Not really. All of them are portrayed as doing things that Jewish culture would view unfavorably or immoral. God isn’t exactly giving a stamp of approval to each action of these figures. Pretty much any time they do anything good it is because God enabled them to do it either through miraculous acts or by instructing them.
Also Jesus is considered the son of God throughout the entire New Testament. Maybe the word “perfect” isn’t used, but he is portrayed as a model human being throughout. Otherwise his sacrifice wouldn’t be able to serve it’s purpose.
All of them are portrayed as doing things that Jewish culture would view unfavorably or immoral. God isn’t exactly giving a stamp of approval to each action of these figures. Pretty much any time they do anything good it is because God enabled them to do it either through miraculous acts or by instructing them.
Examples?
Also Jesus is considered the son of God throughout the entire New Testament.
Abraham, the OG benificiary of the covenant with God, lies about his wife twice. Moses kills an Egyptian. These are all things that the Commandments explicitly mark as immoral behaviors. Obviously the success the figures experienced also had nothing to do with their own ability, e.g. Moses did not part the Red Seas by himself.
Except in Mark and the Q source.
The first verse of Mark calls him the Son of God. The Q source is also a purely hypothetical book, so while it technically doesn’t say Jesus is the Son of God, it also doesn’t say anything at all until it is actually found.
Is Joseph the daddy or not? I recommend the book Misquoting Jesus. He does a pretty decent job showing that the Bible editors tried to shift references to Joseph being the biological parents to being the stepfather. Which indicates strongly that the Q document didn’t have that idea. It was an invention by the author of Matthew that the author of Luke and Acts liked.
Odd. Alright Luke 2:41-52. Watch how Mary talks about Joseph as his father.
As I said very likely Q had the story without the son of god being a literal son (Aramaic the same word for son is follower) and Roman legends of children of gods were pressed into place.
The Bible is a very very human book. It contradicts itself and earlier versions of itself because people argue.
Not really. All of them are portrayed as doing things that Jewish culture would view unfavorably or immoral. God isn’t exactly giving a stamp of approval to each action of these figures. Pretty much any time they do anything good it is because God enabled them to do it either through miraculous acts or by instructing them.
Also Jesus is considered the son of God throughout the entire New Testament. Maybe the word “perfect” isn’t used, but he is portrayed as a model human being throughout. Otherwise his sacrifice wouldn’t be able to serve it’s purpose.
Examples?
Except in Mark and the Q source.
Abraham, the OG benificiary of the covenant with God, lies about his wife twice. Moses kills an Egyptian. These are all things that the Commandments explicitly mark as immoral behaviors. Obviously the success the figures experienced also had nothing to do with their own ability, e.g. Moses did not part the Red Seas by himself.
The first verse of Mark calls him the Son of God. The Q source is also a purely hypothetical book, so while it technically doesn’t say Jesus is the Son of God, it also doesn’t say anything at all until it is actually found.
In some versions. Not all. Additionally there are lines where it is clear that Joseph is the daddy.
OK, which verses?
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 2%3A41-52&version=GW
Is Joseph the daddy or not? I recommend the book Misquoting Jesus. He does a pretty decent job showing that the Bible editors tried to shift references to Joseph being the biological parents to being the stepfather. Which indicates strongly that the Q document didn’t have that idea. It was an invention by the author of Matthew that the author of Luke and Acts liked.
Your link doesn’t work
Odd. Alright Luke 2:41-52. Watch how Mary talks about Joseph as his father.
As I said very likely Q had the story without the son of god being a literal son (Aramaic the same word for son is follower) and Roman legends of children of gods were pressed into place.
The Bible is a very very human book. It contradicts itself and earlier versions of itself because people argue.