Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, you need only believe that they wrote down what was available from the oral tradition and interpret accordingly. The Synoptic gospels convey a reasonably coherent portrait of Jesus and his preaching. Paul doesn't seem to quote Jesus much at all. So, if it's the reported speech of Jesus you're after, your best bet is the Synoptic gospels. The tales of Jesus do strike a chord with many people, for various reasons, and there's no reason for such people not to engage with them critically. And critical reflection often leads to the realisation that there seems to be a schism between Jesus' reported teachings and Paul's writings.
You further must believe that the gospel writers were inspired by God to get it right and that Paul was not.
Anyway -- which model do you think would lead to more effective worldly action: the reported teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels, or the writings of Paul?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBut not necessarily accurate. There are plenty of other Gospels to choose from and those four were chosen because they most closely agreed with the beliefs of the people choosing them. They only agree with each other because they copied from each other or from a common source. There is no rational reason to think they got any of it right. It is quite obvious that they made large parts of it up to suit their theology.
The Synoptic gospels convey a reasonably coherent portrait of Jesus and his preaching.
Anyway -- which model do you think would lead to more effective worldly action: the reported teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels, or the writings of Paul?
I don't know what you mean by "more effective worldly action". Do you mean 'which should we encourage the Christians to believe so that they will be nice to us'?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich parts of Mark do you think are made up? That's generally considered the oldest Gospel.
But not necessarily accurate. There are plenty of other Gospels to choose from and those four were chosen because they most closely agreed with the beliefs of the people choosing them. They only agree with each other because they copied from each other or from a common source. There is no rational reason to think they got any of it right. It is quite obvi ...[text shortened]... mean 'which should we encourage the Christians to believe so that they will be nice to us'?
For the second point, your interpretation of my words is so bizarre that I give up.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI think most of the reports of Jesus' birth, encounter with John the Baptist, and much of the events surrounding his crucification and resurrection are made up. Certainly anything that is clearly and attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled prophesies about the messiah.
Which parts of Mark do you think are made up? That's generally considered the oldest Gospel.
As for the rest of it, I simply do not know, but I think it perfectly possible that it is all made up either by the writer or someone earlier.
For the second point, your interpretation of my words is so bizarre that I give up.
Well I couldn't understand what you were saying so I was just stabbing in the dark. You do have a habit of being a bit vague and waiting for someone to attempt a mind reading before correcting them.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI'm afraid enough is not enough , if you want to put it that way. When someone distorts the truth of Jesus then enough is never enough. As for little kids , my experience of them is they like to run away when they are challenged about something. Adults can deal with a direct challenge , kids will try every trick in the book to avoid it.
In case you missed it earlier:
Listen, I understand that you have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. Since then it's been nothing but a steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. Don't you think enough is enough?
You're like a little kid.
So in whose righteousness do you suggest we stand in before a Holy God? Our own? Or is such a fundamental question merely another "red herring" to you?
BTW- One major point to make here is that much of the teachings you refer to of Jesus come from the early part of his ministry . Jesus himself grew and developed his message as his ministry moved on and early on he had not yet had it fully revealed to him what he would do for mankind on the cross. Notice that it's later on in his ministry that he starts to talk more about his death , remission of sin and the Holy Spirit. You tend to quote him from his ealry ministry only , which is like only reading the first few chapters of a book.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI would say a portion of the teachings attributed to Jesus lend themselves to cultivation of the virtues (though for my money, I would go with other notable teachers and sources). My own views on normativity do not draw from Jesus' teachings in any material way, but I could see how others could draw from them and thereby gain some benefit. On the other hand, I think Paul's writings characteristically are garbage. As best I can tell, his model of "salvation" basically boils down to ritualized self-loathing coupled with the veneration of blind faith. I consider it bizarre that anyone would take the writings attributed to Paul seriously.
which model do you think would lead to more effective worldly action: the reported teachings of the Jesus of the Gospels, or the writings of Paul?
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat part of this sentence was soooooooooooooo difficult to understand:
Paul claimed to have been inspired by Jesus. The gospel writers claimed to know what Jesus said (I am not sure what they claimed was the source of their knowledge.)
You are assuming, without justification, that the gospel writers were right and Paul was lying.
If Paul and the gospel writers were inspired then one would guess that God knew whose words would get quoted more by "Christians" and dictated accordingly.
Of course, I don't accept "divine inspiration" or biblical inerrancy.
I really don't know how to respond to your posts which seem to have ignored every factual argument I've made in mine. Could you try re-reading them and then accept the following:
1) I gave my justification as to why the Synoptic Gospel writers were more likely to have been correct about Jesus' teachings than John and Paul;
2) I never claimed that Paul lied;
3) That I didn't ask what God thought; I asked what Paul thought.
Once you actually address my points rather than the bizarre Strawman you have constructed, perhaps some type of discourse is possible.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you think Mark invented the person of Jesus (or copied from someone else who did)? Mark, BTW, says absolutely nothing about Jesus' birth and the part of it which claims a resurrection is a later addition missing from the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel.
I think most of the reports of Jesus' birth, encounter with John the Baptist, and much of the events surrounding his crucification and resurrection are made up. Certainly anything that is clearly and attempt to show that Jesus fulfilled prophesies about the messiah.
As for the rest of it, I simply do not know, but I think it perfectly possible that it is of being a bit vague and waiting for someone to attempt a mind reading before correcting them.
Do you have any explanation for the fact that Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, talks about the execution of Jesus' brother James? Did Josephus really believe that James was the brother of a fictional character or did he invent James, too?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderReferences please.
Do you have any explanation for the fact that Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, talks about the execution of Jesus' brother James? Did Josephus really believe that James was the brother of a fictional character or did he invent James, too?
And do you know if he wrote it before or after the gospel of Matthew was written?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungTake a look at the words attributed to Jesus.
There's no easy way to separate what Jesus said from the rest of the stuff in the Bible. That's why I don't know exactly what Jesus taught and what other prophets or book authors taught.
When considering what Jesus taught, should I consider the Biblical "fact" that he's going to return and smite nations with a sword sticking out of his mouth? Is that the same Jesus you're talking about? The one with brass feet?
Originally posted by no1marauderThere's substantial evidence against Josephus' text being authentic.
So you think Mark invented the person of Jesus (or copied from someone else who did)? Mark, BTW, says absolutely nothing about Jesus' birth and the part of it which claims a resurrection is a later addition missing from the earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel.
Do you have any explanation for the fact that Josephus, a first century ...[text shortened]... eally believe that James was the brother of a fictional character or did he invent James, too?
Originally posted by sonhouseJesus taught one to follow the will of the Father, i.e., live a life of truth, love, compassion, justice, humility etc.. If one follows the will of the Father, is he not also following what Jesus taught? Even if he doesn't profess to follow Jesus, is he not a follower?
So the african tribesman in the bush, having no access to Jesus, and therefore unable to follow the will of god, he is on the outside while you are on the inside?
If one doesn't follow the will of the Father, is he following what Jesus taught? Even if he professes to follow Jesus, is he truly a follower?
Originally posted by no1marauderI cant find any post in which you did. You justify why the synoptics are more accurate than John but I don't see where you justify them being more accurate than Paul.
1) I gave my justification as to why the Synoptic Gospel writers were more likely to have been correct about Jesus' teachings than John and Paul;
In fact since your justification of the synoptics is that they were written earlier you cant really justify claiming they are more accurate than Pauls writings which were written earlier still.
2) I never claimed that Paul lied;
Well you either think he lied or was deluded as you said:
Of course, I don't accept "divine inspiration" or biblical inerrancy.
3) That I didn't ask what God thought; I asked what Paul thought.
the question was:
Do you think that when Paul wrote these letters, he intended them to be quoted more than the words of Jesus by "Christians"?
Considering that he himself did not often quote Jesus, one might guess that the answer is yes.
Considering that the gospels were written after Pauls writings we really don't know whether Paul, or anyone he knew, actually knew the words of Jesus.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterJesus taught salvation through righteousness.
I'm afraid enough is not enough , if you want to put it that way. When someone distorts the truth of Jesus then enough is never enough. As for little kids , my experience of them is they like to run away when they are challenged about something. Adults can deal with a direct challenge , kids will try every trick in the book to avoid it.
So in whose from his ealry ministry only , which is like only reading the first few chapters of a book.
All I continue to hear from you are rationalizations as to why you don't want to believe Him.
You continue to make stuff up to try to prove your points.
For example:
At one turn you've stated that you believe Jesus has always been and will always be.
At another you say stuff like this:
"Jesus himself grew and developed his message as his ministry moved on and early on he had not yet had it fully revealed to him what he would do for mankind on the cross."
Your position is incoherent.