Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To God nothing is a miracle.
While one can believe Jesus is fully God, as do most Christians, they also recognize he was fully human. Can God die? Yet Jesus the human could die. It's the fully human "Jesus", the person who was born, grew, learned, ate, slept, and died, that was clearly limited. Part of that limitation was not being all-knowing, just like the rest of humanity.
Well, that can be said of anything then. My mother. I believe she is my mother. And all the data and evidences point to that belief as absolutely factual. So to say my claim she is my mother is "just my belief", is a bit disingenuously misleading, unless I wanted to suggest I had substantial reasons to doubt she was.
I don't believe Jesus was concerned about that question in the context that we are. He wasn't teaching science. He only referenced Adam and Eve to talk about divorce. I reference Adam and Eve all the time in regards to the human condition, temptation, sin, etc. Yet clearly I'm not speaking of them in the context of creation of the species. Neither was Jesus!
I did not skip over this. I've addressed it multiple times in this thread to you and to others every time it comes up. I just posted this two seconds ago in the post before this one, and multiple times using different words previously.
Is the Good Samaritan "just a parable too"? Does the parable change anyone's mind? Jesus thought so. That's why he taught with parables, with stories. Because they are more powerful than just, merely, simply citing data and facts.
Then considering scripture teaches that, "Jesus grew in wisdom and stature," then clearly he did not avail himself of Omniscience, and bypass being a finite, limited-knowledge human like the rest of us. Jesus evolved.
As a "Christian" I would need to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ came into this world as ignorant and innocent as any other person.
Well stated.
This fascinates me as an insight. Are you familiar with the Hindu concept of Lila? It means Spirit at play. In some schools they see this as Spirit, in Creation, as throwing itself out, down the great chain of being, from the nondual, to the casual, to the subtle, to the gross domains of existence, all the way down into forgetfulness of its own original Source as pure, undifferentiated Consciousness itself.
Nice.
Jesus appeared to self-limit his access to information as he was living out the human drama subject to the will of the Father. As an intelligent human Jesus may well have figured a number of things out mentioned in the OP all on his own; evolution, disease, old earth or the imperfection of the Old Testament scriptures. At times in his public teaching faze Jesus appears to have access to much superhuman knowledge.
(I shortened the quote to not exceed the word amount)I embrace that Jesus was special, but not in that sort of way. He didn't walk straightway out of Mary's womb and part the sea of Galilee when he cried as she took away his favorite toy. You know there are stories about him making little clay doves as a child, and breathing life into them? The Quran actually references those early Christians texts about Jesus as something that Christianity teaches. Fascinating.
) - It's a great "hmmmm" that always tickles my brain. I don't know why people think that a "good child" is one that doesn't cry. This raises an interesting question, since you bring up the age of accountability teaching. Would that also apply to Jesus as a boy? Did he ever act with defiance and willfulness growing up? Thinking about that just now, I'd have to say yes he would have. Because that is a normal, healthy developmental stage for children to become autonomous adult individuals.
It is not a "sin" for a two year old to say "NO!" all the time. Those who teach we should beat children into submission for such acts of sin, are horribly misguided. Training a child in the way he should go, does not mean beating them. It means lovingly, and patiently working with the stages of development all children go through. Being a loving and nurturing parent to them, not some authoritarian with a horse whip to beat their children into compliance.
So then, if Jesus was a health child going through healthy normally stages of development, then he would have been "naughty" now and then naturally. But that would still be "without sin", because it is not sin for a child to be self-absorbed. It's normal and healthy and necessary for them to grow up into healthy well-adjusted adults who were allowed to be normal healthy children.
Interesting thoughts. "NO!" Jesus said defiantly to his mother and father when they told him put away his toys and come inside for the night".
definitions. Did he make a mistake as a carpenter learning? I'm sure. But I don't think he "sinned" Of course we are talking "possibility theology here. What we don't have is a recorded statement from mom . Whether literal or representative, I see them as "perfect" but perfectly able to sin. I don't find an error before the eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil".On the basis that he was and is God.
A symbol can't save anyone. Jesus had to literally live and die on a cross and literally be resurrected for that. There's parables and there's real history in the Bible and it easy to understand which is which.
I am the first one to admit that God's incarnation is logically incomprehensible.
According to the NT ─
John 8:58 “Jesus answered them: ‘I solemnly declare it:
While Jesus was a real human being, he also was a symbol, let's not forget. He inspires faith in others to this day. That's what symbols do. People can be symbols because of who they are and what they do, either symbols for good, or symbols for evil, such as Adolf Hitler.
Is it now? But in reality, Genesis does not read like history. It reads as an allegory, full of truth and meaning. It doesn't read like a science textbook, or just some dry history book. If that's all you see, that's not very inspiring. You strip it of all its symbolism, and make it just some history book. Bah.
No it's not. It's written as an answer to the polytheism of its day as a type of polemic. That's what the authors were addressing in each of the symbolic images it added, the gods of animals, sky, earth, fish, land, etc. These were all deliberately called out as a counter to the gods of polytheism saying, "you have gods for all of these? Our God created all of those! Hah! There!" More or less. For instance:
I don't disregard Adam and Eve. I think what they symbolically represent is very much part of the rest of what Christianity speaks to. Now, please take note of this very important thing I'll say here. Even if it is symbolic, it points to something real. Not historical necessarily, but intangible, some lived experience within us. that's why these stories survive! That's why they resonate with us. Not because they are historical facts, but because they symbolically represent a truth that is very real. A truth that we can only portray "Through a glass darkly".
Because it's literal. Christ in us isn't symbolism, the Holy Spirit literally indwells believers. Faith in something that isn't real or what you think it is, is worthless. And again you are avoiding telling us if you believe in a literal resurrection.
Blah blah, nonsense. If they aren't real they are not any more valuable than Brahms fairy tales. You would reduce scripture to a myths with a nice moral.