Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

[Windwalker]

My position would be that from ages 0 - 30, it was scroll knowledge and revelation through what he read. As it said "And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him." - if he "grew",it was a process.

I would agree that as man, he was not the all-knowing deity in as much as he emptied himself of those God attributes (Phil. 2)

However, he did understand and spoke about end times. Maybe from the scrolls?

Sure, yes. I would say it's safe to say it was a process of growth for him like any other human. As I asked another poster, are we to believe Jesus didn't need to learn how to walk, and straightway began walking right out of Mary's womb?

That is what some schools of Buddhism teach about Baby Buddha, that as an infant he began walking, and lotus blossoms grew up in his footfalls. While that's a meaningful image of the specialness of the Buddha, I appreciate the view that Jesus was a more or less normal human, albeight with special spiritual gifts and knowledge.

But just as there is a tendency to elevate the Buddha to a sort of supernatural deity like that story goes, many Christians do the same thing in their imaginations of the human person Jesus, such as imagining he would have supernatural knowledge about the earth sciences that could be used to dispute modern science with.

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.

Now, that is a good question and one that, in my view, has no answer. Other than age 12 and the statement that he grew in wisdom and stature, we don't know anything else. Is there an "age of accountability?" - nothing specific mentioned. In that he did "fulfill the law" there is some measurement of accomplishment.

When I read that he fulfilled the law, I understand that as he lived fully by the law of Love. "Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law, Romans 13:10. This is something we all can do, if we "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself".

Jesus is an example of what that looks like. "You have heard it said, and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but I say unto you.. turn the other cheek.. do good to those who harm you, etc". All this is towards that end, namely fulfilling the law. It's the law written on the heart. No need for external rules and laws, if you live by the law of love. That is the core of what Jesus taught, IMHO.

If there is an age of accountability, then we could say that from then on "he did not sen". Seeing there are some people's lives who received the label of "goody-two-shoes" - I would lean on that he was one fo those.

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".

Absolutely not. A "C" isn't a sin. My daughter came home from college with an "F; on an exam. She cried saying "but I studied for three days"... my response, "That is an "A" for me because you tried your best. Now, let's sit down and see what questions you got wrong to learn." She aced the next exam and the course.

So then in keeping with the above, in order for Jesus to learn, Jesus would have had to make mistakes. We learn from our mistakes. That doesn't mean one sins against God or others, because we don't always perform 100% perfectly all the time.

What we have to remember, however, is that he was the "last Adam", like unto the first that was created without sin.

But the first Adam was made without sin too, right? Yet, he obviously was not perfect and made mistakes prior to sin, as his sin was the result of a mistake. Mistakes didn't begin because of the fall. But that one mistake led to the fall. Make sense? Being without sin, does not necessarily mean flawless.

BTW, you may take note that I have been just now speaking freely of Adam and Eve as actual individuals in our mutual points of reference, while I do not believe they were literal people in history but rather symbolically represent us? Why is it so hard to imagine Jesus spoke of them in a similar vein within the context of his discussions? Would another poster argue that I am making a case for the historicity of Adam and Eve by talking about them too?

 

[Eli G]

Jesus did not have to be a scientist to know that Adam and Eve were historical figures, the first couple that Jehovah created. He didn't have to study with a Jewish Rabbi to know that...he could read it in the Hebrew Scriptures for himself...and he knew it was a true story (and I'm speaking simply from the faith of a Jew, not from the point of view of Jesus-as a person who had been in heaven before being born as a human).

No non-Christian is going to tell Jesus what to believe, LOL, just writing it down makes me laugh.

 

[Windwalker]

If you don't believe that the Bible is God's word, why bother analyzing who Jesus is? It's all guess work if that's the case.

What is it you understand to be "God's word"? Someone can believe the Bible teaches us truths, without it being worshipped as a flawless deity bound in leather, as some do. I accept a more modern critical understanding of the texts of scriptura, which have value as spiritual guides and truth, without being an inerrant and flawless work dictated by God, and compiled by Divine command. I don't layer that on top it. That doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth and have value spiritually.

Are you saying that only True Christians (tm), believe in Bible infallibility and inerrancy? That's odd, since that wasn't a thing until the last hundred years or so.

 

[Eli G]

The issue here IS NOT the inerrancy of the Bible... but whether or not Jesus believed the historical accounts of the events in Eden, and whether a Christian should believe them as Jesus did. NEITHER IT IS about the scientific knowledge that Jesus may have had in his time as a human, but about how Jesus considered the historical accounts on the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures that he could read in any Jewish synagogue.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus did not have to be a scientist to know that Adam and Eve were historical figures, the first couple that Jehovah created.

How do you know he literally believed that? Because he referred to them in a discussion? I just talked about Adam and Eve at great length with KenS just now in the post before yours. Is this proof that I believe they were historical figures because I referred to them too? If that's an argument that Jesus believe that, than you'd have to say it proves I believe it too. But I don't...

He didn't have to study with a Jewish Rabbi to know that...he could read it in the Hebrew Scriptures for himself...

Do you believe Jesus had a copy of the Bible in his house? Was it next to his T.V. and refrigerator? You know that he just couldn't waltz into the local synagogue and start rifling through the scroll himself, don't you? I'm pretty sure the Rabbi might have not allowed that. Jesus didn't live in 21st century America, you know.

No non-Christian is going to tell Jesus what to believe, LOL, just writing it down makes me laugh.

What non-Christian are you referring to? BTW, it's you are telling Jesus what he believed. Not me or anyone else. I'm only arguing you can't say what he believed like that, because your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[Eli G]

Of course I can talk about what Jesus believed; I can read it in the Scriptures...
Oh, wait a minute, you don't believe in the Scriptures ... so YOU cannot talk about what Jesus believed.

 

[blü 2]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

As is notorious, Jesus was ignorant of germ theory ─

Mark 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" [...]
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
​

He also showed ignorance of the ordinary principles of administration when he attacked the money-changers in the temple (who were trading entirely lawfully) instead of addressing his argument to the Temple authorities, who could actually have changed things if he succeeded in persuading them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

What is it you understand to be "God's word"? Someone can believe the Bible teaches us truths, without it being worshipped as a flawless deity bound in leather, as some do. I accept a more modern critical understanding of the texts of scriptura, which have value as spiritual guides and truth, without being an inerrant and flawless work dictated by God, and compiled by Divine command. I don't layer that on top it. That doesn't mean it doesn't teach truth and have value spiritually.

Are you saying that only True Christians (tm), believe in Bible infallibility and inerrancy? That's odd, since that wasn't a thing until the last hundred years or so.

As I said, if it's not accurate, it's anyone's guess what parts we can trust.
Otherwise anyone can pick and choose which parts they accept as guides and which parts they reject.

 

[Wildswanderer]

As is notorious, Jesus was ignorant of germ theory ─

Mark 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" [...]
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."
​

He also showed ignorance of the ordinary principles of administration when he attacked the money-changers in the temple (who were trading entirely lawfully) instead of addressing his argument to the Temple authorities, who could actually have changed things if he succeeded in persuading them.

You really can't understand that Jesus was talking about the difference between physical dirt and spiritual defilement?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Because he referred to them in a discussion?

He referred to them as real people.

 

[Windwalker]

As is notorious, Jesus was ignorant of germ theory ─

Mark 7:1 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, 2 they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
5 And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?" [...]
14 And he called the people to him again, and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 there is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him."

​

​

That is interesting. And while I do doubt that Jesus knew about germs, in that as far I know they didn't have any microscopes or knowledge of germs back then like today, I don't believe the washing references here have anything to do with basic hygiene like we understand it today. These were ritual or ceremonial in nature which in their minds purified the food so as to not ritually defile them. Jesus saying it's not the things that go into the body that makes you defiled (ritually, or spiritually), but what comes out your heart.

But you do make a point. He wouldn't have known these areas of modern science either. Hell, we didn't figure out these basic things until a hundred some years ago now!

He also showed ignorance of the ordinary principles of administration when he attacked the money-changers in the temple (who were trading entirely lawfully) instead of addressing his argument to the Temple authorities, who could actually have changed things if he succeeded in persuading them.

I see his cleansing of the temple, more along the lines of him going after these megachurch pastors who exploit religion for mountains of cash. Ever watch the Righteous Gemstones?

I don't think the story was simply recording history and Jesus lost his cool or something. The story was specifically created to emphasis that capitalizing on the sacred for profit, is uncool. The author wrote it with them as the bad guys, and Jesus as the hero.

I wouldn't mistake the story as a pure historical snapshot, but rather a story to tell a message, a parable like the character of the Good Samaritan and the uncompassionate priests who just ignored the injured stranger. These are stories with a message, not history lessons.

 

[Windwalker]

He referred to them as real people.

I refer to Adam and Eve as real people too. See post #41 above: Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

"But the first Adam was made without sin too, right? Yet, he obviously was not perfect and made mistakes prior to sin, as his sin was the result of a mistake. Mistakes didn't begin because of the fall. But that one mistake led to the fall. Make sense? Being without sin, does not necessarily mean flawless.

BTW, you may take note that I have been just now speaking freely of Adam and Eve as actual individuals in our mutual points of reference, while I do not believe they were literal people in history but rather symbolically represent us? Why is it so hard to imagine Jesus spoke of them in a similar vein within the context of his discussions? Would another poster argue that I am making a case for the historicity of Adam and Eve by talking about them too?"​

That doesn't mean I see them as historical people, so why does it for Jesus and not for me?

 

[Truth in love]

This question is mainly to Christians, but those of other faiths may share their thoughts to this. This question came up in another thread where I expressed my view while Jesus may be considered the Son of God to Christians, his knowledge of things that modern science knows would have been lacking for him, being a human being living 2000 years ago before modern science.

This caused great concern for one person of faith to consider that Jesus' knowledge of the natural world could possibly be limited to the understanding of those of his day. They seemed to believe Jesus would have had supernatural knowledge about all things, including whether or not evolution was valid scientifically. If this were true, then would Jesus have also known the earth orbits the sun, and the sun, not the earth, was the center of the solar system? Would Jesus have understood quantum mechanics? And so forth.

As a Christian, do you feel that Jesus, because he was a flesh and blood human being, that his knowledge of all things would have been limited as the rest of his fellows of his day? This isn't talking about spiritual insights, but technical information, such as how life evolved on this earth, such that he could be called upon as disagreeing with modern science because he spoke of the creation story instead, proving he proof he knew about evolution, but rejected it by referencing Genesis instead of talking about evolution.

As a Christian do you feel that saying Jesus' knowledge was limited to the knowledge of his day, is denegarating to him? If so, explain? Are you comfortable as a Christian to recognize that Jesus was a human being who didn't know everything magically or supernaturally?

In his mortal life His knowledge would have been limited. To what extent we don’t know. He learned a lot as others of his time would have and he also showed a level of learning far surpassing the learned men of His day. This shows us that he knew much beyond the typical person. Did he know about anti mater and black holes? I doubt it.
But then his mortal life came to an end and he was resurrected. He now has all knowledge far surpassing the collective knowledge of all mortals combined.

 

[blü 2]

You really can't understand that Jesus was talking about the difference between physical dirt and spiritual defilement?

He was declaring that you don't need to wash your hands before you eat. Whatever else he intended to convey, he said that out loud and proud.

 

[Windwalker]

As I said, if it's not accurate, it's anyone's guess what parts we can trust.
Otherwise anyone can pick and choose which parts they accept as guides and which parts they reject.

No. It's not anything goes at all. But in fact, I will say that amongst fundamentalists, they are the most abusive cherry-pickers of the Bible there are, far more than any liberal or progressive Christians I've known. Some use it to justify slavery, White Supremacy, wife and child beating, etc. So don't think that being a literalist means cherry picking doesn't happen.

My personal views as far as "rightly dividing the word", would be considered a "High Christology". meaning, if you find some passage that says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and Jesus says that you should rather "love your enemies", then that takes precedence over anything that was said in the Old Testament. Shouldn't it for all Christians?

But yet, I find many fundamentalist Christians place Moses' Old Testament laws as an equal extension to Jesus. And in practice, they are actually far more Old Testament than New Testament in their legalisms and emphasis on the things they preach.

Why would Jesus have even bothered to saying things like "you have heard it said.... (quoting the OT), but I say unto you...", as if he were bring a "new testament", if that was sufficient? Something to consider there. "What would Jesus teach", doesn't seem to apply to them while they quote the OT to condemn those they judge as unworthy sinners.

The Jesus I see teaches compassion instead. Is that cherry picking? Is that anything goes? "Love works no ill. Love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10. Does it violate Love? Then it doesn't go.

 

[blü 2]

That is interesting. And while I do doubt that Jesus knew about germs, in that as far I know they didn't have any microscopes or knowledge of germs back then like today, I don't believe the washing references here have anything to do with basic hygiene like we understand it today. These were ritual or ceremonial in nature which in their minds purified the food so as to not ritually defile them. Jesus saying it's not the things that go into the body that makes you defiled (ritually, or spiritually), but what comes out your heart.

First, hail! I trust all's well at your place.

Second, I have no argument with what you say; it's a clear example of Jesus being ignorant of germ theory, or he'd have chosen another metaphor, or at least a different phrasing.

I see his cleansing of the temple, more along the lines of him going after these megachurch pastors who exploit religion for mountains of cash.

Love it!

I don't think the story was simply recording history and Jesus lost his cool or something. The story was specifically created to emphasis that capitalizing on the sacred for profit, is uncool. The author wrote it with them as the bad guys, and Jesus as the hero.

The interesting thing is that once Mark had written the original story (Mark 11:15+) where he overturns the tables and drives the traders out, Matthew 21:12+ is the same, in Luke 19:45-6 he simply drives them out, then in John 2:14+ we have the added color of a "whip with cords", while he pours out their money and tips their tables over.

No doubt the intention was much as you say, but the effect for me is a thug assaulting people lawfully going about their business, with no hope of altering the system which he says is his motive because his victims have no power to change anything. He should have knocked on the CEO's door and said, 'Come, let us reason together.' If I ever write the gospel according to blü, that's how it'll go.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I refer to Adam and Eve as real people too. See post #41 above: Would Jesus Have known what Modern Science knows?

"But the first Adam was made without sin too, right? Yet, he obviously was not perfect and made mistakes prior to sin, as his sin was the result of a mistake. Mistakes didn't begin because of the fall. But that one mistake led to the fall. Make sense? Being without sin, does not necessarily mean flawless.

BTW, you may take note that I have been just now speaking freely of Adam and Eve as actual individuals in our mutual points of reference, while I do not believe they were literal people in history but rather symbolically represent us? Why is it so hard to imagine Jesus spoke of them in a similar vein within the context of his discussions? Would another poster argue that I am making a case for the historicity of Adam and Eve by talking about them too?"​

That doesn't mean I see them as historical people, so why does it for Jesus and not for me?

If Adam wasn't real, he's useless as a representative of us. He only represents us because he was the first human. And if you believe Adam wasn't who scripture says he was, it casts doubt on the last Adam being who scripture says also. Plus the whole fall of man theology falls apart without a real fall of the first couple. If it's just an object lesson, it makes the biblical theology of original sin senseless.

 

[Wildswanderer]

He was declaring that you don't need to wash your hands before you eat. Whatever else he intended to convey, he said that out loud and proud.

Well...you don't. But it was in the context of spiritual defilement due to not doing ceremonial washing. It wasn't a lesson on germs.

 

[rational experiences]

Human is the name of our species.

Using human names is only legal in civilisation purpose or for family titles like nation as genetic.

As Egypt pyramid temple science was the circuit with its use communication buildings temples used. It was about humans living in that vicinity on earth.

As science which humans claim is biblical is also human theisms stories. Stated humans as first parents all lived owning the same expressed human DNA. First.

To imply why national DNA nation land fall was inherited causes.

So the theme medical science says the healer states all humans owned the same first parent. By body type.

However if a human is reassessing science and causes a book would establish that term. After all events the position is..... I'm looking back assessing human science causes.

After the event of causes.

Ignored advice.... as how you can't write future events. But you can write a summation looking back but it then can become future events by trying to copy.

So Jesus was given title not the same as Moses as it was the same science practice but no longer was it the same living conditions.

Compared the two events. So of course it related to Adams life body changes in nature at mans side. Same outcome life body sacrificed changed. Evicted in nature.

But the two testimonies was about how science human chosen was against holy God states. Why it had sacrificed life on earth.

As natural history no argument is not a book written by just a human.

Claiming I got told.

As hence you then have to establish who told you.

Archaeology says destroyed machine parts human artefacts in instant snap freeze is the proof. Why earths heavens already owned pre recorded human voice human images by ancient human theist scientists. Machine caused.

Other than that circumstance a human is a theist being told advice to his man self thinking and researching.

So pre existing mass tells him advice.

Father's memories said baby adult man became new theist scientist.

He looked back reviewing as his genetic human life was direct naturally to his human mother's.

When you look back further he was a man theorising womb space zero science with a machine at his side...science. the answer why life changed.

In natural life woman human at your side animals at your side nature at your side as you look and see. Man human.

The story said nature garden existed first. Owns millions of variables as each thing.

To know each thing by name variable you have to see it existing first to look at it then list it.

Before you did any human science.

A man themed in presence as human man. Two word terms.

He didn't own the rights to theory as a human when life continuance is two different humans. The other life by baby man human type he didn't own as inheritance the man.

Is what the story of evil references.

How a man pretended his machine more important than humans life continuance by the ONLY mother...human.

Stephen Haw king warning don't let his machines take over our life destroying it.

Forced to speak through a machine when once men scientists only spoke at the machine physically operating machines as men.

Is the correct human life warning.

Men theoried earth God mass seeing all the substances himself. For machines not life.

Today is contriving that a human formed by the same history as a machine.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. It's not anything goes at all. But in fact, I will say that amongst fundamentalists, they are the most abusive cherry-pickers of the Bible there are, far more than any liberal or progressive Christians I've known. Some use it to justify slavery, White Supremacy, wife and child beating, etc. So don't think that being a literalist means cherry picking doesn't happen.

My personal views as far as "rightly dividing the word", would be considered a "High Christology". meaning, if you find some passage that says "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth", and Jesus says that you should rather "love your enemies", then that takes precedence over anything that was said in the Old Testament. Shouldn't it for all Christians?

But yet, I find many fundamentalist Christians place Moses' Old Testament laws as an equal extension to Jesus. And in practice, they are actually far more Old Testament than New Testament in their legalisms and emphasis on the things they preach.

Why would Jesus have even bothered to saying things like "you have heard it said.... (quoting the OT), but I say unto you...", as if he were bring a "new testament", if that was sufficient? Something to consider there. "What would Jesus teach", doesn't seem to apply to them while they quote the OT to condemn those they judge as unworthy sinners.

The Jesus I see teaches compassion instead. Is that cherry picking? Is that anything goes? "Love works no ill. Love is the fulfillment of the law." Romans 13:10. Does it violate Love? Then it doesn't go.

I don't know you are going into all that, because anyone who understands the Bible understands we aren't under the old testament laws. That doesn't make them untrue for what they were meant to be.
I'm talking about the biblical history being real history, first. You can't just throw the history away because we are under a new covenant.