If Jesus had lived longer, would his teachings have changed?

reply to post by Murgatroid

By missing the context you are distorting the meaning.

The context is that God doesn’t change with respect to Him being a God of judgment towards the wicked and merciful to those who turn to Him.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Thanks for sharing.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


If Jesus would have survived his ordeal on the cross, would he still preach "turn the other cheek"?

If he had been around to see Peter "deny him 3 times before the cock crowed" would he still have made him the first Pope?

If Jesus had survived, would he have persevered with his people in Masada during the Jewish wars?

I think Jesus' message is universal, so I can't say his teachings would have changed because they are just as true today as they were back then in my opinion.

But, if he had lived longer, I believe he would have gotten more of his message out there instead of what's contained in the bible, and I believe what's in the bible is only a fraction of what he really taught.

But unfortunately, that's the way of this world, the true revolutionaries are silenced before they can say too much and what they do say is twisted and distorted to serve the purpose of those who killed them.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

If Jesus had lived longer, would his teachings have changed as he grew older?

No.

Jesus didn't speak or teach from experience. He only spoke and taught what was given to him directly from God.

John 12:49

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

reply to post by Deetermined

No.

Jesus didn't speak or teach from experience. He only spoke and taught what was given to him directly from God.

John 12:49

49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

So he says. Maybe if he lived longer he wouldn't have said those things. Sometimes we regret what we said years after the fact.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


He was teaching the elders in the synagogues when he was a child so I believe he had complete knowledge so there was nothing to add or take away from. He was complete.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If Jesus had lived longer, would his teachings have changed as he grew older? Or would his teachings have remained the same, not at all evolving with his experience?

I would speculate that his teachings would have changed after another decade of life or so, as is prone to happen as we grow older and learn.

Opinions and speculations?

edit on 24-7-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

It's sort of like pi. If you keep calculating pi, does pi change into not-pi, even though you add more and more digits?

Jesus came full circle. Had he gone around again, things would have changed but only insofar as a fractal.

The Perennial philosophy has infinite iterations.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You do realize that Jesus was born of divinity and was God himself, come in the flesh?

He wasn't like any other human who ever existed. No sin. No regrets. No need to learn, only teach.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If Jesus had lived longer, would his teachings have changed as he grew older? Or would his teachings have remained the same, not at all evolving with his experience?

I would speculate that his teachings would have changed after another decade of life or so, as is prone to happen as we grow older and learn.

Opinions and speculations?

edit on 24-7-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

His idea of not worrying about food and clothing would definitely change if he became old and unable to go roaming around from house to house to leech off other people.

reply to post by guitarplayer


Yet Paul added to his teachings after he died. Obviously his teachings weren't complete enough.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


We do not know that it says that there would not be enough books in the world to of quoted everything he did and said. God only gave Paul a fuller understanding (logo) of the Word. Everything that Paul taught was forshadowed in the OT.

reply to post by guitarplayer


But he still added to Jesus' teachings, meaning Jesus didn't say everything he needed to. Why would god send him to preach an incomplete message?

Also, what in Paul's teachings was foreshadowed in the OT?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Forgivness of sin through a spotless sacrifice for one. The washing of the water of the Word for shadowed in the brass laver in the tabernacle of Moses. Do you wish for me to continue or do you get the idea. Every thing that Christ did was foreshadowed in the tabernacle and fulfilled in the New Covenant.

reply to post by guitarplayer


All of that aside, why did god send Jesus to preach an incomplete message only to hand the rest over to one of his former persecutors? If Jesus' message was complete as you implied in an earlier post, why was Paul needed to add to it?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


As I said before we do not know all the things he told his inner circle of Peter and John. Why did God take John to heaven and have him witness the revelation of Christ? Why didn’t Jesus preach it? I would imagine in Paul’s case it was a sign of grace that someone who had persecuted and possible killed disciples of Christ was not so far gone that God could not use them to spread the Gospel.

reply to post by guitarplayer

John 15
15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

The Gospel of Mark was based on what Peter recounted to him. If Jesus had made known to Peter what Paul taught, why is most, if not all of it not in Mark's gospel?

Did Peter forget to recount what many Christians believe to be the most important messages in the bible, those of Paul's epistles? If Jesus made known to Peter everything he learned from God, why are Paul's teachings absent from all of the gospels?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Jesus said he came for the house of Judah. Paul brought the gospel to the gentiles. Peter was a hypocrite he tried to distance himself from the gentiles when James and John came a knocken. Show me where Paul’s teaching is off from the progressive message of God?

reply to post by guitarplayer


But if Paul's teachings are based on what Jesus also taught, wouldn't that mean Paul's message was for the house of Judah as well?

If Jesus made known to Peter Paul's teachings (John 15:15), teachings that were supposedly for the gentiles only, then why did Jesus say he only came for Judah when he gave Peter the gentile teachings as well?

Why would god feel the need to pass off his message to others besides Jesus? Wasn't that Jesus' M.O., to save everyone who believed through his gospel?

I just find it odd that Jesus would decide to hide over half of his teachings only to hand them off to his persecutor after he died then end up putting all of those teachings into the same book anyways.

Seems way too over-complicated and unnecessary for a man who said his yoke was easy and burden light.

Oh, and as far as quoting where Paul contradicts Jesus, I could list several examples, but you already know you're going to shoot them down no matter what, so I don't know why you asked.

#9 Not changed, per se. They would have grown in scope. However, 'teachings' necessitates that things be revealed. Though some stuff is revealed, the nuts and bolts won't be shown. Not ever.

Why?

Just consider this a rhetorical question, for the time being.

Solitude...we are in accord.

Firstly, Malachi and Hebrews are both unreliable as they were written from the minds of those who corrupted the original Biblical texts for their own greed.

They can not be considered a source of any truth whatsoever. EVER!

Then the true translation of James 1:17 is this:

Every intelligent, and every balanced person will turn aside all the truths beyond their reach, because of the bloodline which pulses in all from which there is no shadow of doubt.

Light = Truths
חלוף = Passage/Ephemeral=Pulses
מאת = by/from=because of

FATHER = पितृ - PITRA / PARENT = Ancestor/Bloodline.

Originally posted by Murgatroid

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
If Jesus had lived longer, would his teachings have changed as he grew older? Or would his teachings have remained the same?

Jesus never changes.

Scripture tells us over and over that God will not change His mind...

“I the Lord do not change” ~ Malachi 3:6

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever” ~ Hebrews 13:8

“Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” ~ James 1:17

“Because God wanted to make the unchanging nature of his purpose very clear to the heirs of what was promised, he confirmed it with an oath. God did this so that, by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled to take hold of the hope offered to us may be greatly encouraged. We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain, where Jesus, who went before us, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” ~ Hebrews 6:17-20