Why I hope Jesus is wrong - Part 1

How can Jesus be wrong...his word is straight from his/our Father in heaven.

No Jesus was not wrong when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Like all God's words, these too are absolute truth. However, the elitist interpretation offered by traditional "Christianity" is as far from what Christ meant as were the interpretations of the Pharisees, about whom Jesus said much. Simply, God is love; Christ is God; love is the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by love.

Oops forgot the scripture reference - 1JN 4:1-16

Dear Donald - first, please, let me commend you wholeheartedly for the great idea! ;-) Second, we know that, according even to the traditional Christian creed, Jesus Christ was fully God AND fully Man (or, using more inclusive language, fully Human). And, as a fully Human, born in a certain time and place, with a certain background, he could well be wrong in certain things. Third, what is even more important, I'm NOT sure that Jesus in fact uttered the quoted words at all. More likely than not they reflect the beliefs of the first Christian communities... or, rather, only ONE of the first Christian communities, since the diversities between them were tremendous, especially by our measures. It is enough to compare John's Gospel with the three others (not to mention the apocrypha) to see what I mean. In fact, the Synoptics' Jesus proclaims his heavenly Father and the upcoming Kingdom, but NEVER himself... and if you read the apocalyptic passages, say, from Mt 25:31 - 46, you'll easily see that the salvation depends rather on a person's deeds and attitudes, and less of all on this person's beliefs in Jesus.

BTW, I personally liked very much Michelle's interpretation.;-)

Blessings and warm greetings from Moscow -S.

All religions have evolved over time. We see new denominations all the time. As a Christian and having published a book concerning end times prophecies, Veritas De Temporis, my ten years of research have uncovered some interesting facts.

First, almost every major religion says "Jesus will return to right all wrongs."

We should all know there are radicals in every religion that embellish or circumvent their prophet's words. We see it daily.

In my own religion, I find it interesting that we seem to pick and choose what is to be taken literally and what is to be taken symbolically or spiritually. Many times we pick and choose what Jesus meant in His words. Jesus issued His commandments on the Mount of Beatitudes but we cannot live within the confines of loving our enemy and blessing those who persecute and harm us so we adopted the Augustinian principles of war to circumvent Jesus' words so we could kill with a clear conscience and do so some how in His name.

It is the same in the other religions. Their prophet's words distorted to meet their own agenda. Tolerance somehow transformed into intolerance and then killing in the name of God, in the name of peace?

This gives us the medium for hatred and prejudice to fester until evil prevails, each claiming their side is righteous.

Even though it is written every man great and small will be given up to judgment, there are many who believe once saved always saved no matter what.

I think I can factually state that not one of us was there when Jesus spoke of salvation through Him alone. Was that all inclusive or spoken to those present? Do we know the actual words spoken and the original context as opposed to those interpreted and translated words we now read. After all even the Gospels speak differently of how Jesus reacted in the crucifixion. One says Eli, Eli why have you forsaken me. The other a peaceful I now commend my spirit.

F. E. Adkins

No, Jesus was not wrong. He is the only way to heaven, as unpolitically correct as that may be.

kinda sad.

I hope this morning finds you well, Donald.

Frankly, I find no contradiction between Jesus proclaiming that he is "I am the way and the truth and the life" and a Buddhist finding salvation. If one is to accept Jesus as God then one is also bound to accept that God can manifest his wisdom in any form that God chooses.

If Jesus chose to present himself as Buddha, then indeed, Buddhists are finding salvation through him. Reading up on Buddha, and having met many people who are native to that religion, I see a great deal of Jesus in their teaching and practice.

The Jews and early Christians, bless their hearts, were unblessed by a rather rigid literalism. They believed that God chose to manifest himself to them, which one can accept as correct, but they also insisted that God manifested himself to ONLY them.

Can you find anywhere in scripter where Jesus insists that his manifestation was a single instance, never to be repeated again in time, geography or culture?

Jesus certainly said "Only through me" but where did he say "Only through a guy named 'Jesus' who was born in Palestine in the year 0?

Interesting comments so far. Thank you.

This is in response to comments of whether Jesus comment being taken literally or not or whether he said it or not and whether he is the "the guy... born in Palestine in year 0".

This response will raise another issue and debate but that is okay; but why I take the comment literally myself is due to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. I will not get into all the particulars; as I gather people responding to this are well read enough to have already heard and read the prophecies. If not; please refer to book "Evidence that Demand a Verdict" by Josh McDowell and there is a chapter delineating the prophecies and Christ fulfillment and the odds of this being fulfilled. The guy "Jesus" is the only one I know of that fulfilled them. He is also the only one I know of that raised from the dead and ascended into heaven.

That is why I lean to the literal interpretation.

In that case maybe I should say I hope that I am wrong also?

No one is disputing the matter of fulfillment of prophecies, the question that still remains open is one of exclusivity, whether the bitter old testiment folks had a lock on salvation by being the exclusive host of God. Given their attitude and behavior, one can embrace their need for Jesus, but one can also question whether they alone needed Jesus.

It gets into some rather legalistic interpretations of scripture. If Jesus said, "Only through me" but chose to manifest himself in India through the human shell of Buddha, then indeed, a Buddhist could achieve salvation by following, the same entity, through Buddha.

In a sense, Christians (Jews, Moslems, and quite a few others) seem to be telling God what he can and cannot do, and where he can and cannot manifest his wisdom.

Seems kind of self-serving and quite un-Christ-like to me.

... So sorry to disappoint you, my dear friend, but I've read some of McDowell and can well imagine the level of his logic (or total lack of thereof). The prophesies are so vague, and can be read and interpreted in so many ways, legitimate or not, that any talk about Jesus "fulfiling" them is absolutely futile. First Christians felt something unique, special, deeply unusual in this Jesus, and no wonder that after their Easter experience (I wouldn't dwell now on the question of its historicity, but there obviously WAS an experience of some sort, and for the moment present it's enough) they tried to explain it in the terms well known to them, i.e. in terms of OT prophesies. Sorting them out, they tried to find everything that could be even remotely relevant to the Jesus they knew, and when it didn't work, they either reinterpreted the old prophesies, ascribing them the meaning they never had and never were intended to have (like it happened with the famous Isaiah's passage on "almah"), or "rewrote" Jesus' life, ascribing Him things He never did (for example, He undoubtedly wasn't born in Betlehem). So what?.. What if He even was an illegitimate child, like Celsus or the Talmud seemed to suggest? What difference does it make for me as a believer? My answer would probably surprise you, but nevertheless... no difference at all! :-) For me, a true Christian is the one for whom Jesus is the center of his/her life, and not only in theory, but in everyday practice. And for this purpose, it's not necessary to accept the Gospels as the literal historical facts. Moreover, for the Christian faith, it could be rather a hindrance than a help - fact known since the times of Origen...

Blessings and warm regards - S.

Very interesting article Donald. I appreciate your view and truly share it as well. I would prefer that Jesus were incorrect about several issues, this one included. I have several family members and friends who have died without accepting Jesus as savior and my belief is that regardless of what I wish, they do not get entrance to Heaven.

It should come as no surprise that I don't think that He is incorrect. I saw where His humanity was noted; but Jesus was not JUST man - He was uniquely God AND man. Jesus' status as the only sinless human to ever live makes comparisons to fallible humans logically invalid since none of us can can understand what it is to walk on earth and in Heaven simultaneously.

I also question the claims of Christian arrogance in part because there is some evidence that Jesus traveled to Asia and revealed Himself to people there before His ministry in Palestine began. In this regard, there is reference to a prophet named Issa who preached to Hindus, Buddhists and others in the region. This makes sense when coupled with the other known facts about Jesus' early life:

1) No mention of Him is made in the Gospels between the ages of 12 & 30
2) His earthly father Joseph was a carpenter. Carpenters were often nomadic, chasing
work across the country.
3) Taking point #2 into consideration, it seems reasonable that a strong Jew like
Joseph would take his family eastward away from the Roman occupation rather than
directly into the heart of the Roman Empire.
4) Since the last mention (in Luke's Gospel) of Jesus at the age of 12 speaks to His
awakening of who he was, it stands to reason that He would preach as He traveled.

On examination, the fact that Buddhism actually resembles Christianity in many respects lends credence to this view. And it is possible that in this respect Jesus wasn't wrong but that we are. The strength of Jesus' stances point away from that, however. Instead it would seem that He preached the necessity of a relationship with the one true God (not only from His personal viewpoint but from the typical Jewish viewpoint), advising salvation is available only through acceptance of THIS God. Inferring the prophecies of the Old Testament, His message in essence be unchanged. And regardless of what we want, that logically says that pantheistic beliefs would be categorically excluded.

Excellent job, Donald. Thank you for posing this very challenging viewpoint.

In this regard, there is reference to a prophet named Issa who preached to Hindus, Buddhists and others in the region. This makes sense when coupled with the other known facts about Jesus' early life:

Why is it so important to hang onto the thread of Judism? And the geography of Palestine?

Actually much of what we know as Christianity came from the Greeks, not the Hebrews.

That is what tradition has taught us, but it taught us these things before our culture encountered the rest of the world.

advising salvation is available only through acceptance of THIS God.

I think you are confusing THIS god with THIS manifestation of God. Why not ONE GOD, but many manifestations of THE SAME GOD.

Put bluntly, if my wife bleaches her hair blond, puts on a white blouse and speaks French, she is still my wife, though the wife that I have grown to love has brunette hair, never wears white and speaks English.

You seem to be telling God what he can and cannot do, specifically, that he CANNOT present himself to other people in the world, in other forms.

God can do whatever God pleases, and may I suggest manifesting the wisdom of God to all people of all times seems more in keeping with God than what literalists would have us believe. Why is it so necessary to put him in a box, or shall we say, a book?

Let him breathe.

Since many speak of literally believing scripture, I would like to offer some.

1Cor:12:13: For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

The foundation of the faith of Christians that refer to the "book" and hang onto this tread of Judaism is that this God promised Abraham a lasting nation; he promised David a lasting heir and Christ being from the lineage of Abraham and David was the consumation of that promise. And if he died and this was it; your points would be well taken; why would we even debate this?

But if he died and rose on the third day and ascended into heaven and said he would return again, then wouldn't that book that is said to be God's word; that being the Bible, be correct? I think you may helped me decide where I may go with part two?

I didn't mean to post so soon. As the verse before needed to be added.

12: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

The verses before and after may have merit also. Of couse, depending on how narrow one wishes to look at it to protect their own agenda or doctrine there is also the possiblity this speaks of the one body being all of mankind and God manifesting to all?

There is also the scriptures of "My Father has many mansions". Does each mansion relate to a faith? The verse above says every man, Jew or Gentile, which encompasses the whole human race drinks of the same Spirit? The Bible says "Every man is a temple of God? Many might say these things speak of Christians only, which tightens that security blankets warmly around us but the truth of these things will defined as each of us wish until Jesus Himself returns with those answers.

One very interesting example is in the book of Daniel. Daniel says to the Spirit that manifest itself to him, "How can I a servent of my Lord be speaking to you this Lord"? He defines each of them as Lord but we Christians immediately say the other was an ange.
However, given the description by the Spirit of Itself and recorded history of Babylon it was most likely Ahura Mazda the Zoroastrian God Who told Daniel his God loved him not to fear. So there is a great likelihood that our Bible speaks of God's manifestations even though we try to explain them away to meet our own doctrines.

Zoroastrianism is the oldest monotheistic religion and may outdate the Old Testament by six hundred to a thousand years. Many verses in our bible are virtually carbon copies of the writings in the Avesta. It too states and The Prophet, pure as water will "return" to right all wrongs in the last millennium. Interestingly, it also says that in that time a race of anger will come forth to conquer in the middle east and that army will have no roots in the nation it comes from.

It is written the mysteries of God will be revealed when Jesus returns. So, I don't think anyone knows all these things absolutely. It is written is some prophecies that all the religions have evolved away from the teachings of the prophets so all will be set aside when Jesus returns with the "Truth and the Way".

F. E. Adkins

"depending on how narrow one wishes to look at it to protect their own agenda or doctrine"

Context is definitely everything. Not just from the Bible, but other areas of learning. Then comes interpretation. That is what makes for some interesting debate.

Thanks to everyone so far for their responses. I am eager to re-read and digest what others are saying.

Interesting responses.

Greg,
I don't see Donald (or any Bible believing Christian - and how can there be any other kind?) as telling God what He can do - God is stating His own position through the Bible. Any attempt to dilute or change that by redirecting it elsewhere seems to be a violation of of His own words (through the Apostle John) not to add or take away anything from this Word. As far as the knowledge coming from the Greeks, that is largely due to the missionary efforts of Saul/Paul of Tarsus, Barnabas, Timothy and many others who spread the word to 1st Century Gentiles. Remember that in the Jews' vision, the Meshaich (Christos) was to come FROM the Jewish people SOLELY FOR the Jewish people. Some of Jesus' closest followers, including Simon Peter and Jesus' half-brother James (an unbeliever until after the resurrection) held closely to this belief until the Council at Jerusalem recorded by the Greek physician Luke in the Book of Acts, chapter 15. As for your final question as to why God would do that, I have to admit that I don't fully know. I don't believe anyone does - and in my opinion anyone who says they do know exactly what God would do is either in deep denial or delusional. But God's ways are not our ways and the mind and logic of God are far superior to humanity. And that is the purpose of the Bible - to provide some insight into what God does and why. So why is it that we believe that we can out-think God and make better choices than He? Is that not a much more disastrous form of arrogance in itself? Yet we all do so on a regular basis. Human nature caused the fall and maintains the rift.


F. E.,
Good points, especially in the area of Zoroastrianism. It is widely accepted by Biblical scholars that the Magi were Zoroastrian priests who foresaw the coming of Jesus and traveled on a pilgrimage to meet Him. The pity is that they seem to have stopped at that point and ceased to believe that He was the means unto God's end. I agree that the mystery will be revealed when Jesus returns. But I can't agree that every view is the same. There has to be a standard of truth from which God speaks. If we assume that all are equally valid then we have to assume that you are correct in your assertion that none are. But I don't accept that supposition either. That is why faith remains the key component of this discussion. Logically, a religion that does not require faith in Jesus as savior means that His life and crucifixion were a waste. And that implies that God made a mistake. But if God made a mistake, He can't be God. The alternate to that is to believe that Jesus was not who He claimed to be and that undermines the whole of Christian belief - although a very popular and politically correct position these days.

I don't see Donald (or any Bible believing Christian - and how can there be any other kind?) as telling God what He can do - God is stating His own position through the Bible.

Are you suggesting that God is stating his position ONLY through the Bible? Are you suggesting that the ONLY manifestation of God is through the Bible and only through one and only one aramaic speaking body named Jesus?

Where in the Bible does Jesus say this?

We know he says "No one comes to the Father except through me." but we have interpreted this to mean "No one comes to the Father except through Jesus." He did not say that, now did he?

One can easily interpret this as saying "No one comes to the Father except through the son of God." Christians believe that the son of God was Jesus, but what justification do they have for believing that the son of God ONLY manifested himself through Jesus?

In response to Michelle R who wrote an article 'inspired' by yours.

It seems to me you are passing the generic human hope that there does not exist a Holy God...and there will not be a judgment for refusing to accept HIM by dismissing the entire truth that was presented in the Bible...SIN separates us from God and leaves us to our own best efforts to make due. We are doomed to fall far short.

I will site Strong's from before it was "adapted" by the later NIV translation committees (his original works):

metanoia
met-an'-oy-ah
From G3340; (subjectively) compunction (for guilt, including reformation); by implication reversal (of [another's] decision): - repentance.

An even better definition is provided by Websters 1828 Dictionary, which used Biblical (KJV) words for defininitions. NOTE the SIN element.

1. Sorrow for any thing done or said; the pain or grief which a person experiences in consequence of the injury or inconvenience produced by his own conduct.

2. In theology, the pain, regret or affliction which a person feels on account of his past conduct, because it exposes him to punishment. This sorrow proceeding merely from the fear of punishment, is called legal repentance, as being excited by the terrors of legal penalties, and it may exist without an amendment of life.

3. Real penitence; sorrow or deep contrition for sin, as an offense and dishonor to God, a violation of his holy law, and the basest ingratitude towards a Being of infinite benevolence. This is called evangelical repentance, and is accompanied and followed by amendment of life.

Repentance is a change of mind, or a conversion from sin to God.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Cor 7. Mat 3.

Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice, from conviction that it has offended God.

I also suggest you look to the surrounding verses of the one you originally cited for further confirmation that yes, we serve an All-Loving, All-Knowing, All-Powerful God; but one that is Just in passing judgment involving our Personal relationship with Him and He can not see or tolerate SIN.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
2Pe 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
2Pe 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever. Amen.

Look at Romans 10:9-10 (TNT Gospel) . "Your love all" is not good enough for the God of the Bible.


It will work as a Buddhist, Hindu, Catholic (and a few checks to have someone purchase your soul out of purgatory) and Jewish. if you just follow the 225 Laws, knowing that to break one is to break them all and thus SIN towards God and every other religion, Mainstream and Outer Limits (Christian Scientists). Muslims require ONLY you follow the "Religion of Peace" and surrender your rights to Allah, a impotent Moon god.

Think hard about those that will stand at the Judgment Seat and try your approach...

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Few Christians?

Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

(My bolds).

"It seems to me you are passing the generic human hope that there does not exist a Holy God...and there will not be a judgment for refusing to accept HIM by dismissing the entire truth that was presented in the Bible..."

I have to respond to this as what I consider harshly judgemental from Grateful 1. Before you judge me; which you seem to be doing, perhaps you should read other articles I have written and my responses. And perhaps you should also read some of the subjects Jesus shared regarding judging others - Matthew 7.1-5.

My article and title is not a generic hope that there is not a holy God and that his son is Jesus who died for me; again read my responses to others. This is intended to provoke thought on some things Jesus said and will be a series that I will do at least weekly.

And there are are lot of things that I wished Jesus did not say. I do take the Bible literally in most respects; guilty for those that have accused me of this and I do believe that Jesus did say the things referenced in the Bible. And many of his saying are hard to follow; he said they would be for the Christian. But like Peter, even when they are hard to follow, and even if I wish some of the things he said were not true, I must come to Peter's great conclusion when Jesus asked if they too would turn away in John 6 when many others turned away from following Jesus:

68 Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."

I appreciate your fervor and knowlege Grateful 1; but I think you might season your conversation with salt and look at not only the scripture in context but the person in context before judging them.

"Are you suggesting that God is stating his position ONLY through the Bible? Are you suggesting that the ONLY manifestation of God is through the Bible and only through one and only one aramaic speaking body named Jesus?"

Greg, I have posed a theoretical situation in my mind related to if God did create all this world and universe; what if he created hundreds or thousands of earths and galaxies and populated those earths with people like us. I know that I am not the first to think of this, and in fact Dean Koontz has written some good fictional books on parallel universes.

My conclusion always comes back to a passage in John 3 focus on the famous verse 16:

16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]

My conclusion has been that "he gave his one and only Son"? To me in context of this verse and the rest of the Bible, it was a one shot deal. He would not do it again in another universe or this universe and would not expect his son to go through it again.

Right or wrong; until proven otherwise that is where my conclusions and study thus far have led me. So if that conclusion is that this manifestation of God's salvation being this itinerant Jewish rabbi that was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and died for the salvation of all mankind at Calvary would apply to all the universe and any possible universe; I guess the conclusion is that yes it would apply to this little planet we call home.

Donald - well stated.

"this manifestation of God's salvation being this itinerant Jewish rabbi that was born of a virgin in Bethlehem and died for the salvation of all mankind at Calvary would apply to all the universe and any possible universe"

my cats breath smells like cat food

Donald:
The first was response more to the article posted by Michelle R.: MY bad to have just cut and pasted it here.

I reread your article and have properly perceived your tone. I responded more to the title than the content and now realize you were speaking for all those that have come to base their eternal fate on sand, NOT rock.

So, you were entirely right in your chastisement "... but the person in context before judging them."

I sincerely apologize to you...(but stand firm as a response to Michelle's article). And I pray I went a long way to support YOUR thesis?

Joseph: "my cats breath smells like cat food

Do you mean to say that statement reflects a fact to you as does Donald's?

Thanks Grateful 1.

no, i mean what a waste of time and energy

If it were truly a waste, why would you be here? Do you not have better things to do than to submit yourself to read about something you disagree with simply for the sake of disagreeing? I have to doubt that. So I think there is a reason you are drawn - the same reason we all are drawn - because we have questions that demand answers and the traditional human answers are unsatisfactory. So we are driven deeper to find the core - the real answer. Glad to see you are still seeking for truth. I pray you find it.

It seems to be one of those chicken and egg questions. It all depends on which part of the bible you read because it often seems to be contradictory. For this to be right you have to see Jesus and God as one entitity because then by embracing either one, you are embracing both