What Jesus said! Jesus Himself? How, What and where?

[Link]

You know what there is about 40 reasons I believe Gospels are from God. I Will make a thread about these reasons.

 

[Kenny]

Muslims, Bahai's, Christians, Some Hindus, and even a few Jews, quote sayings of Jesus as if they are historical sayings of Jesus himself. Of course most Christians would definitely believe the New Testament has his sayings in some form or another. Some believe they are absolutely verbatim, while some believe it is the inspiration worded by a human being.

Muslims typically use the New Testament quotes to validate their own faith. Bahai's do the same thing. Christians of course as understandable would use all of it for their whole theology or more. Some Hindus who believe in a Bahai like theology where a new representative of God is the incarnation of Jesus himself would use the New Testament to derive some quotes for their theology.

I cant list all the institutions who do this so please understand.

Other than the methodology of "faith", what other historical method do you use to validate any of Jesus's attributed statements in the NT?

For me!!!!

It is the history of the TaNaKh, the statements of those who were there, those who spoke to those who were there, and the veracity in the application of what Jesus said that convinces me.

 

[firedragon]

Brother one of the signs the Gospels are from God is how trinity is not even hinted in there and Mohammad (s) Prophecy clearly is and Quran talks about believers seeing Mohammad (s) in what they find of the Torah and Injeel among them.

Yeah. But you have to still prove that the Torah and the Injeel were ever written down first. I think you are avoiding answering all and every question I ask you.

Just leave it mate. Cheers.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

See, when you say "we", that includes me in my perspective. For me, the Bible as a whole is absolutely not necessary for the Islamic theology. Absolutely not necessary. So I dont need to know what Jesus actually said for the theology of Islam. The theology of Islam is codified in the Qur'an.

It is you who needs the Bible because your whole theology is based on the Bible, the Tipitaka, the Hindu scripture, etc, etc, etc and is culminated in the Bahai scripture be it the Qayoom al asma, AL Kithab al Akdhas, or any other bahai scripture.

So I hope you understand that I dont need these for the theology I need.

I understand that the Quran is your source of guidance.

I see Muhammad requires us to embrace all the Messengers. So maybe we are missing something if we do not consider what they offer, I do see we only have a lot to gain.

Actually I see Baha'i theology has its roots in Islam, and shows us how Islam has its roots in all other Scriptures that proceeded it, just as the Baha'i Scriptures do.

Likewise for the Baha'i Scriptures, the Essence of the Quran is codified in the Baha'i Scriptures, actually even in one small Book called the Hidden Words, it contains the Essence of the Quran.

All the best Firedragon as I have no answer for your original post, most likely no one has.


Regards Tony

 

[firedragon]

I see Muhammad requires us to embrace all the Messengers. So maybe we are missing something if we do not consider what they offer

Thats good for someone who does not follow the Quran. Because the Quran says that it is the Muhaymeen. Thats good enough.

If you dont believe it, its your prerogative. Everyone cant believe or follow the Quran. I understand that. Thats why, I believe the Quran is not relevant to this question. Because no one really believes in it.

I find it funny that the conversation on the Bible is always going back to the Quran, consistently. It seems like the apologists dont know anything about the Bible and dont wish to accept that, so they want to go to the Quran and do a post hoc ergo propter hoc.

 

[Clara Tea]

Muslims, Bahai's, Christians, Some Hindus, and even a few Jews, quote sayings of Jesus as if they are historical sayings of Jesus himself. Of course most Christians would definitely believe the New Testament has his sayings in some form or another. Some believe they are absolutely verbatim, while some believe it is the inspiration worded by a human being.

Muslims typically use the New Testament quotes to validate their own faith. Bahai's do the same thing. Christians of course as understandable would use all of it for their whole theology or more. Some Hindus who believe in a Bahai like theology where a new representative of God is the incarnation of Jesus himself would use the New Testament to derive some quotes for their theology.

I cant list all the institutions who do this so please understand.

Other than the methodology of "faith", what other historical method do you use to validate any of Jesus's attributed statements in the NT?

The bible quotes many apostles. But what if the bible author made up their statements?

 

[firedragon]

Likewise for the Baha'i Scriptures, the Essence of the Quran is codified in the Baha'i Scriptures, actually even in one small Book called the Hidden Words, it contains the Essence of the Quran.

Not at all. I have also read it. Try not to get into Bahai scripture now. Completely different topic. Do open a new thread. I have read it, from cover to cover, analysed and studied it in depth. There are some Bahai books I have studied in depth. So I can participate if you open a new thread. I dont bring up the Quran or Bahai scripture unnecessarily, and I dont speak of things I dont know anything about unless I say I dont know much about something.

Go ahead. But this has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[firedragon]

The bible quotes many apostles. But what if the bible author made up their statements?

If people made things up, what do you really think is the repercussion? I mean its fine if you accept things are just made up and you wish to deify it no matter what. Thats not the topic.

 

[blü 2]

Muslims, Bahai's, Christians, Some Hindus, and even a few Jews, quote sayings of Jesus as if they are historical sayings of Jesus himself. Of course most Christians would definitely believe the New Testament has his sayings in some form or another. Some believe they are absolutely verbatim, while some believe it is the inspiration worded by a human being.

Muslims typically use the New Testament quotes to validate their own faith. Bahai's do the same thing. Christians of course as understandable would use all of it for their whole theology or more. Some Hindus who believe in a Bahai like theology where a new representative of God is the incarnation of Jesus himself would use the New Testament to derive some quotes for their theology.

I cant list all the institutions who do this so please understand.

Other than the methodology of "faith", what other historical method do you use to validate any of Jesus's attributed statements in the NT?

The Jesus Seminar (1985-2006) was a large group of scholars who voted Yes - maybe - maybe not - No on lists of sayings (and doings) that the bible attributes to Jesus. You can read about their methodology >here<.

A lot of people outside the Seminar, and not a few within it, were ultimately unpersuaded about the results it produced. It was an aggregation of opinions that often enough had to be intuitive when no firm evidence-based conclusion was available ─ ie nearly all the time.

One of the participants was John Dominic Crossan, a respected scholar. His book The Historical Jesus | The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant is vaunted on the cover by the publishers as "The first comprehensive determination of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said".

Yet the book ends with this paragraph:

This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus. And if one were to accept its formal methods and even their material investments, one would surely offer divergent interpretive conclusions about the reconstructable historical Jesus. But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as mere reconstruction, as if reconstruction somehow invalidated the entire project. Because there is only reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction, be it red, pink, grey, black [as used in the Jesus Seminar] or A, B, C, D. If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in.​

(My own view is that it's possible there was no historical Jesus at all ─ given the gospel authors' extensive use of taking passages from the Tanakh that appealed to them as "messianic prophecies" and moving their Jesus character through scenarios they constructed accordingly, an historical Jesus is not essential to account for the gospels. But there may have been, and if there was, we have very little idea who he was in history or what he actually said.)

 

[Shadow11]

Well to sum it up he basically said trust in God and treat others the way you wish to be treated probably one of the easiest to understand but hardest to follow. If you treated all people the way you want to be treated and everyone else did also there would be no problems.

 

[blü 2]

Well to sum it up he basically said trust in God and treat others the way you wish to be treated probably one of the easiest to understand but hardest to follow. If you treated all people the way you want to be treated and everyone else did also there would be no problems.

Or as can be argued, starting with Mark, his message was, Get ready, the Kingdom is about to be established on earth ─ within the lifetime of some of Jesus' hearers, say all the synoptics. This was the message of John the Baptist, of course, which is where Mark starts his story.

 

[DNB]

Muslims, Bahai's, Christians, Some Hindus, and even a few Jews, quote sayings of Jesus as if they are historical sayings of Jesus himself. Of course most Christians would definitely believe the New Testament has his sayings in some form or another. Some believe they are absolutely verbatim, while some believe it is the inspiration worded by a human being.

Muslims typically use the New Testament quotes to validate their own faith. Bahai's do the same thing. Christians of course as understandable would use all of it for their whole theology or more. Some Hindus who believe in a Bahai like theology where a new representative of God is the incarnation of Jesus himself would use the New Testament to derive some quotes for their theology.

I cant list all the institutions who do this so please understand.

Other than the methodology of "faith", what other historical method do you use to validate any of Jesus's attributed statements in the NT?

The audacity and wisdom of the statements themselves. And, how they correspond with the Old Testament texts - written many centuries earlier, by around 30 different authors.

 

[firedragon]

The audacity and wisdom of the statements themselves. And, how they correspond with the Old Testament texts - written many centuries earlier, by around 30 different authors.

OT was written by more than 40 authors. Maybe even 50.

Anyway, the authors of the NT Gospels could have copied from the Septuagint. In some cases, it very evident they did and tried to conform to some of the verses. Sometimes failing drastically because the Septuagint has wrong translations in it.

 

[firedragon]

The Jesus Seminar (1985-2006) was a large group of scholars who voted Yes - maybe - maybe not - No on lists of sayings (and doings) that the bible attributes to Jesus. You can read about their methodology >here<.

A lot of people outside the Seminar, and not a few within it, were ultimately unpersuaded about the results it produced. It was an aggregation of opinions that often enough had to be intuitive when no firm evidence-based conclusion was available ─ ie nearly all the time.

One of the participants was John Dominic Crossan, a respected scholar. His book The Historical Jesus | The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant is vaunted on the cover by the publishers as "The first comprehensive determination of who Jesus was, what he did, what he said".

Yet the book ends with this paragraph:

This book, then, is a scholarly reconstruction of the historical Jesus. And if one were to accept its formal methods and even their material investments, one would surely offer divergent interpretive conclusions about the reconstructable historical Jesus. But one cannot dismiss it or the search for the historical Jesus as mere reconstruction, as if reconstruction somehow invalidated the entire project. Because there is only reconstruction. For a believing Christian both the life of the Word of God and the text of the Word of God are alike a graded process of historical reconstruction, be it red, pink, grey, black [as used in the Jesus Seminar] or A, B, C, D. If you cannot believe in something produced by reconstruction, you may have nothing left to believe in.​

(My own view is that it's possible there was no historical Jesus at all ─ given the gospel authors' extensive use of taking passages from the Tanakh that appealed to them as "messianic prophecies" and moving their Jesus character through scenarios they constructed accordingly, an historical Jesus is not essential to account for the gospels. But there may have been, and if there was, we have very little idea who he was in history or what he actually said.)

Yes. Jesus seminar filtration is a a better method. But even that is considered conservative. Some profs like Bart Ehrman has a lot to say about that. He doesnt agree.

But its at least a good approach.

 

[DNB]

OT was written by more than 40 authors. Maybe even 50.

Anyway, the authors of the NT Gospels could have copied from the Septuagint. In some cases, it very evident they did and tried to conform to some of the verses. Sometimes failing drastically because the Septuagint has wrong translations in it.

No, the OT is around 30 (not including Apocrypha). The NT is around 10.

But, that's not the question. I was stating that outside of faith, it is the audacious statements of Jesus about his Messianic fulfillment, and the wisdom behind what he said, and the continuous thread that corroborates the OT prophecies and over-arching theme of God's word.

 

[firedragon]

No, the OT is around 30 (not including Apocrypha). The NT is around 10.

No DNB. Its incorrect. But that's fine.

But, that's not the question. I was stating that outside of faith, it is the audacious statements of Jesus about his Messianic fulfillment, and the wisdom behind what he said, and the continuous thread that corroborates the OT prophecies and over-arching theme of God's word.

Again, the gospel writers have taken statements from the Septuagint. That is an external critique you are making, and prophecies being corroborated by later writers does not mean they are authentic statements of Jesus himself. While the NT makes some profound statements as you say, a lot of them dont conform to the OT.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Physicist Paul Dirac once said, a theory with mathematical beauty is more likely to be correct, than an ugly one that fits the data.

I believe a similar observation can be made with scripture. The elegance, and deceptive simplicity, of The Gospels, as well as Ecclesiastes, The Psalms, The Dhammapada, The Bhagavad Gita, the devotional poetry of Rumi, convince me to look for wisdom there.

Dirac also said, pick a flower on earth, and you move the farthest star; which I mention only because it seems the sort of thing Rumi might have said.

 

[firedragon]

I believe a similar observation can be made with scripture. The elegance, and deceptive simplicity, of The Gospels, as well as Ecclesiastes, The Psalms, The Dhammapada, The Bhagavad Gita, the devotional poetry of Rumi, convince me to look for wisdom there.

You have studied all of this?

 

[firedragon]

You know what there is about 40 reasons I believe Gospels are from God. I Will make a thread about these reasons.

Ill be waiting.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You have studied all of this?

Not in any formal setting