- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I am posting this because with the Christmas season more people are thinking about our Savior Jesus Christ. So, my question is what do you think Christ was really like in mortal life? This is what I think. I know he is perfect now, but wasn’t perfect in his mortal life. I still believe he was sinless. The scriptures do say all this. I believe that all though Christ was sinless, he probably was guilty at being too harsh at times. A couple examples, Christ cleansing the temple and some of the things he said to the Pharisees. Even on the cross, he showed imperfection when he asked Heavenly Father why’ he’d forsaken him. I am not posting this because I don’t feel Christ is my Savior. Christ is my Savior. I’m just trying to be realistic about this topic. What are your thoughts on Christ’s mortal life? I guess I see “sinless” and “guilty” as polar opposites. IMO you can’t be both. I could be incorrect. I don’t think asking HF why he’d forsaken him was imperfect at all. It simply appeared to him briefly that he had.
Little is known of his mortal life and what is written in the gospels was written by people many years after the facts. We probably know even less than we think we do.
Just my thoughts…
Too socially radical for most Americans – after all, he didn’t charge when he healed. And said the love of money was evil. Too tolerant of adulterers – after all he told ne to stop sinning, but stopped her being executed.
Too anti-Sabbatarian for most Mormons, but too Sabbatarian for the world.
Good points Sam. That whole spreading the wealth and feeding the poor mentality, or giving away all your riches, wouldn’t fly very well today…at least in the red states
My understanding is that a Jewish rabbi of the time would have probably been required to be married. I understand that cutting his hair would have been taboo as well.
I’m going to say this carefully, with full understanding of the implications: If we take out the theological assumptions inherent in the typical acceptance of Jesus, of Nazareth, being “The Savior and Redeemer of the World”, I would say he was a radical, revolutionary itinerant preacher who was “extra-establishment” (meaning outside the establishment) at the core and anti-establishment when dealing with what he saw as abuses of power. I also believe there is a strong possibility that he intentionally played a role in facilitating his death – or, at least, the trial that ultimately led to his death.
Without the theological assumptions I mentioned above, focusing solely on the title question (“What was Christ really like?”), I see Jesus of Nazareth as very similar to Moses – and Mohammed – and Martin Luther – and Joseph Smith – and Gandhi – and any other revolutionary prophet. I thnk he would be rejected by the vast majority of Christians now, including Mormons (and, probably, me, as the “Savior and Redeemer of the World”), if we was re-born tomorrow and lived the same life he did then.
I have no problem defining “sinless” in such a way that I can believe he was sinless; I define “perfect” in such a way that I believe he was perfect only at the moment he died.
I have no problem accepting him as “The Savior and Redeemer of the World” – but that is because I can interpret those titles symbolically rather than in the strictly literal way that most believers use.
However, in the end, I agree that we really have no idea. We just don’t have anything that we can accept as objective fact upon which to base our views. Every bit of it is a matter of faith – one way or the other.
I have a
HUGEproblem with the image of him portrayed in quotes like, “Little Lord Jesus, no crying he makes,” and, “He never got vexed when the game went wrong, and he always told the truth.” Old-Timer wrote:I thnk he would be rejected by the vast majority of Christians now, including Mormons (and, probably, me, as the “Savior and Redeemer of the World”), if we was re-born tomorrow and lived the same life he did then.
Interesting Ray. I remember a question as to how we would receive Jesus if we had lived in his time. The answer to the question was that if we are LDS and accept the living prophets, then by the same spirit we would accept Jesus in his day. This assumes that the spirit that directs us in these choices is the holy ghost and has the capacity to direct us to do very different things in different circumstances.
Old-Timer wrote:I would say he was a radical, revolutionary itinerant preacher who was “extra-establishment” (meaning outside the establishment) at the core and anti-establishment when dealing with what he saw as abuses of power.
Accepting “living prophets” for someone born into the LDS faith means upholding the faith, traditions, and establishment of our fathers – while accepting Jesus in his day would seem in many contexts to be a rejection of those same things.
Even if some are directed by the holy spirit, there are surely others that are simply born with a pro-establishment personality and are lucky enough to find themselves in the true church. Surely God would not love them for their good fortune while simultaniously hating their counterparts in the Sanheedren (SP) Booster Club.
I probably should add that if I lived when he lived, there is an incredibly small chance I would have heard him preach – so there is a huge chance I neither would have rejected nor accepted him. Also, my reaction probably would have depended largely on my socio-economic status, since his message probably would have appealed to or angered me accordingly.
To make that applicable to our own church situation today, there is a real tension between messages that connect naturally to those in differing economic and social situations. Preaching a message that connects with multiple situations isn’t easy – and people generally think it’s much easier than it actually is. It’s easy to say that “pure truth” should be preached, but even the exact same words are interpreted differently all the time by people who simply hear or read them from different perspectives. We at this site are a great example of that.
What am I like? What do my words mean? People who know me, even in the same time period and in the same forum, will and do answer differently.
To me Jesus was significant because he helped people. He healed people, he taught people, he gave hope that people that were humble and poor could be great. That is what is important to me. Bruce in Montana wrote:Good points Sam.
That whole spreading the wealth and feeding the poor mentality, or giving away all your riches, wouldn’t fly very well today…at least in the red states
This is why I think some of these folk bang on about Creationism. It’s a nice little diversion from the social gospel.
Bruce in Montana wrote:My understanding is that a Jewish rabbi of the time would have probably been required to be married. I understand that cutting his hair would have been taboo as well.
Rabbis are currently required to be married. But it is questionable how long this tradition goes back.
Quote:I understand that cutting his hair would have been taboo as well.
Only if he’d taken certain vows, I think. But he probably was bearded and long haired. Like Shakespeare.
First you would have to accept that the gospels and other writings written well after his death to accurately portray what Jesus was. That would be my first hurdle in trying to define what he was. At best we probably have some actual events mixed with exaggeration and outright fabrication. If you want to assume that the D&C is actual revelation given to Joseph from Christ well then you have a totally different character than you find in the gospels. Much more authoritarian, obedience driven, and a big disciplinarian, and not so much the loving Christ. If you accept that the church today is directed by Christ as claimed then he really is about collecting money and spending it on a myriad of land deals and structures of suspect importance. He is a really good investor however and should fare well during economic troubling times as long as not to many poor people to tax his reserves. Also he is boring and speaks in monotone, and a condescending manner. So who is christ? Depends on what source material you want to accept as accurate. If you want to accept them all you will have some serious trouble reconciling who he actually was or is.
For me he is an idea or concept . A figure who wandered onto the human scene and overturned the conventional beliefs of the day. A radical who saw the hypocrisy in an organized structured religion. Someone who did not judge based on the clothes you wore or your obedience level or your heritage. That is the Jesus I choose to follow. Was he all of that? I do not know but it is what I like to believe.
These are some good comments. I’ve heard some of them regarding Jesus Christ as a mortal before. I just wanted to say have a safe and merry Christmas everyone. What I find interesting is how every cultures and race view Christ in their own image. If you live in Japan, the pictures of Christ seem to have the physical characteristics of the Japanese.
If you live in the inner city of the US, Christ is pictured as black.
If you go to an LDS chapel, all the pictures are blond hair & blue eyes.
I find it perfectly acceptable & natural.
If he walked into our sacrament meeting on Sunday, would we recognize him?
I hope this isn’t off topic.
I believe Christ was perfect because He was filled with love. Everything He did was out of love. So when He whipped the people in the temple, He was doing it out of love.
And when He called the leaders hypocrites and adulterers, He was doing it out of love.
And when He instantly killed the man who touched the ark of the covenant, sent a flood to wipe out the inhabitants of the earth, ordered ancient Israel to wipe out entire civilizations, He was doing it all out of love.
Maybe there are a few things about loving others we don’t completely understand.
I like the “filled with love” concept, but I personally think the destruction and killing stories were attributed to God by people who believed it as part of their world view – a world view that I simply don’t share. Our own “blind spots” aren’t as extreme, since our religious understandings have evolved over the years (at least, it has for many of us, while others still see things in the old way), but I think they are no less incorrect in some cases. I think they might have seen through their glass, more darkly than we do in many ways, but I think we still see through ours, darkly, as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.