their consequences can have terrible/horrible consequences, and the Atonement reverses these consequences in the resurrection. Christ overcame His own death, so I suppose He could overcome His own mistakes.

2) Could Eve's partaking of the forbidden fruit have been a mistake with no ill intent (her attention was on the delightfulness of what was being offered the moment she ate it) even though her action had dire consequences? Under the circumstances, is Adam's partaking of the forbidden fruit a mistake as well, since he did it in a moment of duress/distress?

I always found it interesting that right after Paul informs us in Hebrews 5 that Christ "learned obedience by the things which he suffered," and after telling us he was made perfect (became perfect), he then writes the following:

10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec.

11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.

13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.

14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

So right after Paul tells us Christ had to learn how to be obedient -- just like the rest of us -- he says he has much more to say on the subject but the spirit constrained him from going any further. And why did he have to stop proceeding on in his discourse as to just exactly how the Lord learned to become perfect? It's because he feared many of his students were too spiritually immature to be able to properly digest what he would reveal to them, and as a result of this immaturity, they would recoil at what they heard, and say Paul was speaking evil and probably even blasphemous things. So he had to withhold deeper truth about the Lord's growing process because they would be offended at his word.

In accord with the above, we have the following from the Lectures on Faith:

“..let us ask, where shall we find a prototype into whose likeness we may be assimilated, in order that we may be made partakers of life and salvation? or in other words, where shall we find a saved being? ... We conclude as to the answer of this question there will be no dispute among those who believe the bible, that it is Christ: all will agree in this that he is the prototype or standard of salvation, or in other words, that he is a saved being."

So if Christ is a saved being, just exactly what did he have to be saved from in order to become saved? Could it be that Christ is our exemplar, not because he was always from the very beginning perfect in everything he thought, emotionally felt and did, but because he perfectly showed us how to overcome imperfection?

So who was the God and Saviour of Jesus Christ? Why it was his Father, of course. Psalm 22 demonstrates to us some of what the Saviour experienced and what emotional state he was in while he hung on the cross during the three hours of darkness. It is clear that he viewed his Father in Heaven as his Saviour, the only one who could deliver him, for his own strength had melted away. Note especially the words in bold italics:

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.

4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.

5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.

6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

7 All they that see me laugh me to ^ascorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts.

10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.

11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.

13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

19But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.

20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling (his Father) from the power of the dog.

It was the saving power of his Father/Saviour that enabled Christ to go to Gethsemane and then to the cross as a sinless sacrifice. Without the Father fulfilling the role of Saviour to his only begotten Son, the Christ could not have even begun to succeed in his mission of salvation. This is one of the reasons why Christ had to be baptized: It was a humble acknowldgement on the Son of God's part that it was the saving power of his Father that justified, sanctified, strengthened and enabled him to be holy and without spot. He was as dependent on his Father as we are on him...

"10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14)

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

Yes, fully.

[CV75]

I always found it interesting that right after Paul informs us in Hebrews 5 that Christ "learned obedience by the things which he suffered," and after telling us he was made perfect (became perfect), he then writes the following:

***

"10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works." (John 14)

Even assuming Hebrews 5:7-11 are about Melchizedek and not Christ: yes, everything Christ did was enabled by His Father. As far as being saved, I believe Christ was saved from an eternity as a Spirit (by His Father) by following His Father’s plan. In this way he is a "saved being." We are likewise saved from a bodiless existence, by following the Firstborn in following the Father’s plan. In this way, the Son is our prototype (and whether we match is ultimately up to our benefiting from His Atonement).

Psalm 22 describes what the Savior took upon Himself in our behalf, not His own, except I do believe His own salvation (which was already set from before the foundation of the world) required His accomplishing this suffering in our behalf. This passage also describes how deep our realization of our need to be saved from our sins must be.

Christ learned perfect obedience in the pre-mortal life and as God brought this attribute with Him into this world, so He did not sin in this life. He is not our Exemplar for sinning and repenting but rather for submitting to God. He did not have to relearn obedience by repenting, but by staying true to Himself, suffering against temptation and always doing the right thing. We on the other hand did not learn to the extent that He did, and so bring spiritual weakness with us into this world, and suffer by virtue of doing the wrong things. We then accept the invitation to repent and do the right thing, so that the Atonement can absolve us.

In one sense He wasn’t perfected during His ministry (Luke 13:32), and His work still isn’t yet perfected (D&C 76:106). Yet we call Him perfect. In this instance, perfection may or may not involve an absence of mistakes.

Mistakes are not sins, yet I think that Jesus’ mistakes were of a different nature than sleeping in late on the Sabbath, forgetting to pay His tithes, getting lost on His way to an appointment, healing someone of the wrong malady, hitting an innocent person while cleansing the temple, etc. In fact, His mistakes would only be mistakes in the eye of the beholder, and the only valid standard would be that of His Father, not any earthly person’s. So I would say that stumbling through the alphabet as a two-year old isn’t a mistake in Heavenly Father’s eyes, and considering His performance as twelve-year old discussing the law with the doctors, such mistakes would be few and far between. The more I think of it, I’m wondering if He even made any of these kinds of mistakes. Developing perfect empathy by suffering against temptation would alleviate the need for Him to do so. The point is that He condescended and suffered completely.

But yes, the Father did give Him all power over physical and spiritual life and death and saved Him in this way. His perfect Spirit was placed in an imperfect body and yet He decended below and overcame all things, regardless of what happened to His body.

[teddyaware]

Christ learned perfect obedience in the pre-mortal life and as God brought this attribute with Him into this world, so He did not sin in this life. He is not our Exemplar for sinning and repenting but rather for submitting to God. He did not have to relearn obedience by repenting, but by staying true to Himself, .

Taken in context, the passage in Hebrews 5 that says Christ "learned obedience by the things which he suffered" appears to point to his earthly experience, not to the pre-mortal life. How do you arrive at the idea that Paul here is speaking particularly of Christ's pre-existence, when it says he "learned obedience." The 93rd section of the doctrine and covenants is instructive on this point of Christ "learning obedience:"

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; (i.e. received strength and blessings from God as he strengthened and blessed others)

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace (i.e from lower degrees of spiritual empowerment to higher ones), until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

So the above passages inform us that Christ grew spiritually while on the earth; God blessing him to progress from lower degrees of spirtitual empowerment to higher ones, as he lived the Gospel and "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." Then, at his baptism, came the Saviour's sea change moment. For after spending his life growing and going from grace to grace, as he continued to received grace for grace, the Lord finally "received a fulness of the glory of the Father" when the Holy Ghost descended upon him at the time of that momentous event. Even so, immediately thereafter the Lord's obedience was tried once again when he spent those forty days in the wilderness. So even though he recieved a fullness of the glory of God through the gift of the Holy Ghost at his baptism, the process of receiving grace for grace continued.

Please note, I never posited that the Saviour ever commited a sin. Rather, speculating and speaking conjecturally, I wondered aloud that if Joseph Smith taught people often wrongfully conflate and equate sins and mistakes as being same thing, I then realized, at least theoretically, that the Saviour could have made some painful mistakes during early his life, while yet remaining without sin according to divine law.

On the above point, the story of the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon is instructive: The Prophet Joseph Smith importuned the Lord to allow Martin Harris to show the translated manuscript to Harris' skeptical wife. The prophet plead with the Lord three times to allow him to give Martin the manuscript. The first two times the Lord said no, but the last time the Lord relented and said that he could do as he wished. We all know the overwhelming sorrow and bitterness that came into the prophet's life as a result of giving Martin that transcript. In fact, the prophet said that as a result of the horrific suffering he endured as a consequence of this act, he learned a very valuable lesson and was much more swift to be obedient to the will of the Lord thereafter.

But remember, the Lord eventually gave the prophet permission to give Martin the manuscript. So technically speaking, because the prophet bargained with the Lord -- as exemplified by Abraham concerning the imminent destruction of Sodom -- he had to wade through the fires of hell, as it were. Nevertheless, because the Lord gave Joseph permission to yield up the manuscript, he really only made a mistake in not listening to the Lord the first time; he didn't commit a sin by wantonly violating God's will. So, when it comes to this famous event, Joseph learned obedience by the things which he suffered, without actually committing an act of sinful rebellion.

So again, the foregoing causes me to theoretically wonder if similar things may have happened in the Lord's early life that sorely tried him, and as a consequence he "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." Remember, I'm just wondering aloud.

Also remember that Paul taught, "And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." In light of this, one cannot help but wonder what the Saviour's life was like before the time he crossed that final threshold when he became perfect.

How much like us is our Lord and how much are we like unto him? D&C 93 tells us well have the opportunity to go through the same salvational process he did:

"20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace (just as he did)."

Having successfully gone through the same process of salvation we do, the Lord knows how to succor and encourage us as we progress from one degree of divine empowerment to another, until we finally reach "the perfect day."

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Taken in context, the passage in Hebrews 5 that says Christ "learned obedience by the things which he suffered" appears to point to his earthly experience, not to the pre-mortal life. How do you arrive at the idea that Paul here is speaking particularly of Christ's pre-existence, when it says he "learned obedience." The 93rd section of the doctrine and covenants is instructive on this point of Christ "learning obedience:"

***

Having successfully gone through the same process of salvation we do, the Lord knows how to succor and encourage us as we progress from one degree of divine empowerment to another, until we finally reach "the perfect day."

I am reading Hebrews 5 in light of other scripture about Christ’s pre-mortal existence that provides the basis for considering how He approached and behaved in mortality (including D&C 93). And, while I question that the passage is about Christ (and not Melchizedek), I am trying to be open-minded and read it in the context that it could be about Christ (since Melchizedek can be said to provide a type of Christ).

No doubt Christ grew spiritually on earth as He learned to manage His body, the Veil, and a physical world with a physical body (He already knew how to create and manage the physical world as the Spirit Jehovah). His arrival on earth was not a backsliding of spirituality that He had to regain. He grew from that point not by sinning and repenting, and I doubt by making mistakes and learning from them. Rather, He learned obedience in the flesh by suffering the consequences of staying true to His own Godhood. It may sound counter-intuitive, but as He suffered in this way, He was rewarded in a way that only a God can appreciate, which is much the same way we appreciate spiritual growth as the reward for our sacrifices.

In light of Abraham 3:18-19, I find it difficult to think that Christ suffered an added degradation of spirituality or intellect to a level commensurate with anyone else ever born into this world simply because He took flesh upon Himself. This is not to say He was independent and self-sufficient from the moment of His birth, but where He is the greatest of all, I don't see any mistakes being made.

I do understand that you distinguish between sin and mistakes. At this point, I’m just wondering if Jesus even made mistakes. I’m sure He was treated as if He made mistakes and did wrong all His life (“Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us?” and the accusations and death campaigns of His enemies), even though He was always about His Father’s business (“all that heard him were astonished”). In this way (and on account of His godly spirituality and intellect) He learned to relate to us, and experienced the consequences of the mistakes and sins we commit so He could reverse them and succor us. Even in the devil’s temptations, He was treated as if He would fail, yet demonstrated that He would go through life as a normal man despite His clear advantages (this would have been harder than learning from mistakes, in my opinion). I speculate that in His fasting, He wasn’t overcoming a tendency to make mistakes, or even seeking protection from weaknesses and failure, but rather obtaining the Father’s will and strength the only way it can be gotten while sojourning in this telestial sphere. This too is a continuation of how He behaved pre-mortally.

The only similarity I see in the Lord’s learning process and ours is that suffering is involved, and the result is a receipt of grace for grace. The source and kind of suffering differs until we become more like Christ, and the idea is to become more like Him. I do not see the Lord making the kind of mistake Joseph did with Martin, which the Lord deemed wickedness. Christ was never wicked, slow to observe, or overlooking the presence of or His accountability to the Father (hence Matthew 15:34).

Yes, I understand you are wondering aloud and that is why I use this board as well. I think it’s great and I appreciate your thoughts.

[teddyaware]

CV75

While it's true that Joseph Smith said Hebrews 5: 7-8 should be understood as parenthetical insertions referring to Melchizedek, the reason why Paul brings these points about Melchizedek to the fore in the first place is because Melchizedek is a type of Christ, who's life greatly reflected the stuggles and triumphs of the Saviour's. The way Paul puts it is that the Lord himself was after the order of Melchizedek, meaning that Melchizedek's and the Lord's life experiences and Priesthoods were similar.

When speaking of Melchizedek Paul says, "(Melchizedek is he) who offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared," "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." is not Paul highlighting these points because the Lord himself also "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death?" First, while in Gethsemane and then on Golgotha? The point being that just as Melchizedek was saved by God because Melchizedek pled with Heavenly Father in great faith and in deepest sincerity during his time of greatest need, so too was Jesus also strengthened by his Father when he pled for help while he was at the end of his rope and in his time of greatest need. And so we read:

"41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him."

In addition, Psalms 22 (referenced before) shows us how the Lord continued to plead for help as his titanic, superhuman struggle against sin, death and the devil continued while he suffered in unspeakable agony upon the cross on Calvary's hill.

So, do you think it just might be possible that the Saviour may have failed in his mission if the strengthening angel had not been sent to him by his Father and Saviour as he struggled in superhuman woe? Christ needed a power outside of himself that was greater than himself (while still in the flesh) to come off triumphant. He needed a Saviour too. God the Father is also our Saviour, because we are told:

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (1 Corinthians 5)

On another of your points, here's something for you to ponder. I don't know if you believe Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "as man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become" to be true. But if you do, think about this: Let's take Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah as our examples. If one day in the eternities they were to become one with God and joint heirs with Christ, endowed with the eternal fulness of all the powers, blessings and divine attibutes Christ himself possesses, sitting on the thrown of his almighty power -- would the fact that they were at one time numbered amongst "the very vilest of sinners" detract in any way from who and what they had ultimately had become?

You see where I'm going with this. For those of us who believe in the meaning of President Snow's famous couplet, there would be no surprise at all to find that all-poweful, divine beings were once upon a time very imperfect. Such is the incomparable power of the infinite and eternal atonement. "For with God (through the transformative power of the infinite and eternal atonement), all things are possible."

"4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away (they die).

5 And he that sat upon the throne (God the Father) said, Behold, I make all things new. (Revelation 22)

Edited January 9, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

CV75

While it's true that Joseph Smith said Hebrews 5: 7-8 should be understood as parenthetical insertions referring to Melchizedek, the reason why Paul brings these points about Melchizedek to the fore in the first place is because Melchizedek is a type of Christ, who's life greatly reflected the stuggles and triumphs of the Saviour's. The way Paul puts it is that the Lord himself was after the order of Melchizedek, meaning that Melchizedek's and the Lord's life experiences and Priesthoods were similar.

When speaking of Melchizedek Paul says, "(Melchizedek is he) who offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared," "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." is not Paul highlighting these points because the Lord himself also "offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death?" First, while in Gethsemane and then on Golgotha? The point being that just as Melchizedek was saved by God because Melchizedek pled with Heavenly Father in great faith and in deepest sincerity during his time of greatest need, so too was Jesus also strengthened by his Father when he pled for help while he was at the end of his rope and in his time of greatest need. And so we read:

"41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him."

In addition, Psalms 22 (referenced before) shows us how the Lord continued to plead for help as his titanic, superhuman struggle against sin, death and the devil continued while he suffered in unspeakable agony upon the cross on Calvary's hill.

So, do you think it just might be possible that the Saviour may have failed in his mission if the strengthening angel had not been sent to him by his Father and Saviour as he struggled in superhuman woe? Christ needed a power outside of himself that was greater than himself (while still in the flesh) to come off triumphant. He needed a Saviour too. God the Father is also our Saviour, because we are told:

18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (1 Corinthians 5)

On another of your points, here's something for you to ponder. I don't know if you believe Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "as man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become" to be true. But if you do, think about this: Let's take Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah as our examples. If one day in the eternities they were to become one with God and joint heirs with Christ, endowed with the eternal fulness of all the powers, blessings and divine attibutes Christ himself possesses, sitting on the thrown of his almighty power -- would the fact that they were at one time numbered amongst "the very vilest of sinners" detract in any way from who and what they had ultimately had become?

You see where I'm going with this. For those of us who believe in the meaning of President Snow's famous couplet, there would be no surprise at all to find that all-poweful, divine beings were once upon a time very imperfect. Such is the incomparable power of the infinite and eternal atonement. "For with God (through the transformative power of the infinite and eternal atonement), all things are possible."

"4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away (they die).

5 And he that sat upon the throne (God the Father) said, Behold, I make all things new. (Revelation 22)

Yes, I mentioned Melchizdek as a type of Christ. Types have their limitations. melchizedek and Jesus' mortal life experiences are similar but also fundamentally different as I tried to explain above. Mechizedek’s experience does not circumscribe Christ’s but Christ circumscribes Melchizedek’s, not because He lived as the son of two mortals and was not a god, but because He lived as the Son of God and a mortal, and was Jehovah incarnate. In Him is the life of all men first, not the other way around.

Christ always had the option to fail. His ongoing relationship with His Father sustained Him. The Father sent Him help in many forms, including a strengthening angel in Gethsemane, just as the He had done before (Matthew 4:11). These helps were not given for the purpose of amending any personal failings on Jesus’ part, but came in accordance with eternal law, and a natural outgrowth of His godly relationship with the Father. I’m sure Jesus credited the Father with everything He ever received and used in His life on Earth.

And yes, Christ would have failed had He not walked in tandem with the Father, and He didn’t have the luxury of any “do-overs” or the Father taking over anything Jesus had covenanted to do.

I agree that everyone is within reach of the Lord’s saving power and can be exalted. But again, Christ was already God before the foundation of the world. Heavenly Father may have been a sinner in a prior mortal life and found redemption in a Savior and went on to become the Father, but this has nothing to do with how Jesus came to be the Christ, or how He behaved in this life or in some prior mortal life (which I do not subscribe to).

I‘m trying not to repeat myself, but the Father saved Jesus and all of us from an eternity without a body. Jesus accomplished this one way, and we receive it through His merits. But ultimately Jesus recognizes and proclaims that eternal life is the Father’s to give, and so do we.

[mapman]

I'd recommend reading The Last Temptation of Christ (or watching the film version) to get an interesting perspective of what it means for Jesus to have been human.

[teddyaware]

Yes, I mentioned Melchizdek as a type of Christ. Types have their limitations. melchizedek and Jesus' mortal life experiences are similar but also fundamentally different as I tried to explain above. Mechizedek’s experience does not circumscribe Christ’s but Christ circumscribes Melchizedek’s, not because He lived as the son of two mortals and was not a god, but because He lived as the Son of God and a mortal, and was Jehovah incarnate. In Him is the life of all men first, not the other way around.

Christ always had the option to fail. His ongoing relationship with His Father sustained Him. The Father sent Him help in many forms, including a strengthening angel in Gethsemane, just as the He had done before (Matthew 4:11). These helps were not given for the purpose of amending any personal failings on Jesus’ part, but came in accordance with eternal law, and a natural outgrowth of His godly relationship with the Father. I’m sure Jesus credited the Father with everything He ever received and used in His life on Earth.

And yes, Christ would have failed had He not walked in tandem with the Father, and He didn’t have the luxury of any “do-overs” or the Father taking over anything Jesus had covenanted to do.

I agree that everyone is within reach of the Lord’s saving power and can be exalted. But again, Christ was already God before the foundation of the world. Heavenly Father may have been a sinner in a prior mortal life and found redemption in a Savior and went on to become the Father, but this has nothing to do with how Jesus came to be the Christ, or how He behaved in this life or in some prior mortal life (which I do not subscribe to).

I‘m trying not to repeat myself, but the Father saved Jesus and all of us from an eternity without a body. Jesus accomplished this one way, and we receive it through His merits. But ultimately Jesus recognizes and proclaims that eternal life is the Father’s to give, and so do we.

I'm enjoying your responses, and appreciate your spirit of good will. I now address the following passage from your last post.

"These helps were not given for the purpose of amending any personal failings on Jesus’ part, but came in accordance with eternal law, and a natural outgrowth of His godly relationship with the Father."

In light of the fact that God the Father had to send a mighty angel to strengthen Christ in his hour of great need in Gethsemane, it is proper that we shouldn't call the Lord's need for strengthening while in the garden a failure of some sort. Nevertheless, he had a need for strengthening, which would indicate that at that point in time he critiically needed something from the Father that he did not then possess to a sufficient degree. Otherwise, God would not have found there to be a need to send an angel to strengthen him. He desperatelly needed the help of his Father during this crisis, and the Father blessed him with a greater degree of grace (divine empowerment) than he already possessed. Therefore, even while in Gethsemane, Christ received grace for grace and ascended, thanks to his Father, to a state of greater grace than that which he already enjoyed.

As proof that while in the garden the Father blessed his Son with a greater measure of grace than he already possessed, I will quote and then comment on the following verses from the New Testament:

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt. (Mark 14)

and again...

41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone’s cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. (Luke 22)

I comment: While Christ was in the garden he pled with his Father thrice, pleading with him that, if at all possible, the bitter cup might be taken from him. It must be noted that after each of the three instances, when he pled with his Father for release from the cup's obligations, he did humbly declare "thy will be done." Even so, there can be no denying that he most he earnestly petitioned his Father that the cup taken from him.

At this point one might ask if was it mistake or a sign of weakness on the part of Christ to ask the Father to take the bitter cup away from him, when all along he knew full well it was absolutely necessary for him to drink that horrible vessel to its dregs? I must say that It seems to me, possibly, that the reason why he pled for the romoval of the bitter cup because is because within his heart he felt he was too weak to succeed in the completion of the sacrifice. Again I say, might it be true that the reason why he begged the Father to take the cup from him is because he knew, intuitively, what he was being asked to accomplish was beyond his present capacity? Then, as the loving and gracious Father discerned his beloved Son's most deperate need, the Father took positive action in order to make it possible for Jesus to be further empowered, and this so as to fully capacitate and enable him to successfully endure the agonies that would come as a consequense of drinking the cup. And so we read:

43 there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. (Luke 22)

In the following verse (44) we learn that the Saviour was thereafter strengthened beyond his previous measure of spiritual capacity because, we are told, he now "prayed more earnestly." Therefore, the Saviour received grace for grace, and went from grace to grace while suffering for us in the Garden of Gethsemane. His Father empowered him beyond his previous spiritual capacity so that the Son would have the wherewithal to fully atone for all of our sins. Christ needed a great act of salvative intervention from the Father in order to enable him to finish the work of redemtion he was given so that he, in turn, could save us. We then learn the following after the Saviour's sufferings in Gethsemane came to a close.

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18)

So even though the Lord knew the unspeakable tortures of scourging and death by crucifixion awaited him, and even though he knew the Gethsemanic sufferings (estrangement from God) he endured in the garden would recur while he simultaneously hung in exquisite physical agony on the cross -- even so, he no longer asked that the bitter cup be taken from him. He now resolutely moved forward in the atoning process, saying to Peter, when the same attempted to thwart the Lord's arrest "the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" The Saviour's will and the Father's will had now become fully one; the Christ had been made perfect. The Son was now both the Father and the Son; the will of the Son being totally swollowed up in the will of the Father -- but this only after the blessed visitation and empowering ministrations of the mighty strengthening angel.

To understand what Christ had to endure spiritually and emotionally while he was also being physically tortured on the cross, read Jeffery R. Holland's April 2009 general conference address, None Were with Him. Surely, he drank the bitter cup of the wrath of God's justice to its dregs while being crucified on Calvary's hill.

The Saviour needed salvative strengthening from his Father, that he might have sufficient power to save us. Jesus Christ is the living prototype and embodiment of a saved being, for the Father saved him by continully and progressively pouring out upon him greater and greater endowments of spiritual power until he ultimately arrived at the perfect day.

Edited January 10, 2013 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Quite true.

Here's something to ponder relative to the earthly human experience of the Lord: Joseph Smith said (I'm paraphrasing) that what many people consider to be sin isn't sin at all, but rather many of the imperfect thoughts and acts of men are actually mistakes -- not malignant sin. In light of this fact, the Lord, as he was growing in grace and knowledge, may have made some mistakes, especially when he was young. As a result, he may know as a consequence of his own imperfect choices what it feels like to be remorseful, regretful, ashamed, penitent, apologetic, foolish, humiliated, etc. So if he did made mistakes of omission and commission, he would know through his own painful experience what it feels like to be a fully human. If I rightly understand the following quote from Paul, it would seem he didn't become perfect all at once at an early age.

"8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" (Heb 5)

I speculate in making the above point. Nevertheless, even though the scriptures teach us he was sinless, it would seem to me that that fact doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have been capable of making mistakes . But I must say that if it is true that he did make mistakes, it would move me to love him all the more.

This seems to agree with my observation that a need for strengthening (by Jesus or the rest of us) is not necessarily the result of any mistakes He may have made as He learned life’s lessons.

The Father definitely strengthened Jesus, and Jesus’ primary characteristic was to submit to His Father’s will. We are invited to follow this pattern. But as long as Jesus is our Mediator, our relationship with the Father is a little different than His; fortunately the object of Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer is that in the end we will all be one.

We certainly need strengthening in our sphere just as Jesus did in His (even without our sins and mistakes—for example, He sustained and strengthened Adam and Eve with daily walks, food, assignments in their stewardship, etc.), and additionally He grants us the benefit of the Atonement in relation to our individual and collective* sins and mistakes so that we can progress as if no sins and mistakes were made (which is the only way to truly progress, He being the Example). [* We often suffer for the sins and mistakes of others, which Jesus experienced also.]

[SamIam]

Johnnie Moore of Liberty University has an interesting take on Jesus as a very human person, and, like everyone else at that time, quite dirty and vulnerable to disease in the early 1st century A.D. Is this a correct view of Jesus? Was he fully one of us?

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3 .

Sometimes in discussions amongst intellectually mature individuals we know enough about a subject to not say something that is tangibly and affrontively wrong but that the "wrongness" can only be found in the points that we might want to emphasize beyond that points valid contribution. In other words, at some point it is the subtleties of emphasis that we have to note if we are to discern right and wrong. I wish to consider this line of reasoning as I respond to the article found at the link you posted.

Jesus was sarcastic, too.

He often snapped back at the Pharisees with a tone fit for late-night television, and in a terribly embarrassing moment for all those around him, Jesus even called these respected religious teachers “snakes” that were probably sons of “Satan.”

That’s not exactly the behavior of a sweet, self-help teacher with a halo over his head.

It’s the behavior of a frustrated man who might also be divine, but sure knows how it feels for annoying people to get under his skin. (

http://religion.blog...-god/?hpt=hp_c3

)

I use the quote above from the article you suggest to illustrate a sense of what I take from Mr. Johnnie Moore’s efforts. While ostensibly much of what is covered in the article is benign and perhaps neither right nor wrong per se, there seems a subtle effort, carefully woven through his piece of a priority of making Christ a more “human” entity and thus perhaps more accessible. I tend to feel that his goal is to remove some of the stigma of His godliness that creates that intrinsic distance between mortal imperfect man and the perfect exemplar that burdens the process of seriously believing that we can be like him.

Personally, I don’t find it improper in the least, that of all of the images of Christ that float in the minds of men, to inquire if the real Jesus Christ will please stand up. After all, of the three stated requirements of exercising true faith, the second required is that one must possesses “a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes.”(Lectures on Faith, Lecture 3)

However, the subtleties…it’s all about the subtleties. The question for me becomes does it make Christ more real and tangible to emphasize a sarcastic tendency, that the author equates as a halo diminishing feature? Do I feel I can better approach a God that might share my tendencies to be frustrated with annoying people? These simple examples from the article, which illustrate what I perceive to be the undertones of the piece, are only a couple of many which seem to convey the sense of “hey, Christ is like you and me and he really can understand our sufferings and sorrows and trials because he has experienced what we have felt. And on the surface I must admit that it is a tempting dish which is here served up upon which we are encouraged to dine.

The question becomes does it make me want to be more like Christ to bring him to me, to wrap him in familiar trappings of my mortality and shortcomings? Or does this subtlety of emphasis diminish my sense of necessity to be constantly striving to move towards him and his perfections?

This is a hard argument to make, because as I stated, I’m okay with recognizing the fact that Christ was sometimes brutally direct with Peter. I recognize that at times he may seem a harsh master who is painfully candid and powerfully gifted with the clarity of sight that can pierce the thinnest veil of deception and cut through the tiniest hint of guile with a surgeons precision. However the truth be told, I am more like the Pharisee, than Christ is like me. I am more like the Peter, of little faith, than the creator of heavens and earths.

If this portrayal of Christ were accurate, then it seems more than likely that I am to be the target of His sarcasm, His frustration, His retaliation against those annoying people that plague his existence. If I thought for a moment that he was more like me, I would live in greater fear of my salvation than perhaps could be overcome by realizing he is patient, long-suffering, merciful and just – things I am not so good at.

When Moroni 7 talks about teaching us a sure means of knowing good from evil, I have concluded that he is not talking about evil such as someone hitting me in the head with a 2 X 4, or the obvious evils of robbing a bank or holding someone against their will, or embezzlement, or any one of the 1000’s of tangible evils that do not need a special formula for discerning their wrongness. Instead Moroni is discussing the subtleties of the evil or good that can be found in ideologies, theories, philosophies and postulations that will become the hallmark of an advanced society of thinkers and intellects. So Moroni’ s council for me has become the standard for weighing ideologies and philosophies. Johnnie Moore probably intends no evil here, and for my interpretations only posits a feel good approach to not being so daunted by the images of perfection that may make Christ unattainable. However, I do not want to be like the dirty frustrated Jesus who becomes sarcastically annoyed with sinners and who smells of a bad reputation…it just doesn’t cut the mustard for me to warm up to these mortal traits and conditions and find some sense of identity in them with my Savior.

So applying the Moroni formula, I do not find that this makes me desire to be like the Christ he has portrayed. I have no sense of being more obedient or charitable. If I allowed it, all I detect is a sense of placation about my shortcomings and perhaps for a moment I might feel less burdened by them thinking that the Savior shared the same.

However, while some will appreciate the articles accessible Jesus, for me, the sublties of the message and undertones of inference are the foundations of a lie. Perhaps not the grandiose evil of a plotting and scheming servant of Beelzebub that seeks to carefully lead men down to hell with flaxen cords but of a lesser sort of simply being misinformed and overly influenced by a feel good society that appreciates a tolerant, nonjudgmental approach to self-introspection and identifies better with a God made in their own image.

I guess by now it goes without saying that I'm not a fan of the approach this article takes but that's just my personal response, others, I 'm sure will find it a worthwhile message.

Thanks for the link, It gave me something consider that I found interesting.

Edited January 11, 2013 by SamIam

[CV75]

The Saviour needed salvative strengthening from his Father, that he might have sufficient power to save us. Jesus Christ is the living prototype and embodiment of a saved being, for the Father saved him by continully and progressively pouring out upon him greater and greater endowments of spiritual power until he ultimately arrived at the perfect day.

Apologies--this must have been confusing--I mistakenly quoted your post #3 in responding to this one (#22 quoted immediately above). To respond to #22:

This seems to agree with my observation that a need for strengthening (by Jesus or the rest of us) is not necessarily the result of any mistakes He may have made as He learned life’s lessons.

The Father definitely strengthened Jesus, and Jesus’ primary characteristic was to submit to His Father’s will. We are invited to follow this pattern. But as long as Jesus is our Mediator, our relationship with the Father is a little different than His; fortunately the object of Jesus’ Intercessory Prayer is that in the end we will all be one.

We certainly need strengthening in our sphere just as Jesus did in His (even without our sins and mistakes—for example, He sustained and strengthened Adam and Eve with daily walks, food, assignments in their stewardship, etc.), and additionally He grants us the benefit of the Atonement in relation to our individual and collective* sins and mistakes so that we can progress as if no sins and mistakes were made (which is the only way to truly progress, He being the Example). [* We often suffer for the sins and mistakes of others, which Jesus experienced also.]

To respond to #3:

I speculate in making the above point. Nevertheless, even though the scriptures teach us he was sinless, it would seem to me that that fact doesn't preclude the possibility that he might have been capable of making mistakes . But I must say that if it is true that he did make mistakes, it would move me to love him all the more.

I can appreciate this; I think there are many ways that we can be prompted to love Him. From my experience, I love Him because He first loved me (1 John 4:19). I take "first" to mean in sequence and in quality. As times goes by, I realize more and more how He always loved me first, no matter how far from and unlike Him I was, and this increases my love for Him. I am becoming more like Him far more than He ever became like me, and as I do so my love for Him also increases.