Could Jesus have been wrong?

[Super Universe]

Turned water into wine and got a wedding party intoxicated.
Whipped a Priest for doing his job.
Harvested and collected wood on Sabbath.
Killed a fig tree ....

Who told you the wedding party got intoxicated? There wasn't enough at first, then there was.

Jesus whipped a priest? You're going to have to show me that one. But if that comes from one of your Rabbi's books that you worship, nevermind.

Harvested and collected wood on the Sabbath? The error is on the rule maker not the hard working person who does what is needed when it is needed.

He killed a fig tree? And Jews cleared ancient lemon tree groves from Gaza because they were afraid the area could be used by terrorists to sneak up on the border.

 

[Super Universe]

the sad part is nothing is written or stated by Y'shua .. only the hearsay by his apparent followers and written by a generation after ...
so not exactly eye witness ...

Jesus and God could awaken you in an instant. You would know who you really are and everything about the universe. You would lose all of your fear. The universe would obey your wishes. You could say to a mountain "Move!" and it would move.

Jesus did not want anything that He said to be written down.

Parents don't want their children to become instantly mature.

 

[buddhist]

When you teach you have to use the language that your students understand and, when teaching a parable, sometimes you use commonly used terms that your current audience is familiar with.

While the mustard seed might not be the smallest of all seeds, it matters not. The parable is about something seemingly insignificant that develops into something remarkable.

If Jesus tried to tell them that the Conupia seed that grows on planet Zee is actually the smallest seed in the universe but that it grows up into a giant Conupia tree, what would his audience have thought?

If he was undeluded deity, or even inspired, then I would imagine he could have said instead "the mustard seed is one of the smallest seeds on earth", and it would both be intelligible to his students and accurate.

If he said what was recorded, then he doesn't pass my muster, and is false.

If the writers didn't write his quote accurately, then the gospels don't pass my muster, and everything they claim can be questioned, and the deity who allegedly inspired them is also questionable.

 

[Super Universe]

He did not know the hour of His return....

"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." Mathew 24:36

He did not know the hour of His return because He had not decided when He would return.

It's as if you tell someone "I'm going to take a trip to Hawaii", and they ask you "When?" And you say "I'm not sure, but I promise you that I'm going."

The angels don't know when Jesus will decide to return. Jesus, at the time, probably didn't even know when He would return. Only God knows.

Once a species evolves to the point that they know everything that beings in heaven know, the high level angels come to the planet and are able to be seen and conversed with.

 

[Super Universe]

If he was undeluded deity, or even inspired, then I would imagine he could have said instead "the mustard seed is one of the smallest seeds on earth", and it would both be intelligible to his students and accurate.

If he said what was recorded, then he doesn't pass my muster, and is false.

If the writers didn't write his quote accurately, then the gospels don't pass my muster, and everything they claim can be questioned, and the deity who allegedly inspired them is also questionable.

If Jesus said something that was false does that make everything He said false?

How aware were the ancient Jews that there were other seeds smaller than the mustard seed? If common belief is that the mustard seed was the smallest then it suffices for use in the parable. The point was to give a parable, not develop a chart of the smallest to largest seeds for entry into a peer review magazine "Biology Today".

If you want to question it, fine, that is your right, but you will be judged by the same standard. I seem to remember reading that Buddha made some mistakes.

 

[buddhist]

If Jesus said something that was false does that make everything He said false?

It makes everything else he said questionable. If he doesn't know about seeds, what can he truly know about things more significant than seeds?

How aware were the ancient Jews that there were other seeds smaller than the mustard seed? If common belief is that the mustard seed was the smallest then it suffices for use in the parable. The point was to give a parable, not develop a chart of the smallest to largest seeds for entry into a peer review magazine "Biology Today".

It does not suffice if we are supposed to consider him infallible.

If you want to question it, fine, that is your right, but you will be judged by the same standard. I seem to remember reading that Buddha made some mistakes.

Early Buddhism does not depend on the Buddha's infallibility or a chain of infallibility. We fully recognize that the texts which record the Buddha's alleged sayings may be corrupted; with that said, the ultimate standard is Dhamma (the Laws of Reality observable in the here-and-now) itself - not the personality who rediscovered them to their fullest extent and depth (the Buddha).

On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions are reversed; their scriptures are dependent on the personality.

 

[Super Universe]

It makes everything else he said questionable. If he doesn't know about seeds, what can he truly know about things more significant than seeds?

It does not suffice if we are supposed to consider him infallible.

Early Buddhism does not depend on the Buddha's infallibility or a chain of infallibility. We fully recognize that the texts which record the Buddha's alleged sayings may be corrupted; with that said, the ultimate standard is Dhamma (the Laws of Reality observable in the here-and-now) itself - not the personality who rediscovered them to their fullest extent and depth (the Buddha).

On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions are reversed; their scriptures are dependent on the personality.

Isn't everything questionable already? What person absolutely accepts that they are told without any doubt? What if Jesus did really know about seeds, and physics, and everything about everything, do you think that His purpose was to give you the truth about seeds?

It matters not what Jesus really knows. You could know everything there is to know about how the end of the world is going to happen but who would listen to you? Jesus did not come here to reveal to you what the smallest seed actually is but it seems that is something that is very important to you.

Buddhism does not depend on Buddha's infallibility? But it makes everything else he said questionable.

The texts which record Buddha's alleged sayings may be corrupted? If the writers didn't write his quote accurately, then Buddha's sayings don't pass my muster, and everything they claim can be questioned, and the deity who allegedly inspired them is also questionable.

You will be judged by your own standard.

 

[buddhist]

Isn't everything questionable already? What person absolutely accepts that they are told without any doubt? What if Jesus did really know about seeds, and physics, and everything about everything, do you think that His purpose was to give you the truth about seeds?

It matters not what Jesus really knows. You could know everything there is to know about how the end of the world is going to happen but who would listen to you? Jesus did not come here to reveal to you what the smallest seed actually is but it seems that is something that is very important to you.

Yes it is important to me. If one thing an alleged prophet says is an untruth, then I have no reason to believe in anything else he or she claims.

Buddhism does not depend on Buddha's infallibility? But it makes everything else he said questionable.

The texts which record Buddha's alleged sayings may be corrupted? If the writers didn't write his quote accurately, then Buddha's sayings don't pass my muster, and everything they claim can be questioned, and the deity who allegedly inspired them is also questionable.

You will be judged by your own standard.

The standard doesn't apply to Buddhism, because, as I've stated, early Buddhism is not founded upon the Buddha, but on the Dhamma (the Laws of Reality).

Yes the Buddha might have made some mistakes or the record could've been corrupted, but ultimately we must each directly learn and know the Laws of Reality for ourselves - not to simply have faith in the laws based on the (possibly fallible) words of the Buddha.

Anyone can observe the Laws of Reality and adhere to them, without knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures. It just so happens that someone in the past rediscovered them and taught the operation of those laws to his disciples; whomever that discoverer was, we call "the Buddha". The Buddha is neither a savior nor a god, nor a personality we must place faith in, so it doesn't really matter if he truly existed or not. Even if the Buddha (as we currently conceive him) never truly existed, whomever pointed out the Laws of Reality deserves to be called "the Buddha" (the enlightened one).

 

[Super Universe]

Yes it is important to me. If one thing an alleged prophet says is an untruth, then I have no reason to believe in anything else he or she claims.


The standard doesn't apply to Buddhism, because, as I've stated, early Buddhism is not founded upon the Buddha, but on the Dhamma (the Laws of Reality).

Yes the Buddha might have made some mistakes or the record could've been corrupted, but ultimately we must each directly learn and know the Laws of Reality for ourselves - not to simply have faith in the laws based on the (possibly fallible) words of the Buddha.

Anyone can observe the Laws of Reality and adhere to them, without knowledge of the Buddhist scriptures. It just so happens that someone in the past rediscovered them and taught the operation of those laws to his disciples; whomever that discoverer was, we call "the Buddha". The Buddha is neither a savior nor a god, nor a personality we must place faith in, so it doesn't really matter if he truly existed or not. Even if the Buddha (as we currently conceive him) never truly existed, whomever pointed out the Laws of Reality deserves to be called "the Buddha" (the enlightened one).

So if Jesus said something that was close but not entirely true, even though it wasn't meant to be taken literal because it was a parable, it discredit's everything He ever said or did? But, if Buddha said something that was not entirely accurate then it's someone else's fault?

Early Buddhism is founded on the Dhamma? Was the Dhamma written by a human? Don't humans make mistakes?

Buddha is neither a savior or a god? Neither was Jesus. The writers of the New Testament books did not entirely understand what they were taught or the visions they saw. They exaggerated, sometimes without even knowing it, sometimes they outright lied as in the virgin birth.

It seems to me that you just want to play the "My prophet is better than your prophet" game. If you don't want to believe in Jesus or His teachings then don't believe in Jesus or His teachings. Name one thing about the universe that will suddenly stop working because of any humans belief in that thing?

 

[buddhist]

So if Jesus said something that was close but not entirely true, even though it wasn't meant to be taken literal because it was a parable, it discredit's everything He ever said or did? But, if Buddha said something that was not entirely accurate then it's someone else's fault?

Early Buddhism is founded on the Dhamma? Was the Dhamma written by a human? Don't humans make mistakes?

Buddha is neither a savior or a god? Neither was Jesus. The writers of the New Testament books did not entirely understand what they were taught or the visions they saw. They exaggerated, sometimes without even knowing it, sometimes they outright lied as in the virgin birth.

It seems to me that you just want to play the "My prophet is better than your prophet" game. If you don't want to believe in Jesus or His teachings then don't believe in Jesus or His teachings. Name one thing about the universe that will suddenly stop working because of any humans belief in that thing?

The "Dhamma" refers to the Laws of Reality. I'm not sure how much simpler I can put it. Our "scripture" is therefore Reality itself, expressed in its Laws. Buddha's words, recorded on paper, are simply his alleged interpretation of those Laws of Reality.

Buddha was not a prophet, as he was not sent by a deity.

 

[Super Universe]

The "Dhamma" refers to the Laws of Reality. I'm not sure how much simpler I can put it. Our "scripture" is therefore Reality itself, expressed in its Laws. Buddha's words, recorded on paper, are simply his alleged interpretation of those Laws of Reality.

Buddha was not a prophet, as he was not sent by a deity.

Buddha was not sent by a deity? I will look at your evidence of this assertion. You have some, don't you? I mean, you're going to have to prove that God does not exist and that He did not create the universe and biologic beings and give one of those beings an enlightening.

I don't think you can do it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

He did not know the hour of His return because He had not decided when He would return.

It's as if you tell someone "I'm going to take a trip to Hawaii", and they ask you "When?" And you say "I'm not sure, but I promise you that I'm going."

The angels don't know when Jesus will decide to return. Jesus, at the time, probably didn't even know when He would return. Only God knows.

Once a species evolves to the point that they know everything that beings in heaven know, the high level angels come to the planet and are able to be seen and conversed with.

Interesting idea.

Here's another theory.

(1) Jesus is the Christ (derived from the Greek Christos meaning Messiah or anointed one). So it is the Christ or Messiah or returns, not physically Jesus.

The only example I can think of in the NT where an OT prophet returns is Elijah. However it is not Elijah who physically returns but the spirit of Elijah as John the Baptist.

In Malachi 4:5-6, God announced that He would send “Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD.” In Luke 1:17, the angel Gabriel told Zacharias, John’s father, that John would fulfil Malachi 4:6, stating that he would go before the Lord “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Jesus identified John as Elijah (Matthew 11:14;17:10-13; Mark 9:11-13). However, when asked by the priests and Levites if he were Elijah, John denied it (John 1:21)!

(2) The Christ returns at a designated time know to God and foretold in prophetic books such as Daniel and the book of revelation. In Daniel 9:24-27, 490 years are prophesized from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the anointed one is cut off ie 457 BC and Christ was approximately 33 years old when He was crucified.'

In a similar manner the numbers 1260, 1290, 1335, and 2300 relate to the Christs' return. The time is set.

 

[oldbadger]

I'm asking this question to Christians, and others who might wish to reply.

Why would you ask questions of Christians 'and others' and then place the thread in a 'Same Faith' debate?
I'm not sure whether it's safe for me to respond since I am not a Christian.
Have you chosen the correct place for this?

 

[omega2xx]

I'm asking this question to Christians, and others who might wish to reply. There are those of the Christian faith, most I tend to think, who would say Jesus knew everything there was to know because he was the Son of God. But it is possible someone could recognize that he was in fact ignorant of a great many things, wrong in a lot of cases, yet it not diminish his standing as a spiritual teacher, or to be called the Son of God? Is in necessary for the Enlightened ones to be beyond anything earthly, like making mistakes?

Let me expand that a little to say must he have not had any flaws? No personality quirks? No fearful responses? No anger? Not hurting others through his own processes of figuring out who he was as a person? No errors he later corrected on a path of growth, like any one of us? Did he somehow escape all that? Was he "perfect" beyond any and all human struggles? Is this how you see Jesus? Please share.

I'm curious to hear mostly Christians reply to this, but others are welcome as well.

I am a little late to this dance, but let me offer some thoughts.

During His incarnation Jesus was not omnipotent omniscient or omnipresent. He empties Himself of all His Godly characteristics(Phil 2:7).

This is shown in Jn 5:30 & 12:49.

Jesus had to be made exactly like us and still be sinless Heb 2:17,

 

[Windwalker]

Buddha was not sent by a deity? I will look at your evidence of this assertion. You have some, don't you? I mean, you're going to have to prove that God does not exist and that He did not create the universe and biologic beings and give one of those beings an enlightening.

I don't think you can do it.

These questions to him are missing the point of what he was saying. He is saying that since they do not believe the Buddha was a prophet, it doesn't matter if he was not infallible. For those Christians however that believe Jesus was absolutely perfect and could therefore make no error, it poses a problem when you find any mistake whatsoever. It becomes a house of cards where if one single error is found the whole structure collapses. I agree with that. The doctrine of infallibility is a bad one.

I find understanding Jesus the way you would the Buddha as one gifted with insight into Reality, makes Jesus someone we too can be like. What Jesus saw, we can see. This is far more inspiring than imagining him mythologically as some magical being dropped down from heaven with knowledge of everything. How can anyone relate themselves to that?

 

[buddhist]

Buddha was not sent by a deity? I will look at your evidence of this assertion. You have some, don't you?

"To his followers, the Buddha is neither a god, a divine incarnation, or a prophet bearing a message of divine revelation, but a human being who by his own striving and intelligence has reached the highest spiritual attainment of which man is capable — perfect wisdom, full enlightenment, complete purification of mind." (Dhp Intro). The Buddha was never recorded as saying "Thus saith the Lord", or "Thus saith God", or "Thus commandeth God". Instead, he repeatedly stated things which demonstrated that he himself was the source of his knowledge and wisdom.

I mean, you're going to have to prove that God does not exist and that He did not create the universe and biologic beings and give one of those beings an enlightening. I don't think you can do it.

Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that an "Almighty God" exists, since I'm not claiming it, and I don't see it for myself. In the Buddhist system, every volitional being is a creator, to a greater or lesser degree.

 

[Super Universe]

These questions to him are missing the point of what he was saying. He is saying that since they do not believe the Buddha was a prophet, it doesn't matter if he was not infallible. For those Christians however that believe Jesus was absolutely perfect and could therefore make no error, it poses a problem when you find any mistake whatsoever. It becomes a house of cards where if one single error is found the whole structure collapses. I agree with that. The doctrine of infallibility is a bad one.

I find understanding Jesus the way you would the Buddha as one gifted with insight into Reality, makes Jesus someone we too can be like. What Jesus saw, we can see. This is far more inspiring than imagining him mythologically as some magical being dropped down from heaven with knowledge of everything. How can anyone relate themselves to that?

And you're missing his point which was that if someone made a mistake then everything they said and did is questionable. You're trying to apply a different standard to Jesus than to Buddha.

If one single error is found the whole structure collapses? Does it? Name one thing that doesn't have error in it? Just one.

You like the idea of Jesus being an enlightened human rather than being sent from heaven? Because if God really exists then He didn't do enough for you?

 

[Super Universe]

"To his followers, the Buddha is neither a god, a divine incarnation, or a prophet bearing a message of divine revelation, but a human being who by his own striving and intelligence has reached the highest spiritual attainment of which man is capable — perfect wisdom, full enlightenment, complete purification of mind." (Dhp Intro). The Buddha was never recorded as saying "Thus saith the Lord", or "Thus saith God", or "Thus commandeth God". Instead, he repeatedly stated things which demonstrated that he himself was the source of his knowledge and wisdom.


Actually the burden of proof is on you to prove that an "Almighty God" exists, since I'm not claiming it, and I don't see it for myself. In the Buddhist system, every volitional being is a creator, to a greater or lesser degree.

Buddha is neither a god, divine messenger, or prophet? Who wrote that? Was it a human? Was that human without any error?

You're claiming that Buddha was not "enlightened" by some other source, therefore, you have to prove that other source does not exist.

Humans are incapable of original thought. You can't do it. Even angels can't do it. The reason is because that would be creating something from nothing and only God can create something from nothing. Try it, think of something original that no one has ever thought of before. I'll wait...

Almost all of human thought's are recycled ideas. Things that were taught to you. You are good at mixing and matching things but those things already have to exist as ideas in humanity.

Now, once in a while, new ideas are given to humanity by God. Einstein received E=MC squared. This is the how God controls our progression. You may even be able to cause it to happen sometimes. If you've ever lost something and tried and tried to find it but you just couldn't so you stopped looking and then, suddenly, you remembered when you weren't even thinking of it. That's God giving you the information, something that you didn't know.

 

[buddhist]

Buddha is neither a god, divine messenger, or prophet? Who wrote that? Was it a human? Was that human without any error?

You're claiming that Buddha was not "enlightened" by some other source, therefore, you have to prove that other source does not exist.

Humans are incapable of original thought. You can't do it. Even angels can't do it. The reason is because that would be creating something from nothing and only God can create something from nothing. Try it, think of something original that no one has ever thought of before. I'll wait...

Almost all of human thought's are recycled ideas. Things that were taught to you. You are good at mixing and matching things but those things already have to exist as ideas in humanity.

Now, once in a while, new ideas are given to humanity by God. Einstein received E=MC squared. This is the how God controls our progression. You may even be able to cause it to happen sometimes. If you've ever lost something and tried and tried to find it but you just couldn't so you stopped looking and then, suddenly, you remembered when you weren't even thinking of it. That's God giving you the information, something that you didn't know.

You're claiming that your thoughts come from your god, therefore you have to prove that your god exists.

I'm merely claiming that I have duplicated many of the experiences the alleged Buddha allegedly claimed he experienced, and in that sense I've proven it for myself, and have observed how following its tenets reduces my suffering. Buddhism "works" for me.

Blind faith in the dogmatic claims about god or jesus doesn't "work" for me, and does nothing for my suffering.

 

[Super Universe]

You're claiming that your thoughts come from your god, therefore you have to prove that your god exists.

I'm merely claiming that I have duplicated many of the experiences the alleged Buddha allegedly claimed he experienced, and in that sense I've proven it for myself, and have observed how following its tenets reduces my suffering. Buddhism "works" for me.

Blind faith in the dogmatic claims about god or jesus doesn't "work" for me, and does nothing for my suffering.

It's way, way, way more complicated than that. Thoughts come from the mind. Your mind exists with God, it is a part of God, but it is not from God. Meaning, God does not interefere other than to monitor and once in a while give you bits of information that you did not have.

The human brain does not store all memories. It is not a biological storage device, it's a biological transmitter/receiver. If your mind held all of your memories then when you died your spirit body would not be able to remember anything.

I have to prove that my God exists? But I don't. You don't have to go to heaven. I'm not sure why you thought you did? Every tree need not grow.

Following Buddhism reduces your suffering? Maybe it does, what does it do for others?

Claims about God and Jesus do nothing for you? Right, you think that if God or Jesus really exist then they should do something for you or, at least, something to prevent human suffering.

It's not about you.