Did Jesus make Mistakes

Barnabas said:
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.
Click to expand...

The article was written in a way that seemed to be aggressive toward those who have "faith" in Jesus. However the information concerning where data is derived and can be derived in relation is in line with what I have found myself over the years.

There is another article that says almost exactly what the one I provided does, however its isnt said with nearly as much... aggression.

Being an atheist myself, I do know that I can say I have felt attacked growing up by people I have never met and later in life, by family members concerning religion. There are bad feelings on both sides. These days I try to find common ground, try to educate people as to why acceptance on both sides is preferred. Im not trying to convince anyone not to believe in their religion, just to understand why others do not.
 
Ill tell you a story I think is relevant. When I was younger I was looking for answers. Looking for real world symbols \ reflections of the things I wanted to be. Things that made sense to me and had real world groundings. I read a good bit back then and eventually at around the age of 8 or so, I read my first story about King Arthur. I was hooked from the very first book read. Over the years, I asked for these books for my birthday and never got them. I received other books on my birthday and figured that I would simply ask for one I was interested in. Year after year I asked until one year my mother gave me a copy of “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthurs court.” I was confused, saddened disappointed. Did not my mother know this person was making fun of King Arthur, the idea, of people who liked the stories? How could she not know me well enough to understand this? It was not even close to a “real” story.

It wasn’t till much later in life I understood why. She wanted me to know that King Arthur wasn’t real. Through part of my life I researched what there was to know concerning the knights of the round table. Maybe King Arthurs reign was much older than people thought etc. The end conclusion though for a clear thinking mind and person ultimately was, King Arthur's world was nothing more than fantasy. And that is what my mother wanted me to know. The thing I was using as a moral compass wasn’t real.

Now, what King Arthur stories stood for wasn’t bad. They taught of the difference between right and wrong, good and bad etc… why is it so bad to believe in such a thing? You can debate this.

The real end to this though is that, my mother wanted me to know King Arthur was not real and yet, she would chastise me, verbally scold me for using the lord’s name in vein, call me blasphemous. She did not do it often but she did it enough. She believed in Jesus as well. My mother who so carefully let me know that what I wanted to believe in was not real, couldn't do the same for herself.

There is vastly more physical and written evidence suggesting that King Arthur was a real figure than there is that Jesus was real. King Arthur’s stories might have been pieced together from stories of past deeds of kings with a lot of “want” mixed in. People want to believe it might be real as I used to. This is why such an old story is still popular today. I very much wanted to believe that people like King Arthur existed. That people who stood for what was right and had the power to change things around them in that favor were real. In the end I decided the only thing you can do to make it real is to change what is inside you to reflect what you believe in. That is how you make the story real even if the story itself is not.
 
You are awesome casie. Did you kniw you can not only double thumbs me down but actually effect my little green bars on the left as well? Left side bottom of the post, a litle star looking symbol. Click on it and have at. I think you and I are going to get along very well. Oh that or you could just block me... Free thinking people can be SO annoying I know.
 
Eventhorizon said:
You are awesome casie. Did you kniw you can not only double thumbs me down but actually effect my little green bars on the left as well? Left side bottom of the post, a litle star looking symbol. Click on it and have at. I think you and I are going to get along very well. Oh that or you could just block me... Free thinking people can be SO annoying I know.
Click to expand...

I can help too if you want?:D
 
May we please have more theology and less euphoria?
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Casie is just upset that I am noting that his friend Jesus was in all likely hood a fictional character.

However I would tell casie, because I know he is listening, this is a public post and as such is subject to discussion from all. I stay away from religious only threads and discussions, this one happens to be in the public eye.

You are also new here so dont burn yourself out with unlikes. Do it enough and it just wont mean as much to you. Pretty soon you will start to unlike your own posts just to get your high.
 
An Introduction to the Gospels
Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.
by Marilyn Mellowes



A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."
 
You are showing your true colors casie...
 
Eventhorizon said:
An Introduction to the Gospels
Written over the course of almost a century after Jesus' death, the four gospels of the New Testament, though they tell the same story, reflect very different ideas and concerns.
by Marilyn Mellowes



A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities: story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as "oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some stories were written down. The first written documents probably included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark, since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated the gospel tradition.

"The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies," says Prof. Paula Fredriksen, "they are a kind of religious advertisement. What they do is proclaim their individual author's interpretation of the Christian message through the device of using Jesus of Nazareth as a spokesperson for the evangelists' position."

About 15 years after Mark, in about the year 85 CE, the author known as Matthew composed his work, drawing on a variety of sources, including Mark and from a collection of sayings that scholars later called "Q", for Quelle, meaning source. The Gospel of Luke was written about fifteen years later, between 85 and 95. Scholars refer to these three gospels as the "synoptic gospels", because they "see" things in the same way. The Gospel of John, sometimes called "the spiritual gospel," was probably composed between 90 and 100 CE. Its style and presentation clearly set it apart from the other three.

Each of the four gospels depicts Jesus in a different way. These characterizations reflect the past experiences and the particular circumstances of their authors' communities. The historical evidence suggests that Mark wrote for a community deeply affected by the failure of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome. Matthew wrote for a Jewish community in conflict with the Pharisaic Judaism that dominated Jewish life in the postwar period. Luke wrote for a predominately Gentile audience eager to demonstrate that Christian beliefs in no way conflicted with their ability to serve as a good citizen of the Empire.

Despite these differences, all four gospels contain the "passion narrative," the central story of Jesus' suffering and death. That story is directly connected to the Christian ritual of the Eucharist. As Helmut Koester has observed, the ritual cannot "live" without the story.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that has such awful repercussions in later times."
Click to expand...
As a ambiased reader, this article is full of assumptions and tautologies.
Plus is incredibly simplistic and superficial.
I hope you don't base your doubts for Christianity on these kind of Internet articles, which are many but lacking in depth.
 
LucyJr said:
As a ambiased reader, this article is full of assumptions and tautologies.
Plus is incredibly simplistic and superficial.
I hope you don't base your doubts for Christianity on these kind of Internet articles, which are many but lacking in depth.
Click to expand...

It is simplistic and deliberately so. I dont see the assumptions you see. This article can be found on PBS's website and is considered a PBS report document. PBS is a generally well thought of organization in relation to factual reporting and mostly if not totally devoid of opinion.

However, thank you for your perspective. It is honestly appreciated. What is nice is that you have at least stated your thoughts on why the article should be questioned. Something that others so far have yet to do. :)
 
Eventhorizon said:
However I would tell casie, because I know he is listening, this is a public post and as such is subject to discussion from all. I stay away from religious only threads and discussions, this one happens to be in the public eye.
Click to expand...

What part of 'start your own thread' did you not understand?

Here's the forum rules for your perusal. I highlighted the few I thought would be of the most interest for you so that you don't have to work too hard for it:

Rules

Do:

1.Make generally on-topic, substantive and cleanly organized contributions to threads.
2.Minimize the following in your posts:
Chatspeak
Text in ALL CAPS, bright colors, or sizes larger than 3
Non-English language outside of the Writing and Languages section
Errors in spelling and grammar
Because members use a variety of browsers and forum layouts, standard formatting is encouraged.
3.Restrict discussion inappropriate for minors to the Mature Topics section.
4.Keep one and only one active account, unless given explicit permission by staff.
5.Abide by staff decisions and directives pertaining to individual cases, provided they do not conflict with the stated rules.


Don't:

1.Use the forum to disseminate indecent, obscene or pornographic material.
2.Use the forum to violate or conspire to violate United States federal law.
3.Attack or provoke another member or group of members by means of insult, ad hominem, rudeness or button-pushing.
4.Disturb the peace of the forum via hostile advancement of religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other agendas.
5.Violate privacy or compromise anonymity of other members without their permission.
6.Use the forum to advertise for personal gain.
7.Display vulgar or garish signatures, avatars or profile fields.

http://www.infjs.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule

Nobody is trying to stop you from discussing the topic you wish to discuss, but you ARE trying to stop the OP's topic. I highly recommend for [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] to request that these posts be separated into another thread.

Please attempt to conduct yourself as an adult because I really dislike having to speak down to people, but I do so when I feel it is necessary.
 
Matt3737 said:
What part of 'start your own thread' did you not understand?

Here's the forum rules for your perusal. I highlighted the few I thought would be of the most interest for you so that you don't have to work too hard for it:

Rules

Do:

1.Make generally on-topic, substantive and cleanly organized contributions to threads.
2.Minimize the following in your posts:
Chatspeak
Text in ALL CAPS, bright colors, or sizes larger than 3
Non-English language outside of the Writing and Languages section
Errors in spelling and grammar
Because members use a variety of browsers and forum layouts, standard formatting is encouraged.
3.Restrict discussion inappropriate for minors to the Mature Topics section.
4.Keep one and only one active account, unless given explicit permission by staff.
5.Abide by staff decisions and directives pertaining to individual cases, provided they do not conflict with the stated rules.


Don't:

1.Use the forum to disseminate indecent, obscene or pornographic material.
2.Use the forum to violate or conspire to violate United States federal law.
3.Attack or provoke another member or group of members by means of insult, ad hominem, rudeness or button-pushing.
4.Disturb the peace of the forum via hostile advancement of religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other agendas.
5.Violate privacy or compromise anonymity of other members without their permission.
6.Use the forum to advertise for personal gain.
7.Display vulgar or garish signatures, avatars or profile fields.

http://www.infjs.com/faq.php?faq=rules#faq_rule

Nobody is trying to stop you from discussing the topic you wish to discuss, but you ARE trying to stop the OP's topic. I highly recommend for [MENTION=1848]Barnabas[/MENTION] to request that these posts be separated into another thread.

Please attempt to conduct yourself as an adult because I really dislike having to speak down to people, but I do so when I feel it is necessary.
Click to expand...


Hmmm I dont agree with what you have bolded out in your post in that I am not partaking in any of those activities. While my posts do seemingly deviate from the original posted topic, I never the less do believe them to be relevant to the question, "Did Jesus make mistakes." One of the very first things that must be determined to answer this question is, "Was Jesus real." If Jesus was not real then the discussion ends there as it is completely impossible to do ANYTHING if you are fictional.

Dont worry Matt3737, I dont feel as if you are talking down to me in the slightest.
 
Eventhorizon said:
Hmmm I dont agree with what you have bolded out in your post in that I am not partaking in any of those activities. While my posts do seemingly deviate from the original posted topic, I never the less do believe them to be relevant to the question, "Did Jesus make mistakes." One of the very first things that must be determined to answer this question is, "Was Jesus real." If Jesus was not real then the discussion ends there as it is completely impossible to do ANYTHING if you are fictional.

Dont worry Matt3737, I dont feel as if you are talking down to me in the slightest.
Click to expand...

No, it is not relevant to this discussion AT ALL. Even if we all accept that Jesus is a fictional character, we can still discuss him! Quit being an asshole and shitting all over this thread for your childish insecurities! Grow up!
 
Matt3737 said:
No, it is not relevant to this discussion AT ALL. Even if we all accept that Jesus is a fictional character, we can still discuss him! Quit being an asshole and shitting all over this thread for your childish insecurities! Grow up!
Click to expand...

That’s fairly hostile matt3737.
Even so I understand what you are saying. You want to be able to talk of Santa Clause in this thread as if he were real, without people questioning how that’s even possible.
The fictional Santa character was based off a real person btw.
I THINK I will avoid this thread in the future unless something outlandish is stated that can clearly be disputed again.
 
Isn't making a mistake "missing the mark"?
 
Eventhorizon said:
That’s fairly hostile matt3737.
Even so I understand what you are saying. You want to be able to talk of Santa Clause in this thread as if he were real, without people questioning how that’s even possible.
The fictional Santa character was based off a real person btw.
I THINK I will avoid this thread in the future unless something outlandish is stated that can clearly be disputed again.
Click to expand...

rekt
 
Would it matter if Jesus made mistakes? I mean, does The Bible say he is perfect, or does it just say that he is without sin?

There probably weren't many mistakes for him to make back in that day and age anyway. The most difficult math he was likely to encounter were the measurements he had to take when making furniture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top