Did Jesus make Mistakes

[Flavus Aquila]

The verse is mark 13:30 and following,

30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

[/I]
Sooo..... God knows of it, so it must exist. Jesus doesn't know about it, it does exist, Jesus could not have been omniscient while on earth.
[/FONT]

I did a little reading on the matter and found the following:

Basil of Caesarea (d. 379). Nearly all interpreters translate the last line (ei me ho pater monos), “but only the Father.” However, due to the variegated use of ei me in Scripture, it could be translated, “if not the Father.” Thus Basil contends the text really says, “No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known. . . . Mark’s sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father.”

The parallel passage in Matthew adds the word "only" - that the Son only would know by the Father (ie. the Divinity), which might imply that Christ will not be physically present in his human nature at the moment of the end of time/days - but his presence in judgement may occur within a distinct time, which follows the the time we are presently living in. Ie. After the Sun has darkened and the Moon shall not give her light.... then shall they see the Son of Man coming. (Mark 13:24-26).

Origen (d. 254). Maintained that interpreters misunderstand Mark’s use of know. Instead of head knowledge, Jesus is referencing experiential knowledge. So Origin says, “‘To know’ is given its own special meaning here (as is customary with sacred Scripture), for only he who remains to meet its arrival will know that day and hour.”

Again, this coupled with Basil's interpretation implies that Christ will not experience the last day, but knows of it only through the divinity.

Finally, the refusal of Christ to divulge the particular day when the end will come, (so that the remaining faithful will only know that day when it comes), points to the foreknowledge of God as to who will faithfully persevere through the false prophets and the disturbance of nature, to see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. "Take heed therefore: behold, I have foretold you all things." (Mark 13:23).

Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), said, “This text is to be interpreted in the light of the usual style of speech found in the Scriptures, in which God is said to know a thing when He imparts knowledge of that thing, as when He said to Abraham, in Genesis 22:12: ‘Now I know that you fear God.’” In that chapter, God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham’s only son. Moments before the slaughter commenced, the Angel of the Lord called out to Abraham and said, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me” (Genesis 22:12). God already knew Abraham would obey; God’s purpose in the endurance to sacrifice his son required of Abraham, was to demonstrate that God already knew that he would be faithful.

Thus, one can understand Mark 13:32 in terms of the moral exhortation it is supposed to be: take heed because you do not know the day - and that speculation about when the last day will be of no avail in safely deferring preparation for it, for that day is only known by God. And taking heed of the warning, when that day comes, if you are prepared, you will know that Christ rightly warned you of it, for by his warning he knows you will persevere till the end.

 

[Barnabas]

I did a little reading on the matter and found the following:

Basil of Caesarea (d. 379). Nearly all interpreters translate the last line (ei me ho pater monos), “but only the Father.” However, due to the variegated use of ei me in Scripture, it could be translated, “if not the Father.” Thus Basil contends the text really says, “No man knows, neither the angels of God; nor yet the Son would have known unless the Father had known. . . . Mark’s sense, then, is as follows: of that day and of that hour knows no man, nor the angels of God; but even the Son would not have known if the Father had not known, for the knowledge naturally His was given by the Father.”

The parallel passage in Matthew adds the word "only" - that the Son only would know by the Father (ie. the Divinity), which might imply that Christ will not be physically present in his human nature at the moment of the end of time/days - but his presence in judgement may occur within a distinct time, which follows the the time we are presently living in. Ie. After the Sun has darkened and the Moon shall not give her light.... then shall they see the Son of Man coming. (Mark 13:24-26).

Origen (d. 254). Maintained that interpreters misunderstand Mark’s use of know. Instead of head knowledge, Jesus is referencing experiential knowledge. So Origin says, “‘To know’ is given its own special meaning here (as is customary with sacred Scripture), for only he who remains to meet its arrival will know that day and hour.”

Again, this coupled with Basil's interpretation implies that Christ will not experience the last day, but knows of it only through the divinity.

Finally, the refusal of Christ to divulge the particular day when the end will come, (so that the remaining faithful will only know that day when it comes), points to the foreknowledge of God as to who will faithfully persevere through the false prophets and the disturbance of nature, to see the Son of Man coming on the clouds. "Take heed therefore: behold, I have foretold you all things." (Mark 13:23).

Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), said, “This text is to be interpreted in the light of the usual style of speech found in the Scriptures, in which God is said to know a thing when He imparts knowledge of that thing, as when He said to Abraham, in Genesis 22:12: ‘Now I know that you fear God.’” In that chapter, God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham’s only son. Moments before the slaughter commenced, the Angel of the Lord called out to Abraham and said, “Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me” (Genesis 22:12). God already knew Abraham would obey; God’s purpose in the endurance to sacrifice his son required of Abraham, was to demonstrate that God already knew that he would be faithful.

Thus, one can understand Mark 13:32 in terms of the moral exhortation it is supposed to be: take heed because you do not know the day - and that speculation about when the last day will be of no avail in safely deferring preparation for it, for that day is only known by God. And taking heed of the warning, when that day comes, if you are prepared, you will know that Christ rightly warned you of it, for by his warning he knows you will persevere till the end.

I think it's fair to say that if one bickers to much on whether or not Jesus knew everything based on what he said in Mar 13, we'd be missing the point of mark 13 which is as you said to be prepared for his return because you never know when he'll be coming back.

I going to have to disagree with Origen and Basil interpretation. We have nothing to base it on the the use of knowledge is significantly different it's commonly understood meaning, and even if you translated the text as "if not," instead of "Only" you still end up with the same meaning, who knows if not God alone as opposed to God only knows.

On top of that if you couple this verse with luke 2:52(Jesus grew in wisdom and stature) and matthew 24:36(Only the father knows), these verse both imply that the he doesn't know everything and that he learned things.

 

[just me]

It may very well be possible, and likely, Jesus knew of spiritual things moreso than any other man walking the earth back then. We measure perfection differently than the spiritual. I tire of asking if the most spiritual man back then was perfect.
He was perfect in my eyes. He is perfect in my spirit. He is perfect in my heart. My mind questions the relation of His viccisitude with the meaning of His life.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think it's fair to say that if one bickers to much on whether or not Jesus knew everything based on what he said in Mar 13, we'd be missing the point of mark 13 which is as you said to be prepared for his return because you never know when he'll be coming back.

I going to have to disagree with Origen and Basil interpretation. We have nothing to base it on the the use of knowledge is significantly different it's commonly understood meaning, and even if you translated the text as "if not," instead of "Only" you still end up with the same meaning, who knows if not God alone as opposed to God only knows.

On top of that if you couple this verse with luke 2:52(Jesus grew in wisdom and stature) and matthew 24:36(Only the father knows), these verse both imply that the he doesn't know everything and that he learned things.

That's Nestorianism in a nutshell.

 

[muir]

what do you think He meant?

I think it is a non-dualist statement regarding a persons inner divinity

The bible was mistranslated. Jesus did not say ''i am THE son of God'', he said ''I am A son of God''; this implies that we are all the children of God...we are all God

If we are all divine then divinity is not outside it is within us...we are it

The consciousness in you and the consciousness in me, apparently two, really one, seek unity and that is love...~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj~

So the experience of oneness known as 'christ consciousness' or 'cosmic consciousness' where a person feels at one with everything (atonement= at-one-ment) is the sense of being one with everyone and everything and therefore the kingdom of heaven is within because oneness is love and that is found within

Buddhists also speak about our problems stemming from 'mind' so also finding greater inner peace would require us to look within

I think it means that people should look within themselves for their guidance not outward to external people or things; the spiritual process is a personal, intuitive journey NOT something that is dictated to a person

If a person reveres a person called 'jesus' who they are told lived 2000 years ago then already they are looking outward to something else. Groups then take ownership of the idea of 'jesus' such as the church and then they place themselves as guardians of that idea. People then look to the church for guidance and in doing so they stop looking within

If a person gives away responsibility for thinking to another person or group whether it is the church, the government, the army, a corporation or whatever then they are not taking personal responsibility and they are bypassing their own intuitive, personal spiritual journey....they are swapping their own journey for becoming a drone of someone or something else

Don't worship the cross, don't worship jesus, don't blindingly follow priests......look within and recognise your own divinity

 

[Barnabas]

That's Nestorianism in a nutshell.

If Nestorious was accused of heresy by Bishop Cyril of Alexandria then I'm fairly certain that Nestorious was doing something right.

That being said a quick wiki leads me to believe that may also have some disagreements with Nestorianism... so I'm only a partial heretic on this account.


Edit: on the bright side, now I know what my next non-fiction reading is going to be. Just picked up a couple of books from Nestorious and Cyrils point of view.