Did Jesus make Mistakes | INFJ Forum

Did Jesus make Mistakes

Barnabas

Barnabas

Time Lord
Oct 7, 2009
5,241
682
667
Florida man
MBTI
wiblywobly
Enneagram
timeywimey
Could Jesus have made (amoral) mistakes? This discussion came in bible study this morning and was quickly segued out of because it had no relevance to the actual topic but I found the idea interesting to discuss none the less considering how... passionate some people were about the topic.


Just to be clear hear were not talking about sin. were talking about whether or not Jesus could have messed up the math on his bill and under tipped the waiter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dudemanbro
No he died and then rose again the same as he dies everyday giving light and life to the world like he is supposed to

sun.jpg

Here's jesus with his 12 disciples or knights of the round table:

sun-zodiac-art.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 54192&#cmy
could you guys let one christianity thread happen without being arseholes about it?
 
An article that provides facts to the contrary is being an asshole? Some people do prefer the ostrich approach I suppose but perhaps you should keep an open mind if you expect others to consider your point of view that they may not agree with at the outset. However by discussion and listening, it may be possible to find common ground with which we all can move forward on.

That or we can continue to war over it.
 
Eventhorizon said:
An article that provides facts to the contrary is being an asshole?
Click to expand...

The way in which you do it is. As if your interpretation is synonymous with the 'facts' which it is not.

Physicist Sean Carroll says:

I would say that "proof" is the most widely misunderstood concept in all of science. It has a technical definition (a logical demonstration that certain conclusions follow from certain assumptions) that is strongly at odds with how it is used in casual conversation, which is closer to simply "strong evidence for something." There is a mismatch between how scientists talk and what people hear because scientists tend to have the stronger definition in mind. And by that definition, science never proves anything! So when we are asked "What is your proof that we evolved from other species?" or "Can you really prove that climate change is caused by human activity?" we tend to hem and haw rather than simply saying "Of course we can." The fact that science never really proves anything, but simply creates more and more reliable and comprehensive theories of the world that nevertheless are always subject to update and improvement, is one of the key aspects of why science is so successful.
Click to expand...

This discussion began with a reasonable premise. I think it would be more appropriate for you to start a separate thread if you want to discuss the historical veracity of Jesus. I would suggest not beginning it with the assumption that your interpretation is the only correct one, but rather the assumption that you believe your interpretation to be most aligned with the established facts, argue as to why and how that is so, and allow others the right to their own interpretations or to disagree with you.
 
I offered an article for consideration. The article does provide fact in regard to the data that is available concerning Jesus. That is all.
 
I believe he made mistakes, I also believe its an interesting question as to whether or not it was sinful, although this was discussed to death in another thread perhaps. I understand sin as turning away from God as opposed to any moral or ethical slight or slip.

In that sense Jesus couldnt have because he was God and intimately equated with the prescence and will of the father throughout his life in a way that the rest of us should be so lucky to experience.

On the other hand there is behaviour which is symptomatic of or the beginnings of a turning away from God, these can include the moral slights or slips I mentioned before, and I dont believe Jesus was immune from that, he was human, true God and true man.

The most famous instance that I can think of to illustrate my point is the syrophenician (spelling) woman by the well, he appears to repeat ethno-centric or racialist thinking here, now he says that the woman's faith has served her well eventually and that he has worked a miracle for her but in the first instance he's not interested, she acts submissively first, saying that even the dogs are entitled to scraps from the master's table. This is just one example but there are wider scripts within the new testament of Jesus "learning" that supposing ethnocentric messianism to be correct is erroneous.

Jung wrote about this and appeared in some of his thinking to believe that there is an evolving and changing nature to God's self and that God and man each change. However, there is some disagreement about what exactly Jung meant, sometimes he does talk about God and collective unconscious interchangeably.
 
Man should ask questions. Lot's of them. How else will he know. We know cause we know. We have experience. If God came here he experienced the same things we do.... Warts and all... If you look at it the world is perfect. It accounts for everything.....​
 
There is a question mark over how intact the accounts have remained as they have been passed down through the generations and through the hands of various groups

The salient aspects of the story for me is how Jesus encourages the sharing of wealth and challenges the authorities and also the corruption of the money changers

Now....challenging authority and the money changers......what would he be doing if he was alive today? probably leading the occupy movement

So....how many dyed in the wool christians are in the occupy movement i wonder...
 
Why would you think the conversation was discontinued in Bible Class?
 
Lark said:
I believe he made mistakes, I also believe its an interesting question as to whether or not it was sinful, although this was discussed to death in another thread perhaps. I understand sin as turning away from God as opposed to any moral or ethical slight or slip.
Click to expand...

I did not study greek or aramaic but I was told that the meaning of the word 'sin' is to literally mean "missing the mark," as in, to fail to achieve the ideal or to act in accordance with it. In this sense, a statement such as "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," can be taken in a whole new way. You can understand that it is just about impossible to meet the ideal even once -- let alone all of the time!

On the topic of Yeshua, the human being. Something about being the universe observing itself. Something about something requiring a very special sort person at a very special time and place. Something about Love, about walking the eternal Tao, about wandering the desert, about dwelling in the belly of a whale for three days, about socioeconomicopolitical culmination and the revelation of Jehovah, The Love That Is Energy That is Mass That Creates And Is Created, The Borneless One Beyond The Night Of Time, Before Alpha And After Omega. Something about all of that and one person as some sort of ambassador between the two which are actually One.

Did Yeshua sin? Let us assume he did, if only for the sake of the following line of questioning. Did Christ sin? What is Christ? Who am I? What is this that is all around me and what did that one priest mean when he told me that God is everywhere? What is it? What is? What? ...? Ask and you shall receive, they say. I took that advice to heart and benefit from it continuously. I cannot give an objective proof for something that only "proves" itself subjectively. It is real, if not to everyone, then at to me.

All that you see around you and more, it is all a great, big miracle. Whether a man sins or does not sin is irrelevant. Love sees all, and forgives all. It is not blind, and at the same time, not unmerciful. Miracle.

Anyone care to interpret my speech of tongues? I dare not. :md:
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
Eventhorizon said:
An article that provides facts to the contrary is being an asshole? Some people do prefer the ostrich approach I suppose but perhaps you should keep an open mind if you expect others to consider your point of view that they may not agree with at the outset. However by discussion and listening, it may be possible to find common ground with which we all can move forward on.

That or we can continue to war over it.
Click to expand...

You're a rat! Instead of engaging with the actual subject of the thread, you have decided to derail it with an article that is totally irrelevant to the thread. I can't understand why it's so important for you and your like to have everybody agree with you about the origins of Jesus. I'm not a religious person but I'm sick of people like you behaving in a way that means I have to actively encourage atheism in the guise of keeping an "open mind" and not using the "ostrich approach." Just own up to what you're doing and stop being a damn coward. And leave the thread!
 
Eventhorizon said:
An article that provides facts to the contrary is being an asshole? Some people do prefer the ostrich approach I suppose but perhaps you should keep an open mind if you expect others to consider your point of view that they may not agree with at the outset. However by discussion and listening, it may be possible to find common ground with which we all can move forward on.

That or we can continue to war over it.
Click to expand...

You sound like an evangelist, the irony is that I'll bet you're trying for the exact opposite.

I think their point was that not every thread about Christianity should be seen as a soapbox for atheists. I'm inclined to agree. I dont much like people who proselytise for any belief.
 
As far as our knowledge of Christ is concerned, from various sources, there is no evidence that he made mistakes, on the contrary, the things we would consider mistakes, like the choice of Judas Iscariot, are quite deliberate on the part of Christ - and serve a larger purpose.

So, in the absence of any evidence of mistakes, everyone can only answer the question, whether Christ made mistakes, according to what he believes about Christ.

If you believe that Christ was the son of God - and that his human intellect enjoyed the beatific vision, which gave him knowledge of all things and the impossibility of sinning - then the answer must be no, he did not make mistakes. If you believe otherwise, then your answer might be different.
 
Flavus Aquila said:
As far as our knowledge of Christ is concerned, from various sources, there is no evidence that he made mistakes, on the contrary, the things we would consider mistakes, like the choice of Judas Iscariot, are quite deliberate on the part of Christ - and serve a larger purpose.

So, in the absence of any evidence of mistakes, everyone can only answer the question, whether Christ made mistakes, according to what he believes about Christ.

If you believe that Christ was the son of God - and that his human intellect enjoyed the beatific vision, which gave him knowledge of all things and the impossibility of sinning - then the answer must be no, he did not make mistakes. If you believe otherwise, then your answer might be different.
Click to expand...

Counter point, he didn't have knowledge of all things, at least not while he was here on earth. He makes it clear that he didn't know when he was going to return after his death he mention's the mustard seed is the smallest of seeds, which it's not(I probably reaching for the mustard seed one considering that was in the context of a parable).


Realistically I want to know how far this logic goes, did Jesus need to practice memorizing scripture or id he have an eidedict or foreknowledge of them. did he ever fall down while learning to walk or mispronounce his Joseph's name when learning to talk.



@Eventhorizon


I read your article, and I've heard all of the arguments before, Though they're presented in a much more antagonistic way in this webpage. There's way to much going on in the article for me to refute all of that in this thread because it would derail us from the original topic. The part that tops the cake for me though is down at the end labeled "WHY THE MYTH OF JESUS," which is an out and out fabrication and distortion of the facts regarding not only Christianity but all of the religions it mentions. As well as quoting scripture both incorrectly and out of context to make it appear as if Paul did not believe in a historical Jesus.

This doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water in this article but it left an uncomfortably foul taste in my mouth, if he's willing to make stuff up at the end how much actual research was put into the rest of it.
 
Call upon the Lord. You will defeat Hades as a subject of His Republic!
 
It is way past my bedtime, but something constructive is going on here. I feel it. Let's kindle it.

Good night and may peace be upon you. :)
 
I'm quite certain there is so much more to know about Jesus; however we are only given accounts of his life before resurrection through the words of the gospels. I'm reading/studying a fantastic book (Understanding the Bible by Adam Hamilton) which makes these points:

1. "The likely period in which the Gospels were written was sometime between AD 65 and 90. This means the Gospels were written 35-60 years after the time of Jesus. This is plenty of time for details to get confused, facts to be misconstrued or exaggerated, and legends to be born. It is also easy to understand how certain details in the life of Jesus could have been remembered differently even by those who knew Jesus personally."

2. "the Gospel writers were not simply writing biographies of Jesus. They were writing gospels - proclamations of good news. They wrote not as historians but as Christians who were committed followers of Jesus Christ. In other words, they were biased..."

3. ""I love preaching through John (vs. Matthew, Mark and Luke). It is a rich theological Gospel. I believe it is grounded in actual events in the life of Jesus. But John seemed far less concerned with getting the exact details correct than with making sure the details pointed to the theological message he was trying to convey. If I'm interested in the meaning of Jesus' life, I might first turn to John. If I'm interested in knowing what happened, I turn to the Synoptics."

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who studies the bible. The author is a well respected Methodist minister, he points out inconsistencies within the Bible, he shows the reader it is okay to question the relevance of words written in a different time period and somehow (remarkably) admirably helps the reader find their way back to God. With the above points stated, what is my opinion on whether Jesus made mistakes? It's quite possible. Is it relevant? No.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dudemanbro
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back