Questions for those who know Jesus

[Bootless]

Slight issue with the last answer, the kingdom of heaven is a monarchy.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven"

"as above, so below" 

Seems to me Jesus would promote monarchic rule here on Earth.

The kicker is that a lot of communists could find inspiration in his ethics.

You have established that "It's not evil to question religious beliefs." in post #26.

We are now getting to the crux of why I started this thread. I am on a quest to redefine what sanctification of the mundane should mean. Sanctification means to make sacred. Mundane means present World. I would like sanctification of the mundane to mean, regard the present earthly life to be sacred.

That's why I quoted the Story of Jesus in the House of Martha and Mary in post #10.

The whole "as above, so below" would tend to disappear from consideration if modern cosmology indicates that there is no sacred "up there" either from the above the firmament or from some outer ring around the Earth to come "down to Earth".

So, if it is not evil to question religious beliefs, is it also not evil to question the cult figure about whom a religion is focused?

[andy06shake]

A regular human couldn't.
But this is God incarnate we are talking about.
Who showed His power throughout his adult life.
Who knew the secret thoughts of people and their hearts and souls.
Who defied physics and performed great deeds that defy nature.
So IF THE GOSPEL is correct that He is God incarnate, 
then it would be sheer lunacy to believe that He could not speak all languages.

If the gospels are wrong about Him being God ... then never mind.

He died like a regular Human(aside from the resurrection part, which is also questionable), probably lived like one as well, if we are honest.

Then there is the connection to Mary Magdalene, the Holly Roman Church of St Peter likes to paint as a whore. 

Jesus was probably just as imperfect as the rest of us. 

And that does not diminish the message or take anything away imho. 

[FlyersFan]

Dude was probably just as imperfect as the rest of us. 

If that's the case then He isn't God incarnate and the entire New Testament is a lie.
And so are all the spin off fakes (gnostic gospels) that were written 250 years later.

You gave Him not knowing when He'd return as an example of Him not being God.
That can be explained theologically.
The REAL problem in the New Testament is the quote where Jesus talks about Noah.
We know for a fact that Noahs Ark didn't happen.  
There was no world wide flood killing everyone except 8 human beings on a boat.

Matthew 24:37-39
 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, [sup] [/sup]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So ... we have three choices ...

1 - Jesus didn't say this.  It was written by others and claimed to have been said by Jesus.  If this is the case then the entire New Testament is suspect and not known if it's accurate.

2 - Jesus said it and believed Noahs Ark happened.  This would mean that Jesus got things wrong and isn't God incarnate, or that He got it wrong and was subject to error as a human meaning everything He said is suspect (which would go against the entire reason for Him coming)

3 - Jesus said it but was only using a reference that people could understand and He wasn't saying that it actually happened but was instead teaching about something else and using the story as an example.

Choices one and two kill Christianity.   
Choice three is the only one that keeps it afloat.
Problematic.

[UltraBudgie]

Getting back to the original topic and the questions posed therein.

Matthew 4:7-8

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Now, isn't this Flat Earth doctrine? How could one see all the kingdoms of the world, from the top of any mountain, even an 'exceeding high' one? Wouldn't that imply no curvature?

[BeTheGoddess]

Oh okay. All good.

Hopefully we'll get a fun Flat-Earth-Jesus thread going!

Flat earth B-side 45 min drum solo.

Tinfoil us: Maybe the moon landing was fake
Flat earthers: noooo the whole moon is fake
Idiots: we need to hear both sides.

you know where Im coming from

ETA: https://youtu.be/sBW8Vnp8BzU?si=iW6aMjqdMAhF4O2G

[andy06shake]

If that's the case then He isn't God incarnate and the entire New Testament is a lie.
And so are all the spin off fakes (gnostic gospels) that were written 250 years later.

You gave Him not knowing when He'd return as an example of Him not being God.
That can be explained theologically.
The REAL problem in the New Testament is the quote where Jesus talks about Noah.
We know for a fact that Noahs Ark didn't happen.  
There was no world wide flood killing everyone except 8 human beings on a boat.

Matthew 24:37-39
 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.  For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, [sup] [/sup]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

So ... we have three choices ...

1 - Jesus didn't say this.  It was written by others and claimed to have been said by Jesus.  If this is the case then the entire New Testament is suspect and not known if it's accurate.

2 - Jesus said it and believed Noahs Ark happened.  This would mean that Jesus got things wrong and isn't God incarnate, or that He got it wrong and was subject to error as a human meaning everything He said is suspect (which would go against the entire reason for Him coming)

3 - Jesus said it but was only using a reference that people could understand and He wasn't saying that it actually happened but was instead teaching about something else and using the story as an example.

Choices one and two kill Christianity.   
Choice three is the only one that keeps it afloat.
Problematic.

Christianity doesn't depend on a global flood’s historicity.

Which is handy, because as you well know, there is no scientific evidence of a global flood covering the entire Earth as described in Noah's story.

Even accounting for the ice age melt around the end of the Pleistocene. 

It doesn't need to be all wrong, but it can't all be correct.

Your three choices are an oversimplification.

Jesus was a man, that much we can be sure of, and men are imperfect creatures...............

As to problematic, i imagine 2000 odd years creates lots of those.

[Bootless]

1 - Being God incarnate He understood all languages.  He could write because he wrote in the dirt when people were trying to stone a woman to death.  But he left nothing behind that is written by Him.

2 - There is nothing about what Jesus may or  may not have said about 'the firmament'.   Being God incarnate, He wouldn't have 'believed' something .. he would have KNOWN everything.

3 - Same answer as #2.  Nothing was written about what, if anything, he may or may not have said about Geocentrism.  Considering He came for spiritual reasons, I doubt if He said anything on this at all.  

4 - He didn't have 'ideas of heaven' ... He had personal knowledge of it.  He came down from Heaven.  

5 - Jesus didn't speak about government.  He didn't come for that.  He came for spiritual reasons.

On 4) There are many instances in the Gospel of John wherein he speaks of having been in heaven, or coming from heaven, or having learned things in heaven. Are there other places in the gospels where he talks like that?

I was reading a post by someone a few days ago, for some reason I thought of Hebrews chapter 7.

1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High.a He met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham apportioned to him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness.” Then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” 3Without father or mother or genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God, he remains a priest for all time.
4Consider how great Melchizedek was: Even the patriarch Abraham gave him a tenth of the plunder. 5Now the law commands the sons of Levi who become priests to collect a tenth from the people—that is, from their brothers—though they too are descended from Abraham. 6But Melchizedek, who did not trace his descent from Levi, collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7And indisputably, the lesser is blessed by the greater.

BSB

We know that 14th Century BC Jerusalem was known as Urusalim from Egyptian texts, meaning "City of Shalem" after a Canaanite deity, the god of dusk. This Melchizedek was priest of El Elyon.

The writer of Hebrews seems to think this Melchizedek is immortal, like not human born. Greater than Abraham.

Do you think that the author of John and the author of Hebrews shared a common notion of Melchizedek? 
John 8:58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 
Did John's version of Jesus think that he was Melchizedek?

[quintessentone]

Getting back to the original topic and the questions posed therein.

Matthew 4:7-8

Now, isn't this Flat Earth doctrine? How could one see all the kingdoms of the world, from the top of any mountain, even an 'exceeding high' one? Wouldn't that imply no curvature?

We need a definition of what they meant by 'world'?

[Bootless]

Jesus, The Lost Years: Ages 12 To 29 | Tom Rapsas

"While the historical accuracy of Saint Issa's life as presented by Notovitch remains highly contested, the figure symbolizes a bridge between Eastern and Western spiritual traditions, inviting exploration into the broader context of Jesus' teachings and their potential influences from various cultures. The story of Saint Issa continues to be a subject of interest for those exploring the intersections of religion, history, and spirituality." (AI)

If people want to read Notovitch, that's okay if you think Notovich knew something that you don't. But:

The philologist Max Müller expressed incredulity at Notovitch's account and suggested that either the author was the victim of a practical joke or had fabricated the evidence, writing: "Taking it for granted that M. Notovitch is ... not a liar, we cannot help thinking that the Buddhist monks of Ladakh and Tibet must be wags, who enjoy mystifying inquisitive travelers, and that M. Notovitch fell far too easy a victim to their jokes." Müller then wrote to the head lama at Hemis Monastery to ask about Notovitch's story. The head lama replied that there had been no Western visitor at the monastery in the previous 15 years, during which time he had been the head lama, and that there was no such manuscript. J. Archibald Douglas, who was a professor of English and History at the Government College in Agra, visited the monastery in 1895 to interview the head lama, who again stated that Notovitch had never been there and that no such writings existed.

Wikipedia

The library of pseudepigrapha is vast. The value is in what is written, not the alleged source.

[quintessentone]

If people want to read Notovitch, that's okay if you think Notovich knew something that you don't. But:

The library of pseudepigrapha is vast. The value is in what is written, not the alleged source.

It's not who knows what, it's studying Jesus' teachings from various sources to make a determination whether or not those teachings are feasible to his ministry, especially the ones left out of one book, which leaves gaping holes in understanding the complete meaning and scope of his messaging.