Did Jesus lie ?

If god doesn't exist then a lot of the stuff Jesus said was a lie.If Jesus really was the son of god then they weren't lies.There's no way to know for sure. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

I think you're reading the Bible too literally. Yeah, right. He spoke about a deep philosophical and theological death a lot of times. Or admittedly never if he wasmaking it all up.If you want to be ultra-literal about it then we could argue that some of them wouldn't have tasted anything when they died, so Jesus wasn't lying in that they wouldn't have tasted death I can't tell if your being serious or playing devil's advocate. I realize your an atheist but you seem to be trying to have some fun with christians by calling Jesus a lier.

I didn't meant to claim that a son of god is unable to lie. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Yeah, and Pilot and the Phariasees, IIRC. Poison if they died that way. Or blood, or vomit. Whatever people might tast while dying. Well, enjoy yourself.

Like, when Jesus said that he was the son of god. If there is no god then he was lying, or crazy, but he could have been telling the truth, especially if there really is a god. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

Maybe he was being misleading on purpose so they thought he was claiming something more immediate so they would assign more weight to the claim. We're getting closer to lying here but still not there. Maybe he was just far out, man. Maybe he was being honest and deep, without trying to be misleading, and the people really didn't have a clue what he was on about. The people who were physically there, yes they are dead as in no longer alive. Spiritual death.

I lost my faith for some time. I reread a lot of the new testament with no preconceived notions and I honestly believe Jesus.I think you read the Bible with the preconceived notion that we was a liar.I also think its possible for people to read the Bible without preconceived notions and see that what Jesus said was truth and that he did not lie. Edited by AdminPD, : Off Topic Warning

quote:

---

Mt 16:28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

---

Sounds good.I don't even know what I'm typing about anymore. Me and Brian were typing about death. I should think before I type. Actually, I should probably just get back to work and stop slacking on the internet. Especially if I'm posting complete bullshit.

... I think what Legend was saying that is making this interpretation unreasonable is why would Jesus say that only some of them would live (not taste death) when the transfiguration was only six days away.

Assuming he only took three of them to see the transfiguration and thats what he meant by the comming of his kingdom, then the rest of them did not see him comming into his kingdom and they have died. So, most of them tasted death before seeing the comming of his kingdom (the transfiguration) because they never saw it at all. When Jesus said some of them wouldn't taste death before they saw the comming of the kingdom, maybe he was saying that only some of them would see the tranfiguration (which is what happened) and the whole part about death wasn't the point, because it was only six days away. The point was that only some of them would see the transfiguration, not that some of them wouldn't die.Does that make sense?

I wrote about this in Message 136

quote:

---

When Jesus said some of them wouldn't taste death before they saw the comming of the kingdom, maybe he was saying that only some of them would see the tranfiguration (which is what happened) and the whole part about death wasn't the point, because it was only six days away. The point was that only some of them would see it, not that some of them would or wouldn't die.

---

I changed it a little.

quote:

---

Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.
source

---

I think calling exegesis, 'pretending the bible says something else', is a little off. I also think that is how the Bible is suppose to be read. I can understand why you disagree with your idea of what exegesis is: but adding stuff to the Bible, or making stuff up is different than a critical interpretation. Do you think its not OK to read the Bible critically? Should we read it literally?Whats your non-critical interpretation of the following verse:

quote:

---

If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it.

---

Whoever loses there life for Jesus will find it? That dosen't even make sense without a critical interpretation. Yeah but Jesus spoke in parables and used figurative language all the time. That's just the way he explained things. I think we are suppose interpret him critically, but I wouldn't call it 'pretending the bible says something else'.

Yes, thanks for the explanation. I understand the difference. Yep, and I agree that exegeisis, in general, is not a good thing. But, I also think we should not read the Bible literally. You have to interpret what it means, critically, and the intentions of the reader, or there purpose for interpretation, seems to determine if there should be an 'i' in there or not.My Message 163 was exegeisis, but it was only for the sake of argument in this thread. My intention was to pretend the Bible said something else, to exemplify how the verse could be interpreted to prevent Jesus from lying. Of course not everything, but as far as the Bible goes, I'd say we can do that with most things. I also think thats how we are supposed to read it. Thats how Jesus taught, he spoke figuratively and let you figure out things on your own, unless he later had to explain something that people weren't getting, like an obscure parable, or something, 'n stuff... Yes, I don't think he was talking about the transfiguration. The Rapture, i dunno 'cause that is pretty well defined but a 'rapture type thingy', yeah, that's what I think he was talking about too.But I still don't think he lied. Has the event happened yet? I don't think it has. Are the people he was talking to dead? Yes, they are. So, I think he must have been talking about some kind of spiritual death, like when he says if you believe in him then you will never die. After the people he was talking to died, physically, they will witness Jesus' kingdom before they actually die, like spiritually, or something, man. I don't know if it happens on an idividual basis or in a big group event. Its a little too deep for me.That's my exegesis (one 'i').

That's not what I meant. I was just saying that the intentions of the reader are what determine if it is exegesis or exegeisis. Shit, that's my fault. Sometimes when I type Bible, I mean New Testament. And even then, I still don't know that we can say 'most'. Its one of those things where you know what your'e thinking but you don't know what you're saying typing. My point was that Jesus said a lot of weird stuff that can't be taken at face value. I think your reading the verse in question too literally. I think those events were real. They seem to be written about like they were meant to be real. But Jesus' parables are sometimes obviously not real events (and sometimes not). I think that what you think Jesus meant be the comming of his kingdom is not what he meant. By what you are describing it to be, as a physical kingdom (or Jesus flyin around with angels), and when you take it to happen, like, real soon, it certainly makes Jesus look like he is wrong. Well I think Jesus was God so it makes sense that we'd interpret this verse differently. I think you are reading it too literally, at face value, and not understanding what Jesus was implying, or alluding too. Heh I abandon logic and rationality. I mean, we're talking about God here. I could logically conclude that god doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't. It does feel like an honest answer, yes. I think it is important that Jesus was without error. If I can interpret one verse from the Bible and read it literally enought that Jesus was with error, then I'd say that it must not be the way it was suppose to be read. I don't think the Bible is all good and all correct (esecially the Old Testament but thats a diffrent topic). I do think that Jesus was all good and all correct though. I haven't found anything that suggests otherwise, although this thread is the closest I've gotten, which is why I was interested in it. I wouldn't do severe enough mental gymnastics to deny an error of Jesus just to maintain my belief. In fact, I'm still looking for errors (sortof challenging my faith).The verse in question and the interpretations offered do not convince me. I don't think you are interpreting it correctly, although you've done an excellent job of providing the reasons for your interpretation. I just don't see it that way. I'm not being dishonest with myself to maintain belief, I just don't think Jesus was talking about reigning in a kingdom in the immediate future here on Earth. With the way he spoke figuratively and spiritually about other things, I think he was speaking similarly in this verse.