Was Jesus ever wrong?

Faith & Science Conversation
21

Very good response, Jay. (I clicked ‘like’.) And I certainly do agree that being fully human involves a great deal more than biology. In fact it is foundation stone of my world view: Hundreds of generations of Homo sapiens lived on this earth before any became fully human, and this probably occurred without any species-changing mutation. Science may never learn how brain circuitry can be organized so that it becomes a Mind that is aware of, and desires to know, its Creator. That event (if it was a GLF) added a spiritual component to what otherwise would have been just a material creature. The Universe had a new feature: the Noosphere.

I believe that Adam was the first Homo sapiens who was potentially capable of overcoming the ‘dark side’ of his evolutionary heritage, and his failure to do so has been interpreted as Original Sin. Paul rightly considered Jesus as the Second Adam, because it was God’s will that Jesus would completely rise above his evolutionary heritage, live a sinless life, and become, not just a faulty Image of God, but God who has taken human form.

I readily admit that this “theology” will not appeal to the majority of Christians today. However, it may be more compatible to youngsters today who otherwise may be deceived by the ‘intellectual’ arguments of the New Atheists.
Al Leo

1 Like
22

Ah. Finally, someone has explained it. Haha. As I said, Jesus could have descended from heaven a fully formed man, if that’s how God wished to do it. I think it is pointless to wonder or worry about the biological “how” of the virgin birth, or any other act of God. I would include in that statement the manner in which God guided evolution. We really have no idea of the limits or the exercise of divine power. But, that’s just me …

4 Likes
23

Jesus was always correct but occasionally misquoted. “G”

24

@bill_wald

Okay. So how do we convince the YECs of that?

25

Bill, that statement will give Biblical inerrantists a headache . Do you think that is what he told his teachers when they graded his papers?

26

My wife, in preparing to teach our adult Sunday School raised an interesting point (from the teacher’s manual) that caught me by surprise even though I feel it shouldn’t have. It suggested that there would/could still be plenty of conflict in a “pre-fallen” or “non-fallen” world, but that isn’t the same thing as sin. Sin is one way in which you might respond to conflict, but not necessarily inherent in conflict itself. So when we imagine a sinless world (whether it be a past or future one or both), do we imagine one in which there is not even so much as a disagreement? One uniformity of all opinion?

Even though I don’t adhere to YEC habits of thinking, I guess I still had in the back of my mind un-examined visions of some sort of “conflict-free” paradise! But it would seem my mindset has been conditioned by the YEC conception that a paradise would be a perfect world (and my assumption that “perfect” implies “conflict-free” has its own set of problems and probably says a lot about me), and not what the Scriptures actually say of creation: “good” and “very good”.

In any case, I think the same things carry over into our discussion about Jesus. While we can find Scriptures to show that Jesus was “without sin”, it would seem that many of us still want to equate that with perfection on our own terms (which usually includes all sorts of notions of physical and intellectual perfection – and that despite Scriptural warnings to the contrary!) If I’m not mistaken it seems that C.S. Lewis may have gone a bit down this road, didn’t he? I seem to remember reading that he would expect no less than a “perfect in-every-way specimen” of humanity in the Christ. And while I can theologically get on board with that, the problem it seems to me (even with Lewis!) is that our own notions of what perfection must include are going to be necessarily error-prone. In short, I think non-perfect creatures are going to be incapable of being judges of the perfect, and I think all we can do is note things like … if Jesus wasn’t the best-looking (most “kingly”), “highest scorer on every test we tend to throw at people” kind of person – (and yes, despite the fact that he does walk on water, Scriptures don’t support the notion that he was impressive to everybody in our ordinary sorts of every-day ways); then all we can do is shrug our shoulders and think that it is our own notions of perfection that must be faulty, and let’s fix our eyes back on Christ again in the faith that his actual perfection is the kind we should want instead.

[edits made…]

1 Like
27

Jesus fully man / fully God without sin - was tempted but didn’t sin is our sinless representative before God may have given wrong answers, or didn’t know answers, or was confused over the age of earth he created when he spoke it into existence…because his humanity grew in wisdom and stature …therefore…he made wrong errors.

Is that the argument?

I would think his boyhood experience in the temple when left behind answers your question.

If we say he got things wrong…like us…does that imply his nature was imperfect so we either go Catholic with the Immaculate Mary who didn’t pass sin onto Jesus or we have to say his model of learning with regards to humanity was without error.

Arguing from silence is like punching the air.

28

Really? My idea of a perfect son definitely would have told his poor mom what he was up to before he put her through all that mental anguish, not to mention a few days of wasted travel in less than ideal circumstances. You don’t think that sounds like a normal 12 year-old spacey “oops” mistake? I sure do.

What do you mean by “his nature was imperfect.” Does making a mistake or needing to learn things by trial and error imply sinfulness? I don’t think so. Sin is rebellion against God. Being thoughtless about your mom’s feelings just shows you lack maturity, it isn’t rebellion against God. I don’t think there is any contradiction in affirming Jesus’ shared our full humanity (with the imperfections of human limitations that it implies) and affirming he was “without sin.” Hebrews 4:15.

I think it is silly to posit some sort of genetic link to the sin nature. I don’t think sinfulness is passed on from parent to child like dimples or hitch-hikers thumb.

I gave several specific examples why I thought Scriptures paint a picture of a non-omniscient Jesus who did not know things and had to learn and mature like a normal human. Where are your Scriptures that show or even imply he was always right and never made an honest mistake. Why did he go up to the fig tree expecting to find fruit if he knew everything? Why didn’t he know it wasn’t even the season for figs? I say he made an honest mistake because he didn’t know everything. It wasn’t rebellion against God.
Would you say he was just pretending not to know it wasn’t the season for figs to make a point? If so, at what point does that kind of pretending become deceptive, and are you okay with Jesus deceiving people, just to maintain some sort of “Jesus was never wrong about anything” doctrine?

2 Likes
29

Okay, I will bite into the fig tree. Jesus’ direct address to the tree personified it and condemned it for not providing what its appearance promised. This incident was not the acting out of the parable of the fig tree (Luke 13:6–9), which was a warning against spiritual fruitlessness.

Here, Jesus cursed the tree for its misleading appearance that suggested great productivity without providing it. It should have been full of fruit, but was barren. The fig tree was frequently an OT type of the Jewish nation (Hos. 9:10; Nah. 3:12; Zech. 3:10), and in this instance, Jesus used the tree by the road as a divine object lesson concerning Israel’s spiritual hypocrisy and fruitlessness.

Luke 2:43 Jesus the boy lingers in the temple. His lingering was neither mischievous nor disobedient; it was owing to a simple mistaken presumption on His parents’ part (v. 44) that He was left behind. In Luke 2:48 2:48 “Why have You done this to us?” Mary’s words convey a tone of exasperation and rebuke—normal for any mother under such circumstances, but misplaced in this case. He was not hiding from them or defying their authority. In fact, He had done precisely what any child should do under such circumstances (being left by His parents)—He went to a safe, public place, in the presence of trusted adults, where His parents could be expected to come looking for Him (v. 49). But Christy, it is really Luke 2:46 where Jesus was “listening to them and asking them questions”. He was utterly respectful, taking the role of the student. But even at that young age, His questions showed a wisdom that put the teachers to shame.(v47) - “and his answers.”

Sorry I can’t see any mistakes.

30

He should not have wandered from his parents.

31

I understand the fig tree incident was an object lesson and not Jesus throwing a temper tantrum because his snack plans fell through. But you didn’t address my question at all.

The Mark text says “The next morning as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. He noticed a fig tree in full leaf a little way off, so he went over to see if he could find any figs. But there were only leaves because it was too early in the season for fruit.”

Why was Jesus apparently expecting/hoping to find fruit if 1) in his omniscience he already knew there wasn’t any and 2) it wasn’t even the right month for figs in the first place?

My answer is that he wasn’t thinking about fig season at the moment because he was hungry. He thought there might be figs, but he was wrong, there weren’t. So, always the one to capitalize on a teachable moment, he used the situation to make a point about Israel.

2 Likes
32

That sounds like a sneaky way to try to turn the boy-in-the-temple incident into a foreshadowing contest: Jesus against the scribes. But the verse you site does not support this; it says: “everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” (NIV) There is no mention there of shame, humiliation, or any confrontation. I think when the Scriptures tell us he was “listening to them and asking questions”, that we can understand he was in “learning mode” probably according to the style of that day. No more, no less.

4 Likes
33

Good reply. Otherwise you get into the “Jesus putting nasty Jews in their place” mode.

1 Like
34

@Paul_Allen1, if his experience as a student was demonstrated “no mistakes” - - is that the same thing as not needing education? Was his role in these sessions not to Receive the information?.. but to show that he never needed to receive any information?

Is that how you interpret his youth?

1 Like
35

This passage is from Hebrews to explain how Jesus could be both Human and God. Jesus was Perfect in the sense that He was complete or fulfilled. Jesus is in complete relationship to God the Father, which makes Him God the Son.

Perfect without error is something else. It is the goal of perfectionists and is far less preferable than to be in right relationship to God, oneself, and others, including the earth which is open to all.

2 Likes
36

If we set aside the theistic glasses used to define God, and instead look at Jesus of Nazareth as the redefinition of who and what God is; then these apparently hard questions about Jesus will begin to resolve themselves.

The classic theistic characterization of God centers around omnipotence and associated with this is omniscience, immutableness and the inability to suffer and die.

The traditional theistic definition of God cannot allow for Jesus being mistaken about certain facts, and if he were, this disqualifies him as being in some sense divine. Yet, even in the old testament YHWH is described as being unaware of the facts about a certain situation and in some cases repenting (changing his mind) about an intended course of action.

In fact, the tetragrammaton YHWH, typically translated as “I AM that I AM” should be translated “I shall be what I shall be” or become." to better reflect the verbal nature of ancient Hebrew.

The name revealed to Moses describes the essential character of who and what God is. God will become whatever is needed to save, heal and bring the creation to its full potential as the expression of universal life freely given to all. A creation that will be freed from the almighty power of death so that everyone will have the fullness of authentic life with true justice/equitableness for all.

So with the theistic glasses off we can see this:

Jesus is not god (the theistic god); rather God is Jesus, the God defined by who Jesus is and what he has done. Jesus is the presence/face of God revealed in a living person of flesh and blood in the real world of imperfect, changing, suffering and dying living beings.

God in Jesus is becoming what the real world needs God to be: Not God the almighty, but God the powerless; crucified on a Roman cross. So that God can become the all-bountiful one; pouring out unconditionally and unreservedly all that God is to all that there is.

Not God the omniscient, who sees and knows every action and private thought to be recalled on the Day of Judgement to judge and condemn. Not God with a plan micromanaging each event, no matter how great or small. Rather, God with an irrepressible passion to give all that God is to all that there is. To give himself unconditionally to the ever expanding universe.

In Jesus, God knows all things because he empathetically feels all things. When he healed the sick it was not an act of divine omnipotence but of profound empathy. The word usually translated as pity or compassion is splagchnizoma which literally means a movement in the inner most parts.

Karl Barth comments, “The term obviously defies adequate translation. What it means is that the suffering and sin and abandonment and peril of these men not merely went to the heart of Jesus but right into His heart, into Himself, so that their whole plight was now His own, and as such He saw and suffered it far more keenly than they did. Splagchnizoma means that He took their misery upon Himself, taking it away from them and making it His own.” And in return his presence opens the floodgates of God’s life to heal and make whole those damaged/destroyed by disease and death.

So is Jesus ever wrong, is God all knowing? That is not really relevant to what the world needs God to be. Instead, the real God for the real world, does whatever it takes, at God’s expense, to overcome all that harms and threatens the creation.

Jesus is the Truth because his life, death and resurrection reveals the true nature of God. Not God above and over us, but as Emmanuel, with us, and not lording over us.

He is the Way, because he opens the way from God to the creation by removing and overcoming all the powers (including the almighty power of death) that blocks or diverts the free flow of God’s life to all things in the creation.

He is the Life, because he gave up his life at Golgotha, not to pay for sins so that God can forgive us, but rather to take the life of God to the godless and hopeless, and into death itself. So that in the coming transformation of the cosmos, the third singularity, the Life of God will reach even the abyssal depths of nothingness and hell. So that all that was dead will be made alive again and even that which is not yet alive will be enlivened in ways beyond our imagining

37

To live without sin is to be acceptable and perfect in God’s sight. To be fully human and without sin also means that Christ experienced all the hardships and difficulties that we do, and yet continued to be perfect before God. This is why Christ redeems us all and reconciles us with God. It also shows us how faith works within our lives.

38

I think this is a perfectly logical conclusion. Not born from a man, has no sin. One could conclude that man passes on sin.

Especially since it says through one man Sin entered the world. Rom 5:12. Or death can through a man 1 Cor 15:21. Why not be passed through a man? It may or may not be genetic, or something science can detect, but I think it is perfectly logical to think it is passed from father to child.

39

Do you honestly think sin is carried by sperm?

It is technologically possible now to create a viable embryo from two eggs. Of course, this is not allowed for humans for obvious ethical reasons, but suppose some day it was legal. Would these children not have sin natures?

If it’s not genetic/biological, then why wouldn’t Joseph have passed his sin nature on to Jesus as his earthly father?

40

I’m not saying it isn’t genetic, or didn’t mean to say that. I meant it might just not be something we can detect or is genetically discovered yet.

Like atoms were thought to be the smallest thing…until we found something smaller. Or dark matter was a theory, until we found Higgs boson.

My theory ( until proven different) is that males pass on sin nature. My evidence or support to back up that theory is as said above. We may never find (if there is one) a “Higgs boson of sin nature”. Or perhaps the world ends before we discover it.

Though I never ugh tat into detail about, more the abstract that man passes it on, I guess so, that is what I thought.[quote=“Christy, post:39, topic:36637”]
It is technologically possible now to create a viable embryo from two eggs. Of course, this is not allowed for humans for obvious ethical reasons, but suppose some day it was legal. Would these children not have sin natures?
[/quote]

I was not aware of this… so they can only make female offspring? Or where is the Y chromosome coming from?