Post Reply
Page 8 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Do we have Jesus's words?
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 4:14PM #71
Ruhi19
Posts: 535

May 2, 2012 -- 12:16PM, Kwinters wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 11:36AM, Ruhi19 wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:54PM, Kwinters wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 11:30AM, Ruhi19 wrote:


In other words, the words in the Bible are accurate enough for those who follow its guidance to recognize the future Manifestations that it refers to in its pages if they investigate with open hearts and minds as instructed in the Bible.  




I disagree, considering the number of contradictions and evidence of theological shifts within the texts.





That's your choice and your opinion.  That doesn't mean that it is accurate.





No. It is not choice, nor opinion.  It is fact.  It is accurate.


There is extensive evidence documenting the evolution of Christian theology. It is quite easy to do.


Read the Jesus of Mark.  Read what the teachings communicate.  Look at what values are communicated in that Gospel.


That gospel existed for between 25 and 40 years on its own.  That was the Jesus people heard of where that gospel existed.  That was the Jesus to whom people converted.


Now compare this with the Jesus of John decades later.  Look at the language of that Jesus.  Look at his actions.  Look at the values that underpin the teachings of John's Jesus.  Compare the very human Jesus of Mark to the floating around deity-like being of John's....


This is not about opinion.  Is it simply the ability to read and compare the theology of two different communities, decades apart.





It is partly accurate but mostly opinion based on what you want to look at while ignoring parts that you don't want to look at.  For example, you missed the testimony of Luke (22:39-46) probably because it doesn't agree with your theory.  Verse 43 indicates that an angel came to strengthen Him.  Verse 44 indicates that he continued to pray but not what he said.  The records of the Gospels are not reality video, nor even the original footage as reality video is usually edited before being broadcast and so there are a number of stories which could be produced if the focus is on a different aspect of what happened.  Thus you get the story but because people see things from their own perspective, you get slightly different narratives. 


The Gospels never claim to tell us every word that Jesus said in the 3 years of his ministry.  The recorded words are sparse even for that short length of time. The focus of Mark is different from the focus of John.  Thus, it is not surprising that the words would be different.  (Note we are bypassing the meaning of those words.)  John 20:31 indicate that there were other things which happened which were not recorded in John's gospel. He wrote only the things which fulfilled his theme.  People do that all the time.


Since you are interested in sources, here's one on Mark:


The Gospels are most like Greco-Roman popular biographies, and they follow similar conventions of reporting speech and events. Ancient biographers were not as interested in giving the precise details of a person’s life as are modern biographers. They were more interested in presenting a sympathetic picture of their subject and in recording the hero’s words and deeds in such a way that it would present him or her as worthy of honor or emulation. This is not to say they wantonly presented false information but rather that they aimed at only a general degree of precision. Thus the Gospels don’t give us the exact words (often called the ipsissima verba) of Jesus on every occasion but instead His genuine teaching (the ipsissima vox, or “exact voice”). The Gospels make virtually no claims to chronological reporting (till the Passion narratives), and thus the events of Jesus’ life are often arranged on other principles, thematic or geographical, or even merely within the broad chronological framework. Inerrancy is compromised in these cases only if Jesus never said or did the things attributed to Him or if the author made false chronological claims.


Unlike Greco-Roman biographies, the Gospels are concerned less to showcase Jesus’ character than to explain His significance within God’s program as the long-awaited Messiah, and each Gospel emphasizes a different aspect of this significance. Mark’s emphasis is on Jesus as the suffering Son of God. Jesus is presented as fully aware of His messianic identity and calling, while everyone else (except God and the demons) is baffled by Him. He is at once supernaturally powerful and authoritative and yet also humble, servantlike, and committed to the cross. Mark moves the reader quickly through the teaching and miracle-working ministry of Jesus to the climactic events of His death and resurrection. The Gospel reaches its high point with the confession of the centurion at the cross, “This man really was God’s Son!” (15:39).[1]





[1] Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (1465). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.



and two on John:


A key feature of John’s literary genre provides further explanation of the book’s distinctives. John was less literal in his reporting than the authors of the Synoptics, in large measure due to writing in a style somewhat akin to ancient Greco-Roman drama. But his recurring emphasis on themes like truth and witness shows that he believed he was faithfully reproducing the life and times of Jesus even through this genre.[1]


  


The author himself took this viewpoint when he stated that “these [things] are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” (John 20:31). He did not, however, attempt to implement this purpose either by emotional appeal to imaginary scenes or by purely syllogistic reasoning. Like the Synoptics, John used occurrences in the life of Jesus to illustrate his teaching and gave no hint that they were imaginary. The events themselves are actual; the principles they exemplify may be abstract.


Furthermore, if the writer of the fourth Gospel did emphasize theology more than the authors of the Synoptics, he must have had a reason for doing so. The claims and deeds of Jesus, which John professes to have known and not to have fully recorded John 20:30), demanded an explanation beyond ordinary cause and effect. Even if the author granted that the “signs” were narrated to illustrate some theological principle, it is still logical to believe they were selected because they had that inherent significance and were not composed for the occasion. The significance of the “signs” is determined by what Jesus actually said and did, not by the author’s imagination.[2]


 






[1] Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (1569). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.




[2] Tenney, M. C. (1981). John. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 9: John and Acts (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (21). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.





 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 4:23PM #72
Ruhi19
Posts: 535

May 2, 2012 -- 12:33PM, tfvespasianus wrote:


kw,


I could be mistaken, but I think Ruhi is making a case regarding finding episodes in the bible edifying for the believer. Thus, I would guess someone could find either Mark and/or John edifying as that's a subjective judgment. 

 

As for the difference in the speeches, I think people should freely concede that they are different in substance, and that one text is most likely earlier in terms of composition than the other. That being said, from a critical perspective, they are both literary compositions (after all, the witnesses are sleeping, and we are assuming he did not have a megaphone). So, what is being evaluated is not historicity, but 'theology'. I think that's something more like literary criticism in that we are making subjective judgments about which version we prefer. 



I agree.  the Synoptic Gospels were written to tell people what happened and give evidence about the life and sayings of Jesus.  John, I think, was writing about what it means.  Thus, he explained some parts more clearly (identifying the person whose ear was cut off) and less fully in others (the career and persecution of John the Baptist).  If he knew that the record of those already existed, it was not necessary for him to repeat except to anchor the events in his report in time. 


For the record, I really like the Gospel of John but I don't agree with the typical Christian interpretation of the first 5 verses...nor in much of the rest of the Gospel for that matter. But I am okay with that.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 9:35AM #73
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

May 2, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Kwinters wrote:



I gave an example of a methodology.



I see.  Here it is:  "The fellows reach a decision on each topic by democratic means - i.e. by voting"



You have produced diddly squat.



Not only did I produce the canonization criteria and an argument, why is it that in (only) part of that criteria where "The fellows reach a decision on each topic by democratic means - i.e. by voting" this is defined as "diddly squat" when your preferred "fellows reach a decision on each topic by democratic means - i.e. by voting" that's "methodology"?



If you think that the gospels contain direct quotations from the historical Jesus, can you please make an evidence-based case as to why?

What texts are you citing?

What language are they in?

From what year?

How well does the Greek map on to terms used in Aramaic?1

How many variations on the text have been noted, and are any of them substantive?2

If there are substantive differences, what established criteria do you cite in determining which version is the authentic version and which is the aberration?

Please add any additional information beyond these preliminary questions to establish the evidence that the words attributed to Jesus in the gospels are accurate quotations from the historical person during his life.

 
1 e.g. In Aramaic, Mari was a respectful form of address, similar to Rabbi. In Greek this was at times translated as kyrios. While Mari expressed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples during his life, the Greek kyrios came to represent his lordship over the world. (Cullmann, 1959:202).

2 John Mill - Novum Testamentum 'Mill spent thirty years on this tome, seeing it through to publication just two weeks before his death. Using the third edition (1550) of Stephanus’s Greek New Testament as his base text, he produced an apparatus that gave the readings of 100 Greek manuscripts as well as those of several church fathers and versions. This apparatus revealed 30,000 variants among the witnesses...)





All done.  You can keep pretending it wasn't.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 9:40AM #74
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

May 2, 2012 -- 12:16PM, Kwinters wrote:


That gospel existed for between 25 and 40 years on its own.



No, not "on its own."


There were Apostles and disciples still living.  Moreover there were 10 letters of Paul's (and perhaps James' letter) in circulation.



This is not about opinion.  Is it simply the ability to read and compare the theology of two different communities, decades apart.




And yet Biblical Critics come to diametrically opposed conclusions.

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 9:45AM #75
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

May 2, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Kwinters wrote:


Sorry, but are you trying now to shift your argument and claim that god was engaged in a Socratic dialogue with Adam?



Same argument as before--that a light bulb went on for you isn't a shift in my argument.



Seriously?  Because a Socratic dialogue ' is a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against the defense of another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, thus strengthening the inquirer's own point.' (wiki)


I would just LOVE to see you demonstrate how the exchange in Gen meets that defintion.




Known to us as Socratic method--yes.  (One) Rabbinic method, de rigueur:


"Show me a denarius. Whose likeness and inscription does it have?”

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 03, 2012 - 10:01AM #76
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

May 2, 2012 -- 10:27AM, Kwinters wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 10:19AM, nieciedo wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 10:11AM, Kwinters wrote:


If you think that the gospels contain direct quotations from the historical Jesus, can you please make an evidence-based case as to why?



I need to know what you mean by "evidence." I think the Jesus Seminar's methodology makes sense. I have a lot of respect for Ehrman.




So you would agree that the text we have are an amalgamation of early sayings traditions (Q), combined with the input of later authors who gathered information and put their own spin on it  (Mark, Matthew, Luke) added new stories that did not originate with the earlier traditions, edited the texts to fit their viewpoints, and later scribes accidently or deliberately changed some of the text to conform with later orthodox views?


And example of this later scribal interference can be seen most famously with Erasmus:



One passage not included by Erasmus caused a great storm of controversy. That passage was the so-called Trinitarian passage, which in the King James Version reads, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" (found in 1 John 5:7- 8).


The exclusion of these words from Erasmus' text was not from carelessness or haste, but was based on solid evidence: these words were not in the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus had used for his text; indeed, they were not found in any Greek text Erasmus had ever seen.


When asked why he had deleted this proof text for the trinity, he replied that he didn't find it at all in the Greek manuscripts. The combination of accusations of Arianism, with Erasmus' thin-skinned sensitivity to criticism, caused him to rashly vow that if any Greek manuscript could be found to include the words in question, he would add them to his text. A manuscript was duly manufactured in Britain to suit the conditions of Erasmus' vow, so in his third edition (1522), Erasmus added the words to his text, but added a marginal note declaring his belief that the manuscript had been deliberately doctored.


(The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see for himself by examining the evidence in, e.g., the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp. 503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].)


Luther never included the passage in any German translation produced in his lifetime. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they thought the suspect words were spurious.


www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_erasmus.htm




From that link,


Richard Bentley, the greatest authority on the text of the New Testament in the eighteenth century, stated, "the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact, nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost, choose as awkwardly as you will, choose the worst by design, out of the whole lump of readings.... But even put them into the hands of a knave or a fool, and yet with the most sinistrous and absurd choice, he shall not extinguish the light of any one chapter, nor so disguise Christianity, but that every feature of it will still be the same" (quoted in Scrivener, Plain Introduction, p. 7).

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:03AM #77
koolpoi
Posts: 6,440

Apr 27, 2012 -- 12:21PM, dio wrote:


For the record, here's what I am confident Jesus said ; believe in me, follow me, and the kingdom of heaven is at hand.


My criteria are gleanings from the Jesus seminar votes of authenticity.


We can't prove Jesus said too much. But I am sure though he said a lot more than was recorded in the Gospels.


Question: are the sayings of the resurrected Jesus authentic. What about Gnostic literiture, those are completely spiritually revealed. How can we know if they are authentic? Much of the Gospel of Philips are resurrection sayings and do you wonder about the Gosple of John's Jesus sayings? Could the I Am sayings be from the resurrected Jesus?  


How about the Book of Revelation, pretty scarry stuff, does that sound like Jesus? Which resurrected sayings do you believe in? The ones that continue teaching wisdom and knowledge or the ones that scare the hell out of you? The answer seems to be we believe in the resurrected sayings that scare the hell out of us.


I say believe what resonates as true for you.




And if I may ask,what does it mean for you that the Kingdom of God is "at hand"?Has it been at hand for 2000 years?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 7:00AM #78
nieciedo
Posts: 5,617

May 4, 2012 -- 1:03AM, koolpoi wrote:



And if I may ask,what does it mean for you that the Kingdom of God is "at hand"?Has it been at hand for 2000 years?




Yep. And for some people it has arrived. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 8:12PM #79
Rgurley4
Posts: 8,653

I'm lucky...in my Bible:


All quotes of Jesus the God-Man ARE IN RED!


And UBBT...and U Better BELIEVE Them!

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 8:34PM #80
Ed.W
Posts: 9,434

May 4, 2012 -- 8:12PM, Rgurley4 wrote:


I'm lucky...in my Bible:


All quotes of Jesus the God-Man ARE IN RED!


And UBBT...and U Better BELIEVE Them!




Laughing

Have you got anything I can sink my teeth into?
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 8 of 12  •  Prev 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook