Thomas, in heaven, especially in the first few years, will we ever miss the nail and let slip profanity? If not, what made the difference in those few short years between heaven and earth?

If making a mistake is the result of sinfulness, then, if Christ made a mistake, would it also be the result of sinfulness?

Mike, I think lots of people may end up missing the nail (if building in wood is done then and there) but not slipping profanity is the difference to what is common today.

Daryl, what do you mean by saying that making mistakes is the result of sinfulness?

I had thought you were speaking of making moral mistakes, that is, sinning. But it seems we are missing the point of the comparison altogether. The comparison is just saying that the fact that Christ remained immaculate for 33 years (that is, that He didn't commit a single sin during this time)is comparable to writing during 33 years with your computer and never making a single mistake, or playing the piano for 33 years without ever hitting a wrong note. The point of the comparison is not that Christ never made a mistake, but that He never sinned.

I agree people will not let slip profanity if they miss the nail and hit their thumb. But what makes the difference, that is, why do we curse here, but won't curse there? Will Jesus do something to us then and there that He doesn't do to us here and now? Do you see what I mean?

Yes. But keep in mind that sinfulness and sinning are two totally different aspects of sin.

I was simply responding to MM's post.

In our class, we concluded that the part of mondays text that was quoted here is basically a red herring, seeing that it is so ripe for derailing the meaning.

Yes, Monday's closing paragraph is wayward and littered with Roman Catholic jargon: "immaculate" is readily ambiguous (not plainly differentiating between Christ's human nature and human character - an essential distinction!), but this word selection is a trademark of the lesson author, whose book in 94 tried to end the tension over Christ's humanity; he was outdone by a better book in 99, Touched with Our Feelings.

That was the period of transition to literature trying to settle the 20 year old debate on Christ's divine Sonship (younger than the 60 year debate on Christ's humanity...).

The real issue from 'this' week's lesson wasn't spelling out in practical terms something we know nothing about - the practical nature of Christ's character building: the real issue we are supposed to study and learn from is...Jesus' spiritual exercises!

Like this, from Tuesday's 1st paragraph
How much a helpful rule of thumb is this for us?

Then, from Wednesday there's this Does this reflect any experience any of us have had? - or have we plenty such experiences?

20 year old debate? Closer to 2000 year old Id say. This was on the table already with the patristic fathers. Maybe those who think Jesus meant buisness with the teaching on the mount can answer affirmative to your last questions. And those who keep trying to figgure out how to apply it, well, we will keep guessing.