Did Jesus make mistakes?

[Birdjaguar]

No, God does. Keep in mind, God is not fixing events. Rather, He is already in the future, so He knows what the Jews will do.

So you believe that the jews will rebuild their temple (soon) and start sacrificing anmals once again. Depending upon which location is chosen for the rebuild, I bet the arabs will be pissed. Tearing down the Dome of the Rock will not be taken lightly. In fact allowing jews onto the Temple mount will not be well received either.

 

[gael]

Last time i heard, Jesus didn't write the New Testament.

 

[RoboPig]

Like in Matthew 23:35 Jesus tells that Zechari'ah whom was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar was the son of Barachi'ah, but the corresponding Old Testament verse, 2 Chronicles 24:20 tells that Zechari'ah was the son of Jehoi'ada.

Maybe the old testament was wrong.........................

 

[GeneralZed]

Religion sucks...

 

[Quasar1011]

So you believe that the jews will rebuild their temple (soon) and start sacrificing anmals once again. Depending upon which location is chosen for the rebuild, I bet the arabs will be pissed. Tearing down the Dome of the Rock will not be taken lightly. In fact allowing jews onto the Temple mount will not be well received either.

Prozactly! As one Jewish general has said, "Perhaps God will send an earthquake to destroy the Dome of the Rock."

However, archaeology seems to point to the possibility that the Dome of the Rock, occupies "the profane place" in the Court of the Gentiles, on the ancient temple mount. Could both co-exist on the temple mount, if a third temple is built? I suppose it is possible. We'll see; then we'll know.

 

[Quasar1011]

@Taliesin: I just looked up "this" and "generation" in the Greek, in my Strong's Concordance. Forgive me for not doing so earlier, but it was hidden behind a suitcase.

Anyway, the word hautai (from houtos)in the Greek, can mean
the he (she or it), i.e. this or that, hereof, it, she, such as, the same, these, they, this, which, or who. So in the original langauge, the verse could be rendered that instead of this, which would then read, "that generation". Or it could be rendered the same, as in "the same generation" which sees the signs, will not pass away. If you want to look it up for yourself, it is Strong's number 3778 in the Greek.

Likewise, Strong's word number 1074 in the Greek, is genea. It can mean: a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons):- age, generation, nation, time. Any number of these renderings would make Jesus' prediction correct. Did He mean a generation now living, as you say? Or did He mean the age would not be completed until all these things had taken place? Did He means the Jewish nation would not pass away before the end?
Or did He mean the time would not be complete, until all these things take place? Using your own logic, we cannot be certain of what He meant, 2000 years later; and since there are several possibilities- only one of them which could have meant He was mistaken- don't you think you ought to re-think your position on this?

 

[Taliesin]

Most of the possible interpretations amount to truisms, even if one reads "that" or "the same". There are two that are at least meaningful:
1) This nation will not die before the signs appear.
2) The same generation will witness all of the signs.

It is certainly possible that there is no mistake, but you'd think that on a question like this less ambiguous language would have been used. I also figure translators must have a reason to render the statement in such a way as to make your interpretation seem very unlikely.

If 1) is correct, as long as there are Jews in the world Jesus could be proved right. If 2) is correct and your reading of the signs is apt, God had better get a move on, because the generation alive in 1948 won't be for all that much longer. So it is possible Jesus didn't screw up on this, but it requires some contortions to explain. Lucky you, you're entitled to your opinion after all.

By the way, an additional question about Revelation: (It's kind of on topic, even though it's not exactly Jesus who's making the mistake.)

And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

1) Egypt is not a city.
2) The great city, by the names given it, is clearly Babylon or Rome. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

There's an easy way to solve this on a non-literal reading: the crucifixion takes place in the material world, or on the Strands as the Gita calls it, and afflicts each of us. In the Old Testament this world is called Sodom, a place of materialistic sin, and Egypt, where our divine selves are held in blind captivity and long to return to God. Hence the verse. But on a literal reading, as this verse must be approached to be consistent with the viewing of Revelation as fact, this is a class A screwup.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Any number of these renderings would make Jesus' prediction correct. Did He mean a generation now living, as you say? Or did He mean the age would not be completed until all these things had taken place? Did He means the Jewish nation would not pass away before the end?
Or did He mean the time would not be complete, until all these things take place? Using your own logic, we cannot be certain of what He meant, 2000 years later; and since there are several possibilities- only one of them which could have meant He was mistaken- don't you think you ought to re-think your position on this?

Where you begin will determine where you end up. Clearly since the second coming hasn't happened, so Jesus couldn't have meant anything that would imply it should have or he would be wrong. You must interpret the text to support a position that puts it in the future from now (2005). In fact everyone who read the words after 30 AD has had to interpret the text to put the event in the future.

Only those who are predisposed (begin as non believers) to showing errors in Jesus' words will try to spin the text to show that he predicted something that didn't happen. Jesus' actual intent is no longer relevant to those who read the text now. You say it's coming soon. If 2050 shows up and still no second coming, then believers will respin the text to point to a future time yet to be determined. As long as you can dangle bits of evidence that point to a "soon to happen" event, you can keep the faithful focused, but eventually, crying wolf no longer works and people fall away for something more promising.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Prozactly! As one Jewish general has said, "Perhaps God will send an earthquake to destroy the Dome of the Rock."

However, archaeology seems to point to the possibility that the Dome of the Rock, occupies "the profane place" in the Court of the Gentiles, on the ancient temple mount. Could both co-exist on the temple mount, if a third temple is built? I suppose it is possible. We'll see; then we'll know.

Some christians, not all, may think that the original location is to the south of the Dome of the Rock, but I haven't heard of any Jews who see it that way. And since it's jews who will building it....

 

[Quasar1011]

Some christians, not all, may think that the original location is to the south of the Dome of the Rock, but I haven't heard of any Jews who see it that way. And since it's jews who will building it....

If you follow current events, you know that there is a move underway, for the Jews to rebuild their temple. All of the artifacts needed for temple worship have been made. Priestly garments have been sown. There is even a rumour that the ark of the covenant has indeed been found, and is just awaiting the right moment for its unveiling. In any case, it is an interesting story to follow...

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you follow current events, you know that there is a move underway, for the Jews to rebuild their temple. All of the artifacts needed for temple worship have been made. Priestly garments have been sown. There is even a rumour that the ark of the covenant has indeed been found, and is just awaiting the right moment for its unveiling. In any case, it is an interesting story to follow...

And IIRC, Jews are not allowed on the Temple mount, unless accompanied by tanks.

 

[Quasar1011]

By the way, an additional question about Revelation: (It's kind of on topic, even though it's not exactly Jesus who's making the mistake.)

1) Egypt is not a city.
2) The great city, by the names given it, is clearly Babylon or Rome. Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.

You answered your own question when you quoted: Rev. 11:8 (speaking of the two prophets)"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

John the Revelator also called Rome by the code word Babylon. We know he meant Rome, because he said the city was on 7 hills. The only other great world city on 7 hills is Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; he hardly meant that one. The Book of Revelation is full of figurative language- yet, some of it is literal, as well.

 

[Quasar1011]

And IIRC, Jews are not allowed on the Temple mount, unless accompanied by tanks.

This, I have never understood. If Israel is a sovereign nation, why can't the Jews worship at their holiest place? Is it because they don't want to trigger a war, in which every Muslim country would unite against them?

 

[Birdjaguar]

This, I have never understood. If Israel is a sovereign nation, why can't the Jews worship at their holiest place? Is it because they don't want to trigger a war, in which every Muslim country would unite against them?

This will be an up and coming story I'm sure. Jews have different opinions about whether or not they can tread on the site of the Temple. The "old city" part of Jerusalem has been "protected" and left pretty undisturbed over the centuries too protect all the sacred sites located there. Nobody wants bombs going off in that area. Changing the status quo has the potential to piss off millions and millions of people (christains, muslims and Jews). It will have to be done carefully and from a position of strength. Ideally Israel would probably like Muslim leaders to "OK" the bulding of a temple. An earthquake that destroyed the old city thoroughly, would provide Israel the chance to rebuild it as they saw fit.

 

[Taliesin]

You answered your own question when you quoted: Rev. 11:8 (speaking of the two prophets)"And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified."

John the Revelator also called Rome by the code word Babylon. We know he meant Rome, because he said the city was on 7 hills. The only other great world city on 7 hills is Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; he hardly meant that one. The Book of Revelation is full of figurative language- yet, some of it is literal, as well.

1) My actual question: why does the book say Jesus was crucified in the city of Rome?
2) How is one to distinguish between the bits one is supposed to take literally and the bits one is not?

 

[Pikachu]

And careful when quoting from the bible, you're probably quoting from a badly translated one.

Yeah right, quoting the Bible is dangerous! Apparently people who don’t know Hebrew and Greek shouldn’t read the Bible at all, I suppose?

May I ask you which translations that are not badly translated? Or even better: If the ones I read include some mistranslations, maybe you could tell me what it should have been translated into? That would have been much more helpful!

And for the record: I didn’t even quote the Bible. Instead I cited where you could find the source in your favorite Bible to make it easy for you to look it up and identify my mistakes.

Anyhow, can we please all agree to stop making threads which contain slight variations on 'Does God exist?' every five seconds? It's bores the pants off the rest of us.

If you feel that way, can you please stop opening threads that include words like Jesus, God or Religion in their title? I don't understand why many people who dislike threads about religion chooses to participate in them. Maybe half the CFC users suffer from some psychological disorder that forces them participate in discussions they hate?

Because those few mistakes are a gross error, and one would be able to conclude that there are many more mistakes in the bible.

Gross errors? Could you please identify them? In this thread we have only been discussing minor errors that are totally irrelevant for the Bible’s message. What difference does it make if Zechari'ah’s father was called Barachi'ah or Jehoi'ada? I can’t see how that could possibly make any difference at all? Maybe the inaccuracies in the prophecy about “this generation” could be somewhat important, but it could also just be a minor semantic error like Quasar tried to explain.

 

[Quasar1011]

1) My actual question: why does the book say Jesus was crucified in the city of Rome?

Where does it say that?

2) How is one to distinguish between the bits one is supposed to take literally and the bits one is not?

That one verse let the reader know, the language was figurative. The general rules are:
a) identify the symbols in the Bible (there are very many)
b) try a literal reading of the verse first
c) if a literal reading of the verse does not make sense, look for figurative language, i.e., symbols
d) pray for understanding
e) look at the original languages for clues

These are not in any order. I'd do d) first.