How can we be sure?

[WhyIsThatSo]

Only 50 years, eh.
Yer just a beginner.
When you learn the difference between happy
& miserable, then you can preach at me.

I thought not.

 

[Windwalker]

Actually there are some definite things we can learn(!) that don't require faith. See post 28 for a very brief indication.

When I was referring to teachings being attributed to a master being part of the faith tradition, I was not speaking of individual faith. The Faith, meaning the faith tradition, is the body of teachings and practices which that particular faith teaches. Thus, whether or not Buddha actually said those words, or Jesus actually said those words is not the all-important thing.

For instance, the myth of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree is not historically true. However, "be honest", is the truth being taught, and just attributed to a story as a vehicle for that truth. The truth is not about the story, it's about being honest. If you learn the cherry tree chopping is a myth, does that mean being honest is a lie?

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought not.

I recommend having thoughts.

 

[Windwalker]

Since you pointed me to this post, I'll respond to it separately.

Imagine you and I went to see a guru speak, and we both listened well. We'd hear their exact words.

But each of us would hear something different in our individual minds. What we would claim we heard him say, would be our individual interpretations through our individual filters. It is thus a combination of the actual words, and our thoughts about those words blended together into something reflective of both.

For me, that would not mean the words are true, good, best....
Instead, they are only good words if they work in real life, to benefit us!

I always like to quote Jesus here in determining if someone is following the truth. "By their fruits you shall know them." It is not about by their beliefs or their understandings of words mentally, but by their heart's response to those words put into action. Therefore, you can have people of completely different religious traditions, producing the same spiritual fruits, 'by which you shall know them', based upon completely different sets of teachings or words. Someone may have never heard any words from Jesus, yet be producing spiritual fruit nonetheless.

So I say: Test, test, and test again. Do what they say to do and find out what happens, many times.

But sometimes, following certain understandings of teachings may not work as well for one individual as they do for the next. That's not due a flaw or lack of trying on the part of the individual, but simply due to not everyone responds the same to the same things. They may need to follow a different path to get to that same destination.

Therefore, it's not "By their beliefs you shall know them." Rather, it's by the end result, which is bearing spiritual fruit.

=============
The Gospel of Mark is thought to be written about 35 years after Christ:
Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia

Someone listening to him that was 20 would be about 55, the surviving. Of the many thousands.

Over the years, many would have shared their accounts of the words over and over.... People would be able to notice what all the accounts agreed about.

No. They did not approach the teachings in this way as you suggest. You have in the formation of the collections of teachings of Jesus, for instance, oral traditions and scribal traditions. In oral traditions, it is NOT about the accuracy of word counts and specifics being maintained from person to person.

In oral traditions, someone could tell the story with completely different names, different responses from different characters, and different lengths and word counts, yet be considered the "same". It's about the meaning of the story, as told through the ears of the storyteller. To them, "exactly the same", does not mean the exact words. It means the gist of the story as understood by them reflecting the values of that tradition.

Therefore, they would never have thought as you do today that they would have caught mistakes in some transmission of teachings from one person to the next. It is really more a matter of does that story being told by the storyteller, or "singer", capture and convey the meanings properly within that tradition. This is very different than the way you and I may think in terms of "accuracy" today.

See? It's just like how you gauge what is right from hundreds of witnesses: you see what the great majority agree on.

No. These were not based on "witnesses". It was based upon "appropriateness" to the particular school or lineage based upon the traditions of that school. Attribution to masters by students was commonplace at that time in history, and Jesus's followers were doing nothing different.

In brief, they did not think of things in the terms of "exact" in the ways we do today. There is a relationship between truth and facts that is found in the heart. They heard with the heart, not a measure of exact word counts and story details.

 

[halbhh]

Since you pointed me to this post, I'll respond to it separately.


But each of us would hear something different in our individual minds. What we would claim we heard him say, would be our individual interpretations through our individual filters. It is thus a combination of the actual words, and our thoughts about those words blended together into something reflective of both.


I always like to quote Jesus here in determining if someone is following the truth. "By their fruits you shall know them." It is not about by their beliefs or their understandings of words mentally, but by their heart's response to those words put into action. Therefore, you can have people of completely different religious traditions, producing the same spiritual fruits, 'by which you shall know them', based upon completely different sets of teachings or words. Someone may have never heard any words from Jesus, yet be producing spiritual fruit nonetheless.


But sometimes, following certain understandings of teachings may not work as well for one individual as they do for the next. That's not due a flaw or lack of trying on the part of the individual, but simply due to not everyone responds the same to the same things. They may need to follow a different path to get to that same destination.

Therefore, it's not "By their beliefs you shall know them." Rather, it's by the end result, which is bearing spiritual fruit.


No. They did not approach the teachings in this way as you suggest. You have in the formation of the collections of teachings of Jesus, for instance, oral traditions and scribal traditions. In oral traditions, it is NOT about the accuracy of word counts and specifics being maintained from person to person.

In oral traditions, someone could tell the story with completely different names, different responses from different characters, and different lengths and word counts, yet be considered the "same". It's about the meaning of the story, as told through the ears of the storyteller. To them, "exactly the same", does not mean the exact words. It means the gist of the story as understood by them reflecting the values of that tradition.

Therefore, they would never have thought as you do today that they would have caught mistakes in some transmission of teachings from one person to the next. It is really more a matter of does that story being told by the storyteller, or "singer", capture and convey the meanings properly within that tradition. This is very different than the way you and I may think in terms of "accuracy" today.


No. These were not based on "witnesses". It was based upon "appropriateness" to the particular school or lineage based upon the traditions of that school. Attribution to masters by students was commonplace at that time in history, and Jesus's followers were doing nothing different.

In brief, they did not think of things in the terms of "exact" in the ways we do today. There is a relationship between truth and facts that is found in the heart. They heard with the heart, not a measure of exact word counts and story details.

Nicely written, and saved me from needed to explain some things there or prove them, since you already have them. Also, I could point to your post perhaps at times and save myself work in some other discussion.

I couldn't even find anything I don't agree with perfectly except one bit in the 2nd to last paragraph (which isn't really that important in my view, but sorta interesting). Of course it's just fact that people form together in to schools of thought.

That's not the part I think misses on part of what happened to get to these written accounts (the gospels). As you may see soon, such would definitely apply to Matthew we'd think, and would have to influence Luke also one would expect, though Luke does comes across more, once you read carefully, as if someone is interviewing people and collating their accounts.

But, back to Mark, the one written down while witnesses were still alive (and many having recently passed no doubt also).

Did you happen to see that 60 Minutes segment video? -- it's not like the typical video from someone that believes (usually those are a waste of time in my experience), but is something a lot more interesting. The amazing reality that some portion of people just simply have Superior Autobiographical Memory (also called in the wiki "Hyperthymesia"). (one can look up various published research on superior autobiographical memory since the 60 minutes segment, also, if interested)

If you haven't gotten to it, I suggest you would like it I dare.

I'll copy it here --

 

[steveb1]

How can we be sure of what the spiritual teacher like Jesus, Buddha Sakyamuni, Muhammad Actually said out loud in their teachings?

Often in discussion both online and in person to person, one can hear/read they say, Jesus said this or Buddha said this. But how can we verify that it is exactly this that was said? Has the person you speak with actually understood the true words of this great masters from the past? Or is it their own interpretation of what they have read in the different spiritual teachings? and they "forget" to say, this is my understanding of Jesus, Buddha Muhammad's words.
I have fallen for this mistake my self in more than one occasion, but it has made me think, maybe one have to be careful with how we put the teaching forth?

In the case of Jesus, I support Christ Myth theory.

Paul, our earliest source, makes no unambiguous reference to a historical (or a Gospel) Jesus. This is a silence that screams, i.e., Paul never mentions Jesus's supposed ministry in Galilee, his cures, exorcisms, parables, sermon on the mount/plain, conflicts with Peter, his family, and the scribes, priests and Pharisees, his trial before Pilate and Caiaphas, etc.

The common excuse that "Paul, after all, was not writing a Gospel" fails because there are any number of problems that Paul confronts that he could have resolved simply by appealing to the example and teaching of a historical Jesus. But he never does. in fact, Paul never mentions anyone "seeing Jesus" until after Jesus's death and resurrection.

That only leaves the Gospels, which are more than likely sheer (clever and creative) invention. They took Paul's archangelic, celestial pre-existent Jesus and created a mythic earthly biography for him. There was no historical Jesus to whom the Gospel Jesus's sayings can be traced. The Gospels do not claim to be, and are not, eyewitness accounts. The only first-person account we have is Paul's, and he has no awareness of a historical (or a Gospel) Jesus.

So clearly we cannot be certain that Jesus ever spoke the words that the Gospels ascribe to him.

 

[PearlSeeker]

How can we be sure of what the spiritual teacher like Jesus, Buddha Sakyamuni, Muhammad Actually said out loud in their teachings?

Often in discussion both online and in person to person, one can hear/read they say, Jesus said this or Buddha said this. But how can we verify that it is exactly this that was said? Has the person you speak with actually understood the true words of this great masters from the past? Or is it their own interpretation of what they have read in the different spiritual teachings? and they "forget" to say, this is my understanding of Jesus, Buddha Muhammad's words.
I have fallen for this mistake my self in more than one occasion, but it has made me think, maybe one have to be careful with how we put the teaching forth?

We can't know for sure. I guess the truth is somewhere between myth and hystory interpretation. For me the most powerful, beautiful and wise is the message of love.

 

[MonkeyFire]

In observation of spirituality I have found things in different religions to be true. I'm a passive christian so I am able to understand knowledge of good and evil to hate violence and war, thus proving the meaning of genesis. Aswell I know equanimity to be a sciencere defender of compassion and love through honestly deep non-violent means.