Could Jesus make a mistake? (A new thread)

  • Thread starter Thread starter JDaniel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Neofight said:
Nice posting, giving cause for thought.

I’m fascinated by the responses, especially the most outraged. Faith and doubt are funny things. Doubt is not a sign of weak faith, but a sign of a healthy faith.

However, in my experience, those outraged by statements that are contrary to their spirtual paradigm, are the ones with frail faith.

Pax
Click to expand...
Neofight, you mentioned,
" Faith and doubt are funny things. Doubt is not a sign of weak faith, but a sign of a healthy faith."

For those who don’t know the two different kinds of doubt, I would like to clearify this so that doubt is understood in the right way.

The healthy kind of doubt is when a person believes a revealed truth, but then doubt or confusion happens when it seems impossible or very unlikely. The mind then accepts the truth without doubt, but it seeks a better understanding of that faith truth.

The unhealthy kind of doubt is when a person of faith hears a revealed truth but dosen’t believe it until the truth can be proven not to be wrong. That is the wrong kind of doubt.

For example, purgatory, is a church teaching which the faithful are required to believe as true.

One person may say, I accept this truth as true, but I don’t see why or how it could true. So they pursue a better understanding of this teaching. ok.(healthy doubt)

Another person of the faith will not accept purgatory until it is shown as true. not ok.

This applies to those already in the faith, not those outside investigating the faith. For they are still seeking the truth itself in a battlefield of confusion.

Just a thought.
 
sllhouette said:
Oh wow… your deacon is reading Gnostic texts… ok…

The Church does not just simply dismiss these writings, it outright calls them hearsay. They were not written by Christians. Gnostic texts have no more Truth in them than the book of Mormon… That is to say, we cannot trust the authority writing the text therefore we cannot trust the text itself.
Click to expand...
When you study theology and scripture- you need to read other things than the canonical scriptures. Whether they are canonical or not, it is important to know the intellectual climate in which early Christianity developed.

The problem, IMO, is people who read *about * the Gnostic scriptures without actually really reading them, or people who read them in a prejudiced way. Most of them are so fragmentary that little sense can be made of them. The most complete collection is Nag Hammadi.

The scriptures that contain the far-fetched miracles are not really Gnostic (I would say the Gnostics cared primarily about cryptic sayings of Jesus, not so much miracles), but basically, written in the genre of legends- these are generally much later, like the 4th or 5th Century. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic. Some of the non-Canonical writings, like the Proto-Gospel of James, contain things like the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the names of the parents of Mary.

A deacon in formation should read everything he can lay his hands on- and I would be disappointed if a serious theology student was not intimately familiar with Gnostic, Stoic, Platonic writings, as well as many others, and even more intimately familiar with the Canonical Scriptures.

Now, I’m willing to push the boundaries of orthodoxy in theological and philosophical discussion, but I feel it is a serious and heretical error to say the Jesus could not make mistakes. It amounts to docestism. To err is human- to say Jesus could not make mistakes is to deny His humanity (I don’t mean moral mistakes, but physical failures or mental slips).

And what’s more, people are making this most basic of theological errors- and asserting it as if they are absolutely confident of what they are saying. According to orthodox theology- Jesus was fully human, and therefore had every human weakness (including capacity to make mistakes), except sin.
 
In answer to the question in the thread,“Could Jesus make a mistake?”

We know from revealed truth that Jesus is the son of God, and therefore God.
A mistake occurs because of an error in perception.
God knows all things, and therefore he could not make an error in perception or a mistake.

For example, the JW’s, say that at the end of the world:
144,000 will be with God,
Members in the JW will continue to live forever in this world renewed.
The remaining billions will be annihilated.<========

Since God is all good and nothing in him is bad, He is incapable of creating anything evil. Therefore everything he created is good.
God is also all knowing, and incapable of making a mistake,which is error, perceiving wrongly.
Therefore without mistake in his judgement, there is no reason to erase the existence of anything created good.
Since the billions being annihilated are good, that would be saying that God made billions of mistakes.

And if the argument is that we have become evil, or a mistake, and are worthy of erasure from existence, God allows things and people to change which is a part of nature but their core existence remains unchanged, and that is good. And the mistake or evil God did not make, but rather the person or angel made the mistake.

Therefore the words “it would have been better had that man not been born”
were not said as “it would be better for that man to be annihilated.”

Just a few thoughts.
 
Godmachine said:
I’ve been searching for the truth for a loooong time. I’ve met a lot of folks over the years who claim to know or possess the truth. I’ve never met anyone who actually does.
Click to expand...
That implies you know the truth. Otherwise how would you know no one else does?
 
I want a little clarification here.

What exactly is a mistake?

Is it an error in judgement? Or is it something more innocuous like stubbing a toe or tripping over your own feet?

As God, I do not believe he would make an error in judgement.

But I also believe that he took on human frailty and as such was well within his own capabilities of tripping and falling.
If we wish to classify such gaffes as mistakes, then I believe scripture indicates that he fell on a few different occasions.
 
vz71 said:
I want a little clarification here.

What exactly is a mistake?

Is it an error in judgement? Or is it something more innocuous like stubbing a toe or tripping over your own feet?

As God, I do not believe he would make an error in judgement.

But I also believe that he took on human frailty and as such was well within his own capabilities of tripping and falling.
If we wish to classify such gaffes as mistakes, then I believe scripture indicates that he fell on a few different occasions.
Click to expand...
VZ:

From the Oxford Online Dictionary:

noun
an action or judgment that is misguided or wrong:

coming here was a mistake

she made the mistake of thinking they were important
something, especially a word, figure, or fact, that is not correct; an inaccuracy:

*a couple of spelling mistakes *

verb
(past mistook; past participle mistaken)[with object]be wrong about:

because I was inexperienced, I mistook the nature of our relationship
(mistake someone/something for)

wrongly identify someone or something as:
she thought he’d mistaken her for someone else

God bless,
jd
 
We should ask the question “Can God make a mistake”? The answer is obviously a no. Because Jesus is God he can not make a mistake nor could he ever have.
 
sllhouette said:
We should ask the question “Can God make a mistake”? The answer is obviously a no. Because Jesus is God he can not make a mistake nor could he ever have.
Click to expand...
Silhouette:

Even at 3 years old?

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Even at 3 years old?
Click to expand...
Catechism 475:
Similarly, at the sixth ecumenical council, Constantinople III in 681, the Church confessed that Christ possesses two wills and two natural operations, divine and human. They are not opposed to each other, but cooperate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation. Christ’s human will “does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will.”
Click to expand...
Christ’s human nature is fully human and therefore develops over time. But he also has a divine nature. That divine nature makes no mistakes.

The words of the council of Chalcedon in 451 might be useful as well:
Code: 
  We confess one and the same Christ, the Son and Lord, the only-begotten, Who exists in two natures, without admixture, without change, without division, without separation. The difference of natures was never annulled through the union; rather the special property of each nature is preserved as the two come together into person or hypostasis.
  We confess, not one separated and mutilated into two persons, but one and the same only-begotten Son, the divine Word, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
So no. The Three year old Christ made no mistakes.
 
sllhouette said:
Christ’s human nature is fully human and therefore develops over time. But he also has a divine nature. That divine nature makes no mistakes.

The words of the council of Chalcedon in 451 might be useful as well:

So no. The Three year old Christ made no mistakes.
Click to expand...
I’m trying to envision a 2-1/2 yo talking not just like a “grown up man,” but rather, the most extraordinary grown up man the world has ever seen. Also, if Christ’s human knowledge was developmental, then so was His body and its attributes. You don’t think there was ever a “time” when Christ was a mere baby?

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
Yesterday, I arrived early for Mass. While standing in the narthex about 30 minutes before Mass time, I was conversing with two people: one a Deacon and the other, a friend of mine who is just finishing up his 5-year study to become a Deacon. I, trouble-maker that I am, brought up this question. To my surprise, the answers I got were anything but settling! My friend, the not-yet-deacon told me that, during his studies, he read many writings, some Gnostic, some not, about the life of our young Jesus Christ. There are a couple of supposedly corroborated stories that Jesus, when teased by other children, would kill them. His Mom, the Holy Mother, would scold Him, and Jesus would bring the other kids back to life. Of course, these stories are excluded from our accepted compendium of writings.

About that time, the young man who is a Deacon, walked up and entered into the conversation, since he wanted to meet us. He said that he had read of times when Jesus would pick up clay statues of pigeons and breathe life into them. I could see that these stories were expected not to be taken too seriously. But, I could also see that that was like a judge telling a jury to disregard an incriminating prior statement from a witness. They were unable to disregard those stories - despite the non-acceptance of such writings by the Church.

Now, one could simply dismiss them, as we are wont to do. But, there are many such writings, not just a few. And these men, who I have no reason to suspect of dishonesty or chicanery, were very forthright. Still, I/we have no idea whether the writings are true. Also, the re-telling of these stories is second-hand. I did not first-hand see the documents.

How would knowledge like this affect your Faith? I’ll tell you how it affects mine, but you first!

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
I have heard the stories you have quoted prior to reading this, and my faith hasn’t been shaken one bit. But let’s consider a few things. Jesus was fully human, and as such, probably did a few human things. I don’t know much about the games of the day, but I’m sure he played and had friends and acted in a way most kids act. I don’t think it’s blasphemous to think of Jesus doing things that most kids do, maybe playing a joke on a buddy or being silly with his parents. In some ways, it actually brings me a little closer to him because I know that he REALLY shared in my humanity with me.
 
Shannon9791 said:
I have heard the stories you have quoted prior to reading this, and my faith hasn’t been shaken one bit. But let’s consider a few things. Jesus was fully human, and as such, probably did a few human things. I don’t know much about the games of the day, but I’m sure he played and had friends and acted in a way most kids act. I don’t think it’s blasphemous to think of Jesus doing things that most kids do, maybe playing a joke on a buddy or being silly with his parents. In some ways, it actually brings me a little closer to him because I know that he REALLY shared in my humanity with me.
Click to expand...
👍 Jesus certainly had a sense of humour!
 
JDaniel said:
Silhouette:

Even at 3 years old?

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Even at 3 years old. Mistake implies that one does something imperfectly or wrongly. Jesus was (and I have seen this written and taught) a perfect man. How could He do something not perfect?

And again, does the fact that a human being have the CAPACITY to make mistakes imply that a human MUST make a mistake in order to be human?

I don’t believe so.

And you know, knowing that Jesus (and Mary) were perfect and did not make mistakes does not make me feel that they are somehow ‘not as’ human as I am (having made plenty of mistakes). It makes me feel like trying harder NOT to make mistakes, though not beating myself up over ‘spilled milk’.

And no, I don’t think that spilling milk is a mistake, necessarily, on the part of a child. If a person gives a young child (especially a boy) a cup, and the boy spills the cup, it isn’t necessarily the child who made the mistake. Expecting say a 15 month old male child to have the fine motor coordination to raise a cup without spilling, especially if somebody filled the cup too high, would be expecting a developmental stage that this child probably would not meet. So if anybody makes a mistake in giving a child a cup which he spills, in the case above it would not be the child who made the mistake.

So, could Jesus as a toddler have dropped a cup? Spilled food? Stumbled? If so, was it JESUS who was responsible or the person who gave him too heavy a cup for his infant hand to hold, or who stuck a foot (accidentally) in His way. Just as the adult Jesus FELL during his walk to the Cross, it was because the soldiers imposed on him a task which His scourged and beaten body found at intervals too hard for his muscles to bear. Jesus didn’t just stumble over His feet (the way I often do after sitting for a bout of knitting and running to get the telephone). He stumbled the way that any human would whose muscles had reached the breaking point. If any of us were carrying that cross after being beaten the way Jesus had been, assuming that we even survived such a beating, we would fall too, and not because of a mistake.
 
JDaniel said:
I’m trying to envision a 2-1/2 yo talking not just like a “grown up man,” but rather, the most extraordinary grown up man the world has ever seen. Also, if Christ’s human knowledge was developmental, then so was His body and its attributes. You don’t think there was ever a “time” when Christ was a mere baby?

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
What do you mean by a 'mere baby"? Christ is both human and divine. You don’t think that a baby who happened to be God almighty would be something more than ‘mere’ baby? Or do you think there was a point where Christ’s humanity (say his babyhood) was ‘greater’ than His divinity? I don’t think so.

I do picture Christ as being a human being (who also happened to be God). But I don’t think that remembering the balance (He is both God and man, not ‘only God’ and not ‘only man’) somehow dehumanizes Him. I don’t think that I have to bring Him down to being a ‘mere’ anything in order to make Him ‘equal’ to me. He’s never going to be ‘equal’; He is always going to be greater. . .and that’s FINE.
 
JDaniel said:
I’m trying to envision a 2-1/2 yo talking not just like a “grown up man,” but rather, the most extraordinary grown up man the world has ever seen. Also, if Christ’s human knowledge was developmental, then so was His body and its attributes. You don’t think there was ever a “time” when Christ was a mere baby?

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
I am uncertain why it would be a mistake to act your age.

Based on the definition provided, a mistake is an error in judgement.
A 2 year old speaking and acting like a 2 year old is not a mistake, nor is it sinful.
 
vz71 said:
I am uncertain why it would be a mistake to act your age.
Click to expand...
VZ:

Do 2½ year old human beings do and say EVERYTHING right?
Based on the definition provided, a mistake is an error in judgement.
Click to expand...
A 2½ yo that walks out onto the road in front of his house into the path of someone riding fast on a horse, is that not a mistake? Or, He might have fallen from a tree. Of course, to our knowledge those things didn’t happen to tiny Jesus, but, similar sorts of things might have. Don’t you think?

God bless,
jd
 
JDaniel said:
VZ:

Do 2½ year old human beings do and say EVERYTHING right?

A 2½ yo that walks out onto the road in front of his house into the path of someone riding fast on a horse, is that not a mistake? Or, He might have fallen from a tree. Of course, to our knowledge those things didn’t happen to tiny Jesus, but, similar sorts of things might have. Don’t you think?

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
Right according to WHOM?

I think you might want to take a look at something like a developmental psychology text. You are attempting to place the judgment of an adult being into the mind/development of a 2-1/2 year old child. So no, a child walking into the path of a fast riding horseman is not ‘making a mistake’. According to the child’s understanding he is doing something perfectly normal and ‘right’ --and hey, doesn’t the fast moving RIDER (an adult, presumably) have some kind of responsibility?

Ultimately it seems to me that your problem is twofold --a lack of understanding of what a ‘mistake’ is, and a lack of understanding of human development.

A child who is learning to walk is going to fall. . .not because he MAKES MISTAKES but because he is attempting to perform an entirely new action which his muscles and brain and balance have not been prepared for. A child who is learning to talk is going to lisp because his palate growth is not yet ready to handle certain sounds. Also, child just learning to speak at first mimic the speech of adults (another good reason not to talk ‘baby talk’ to them). That’s why a 3 year old often makes fewer ‘errors’ than a 4 year old. The 3 year old remembers that his parents (ideally) use the phrase “He and I went down to the store” and thus in his own speech about his brother will say, "he and I went into the yard’ while a 4-year-old is actually trying to figure out speech patterns on his OWN and instead will say, "him and me went into the yard’. Those are not mistakes but are logical outcomes of children learning a rather complicated language with many ‘exceptions’.

I’ll repeat, I believe your problem is that you are assuming that normal development in a child where it falls ‘short’ of those activities done by adults means the children are ‘making mistakes’. . .but that is in fact not the case.
 
I would say being a “perfect human” means being “perfectly human”- i.e. with human weaknesses, etc.

I doubt that the boy (or even the man) Jesus could do caculus of speak Chinese. I bet He got tired, hungry, maybe even frustrated (these things seem to be in the Gospel). Yet He is God. This is the MYSTERY and SACRIFICE of the Incarnation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top