Could Jesus have been wrong?

[Windwalker]

We’re dealing with two Jesuses here: the mythic Jesus, who is God Incarnate, who commands the weather, who drives out demons and does miracles, and the historic Jesus.

We know very little about the historic Jesus. We’re pretty certain a man named Jesus lived, was an itinerant rabbi who had followers, and who was crucified for insurrection. We have a collection of sayings that stand a better than fair chance of being authentic to him. That’s about it.

If you’re talking about the mythic Jesus, the myth is limited to what the stories and accounts say. IOW, the mythic Jesus is a literary character. So if the stories paint the mythic Jesus as perfect, then perfect the mythic Jesus is, because, in literature, the Narrator, or storyteller, is always right.

If you’re talking about the historic Jesus, he probably was not perfect. We will never know.

This raises some very interesting thoughts in my mind to explore with you. Interestingly enough, and it may sound odd, I was talking with someone I know a few days ago and she didn't understand much about the Christian religion itself, when we were talking about some of the celebrations like Palm Sunday, and such. So I thought, let me see if I can't present what mainline Christianity teaches is the story of Jesus in 30 seconds or less, without me actually sharing how I think about it. That was a challenge, particularly the latter condition I set for myself!

It actually took me closer to 60 seconds, but it was a really high-level overview of what the mainline churches will teach is the story of Jesus. Resisting with all my will to not say what I thought, as I was telling it to her, it struck me full on how a story of magic it was. All the characters, the magi, the virgin mother, walking on water, rising from the grave, etc, it was like a child's story of magic and adventure. And yet, this is the religion in its most common expression as the truth of history (present company excluded, of course).

It got my mind spinning a little as I held myself back from any personal commentary on the story. Part of me sensed, though she seems a rational person, that the magical presentation of the story caught her eye a little. I thought, yes, some people need to hear it in that format. It has to have magical characters, larger than life, gods as it were. Being one who inhabits a different sort of sphere of reality when it comes to relating to the divine, these characters seem rather 2 dimensional to me compared to what I normally contemplate about the nature of the divine Reality.

So for me, where I am at, the historical Jesus is far more someone for me to relate myself to in questions of overcoming the world into Union with the Divine in this life here. It is about literally, becoming like Jesus, an Enlightened One. That is the real Jesus, and while we can speak of what is Realized in that condition in terms of mythic figures, to be sure, the reality of those are understood in more tangible terms, such as "subtle, causal, and nondual" experiences. The subtle level particularly where you see the sorts of figures of Biblical mythologies.

Understanding that Jesus had a mind like me, and that he too had to grow and learn and overcome fear and temptation just like anyone else on the path to Enlightenment, or God, makes it actually more magical, because it is relatable. Knowing that Jesus fell in love, struggled with his own ego, difficulties in overcoming himself so he could truly love another as God does, and so forth.

That is what is missing in the story, as explicitly written of course. It's the magic-mythic presentation, and in some sense, that is how most people seem as a default position to hearing about these things. It's just too bad we then literalize all this and get stuck there and the child-parent aspect of the story. We need to loosen up on that to continue to grow and become more spiritual aware of Reality as adults.

 

[sojourner]

This raises some very interesting thoughts in my mind to explore with you. Interestingly enough, and it may sound odd, I was talking with someone I know a few days ago and she didn't understand much about the Christian religion itself, when we were talking about some of the celebrations like Palm Sunday, and such. So I thought, let me see if I can't present what mainline Christianity teaches is the story of Jesus in 30 seconds or less, without me actually sharing how I think about it. That was a challenge, particularly the latter condition I set for myself!

It actually took me closer to 60 seconds, but it was a really high-level overview of what the mainline churches will teach is the story of Jesus. Resisting with all my will to not say what I thought, as I was telling it to her, it struck me full on how a story of magic it was. All the characters, the magi, the virgin mother, walking on water, rising from the grave, etc, it was like a child's story of magic and adventure. And yet, this is the religion in its most common expression as the truth of history (present company excluded, of course).

It got my mind spinning a little as I held myself back from any personal commentary on the story. Part of me sensed, though she seems a rational person, that the magical presentation of the story caught her eye a little. I thought, yes, some people need to hear it in that format. It has to have magical characters, larger than life, gods as it were. Being one who inhabits a different sort of sphere of reality when it comes to relating to the divine, these characters seem rather 2 dimensional to me compared to what I normally contemplate about the nature of the divine Reality.

So for me, where I am at, the historical Jesus is far more someone for me to relate myself to in questions of overcoming the world into Union with the Divine in this life here. It is about literally, becoming like Jesus, an Enlightened One. That is the real Jesus, and while we can speak of what is Realized in that condition in terms of mythic figures, to be sure, the reality of those are understood in more tangible terms, such as "subtle, causal, and nondual" experiences. The subtle level particularly where you see the sorts of figures of Biblical mythologies.

Understanding that Jesus had a mind like me, and that he too had to grow and learn and overcome fear and temptation just like anyone else on the path to Enlightenment, or God, makes it actually more magical, because it is relatable. Knowing that Jesus fell in love, struggled with his own ego, difficulties in overcoming himself so he could truly love another as God does, and so forth.

That is what is missing in the story, as explicitly written of course. It's the magic-mythic presentation, and in some sense, that is how most people seem as a default position to hearing about these things. It's just too bad we then literalize all this and get stuck there and the child-parent aspect of the story. We need to loosen up on that to continue to grow and become more spiritual aware of Reality as adults.

Check out the Gospel of Thomas (early Jesus quotes), and the book “Q: the Earliest Gospel” by John Kloppenborg.

 

[Windwalker]

Check out the Gospel of Thomas (early Jesus quotes), and the book “Q: the Earliest Gospel” by John Kloppenborg.

Yes, Gospel of Thomas. I have previously, and will again. It's been awhile. Regarding Kloppenborg, I haven't read that one by him, but I did Burton Mack's Q. He references him a lot in that book.

As a funny related thought here, as I was writing what I did before, it occurred to me that in that context, in light of what you said about the lack of historical Jesus material to work with, that the Enlightened Jesus that I hold in mind, is of course itself a mythology as well! Which is fascinating to me.

It shows how we will create an image that speaks to where we are at in our own lives. It's what the classic version of it does to that world-sphere, and it's what others do to theirs as well. It's part of Integral theory which speaks in terms of the Magic-Jesus, the Mythic-Jesus, the Rational-Jesus, the Pluralistic-Jesus, the Transrational-Jesus, and so forth.

But what's interesting is the place that that holds for us in relating ourselves to the divine, reflective of the context of the viewer. The role of mythology of each level? To bridge between the Great Mystery and our current minds. Wonderful stuff.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, Gospel of Thomas. I have previously, and will again. It's been awhile. Regarding Kloppenborg, I haven't read that one by him, but I did Burton Mack's Q. He references him a lot in that book.

As a funny related thought here, as I was writing what I did before, it occurred to me that in that context, in light of what you said about the lack of historical Jesus material to work with, that the Enlightened Jesus that I hold in mind, is of course itself a mythology as well! Which is fascinating to me.

It shows how we will create an image that speaks to where we are at in our own lives. It's what the classic version of it does to that world-sphere, and it's what others do to theirs as well. It's part of Integral theory which speaks in terms of the Magic-Jesus, the Mythic-Jesus, the Rational-Jesus, the Pluralistic-Jesus, the Transrational-Jesus, and so forth.

But what's interesting is the place that that holds for us in relating ourselves to the divine, reflective of the context of the viewer. The role of mythology of each level? To bridge between the Great Mystery and our current minds. Wonderful stuff.

Most people are afraid to consider mythic Jesus. Fewer still will consider symbolic Jesus, and I dare not mention energetic Jesus... Thry will only embrace literal Jesus and ascribe empiricism to all subsequent metaphors.

 

[savagewind]

This raises some very interesting thoughts in my mind to explore with you. Interestingly enough, and it may sound odd, I was talking with someone I know a few days ago and she didn't understand much about the Christian religion itself, when we were talking about some of the celebrations like Palm Sunday, and such. So I thought, let me see if I can't present what mainline Christianity teaches is the story of Jesus in 30 seconds or less, without me actually sharing how I think about it. That was a challenge, particularly the latter condition I set for myself!

It actually took me closer to 60 seconds, but it was a really high-level overview of what the mainline churches will teach is the story of Jesus. Resisting with all my will to not say what I thought, as I was telling it to her, it struck me full on how a story of magic it was. All the characters, the magi, the virgin mother, walking on water, rising from the grave, etc, it was like a child's story of magic and adventure. And yet, this is the religion in its most common expression as the truth of history (present company excluded, of course).

It got my mind spinning a little as I held myself back from any personal commentary on the story. Part of me sensed, though she seems a rational person, that the magical presentation of the story caught her eye a little. I thought, yes, some people need to hear it in that format. It has to have magical characters, larger than life, gods as it were. Being one who inhabits a different sort of sphere of reality when it comes to relating to the divine, these characters seem rather 2 dimensional to me compared to what I normally contemplate about the nature of the divine Reality.

So for me, where I am at, the historical Jesus is far more someone for me to relate myself to in questions of overcoming the world into Union with the Divine in this life here. It is about literally, becoming like Jesus, an Enlightened One. That is the real Jesus, and while we can speak of what is Realized in that condition in terms of mythic figures, to be sure, the reality of those are understood in more tangible terms, such as "subtle, causal, and nondual" experiences. The subtle level particularly where you see the sorts of figures of Biblical mythologies.

Understanding that Jesus had a mind like me, and that he too had to grow and learn and overcome fear and temptation just like anyone else on the path to Enlightenment, or God, makes it actually more magical, because it is relatable. Knowing that Jesus fell in love, struggled with his own ego, difficulties in overcoming himself so he could truly love another as God does, and so forth.

That is what is missing in the story, as explicitly written of course. It's the magic-mythic presentation, and in some sense, that is how most people seem as a default position to hearing about these things. It's just too bad we then literalize all this and get stuck there and the child-parent aspect of the story. We need to loosen up on that to continue to grow and become more spiritual aware of Reality as adults.

Your post here is poetry. Very good!

 

[Windwalker]

Most people are afraid to consider mythic Jesus. Fewer still will consider symbolic Jesus, and I dare not mention energetic Jesus... Thry will only embrace literal Jesus and ascribe empiricism to all subsequent metaphors.

Wow. That was brilliantly put. The literal Jesus doesn't speak in metaphors. He speaks scientific factoids.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

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.

Possibly, but like any other man that walks this earth. He won't admit it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

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.

My question would be, As to how did you come by all of this or did you get it from another source.

 

[pearl]

It's just too bad we then literalize all this and get stuck there and the child-parent aspect of the story. We need to loosen up on that to continue to grow and become more spiritual aware of Reality as adults.

Any Bible study ought to include scholarly commentary.

 

[Windwalker]

Any Bible study ought to include scholarly commentary.

That depends on the scholar. The requirements for a Bible "expert" are not exactly very stringent.

 

[Sleeppy]

He grew in wisdom. He was ignorant of certain truths, and wasn't always accurate or efficient.

 

[pearl]

That depends on the scholar. The requirements for a Bible "expert" are not exactly very stringent.

Not 'a' scholar but many and from them a consensus.
The requirements are comparable to other fields of study.
Program of Study // Department of Theology // University of Notre Dame

 

[Windwalker]

Not 'a' scholar but many and from them a consensus.
The requirements are comparable to other fields of study.
Program of Study // Department of Theology // University of Notre Dame

Would you say the types of scholars you imagine are better resources than these degreed "scholars", say from Oral Robert's University? College of Theology and Ministry Graduate Programs || ORU

My point is, whose scholarship? If you mean modern scholarship which does not deny things like the Documentary Hypothesis in favor of Magic, then I'd say you have a better argument than those types of "scholars", such as Ken Ham with his "Ph.D", as "Dr. Dino", faith healers, Pat Robertson, and such.

 

[pearl]

My point is, whose scholarship?

Those who follow the historical critical method of interpretation, and identify what is myth, legend, etc.,not apologists.

 

[Windwalker]

Those who follow the historical critical method of interpretation, and identify what is myth, legend, etc.,not apologists.

Then I completely agree.

 

[sojourner]

That depends on the scholar. The requirements for a Bible "expert" are not exactly very stringent.

There are some, though, that are recognized as “heavy hitters” in the scholarly circles. Look for them.

 

[sojourner]

Would you say the types of scholars you imagine are better resources than these degreed "scholars", say from Oral Robert's University? College of Theology and Ministry Graduate Programs || ORU

My point is, whose scholarship? If you mean modern scholarship which does not deny things like the Documentary Hypothesis in favor of Magic, then I'd say you have a better argument than those types of "scholars", such as Ken Ham with his "Ph.D", as "Dr. Dino", faith healers, Pat Robertson, and such.

Yes. Look for scholars who are neither apologists or wear their bias on their sleeves.

 

[iam1me]

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.

Orthodox Christianity is going to more or less forbid such ideas - for they maintain that Jesus is God Almighty himself.

In my view, however, Jesus certainly was not beyond humanities struggles and temptations. In fact, this point is emphasized in scripture-this is what makes him an effective mediator between us and God, for he knows our pain and struggles.

If you ask an Orthodox Christian if Jesus could have sinned, such as when tempted by Satan, they will generally say: no, he was God and thus would never entertain the notion of sinning. This is fallacious, however, for it robs Jesus of his merit as a man who faced and overcame temptation.

That said, he clearly had a unique relationship to God - being the only begotten Son of God, being sent by God, and being instructed by God.

 

[Marcion]

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'm not a christian but I do take a special interest in Jesus as a spiritual personality.
The christian scriptures aren't historical reports, so it is hard to judge Jesus as a historical person if we have only those anecdotal or gospel type of descriptions of him.

But supposing that some things in those stories could have had a historical base, there are some things in those stories that strike me as not in line with what someone who was "one with the Father" would have done.

There is the Jesus who destroys a tree to demonstrate his powers over nature. I find the destruction of a life for this purpose not a very uhm elevated or respectable act.

There is the Jesus who "drives out demons" from someone with perhaps a psychiatric disorder by transposing the "bad karma" into a group of pigs who then perish (if I remember this well enough). I get the same bad feeling about how he could have done this to the poor pigs as with the fate of the tree.

Then there is the Jesus who failed to actively tell his disciples to become vegetarians and treat animals (and plants) well. Although, he may have done so and disciples may have not recorded those words or christians may not have copied those words.

And finally there is the Jesus who cut short his mission before his disciples could fathom what his spiritual instructions were really all about and before those followers could properly learn how to bring those teachings into practice.

Jesus may have had his reasons to do (or overlook) those things (just assuming they are historical) but they don't strike me as worthy of a "Son of God", which is probably a title christians invented later anyhow or which they may have transposed from other non-christian religious practices of their times.
Still, I suppose the perceived shortcomings are not serious enough to lower the status of Jesus significantly. But they still make me hesitant to consider Jesus as a divine or "perfect" personality.

 

[RESOLUTION]

King James Bible
But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
Isaiah 46:10
10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:


Those verses show two things:

1, Jesus Christ did not know the hour of his return.

2. God has declared the end from the beginning and knows all things.


I believe that this is the problem with the Church today. If Christ says:

If you love me you will obey my commandments. These commandments Christ says sums up the whole law and teaching of the Prophets. 1, Love the Lord God with all your heart and 2. Love thy neighbour as yourself. It is clear that Christ never said he was God but that God his Father had sent him.
Acts 7 states that Stephen looked up into heaven and saw Christ on the right hand of God.



If the World would stop adding their own little bits then I a sure everyone could read and reach their own conclusion. If you worship Christ as God do you obey his commandments to love God with your whole heart and your neighbour. Everyone has to decide for themselves. But if Christ is the Messiah then all Christians are Jews. Because Christ the Son has brought them into the family in a covenant God declared. What could Christ get wrong if he is the Messiah?