Could Jesus have been wrong?

[buddhist]

It's way, way, way more complicated than that. Thoughts come from the mind.

I agree up to this point.

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.

I don't agree with this dogma.

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

It doesn't have to do anything for others, I'm merely stating that it helps me greatly.

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.

It is about me. Why do people follow religion? To find relief from some type of suffering. That's why I chose my religion. It offers me a concrete method and path which I know relieves my suffering.

 

[wizanda]

Let me expand that a little to say must he have not had any flaws?

We all learn from our mistakes, some sooner than others, depending how many lifes they've had, and who they are...

Thus Yeshua Elohim would have known who he was, thus learned at an accelerated rate.

Like he didn't go from crib to walking; still had to learn to crawl.

 

[Super Universe]

I agree up to this point.

I don't agree with this dogma.

It doesn't have to do anything for others, I'm merely stating that it helps me greatly.

It is about me. Why do people follow religion? To find relief from some type of suffering. That's why I chose my religion. It offers me a concrete method and path which I know relieves my suffering.

You don't agree that the mind exists with God? Your agreement is not required.

Buddhism doesn't have to do anything for others? That is called service to self. It's a classification system that higher level beings use to determine the level of selfishness in a being. Service to self is considered primitive.

It is about you? It's really not, it never was about you and it never will be about you.

Why do people follow religion? Because they want to believe that it gets better.

You want to relieve your suffering? If you could forget every bad thing that ever happened to you, would you do it? It would change who you are now.

 

[Windwalker]

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.

I'm sorry. It appears that you truly do not understand what was being said. I'm not sure how you miss this? It's not a double standard at all. 1) No one claims Buddha was flawless. Therefore, when a flaw is found, no problem! 2) Many claim Jesus was flawless. Therefore if a flaw is found, huge problem!

Does that help clarify?

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

Yes it does, if the claim is no error exists and one is found. The whole thing collapses. You seriously need to be shown the flaws of the Bible?

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?

What in the hell are you talking about here? You make no sense.

 

[Super Universe]

I'm sorry. It appears that you truly do not understand what was being said. I'm not sure how you miss this? It's not a double standard at all. 1) No one claims Buddha was flawless. Therefore, when a flaw is found, no problem! 2) Many claim Jesus was flawless. Therefore if a flaw is found, huge problem!

Does that help clarify?


Yes it does, if the claim is no error exists and one is found. The whole thing collapses. You seriously need to be shown the flaws of the Bible?


What in the hell are you talking about here? You make no sense.

No one claims Buddha was flawless but some claim that Jesus was flawless so when a fault if found that's a huge problem? It's only a problem for those people who claim Jesus was flawless. I didn't make that claim. My first post on this topic said that when Jesus turned water into wine it was a mistake.

One single error and the whole structure collapses if the claim is that no error exists? Maybe you should take up that argument with a person who claims that no error exists?

I need to be shown the flaws of the bible? I complain about the bible more than anyone. It was written by men who were afraid of comets. Men who had no understanding of science. Men who lied. Men who wanted to control the people and wanted the people to pay the priestly class a "ransom on the census". Just because I defend Jesus doesn't mean I defend the bible.

 

[buddhist]

You don't agree that the mind exists with God? Your agreement is not required.

Buddhism doesn't have to do anything for others? That is called service to self. It's a classification system that higher level beings use to determine the level of selfishness in a being. Service to self is considered primitive.

It is about you? It's really not, it never was about you and it never will be about you.

Why do people follow religion? Because they want to believe that it gets better.

You want to relieve your suffering? If you could forget every bad thing that ever happened to you, would you do it? It would change who you are now.

Your post makes no sense.

 

[Super Universe]

Your post makes no sense.

Too many big words huh?

 

[buddhist]

Too many big words huh?

No, too jumbled and incoherent.

 

[Cobol]

I personally don't think Jesus ever existed.

Jesus as described in the bible is more than wrong, for he was an insane madman.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If Christ is God, then He can't be wrong about anything. So I'll say no.

 

[jtartar]

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.

Windwalker,
Jesus was a perfect man, that is the only way he could be a corresponding ransom Sacrifice for mankind, so that we could gain back what Adam lost for us, Perfect life, never to die!!
If Jesushad sinned, when he died he would not have been resurrected, 1Peter 2:22.
Jesus was a real MAN, and he was not always nice and sweet to his hearers, Remember what he said to the Scribes, Pharisees??
Jesus called them hypocrites, offspring of vipers, Matthew 23:13,15,25,29,33. It must have frightened hem when he said; how will you flee from the judgment of Gehenna, because they knew Gehenna was the symbol for eternal death. Some even came and told Jesus that he had insulted them.
Remember, Jesus was perfect and held tried to get them to listen, but they would not. Jesus used strong speech, because he had tried being nice and it didn't work.
The Bible tells us that many of the Priests became believers, so Jesus must have shocked them into considering what he said, Acts 6:7. Jesus knew when and how to use strong speach, we do not!!!
Jesus is the Only Begotten son of God, Jesus the only one created exclusively by God, all the rest of creation was created through Jesus and for Jesus, Colossians 1:16,17. Jesus assisted God in the creation of all other things, Jesus was called The Master worker, Proverbs 8:30.
Jesus was born and grew up as all children, but when he was baptized, the Holy Spirit come down, in the form of a dove and stayed with Jesus. From that time on Jesus remembered all the things he had learned when with his Father, in heaven. Jesus could speak every language on earth, and he could read the hearts of men.

 

[MHz]

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?

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

The power structure between those 3 beings is detailed in the book. Ge:1 says God and the Holy Spirit made 'man' in their image and their likeness. God created 'man' to be modeled after a married couple, such as God and the Holy Spirit. Jesus was born to them after they were married in that place we call the 3rd heaven. It is also the new heaven for the 2/3 of all created angels that did not fall into the sin of having children when they were not given in marriage. Once they are perfected and in their 'new heaven' that could be lifted they would be given in marriage and have one child that is born perfected rather that it being a progression for us created beings.

The people that are alive for the 1,000 years don't have children as they are not given in marriage during the time the new earth exists and when they were taken to their 'reward' it would be the same 3rd heaven that has been mentioned already.
God and the Holy Spirit created this heaven and this earth so Christ would have an inheritance and that He would find His wife among the least important beings in the kingdom of God. Mankind.

Isa:29:5:
Moreover the multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust,
and the multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth away: yea,
it shall be at an instant suddenly.

Scales of Justice where mankind is looked as as being as important as dust. That being said said the dust is thoroughly sifted.

Isa:40:15:
Behold,
the nations are as a drop of a bucket,
and are counted as the small dust of the balance:
behold,
he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.

Christ's witness of creation is in Proverbs:8, the first half is about how much wisdom He has as far as being the 'best one' suited to determining if mankind can willingly follow the rules, . . . . or not and a fail at that test is a one way trip to the fiery lake. That is why the survival rate is 100%.

Isa:51:6:
Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
and look upon the earth beneath:
for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke,
and the earth shall wax old like a garment,
and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner:
but my salvation shall be for ever,
and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

 

[Windwalker]

I'm not sure what any of that magical description of reality has to do with my question, but okay.

For me I find a Jesus who was fallible like anyone of us to be far more inspiring than imagining him as some celestial deity come down to earth from a magical place and walking over the surface of the water and then sailing back up into the clouds. While such imagery does connote the divine, like drawing halos around the heads of people in a painting (that's really what the story of that is doing), if taken literally it can have the downside of removing him too far from us that it falls victim to that old saying about being "too heavenly minded to be no earthly good."

 

[MHz]

In the Bible's case it is a question of the writer being God and He employed 40 Scribes to produce the work.
The 'target audience' is the ones alive to see the return as an unfolding event in reality rather than something from the mystical.

 

[Windwalker]

In the Bible's case it is a question of the writer being God and He employed 40 Scribes to produce the work.

I can't think of the Bible in those terms. I know too much about how it was written that the "miracle" explanation doesn't have merit.

The 'target audience' is the ones alive to see the return as an unfolding event in reality rather than something from the mystical.

Each generation has thought it was written to theirs at the end of the world, decade after decade, century after century, millenium to millenium. Your thoughts parallel theirs today, each believing they were the last generation. You're no more nor less convinced than they were. Welcome to the continuum.

 

[MJFlores]

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.

What did he don't know?
For starters, he doesn't know when the world will end.
Matthew 24:35-37 New International Version (NIV)

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

He is a man without sin.
1 Peter 2:22 New International Version (NIV)

“He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

Yes, these are the things I know about the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the man!

 

[MHz]

I can't think of the Bible in those terms. I know too much about how it was written that the "miracle" explanation doesn't have merit.

How does having the same angels that visited Daniel also being around when it came time to write all the 'old works' in a 'scroll' work for putting the OT into prime shape? Your term would mean the Torah could be kept in pristine condition over centuries and is simply illogical. It is quite logical to claim that once something is written down it can be copied over many centuries and not one jot will have changed.
The Bible has enough information that your term simply does not apply. If that is what it takes before you would believe in God then so be it. I'm a bit more of a critical thinker to do that.
Here is a little experiment, lets go over Daniel:7 and Revelations:17 and focus on the vision and the explanation as far as does the vision have liberalism as part of the explanation. The vision will never be the same as soon as you read the explanation yet the vision and explanation are quite understandable when both are considered.
The 4 Gospels could have been written in flawless Greek by the 4 eye-witnesses by the end of the 40 days after the cross. The two parameters that had to be in place were in place by the end of Acts:2.

The reference to 'all the kingdoms on the earth' from Jeremiah:25 and the 1/4 of the earth from the 4 seal prophecy could only have been understood sometime in the 1500's so there is a little bit more it it than what you are saying. The two things in 2Thess:2 is a falling away from what the Bible preaches and somebody will sit on a throne in Jerusalem and claim to the God of the Bible.
One has clearly happened and one has clearly not happened.

I'll bet you also find it hard to be more specific than you were in this post. That is usually because a rational answer does fit in well with your doctrine.

Each generation has thought it was written to theirs at the end of the world, decade after decade, century after century, millenium to millenium. Your thoughts parallel theirs today, each believing they were the last generation. You're no more nor less convinced than they were. Welcome to the continuum.

I touched on this just above. How about we take it from a different angle. Why does the Clergy of today not know who the 'Beloved Disciple' was and if they can't figure out the smallest mysteries then how can they possibly get the bigger mysteries figured out?? (or does lying all day long to the people they are supposed to 'be serving' just happen by accident, many many accidents)

'We' are the first generation that gives the individual to study the Bible as closely as an assembly of Monks, perhaps even better as they would leave bits out that a single reader wouldn't.
By the time you understand the seal and the trumps and the vials it is pretty easy to tell if events in the world are as much a part of Bible prophecy as some will be claiming. That peace of mind alone is worth the time it takes to understand just those parts.

 

[Windwalker]

The Bible has enough information that your term simply does not apply. If that is what it takes before you would believe in God then so be it. I'm a bit more of a critical thinker to do that.

Believing the mythologies about the Bible which you have adopted without the benefit of a modern critical analysis or critical thought itself, does not mean I don't believe in God. I do believe in God. I just don't believe in the myths about the Bible being infallible and inerrant, spoken as it were by so-called prophets dictating God's words. That's a mythic structure I find unnecessary for faith. To insist a rational, well-educated, critical thinking person such as myself must believe that way about these things, creates a stumbling block for faith. Faith transcends your theologies. You should let it.

I'll bet you also find it hard to be more specific than you were in this post. That is usually because a rational answer does fit in well with your doctrine.

I don't find it hard to be specific and rational in my posts. You should go read of few of them here on this site. Moreover, you don't remotely even know what my "doctrine" is. And what's more, my beliefs that I do hold have mountains of rational and experiential support behind them. You'd do well not to assume otherwise and make an a** out of yourself, as the saying goes about assuming.

Why does the Clergy of today not know who the 'Beloved Disciple' was

Why don't you do some actual research into that and find out for yourself? Don't go read some apologist's site who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and you run to in order to have your ears tickled by them, hearing what you want to hear. Challenge yourself to read the actual modern scholars work and see if maybe there's something there for you to learn? Maybe something that will help both your mind and your faith to grow a little. But if you're just comfortable in your beliefs, then don't. But then don't come here and say to someone like me I don't engage in critical thought!

 

[RESOLUTION]

If Christ is God, then He can't be wrong about anything. So I'll say no.

Christ was fully human with the divine nature of God, Christ did not do the work himself, the Father did it through him.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Christ was fully human with the divine nature of God, Christ did not do the work himself, the Father did it through him.

That's not how I understand the Trinity.