scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

Alan B wrote:

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

I think he was being sarcastic for those who believed he could 'do' miracles.

LucidFlight wrote: — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride,

Hamster wrote:Well Jesus's ring-craft may well have been perfect, but all the "turning the other cheek" malarkey would've been encouraging to his opponents.

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

Skinny Puppy wrote:Read Mark 7:15

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Dont need to read any fairy stories thank you. We are in fallacy land again.