The Fallacy that Jesus said what is written in the gospels

[SeekingAllTruth]

SeekingAllTruth at first all there were was letters. There were hundreds of letters kicking around claiming to be the words of God! Know one knew for sure, people were getting conflicting teachings and understandings! It got hard to teach, preach without a common source! It was the one and only Holy Catholic Church that took on the job of sorting the mess out! She alone with the help of God; "The Holy Spirit" that decided the truly inspired words of God from the many phony letters. Even if every letter/manuscript had started with "This is the inspired words of God" we still would have needed an authority to decide the truly inspired words from the other phony letters that also would have started with "This letter is the inspired words of God"!
The Holy Catholic Church then took all the truly inspired letters and placed them into one book she named "The Bible"!

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
SeekingAllTruth the Bible as endured over the years virtually unchanged; makes me believe God truly has his hands in the affairs of his Holy Catholic Apostolic Church!

Dogknox, if you have sources for these letters I'd love to read them.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Sure, why not? Jesus had followers who may well have taken notes. After the ascension there would be a natural inclination to write his sayings down, his memorable parables, compile the story of his life and teachings. That would be expected.

Have any survived?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

What the disciples recorded was what they remembered of the words of Jesus. But latter Prophets such as Muhammad, the Bab and Baha’u’llah do confirm some of these. A Prophet of God confirming a source, I believe, would be 100% authentic and accurate as God knew exactly what was said.

I'm not aware they recorded anything that has survived. As scholars have said, the gospels are anonymous.

There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who flat out claimed to be someone they weren't.Mar 12, 2010

Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels

 

[Neuropteron]

It was supposed to be the start of a conversation but the Christian never responded.

I wonder why.

Here's the gist of what I said:

The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels. Here's a statistic:

The Synoptic Gospels , once you exclude the duplications of Jesus' speeches in the four gospels, the total number of words spoken by Jesus is 31,426.

How on earth did those scholars, writing 40-100 years after Jesus died, know the 31,426 precise words Jesus was speaking in the gospels?

Even making the astounding assumption John was the writer of the gospel that bears his name (he wasn't the writer according to historians--all the gospels are anonymous) trying to believe John could remember just the 4 chapters of the last supper discourse of Jesus in chapters 14-17 after 60 years when John would have been close to 100 years old is impossible to believe when you look at it from a logical point of view. Could any of us remember word-perfect a debate we watched a month ago and then write it down? And what makes it even more unbelievable you are reading Jesus' words is the fact the writers were not even there when Jesus spoke. It's completely unrealistic to believe the words you are reading are Jesus' when the writers weren't even eyewitnesses to what Jesus said in his last 3 years.

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

Hi,

I can understand your skeptisism, however, some of your conclusions are not based on accurate information.

Without going into a point for point response to your views.
I will comment on your first statement:
...........
The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels.
...........
1/ The Gospel writers were not scholars, but viewed as uneducated, unlettered and ordinary (act 4:13). The exception is Luke who was a physician.
2/ The notion that at that time they could not write or had writing material is false. Matthew was a tax collector. They all could read and write manuscripts.
3/ Why would they need source notes or documents?
They witnessed personally what Jesus taught, said and did, this left an indelible mark on their memory. Additionally if we are to accept that these account are "inspired" the Holy Spirit would have had a role in their ability to recollect events.

Just looking at this first statement I fail to discern anything illogical about the Gospel accounts.

Cheers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi,

I can understand your skeptisism, however, some of your conclusions are not based on accurate information.

Without going into a point for point response to your views.
I will comment on your first statement:
...........
The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels.
...........
1/ The Gospel writers were not scholars, but viewed as uneducated, unlettered and ordinary (act 4:13). The exception is Luke who was a physician.
2/ The notion that at that time they could not write or had writing material is false. Matthew was a tax collector. They all could read and write manuscripts.
3/ Why would they need source notes or documents?
They witnessed personally what Jesus taught, said and did, this left an indelible mark on their memory. Additionally if we are to accept that these account are "inspired" the Holy Spirit would have had a role in their ability to recollect events.

Just looking at this first statement I fail to discern anything illogical about the Gospel accounts.

Cheers.

You appear to be conflating the names on the Gospels with the people that wrote them. That does not appear to be the case. The Gospels are all anonymous and modern scholars do not think that they were written by the traditionally claimed authors.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Hi,

I can understand your skeptisism, however, some of your conclusions are not based on accurate information.

Without going into a point for point response to your views.
I will comment on your first statement:
...........
The Greek scholars who wrote the gospels, far as we know, didn't have any sources--notes or documents from which to draw on when writing down Jesus' words in the gospels.
...........
1/ The Gospel writers were not scholars, but viewed as uneducated, unlettered and ordinary (act 4:13). The exception is Luke who was a physician.
2/ The notion that at that time they could not write or had writing material is false. Matthew was a tax collector. They all could read and write manuscripts.
3/ Why would they need source notes or documents?
They witnessed personally what Jesus taught, said and did, this left an indelible mark on their memory. Additionally if we are to accept that these account are "inspired" the Holy Spirit would have had a role in their ability to recollect events.

Just looking at this first statement I fail to discern anything illogical about the Gospel accounts.

Cheers.

The gospels were not written by Matthew Mark Luke and John. All secular scholars have concluded the were written anonymously. Here's my proof:

The gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.[9][10][11] All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses,

Gospel - Wikipedia

 

[Colt]

Have any survived?

No, just the copies. But what about the spiritual lessons in the red letters of Jesus that we do have? Are those teachings "true"?

 

[Marcion]

I'd love to read the Q. Do you have a link or reference?

There is a link to one of the reconstructions in my signature.

He was dead, His movement dead, His disciples deserted, His followers disbanded. It is the belief in the Resurrection, and it is this post resurrection faith where the Christian story begins.

What the Christians however seem to be unaware of is that there was an earlier mission, one led by Jesus himself that had nothing to do with Christianity.
They are not to blame because the teachings of that early mission lie scattered, broken up and sometimes heavily edited inside the synoptic gospel stories.

The viewpoints of these two very different missions do not coincide along their main lines, so Christians are no longer equiped to recognize the original nor do they know how to apply it in their personal lives.

 

[pearl]

the overwhelming evidence is Jesus never said any of this.

Think of what is passed on through the oral tradition and the written Gospels as Monday morning quarterbacking, After the event. The Christian story does not begin with the birth of Jesus, nor the crucifixion of Jesus, he died, by human standards, a failure. He was dead, His movement dead, His disciples deserted, His followers disbanded. It is the belief in the Resurrection, and it is this post resurrection faith where the Christian story begins.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... at first all there were was letters. There were hundreds of letters kicking around claiming to be the words of God!

... But what about the spiritual lessons in the red letters of Jesus that we do have? Are those teachings "true"?

Note: the above quotes are not related to one another nor, as far as I can tell, to anything else in the real world. The serve solely as dubious figments in some color-coded life in the fact-free universe where "you're kidding" meets Urantia.

 

[KerimF]

There's only one logical conclusion to reach:

What you are reading in the gospels are not Jesus' words, plain and simple. They had to be fabricated by the writers writing the gospels to give Jesus something to say. There's no other rational conclusion to reach. Why doesn't this simple deduction not occur to people who pin their entire lives on believing in Jesus?

I don't understand and I probably never will understand the illogic.

Let me assume that every saying that I read on the today's Gospel is fabricated by certain writers, known or unknown.

I wish you can help me and search for me, any other writer(s) in human history whose message also includes a clear statement much like the following one, for example:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

I hope you agree with me that this statement contradicts clearly the human instincts of survival. Therefore, it also opposes any law imposed on men, religious (said of God) or political (based on freedom/democracy).

Thank you in advance for giving me the opportunity to hear/learn new things.

 

[firedragon]

The RCC wanted the Trinity in their religion so they got it in via clever re-writings of scriptures.

Is there an example you could point to?

 

[Colt]

Note: the above quotes are not related to one another nor, as far as I can tell, to anything else in the real world. The serve solely as dubious figments in some color-coded life in the fact-free universe where "you're kidding" meets Urantia.

I can explain, in many New Testament Bibles the worlds of Jesus are emboldened in red. In the Old Testament all of the vastly exaggerated history invented by the Israelites is in black. It would be difficult to embolden the original stories because so much of the OT was redacted and edited when it was finalized in Babylon.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Is there an example you could point to?

I'm not sure what you mean by an example. At the Council of Nicaea in 425 CE the Christians wanted the trinity in their creed and eventually they got it. It's a whole book to give an example. Read the link below to get a capsule of the controversy:

Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Let me assume that every saying that I read on the today's Gospel is fabricated by certain writers, known or unknown.

I wish you can help me and search for me, any other writer(s) in human history whose message also includes a clear statement much like the following one, for example:



I hope you agree with me that this statement contradicts clearly the human instincts of survival. Therefore, it also opposes any law imposed on men, religious (said of God) or political (based on freedom/democracy).

Thank you in advance for giving me the opportunity to hear/learn new things.

Jesus was not the first to teach ‘Love Your Enemy’

A Christian wrote: I donʼt have the time to respond to everything, but right off the top, I suggest that “loving your enemy” is a teaching attributed directly to Jesus.
The teaching predates Jesus.

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”

- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born)

“Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.”

- Buddhist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

More Buddhist Wisdom
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

- The Dhammapada

Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighborʼs gain as your own and your neighborʼs loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.
- Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

Biblical Errancy: Jesus was not the first to teach ‘Love Your Enemy’

 

[pearl]

What the Christians however seem to be unaware of is that there was an earlier mission, one led by Jesus himself that had nothing to do with Christianity.

Mission to who? I think the Gospels are quite clear that His mission had nothing to do with Christianity as His mission was only to the Jews. For myself I do not believe Jesus had any intention of forming a 'new' religion. Christianity had its beginning as a Jewish cult within Judaism.

Quote: They are not to blame because the teachings of that early mission lie scattered, broken up and sometimes heavily edited inside the synoptic gospel stories.:

And applied to the situations of the churches.

Quote:The viewpoints of these two very different missions do not coincide along their main lines, so Christians are no longer equiped to recognize the original nor do they know how to apply it in their personal lives.

I do not agree with this as not all Christians are so ill-informed.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Think of what is passed on through the oral tradition and the written Gospels as Monday morning quarterbacking, After the event. The Christian story does not begin with the birth of Jesus, nor the crucifixion of Jesus, he died, by human standards, a failure. He was dead, His movement dead, His disciples deserted, His followers disbanded. It is the belief in the Resurrection, and it is this post resurrection faith where the Christian story begins.

I couldn't agree more. Everything starts with belief in something. Doesn't make it true, but it is still a powerful motivating force.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

No, just the copies. But what about the spiritual lessons in the red letters of Jesus that we do have? Are those teachings "true"?

There's lots of good wisdom in the red-letter sayings of Jesus. It's not really important who said it as long as it got said and recorded. Much of the wisdom in the gospels can be found in other holy books. Love your neighbor was said in different words long before Jesus but the idea remains of returning love for hate.

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”

- Akkadian Councils of Wisdom (from the ancient Babylonian civilization that existed two millennia before Jesus was born)

“Shame on him who strikes, greater shame on him who strikes back. Let us live happily, not hating those who hate us. Let us therefore overcome anger by kindness, evil by good, falsehood by truth. Do not hurt others in ways that would be hurtful to yourself.”

- Buddhist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

More Buddhist Wisdom
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.

- The Dhammapada

Return love for hatred. Otherwise, when a great hatred is reconciled, some of it will surely remain. How can this end in goodness? Therefore the sage holds to the left hand of an agreement but does not expect what the other holder ought to do. Regard your neighborʼs gain as your own and your neighborʼs loss as your own loss. Whoever is self-centered cannot have the love of others.
- Taoist wisdom (written centuries before Jesus was born)

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

There is a link to one of the reconstructions in my signature.

I read through some of it. Looks like what's in the gospels.

 

[Marcion]

Mission to who? I think the Gospels are quite clear that His mission had nothing to do with Christianity as His mission was only to the Jews. For myself I do not believe Jesus had any intention of forming a 'new' religion. Christianity had its beginning as a Jewish cult within Judaism.

Quote: They are not to blame because the teachings of that early mission lie scattered, broken up and sometimes heavily edited inside the synoptic gospel stories.:

And applied to the situations of the churches.

Quote:The viewpoints of these two very different missions do not coincide along their main lines, so Christians are no longer equiped to recognize the original nor do they know how to apply it in their personal lives.

I do not agree with this as not all Christians are so ill-informed.

The original teachings are not accessible through just reading the edited and distorted versions of the teachings in the synoptic gospels nor have I ever read anyone explaining them in their original context and meaning.
So, no, there are no Christians who are informed well enough, unless they are instructed by someone familiar with such teachings.

There is nothing specifically Jewish in the teachings of Jesus and he does not in any way try to tell Jewish people to reform other than to not listen to hypocrites (in positions of religious authority) who only make a show of their piety withouth actually practising spirituality.
His teachings have a slightly noticeable Jewish setting but other than that they are very universal and could be called plain mysticism (or tantra = practical spirituality).