The Words of Jesus.

leroy · Jul 24, 2021

Jayhawker Soule said:
Because the first bit of nonsense rendered the rest of it garbage. So, for example, ...

This claim wobbles somewhere between incoherent and idiotic. But let's tru out you masterful logic:

It is now Friday evening in my area. The weather is relatively warm and tomorrow is expected to be more so. There will be a full moon tonight, which which means that we're entering the 15th of the Hebrew month of Av. The saucer recently departed, and my Venusian friends left a particularly nice bottle of wine for Shabbat.

^ Every single bit of verifiable information is true! Therefore?

if an author is BOTH well informed and honest then the author is reliable..... what's idiotic about this claim?

blü 2 · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Had to look up Crossan (he looks like Father Ted) it never ceases to amaze me how little we actually know about Jesus. I take the mainstream historical view that he probably existed and I am interested in Crossan view that he might not of been an apocalyptic preacher.

As to whether Jesus existed, there's no clincher either way, so I think it's basically 50-50. The strongest points in favor of an HJ, I'd say, are the fights that Jesus has with his family in all four gospels (the 'criterion of embarrassment'), and the point Bart Ehrman makes, that none of the early critics of Christianity that we know of used a 'didn't exist' attack.

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Right lets assume I have no knowledge of your god and I read the bible,

What reason would I believe that the Bible is authored by a god?

Check out post #28. That's the post you partially quoted. If you read the whole post there are two verses that say how we got the Bible. For your convenience, here's what that post said:

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

According to this verse Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did not write what they heard from other people or what they themselves may or may not have heard. Instead they wrote what God told them to write. God knew what Jesus said, so if you believe the Bible, you can take the words of who said what to who to the bank.

2 Pet 1:20-21,

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

We in the modern West think of "prophecy" as foretelling the future, but that is not how the word was used in the Bible (meanings of words do change over time, this being but one example). It can be foretelling, but it can also be forth-telling. In other words it's all prophecy and this verse says none of it was man's idea. The word "moved" in verse 21 is the Greek word "phero" and it meant "to be carried along."

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Marcion said:
Then I can add that your "figure of speech" still makes no sense, because a book is not a person. So you will have to judge each author by their own (unedited) text(s) and judge how truthful they are. You cannot simply treat a book as a person and say that you "trust the book to speak the truth". It is an illogical and silly idea. And yet that is how fundamentalist religious folk think. A collection of texts does not become perfect or infallible just because some bisshops made the selections, did some editing, put a cover around it and declared it a "holy collection". Yet that is exactly what happened, nothing more and nothing less.

I understand what you are saying there.

Do you have any kind of holy book? If so, how can you trust it? If not, where do you get your ideas?

Justanatheist · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
Check out post #28. That's the post you partially quoted. If you read the whole post there are two verses that say how we got the Bible. For your convenience, here's what that post said:

2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
According to this verse Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did not write what they heard from other people or what they themselves may or may not have heard. Instead they wrote what God told them to write. God knew what Jesus said, so if you believe the Bible, you can take the words of who said what to who to the bank.

2 Pet 1:20-21,

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.

We in the modern West think of "prophecy" as foretelling the future, but that is not how the word was used in the Bible (meanings of words do change over time, this being but one example). It can be foretelling, but it can also be forth-telling. In other words it's all prophecy and this verse says none of it was man's idea. The word "moved" in verse 21 is the Greek word "phero" and it meant "to be carried along."

That gives me no reason to believe that the bible was authored by a god other than what is written in the bible, does it?

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
2 Tim 3:16,

All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
According to this verse Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John did not write what they heard from other people or what they themselves may or may not have heard. Instead they wrote what God told them to write. God knew what Jesus said, so if you believe the Bible, you can take the words of who said what to who to the bank.

WOW! Amazing!

So, let's see ...

a likely pseudepigraphic epistle,
which the faithful nevertheless claim was authored by Paul,
who sadly died circa 65 CE,
is to serve as evidence for the claim that the Gospels are holy writ,
despite the fact that these Gospels (also likely pseudepigraphic) were composed years if not decades later.

Of course, Christianity has more than its fair share of intelligent people, and not every Christian commentary endorses the above nonsense. So, for example, from Bible Hub -- 2 Timothy 3:15 ....

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(15) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures.—The Greek words translated “from a child” should be rendered, from a very child, as the word denotes that Timothy’s instruction in the Holy Scriptures began at a very early and tender age.

The holy scriptures.—Literally, the sacred writings. The Scriptures of the Old Testament are here exclusively meant. The expression “writings” for the Scriptures is not found elsewhere in the New Testament; it is, however, used by Josephus.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures - That is, the Old Testament; for the New Testament was not then written; see the notes at John 5:39. The mother of Timothy was a pious Hebrewess, and regarded it as one of the duties of her religion to train her son in the careful knowledge of the word of God. This was regarded by the Hebrews as an important duty of religion, and there is reason to believe that it was commonly faithfully performed. The Jewish writings abound with lessons on this subject.

Meyer's Commentary
τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα] This name for the O. T. only occurs here; in John 7:15 without ἱερά; the more usual name is at αἱ γραφαί, with and without ἅγιαι. De Wette’s conjecture is quite arbitrary, that the author of the epistle was also thinking here of some writings of the N. T.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
the holy scriptures] Lit. ‘the sacred writings’ of the Old Testament. It was a requirement of the Rabbis that a child should begin to learn the Law by heart when five years old.

Bengel's Gnomen
—τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα, the sacred Scriptures) the books of Moses and the prophets. For these existed when Timothy was a child.

Vincent's Word Studies
The Holy Scriptures are nowhere called ἱερὰ γράμματα in N.T. In lxx, γράμματα is never used of sacred writings of any kind. Both Josephus and Philo use τὰ ἱερὰ γράμματα for the O.T. Scriptures. The words here should be rendered sacred learning. The books in the writer's mind were no doubt the Old Testament. Scriptures, in which Timothy, like every Jewish boy, had been instructed; but he does not mean to designate those books as ἱερὰ γράμματα. He means the learning acquired from Scripture by the rabbinic methods, according to which the Old Testament books were carefully searched for meanings hidden in each word and letter, and especially for messianic intimations.

But, what do they know?

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Marcion said:
Then I can add that your "figure of speech" still makes no sense, because a book is not a person.

But a fortune cookie is?

So you will have to judge each author by their own (unedited) text(s) and judge how truthful they are. You cannot simply treat a book as a person and say that you "trust the book to speak the truth."

I just told you what the book says about itself. My or you belief or unbelief does not change that. I understand you have your reasons for not believing it, but it still says what I pointed out.

It is an illogical and silly idea. And yet that is how fundamentalist religious folk think.

What if I said your ideas are illogical and silly? I really wouldn't because I don't know how you might be affected by it. Some folks would feel bad if they were told their ideas are silly. I'm not one of them, but still, what is it that makes you want to make others inferior to yourself? If it's a lack of confidence, you may want to consider changing your stance on the Bible, because it would give you more confidence than you thought possible.

A collection of texts does not become perfect or infallible just because some bisshops made the selections, did some editing, put a cover around it and declared it a "holy collection". Yet that is exactly what happened, nothing more and nothing less.

Then why do you suppose that there are thousands of books, each with hundreds of pages, written by scholars that deal with the cannon? I think it really is more involved than you suggest.

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
That gives me no reason to believe that the bible was authored by a god other than what is written in the bible, does it?

I'm not trying to give you a reason to believe. I think I've been clear that belief is totally optional. Again, I just pointed out what's written in the book.

I obviously use the scriptures as the basis for my belief. I take it to be the authority upon which I base my beliefs. So what is the basis for your own belief? Do you have any external authority by which you live, or is it just what's in your own head?

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Jayhawker Soule said:
WOW! Amazing!

So, let's see ...

a likely pseudepigraphic epistle,

which the faithful nevertheless claim was authored by Paul,

who sadly died circa 65 CE,

is to serve as evidence for the claim that the Gospels are holy writ,

despite the fact that these Gospels (also likely pseudepigraphic) were composed years if not decades later.

Of course, Christianity has more than its fair share of intelligent people, and not every Christian commentary endorses the above nonsense. So, for example, from Bible Hub -- 2 Timothy 3:15 ....

But, what do they know?

First of all, I'm not 100% sure of your point, so keep that in mind as you read this reply.

Am I correct in understanding that you give the commentators more weight than the book itself? If so, there are plenty of commentators that say exactly what I say. How do you decide which commentators are right?

Justanatheist · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
I'm not trying to give you a reason to believe. I think I've been clear that belief is totally optional. Again, I just pointed out what's written in the book.

I obviously use the scriptures as the basis for my belief. I take it to be the authority upon which I base my beliefs

Which is circular reasoning as I stated back in post 35 and you accused me of creating a strawman and twisting your words!

rrobs said:
So what is the basis for your own belief? Do you have any external authority by which you live, or is it just what's in your own head?

I do not have a belief about gods, never had a reason to believe. No I have no external authority (except for swmbo!). I do not believe in any objective morality the closest we have is might is right.

syo · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Often in debates people write "Jesus says" or "Jesus tells us" but as far as I can see in the bible the only things Jesus wrote are,
"

"
Everything else is what someone else tells us about what Jesus said, often many years after his death and from people who never met him. How much importance do you give to "he said" "she said" in your normal life outside religion?

The bible is void of meaning. So, no jesus says.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
I obviously use the scriptures as the basis for my belief. I take it to be the authority upon which I base my beliefs.

No, you take your self-serving interpretation of a translation of the text as authority and apparently do so without giving due consideration to informed and competing interpretations found in respected Christian commentary. That's not theology; that's shallow confirmation bias.

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Which is circular reasoning as I stated back in post 35 and you accused me of creating a strawman and twisting your words!

How is what I said circular? I simply pointed out what's written in a book. I then said I believe what's written there. I didn't even give a reason for why I believe. Circular reasoning might be something like, "the Bible is true because it contains the truth." There's nothing like that in my reply.

I do not have a belief about gods, never had a reason to believe. No I have no external authority (except for swmbo!). I do not believe in any objective morality the closest we have is might is right.

Do you have any problems with what Adolf Hitler did to the Jews?

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2021

syo said:
The bible is void of meaning. So, no jesus says.

Theoretically, there are a couple of possibilities:

that the Bible is void of meaning, or
that you're void of perceptivity and/or objectivity.

Given that untold number of highly intelligent people, spanning the spectrum from literalist to secularist, have found meaning in the text, perhaps we should consider the possibility the the Bible is not at fault.

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Jayhawker Soule said:
No, you take your self-serving interpretation of a translation of the text as authority and apparently do so without giving due consideration to informed and competing interpretations found in respected Christian commentary.

By using the word, "apparently," I'm assuming you are leaving the question at least somewhat open. You leave it open that I may in fact have given due consideration to the commentaries. That's actually closer to the truth, but I can understand how you could be mistaken.

That's not theology; that's shallow confirmation bias.

You disregard the book, instead believing what other's say about it, but that is not shallow confirmation bias. How does that work?

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
First of all, I'm not 100% sure of your point, so keep that in mind as you read this reply.

I'm shocked.

rrobs said:
Am I correct in understanding that you give the commentators more weight than the book itself?

No, I give both more weight than your understanding of either.

Justanatheist · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
Do you have any problems with what Adolf Hitler did to the Jews?

Absolutely what many Christians did murdering six million Jews was disgusting, of course it was the culmination of nearly 2000 years of hate, inspired by the blood curse in the Bible.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 24, 2021

rrobs said:
By using the word, "apparently," I'm assuming you are leaving the question at least somewhat open.

This is yet another example of the quality of your assumptions.

Justanatheist · Jul 24, 2021

syo said:
The bible is void of meaning. So, no jesus says.

I do not think that we know whether anything in the bible is actually the words of Jesus but to say it is devoid of all meaning is a bit harsh.

rrobs · Jul 24, 2021

Justanatheist said:
Absolutely what many Christians did murdering six million Jews was disgusting, of course it was the culmination of nearly 2000 years of hate, inspired by the blood curse in the Bible.

You said there is no moral objectivity and yet you accuse people of a wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either everybody does what they themselves "feel" to be right or there is some objective standard independent of people's thinking. If the former, then you have no right in claiming that Christians murdering millions of Jews is disgusting and a show of hate. If the latter, what is the standard?

You say it was Christians that murdered the Jews. Why not say it was white people that murdered Jews? They were all white you know. Heck, these days you'd probably get a high social score by disparaging the white race. Even more than disparaging the Bible I dare say.

The Words of Jesus.

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member