The Fallacy that Jesus said what is written in the gospels

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the rational explanation is that the Holy Spirit provided the information just as Jesus promised He would.

 

[Muffled]

There is no gospel according to Jesus so every word claimed to be his is third person. As you say written long after his time. So what you say here makes sense to me.

I would add the possibilities that wording of those Greek author's was edited during the compilation of the bible to make the context fit the religion they were developing.

It is my belief that the Jesus of the bible is actually an amalgamation of different characters of the period and that the real jesus was far from being the man described.

I believe Matthew, Mark and John were Jewish

 

[Muffled]

I think that the OP was referring to the Christians that believe that the Gospels literally record what Jesus said. The fundamentalists appear to do that quite often.

I believe that they are the literal words of Jesus.

 

[ChristineM]

I believe Matthew, Mark and John were Jewish

No doubt, assuming they actually exited

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe that they are the literal words of Jesus.

Why would you believe that? Especially since there are differences between the Gospels.

Do you realize that none of the Gospels are based upon "eyewitness testimony"?

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I believe the rational explanation is that the Holy Spirit provided the information just as Jesus promised He would.

There's nothing rational about that except in a Christian's mind. You're actually saying an anonymous writer sat down and took notes while the HS dictated to him every single word Jesus spoke????????

 

[Quagmire]

Because historians generally use him as a reference point and I have to go with the majority even though I cannot find any definitive historic references to him.

Okay, so to summarize your position so far:

The span of time between the crucifixion and the writing of the Epistles is 25 to 35 years, unless . . .

. . . we use "simple math" (as opposed to whatever math we were previously using) at which point it becomes 20 to 25 years, although . . .

. . . It's really more like a 100+ years, since the Epistles were actually written by Macion sometime in the second century, but . . .

. . . scholars generally agree that they were written sometime between 50 and 56 CE. so let's go with that.


Okay, all caught up.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

I believe that they are the literal words of Jesus.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

Okay, so to summarize your position so far:

The span of time between the crucifixion and the writing of the Epistles is 25 to 35 years, unless . . .

. . . we use "simple math" (as opposed to whatever math we were previously using) at which point it becomes 20 to 25 years, although . . .

. . . It's really more like a 100+ years, since the Epistles were actually written by Macion sometime in the second century, but . . .

. . . scholars generally agree that they were written sometime between 50 and 56 CE. so let's go with that.


Okay, all caught up.

You're off a little bit. No problem. You said epistles written 50-56 CE. I said the generally accepted year of Jesus crucifixion is 30 CE. 50 - 30 = 20. 56 - 30 = 26. Span according to YOUR dating of the epistles = 20-26 years. With me so far?

 

[Quagmire]

You're off a little bit. No problem. You said epistles written 50-56 CE. I said the generally accepted year of Jesus crucifixion is 30 CE. 50 - 30 = 20. 56 - 30 = 26. Span according to YOUR dating of the epistles = 20-26 years. With me so far?

That isn't actually what you said, but we'll just add it to the long and ever-changing menu.

 

[SeekingAllTruth]

That isn't actually what you said, but we'll just add it to the long and ever-changing menu.

Sure, no problem. as long as you understand the basic gist of my OP: Jesus never said the words ascribed to him in the gospels. They were made up by the gospel writers. They had to be. No way around that historically.

 

[actsfourthirty]

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.

by the Holy Spirit 2 Tim 3:16

And they were eye witnesses Jn 1:7 Jn 1:14

 

[night912]

by the Holy Spirit 2 Tim 3:16

And they were eye witnesses Jn 1:7 Jn 1:14

You're confused with john 1. The "witness" that is referring to is not the author who wrote John 1.

 

[actsfourthirty]

You're confused with john 1. The "witness" that is referring to is not the author who wrote John 1.

there is only one apostle John

 

[John1.12]

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.

The writers were ' carried along by the Holy Spirit ' . The scriptures are ' God breathed '

 

[John1.12]

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.

Acts 1
1¶The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

 

[MonkeyFire]

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.

The Bible was planed by Jesus and passed down to the disciples to get it written after his time came.

Matt 16:18 and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

 

[night912]

there is only one apostle John

There's no evidence that the author of John is in fact the apostle John.