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

[TransmutingSoul]

History is a man made flawed method.

Yet we can learn from history, not to make the same mistakes, or repeat what is good.

Regards

 

[firedragon]

One way in which I came to the idea of what was likely for the historical Jesus to have said or done were all the techniques listed in the post, at a certain point I began to easily be able to dismiss what was unlikely, for example, discourses in certain Gnostic texts about the details of astrological signs, the nature of matter and spirit, etc. Not only were those texts estimated to be late they did not seem to reflect the other body of sayings considered to be likely true. Why would a guy who discoursed in simple language about God, money, and the imminent Kingdom, suddenly sound like a Platonist philosopher? So after using those methods and coming up with a list of things He probably did actually say I was able to sort through a large body of fluff very quickly based on what was consonant with it. Perhaps that was an unjust dismissal on my part.

For the GoT, the reason I considered it is the Gnostic material in it sticks out like a sore thumb in it, and the rest of it looks like the supposed Q scholars had and gave credence to the idea that there was a list of sayings before there was a structured Gospel. Not only that but also Papias saying "Matthew wrote the logia in Hebrew." This could just mean a sayings Gospel and not a full Gospel, so I considered it as something to look into. Then when I compared it to Mark, something considered by most to be the earliest Gospel, the form of non-Gnostic sayings it had tended to agree with it, which I supposed meant it came from either Q together or they were original, since it seemed to be earliest. The other Gospels in the NT diverged from the consonant ones in Mark and Thomas, so it seemed to me that they were more likely than the other later ones.

That was my method for both of those things.

Gospel of Tomas is like the Q?

Lain. I dont think you listed any techniques. See, if you think that one gospel corroborating the other does not make it an authentic statement. It may have a little more probability of authenticity, but the synoptics are called synoptics because they are synoptic. So since you brought in Q, QLM makes it not corroborating, it makes it about sources. Thus, in your case, you will have to then authenticate the sources first.

Also I think you have misunderstood Q. Q is not a source for mark. Thomas takes from Q, and it also takes from synoptics. But Thomas is later than most, if not all the synoptics even if its earlier than John which is completely alien. Unless you believe in the Mathean priority. If you go with general consensus, Thomas is later than all three synoptic gospels. So none of that makes the text historical. Do you understand?

 

[firedragon]

We can spend a lot of time on pointless debate, why does it matter how the Bible was Written?

Maybe it doesn't matter to you Tony, but it matters to others. I do not put faith on something so blindly.

But that does not mean you have no right to. You have all the right and there is nothing really bad about having faith. ITs just an academic exercise.

 

[Link]

The biggest factor for me is how Quran alludes to the Torah and Gospels and books between, and comments on them. I know they are truth for that reason, but also see to some degree they been corrupted.

 

[Lain]

Gospel of Tomas is like the Q?

Lain. I dont think you listed any techniques. See, if you think that one gospel corroborating the other does not make it an authentic statement. It may have a little more probability of authenticity, but the synoptics are called synoptics because they are synoptic. So since you brought in Q, QLM makes it not corroborating, it makes it about sources. Thus, in your case, you will have to then authenticate the sources first.

Also I think you have misunderstood Q. Q is not a source for mark. Thomas takes from Q, and it also takes from synoptics. But Thomas is later than most, if not all the synoptics even if its earlier than John which is completely alien. Unless you believe in the Mathean priority. If you go with general consensus, Thomas is later than all three synoptic gospels. So none of that makes the text historical. Do you understand?

I do, that may very well be the case. I fully expect that someone trying to reinvent the wheel on the historical Jesus would make errors and have misunderstandings on how it is done. I do hold to Matthean priority now, but I was talking about then when I did not.

 

[firedragon]

History is a man made flawed method.

That is why people should question the historicity of things rather than putting blind faith upon it.

Sorry brother. You contradicted yourself. in one instance you are saying history is flawed, and in another you are saying you put your faith on it, which means you are putting your faith on history which is flawed according to yourself.

 

[firedragon]

The biggest factor for me is how Quran alludes to the Torah and Gospels and books between, and comments on them.

If you wish to discuss the Qur'an and what it means by Torah and Injeel etc please open a new thread.

Also you made a big blunder. The Quran does not say "Gospels". It says "Gospel". Singular. Open a new thread.

 

[Link]

That is why people should question the historicity of things rather than putting blind faith upon it.

Sorry brother. You contradicted yourself. in one instance you are saying history is flawed, and in another you are saying you put your faith on it, which means you are putting your faith on history which is flawed according to yourself.

My methodology stems from the concept in Quran "it does not beseem them nor are they capable". The gospels like Quran, cannot be human made.

 

[firedragon]

I do, that may very well be the case. I fully expect that someone trying to reinvent the wheel on the historical Jesus would make errors and have misunderstandings on how it is done. I do hold to Matthean priority now, but I was talking about then when I did not.

Oh. I didnt know you hold onto matthaen priority. Which means your whole thesis on the source critical approach in your post has to go completely haywire. Do you understand Lain?

 

[Link]

If you wish to discuss the Qur'an and what it means by Torah and Injeel etc please open a new thread.

Also you made a big blunder. The Quran does not say "Gospels". It says "Gospel". Singular. Open a new thread.

I'm not talking about what Quran means by Torah and the Injeel, I mean how it comments and alludes to them. Quran was not revealed in a vacuum.

 

[Lain]

Oh. I didnt know you hold onto matthaen priority. Which means your whole thesis on the source critical approach in your post has to go completely haywire. Do you understand Lain?

Not sure if it was clear but I'll quote and try to explain again: the first sentence in my first post was "I used various means before I abandoned all these methods together."

I was just telling you how I used to try and determine these things, I no longer do that, but I thought you'd appreciate a more consensus-historical approach than the deductions from Christian theology about how humans know things that I use now. All that about source critical approach is what I did before but not now.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not talking about what Quran means by Torah and the Injeel, I mean how it comments and alludes to them. Quran was not revealed in a vacuum.

So that's why I asked you to open a new thread. See, the title is about the Bible and Jesus. Not the Quran.

Nevermind. Go ahead.

The Quran speaks of Zaboor, Taurath, Injeel, and Suhuf's of Ibrahim and Moosa, and scriptures given to Jacob, etc, etc.

But the internet focuses on Torah and Injeel. And that's your source of knowledge.

Quran speaks of "Gospel". Single. Singular. And it does not say "It was a written document". Nowhere. If that is the case, the Suhufi ibrahima wamoosa are called "Suhuf" which would definitely be a written document.

Injeel is the wahi that was given to Eesa. Thats all we know from the Quran. You are superimposing a secondary inherited baggage onto it. Do you understand?

 

[Link]

So that's why I asked you to open a new thread. See, the title is about the Bible and Jesus. Not the Quran.

Nevermind. Go ahead.

The Quran speaks of Zaboor, Taurath, Injeel, and Suhuf's of Ibrahim and Moosa, and scriptures given to Jacob, etc, etc.

But the internet focuses on Torah and Injeel. And that's your source of knowledge.

Quran speaks of "Gospel". Single. Singular. And it does not say "It was a written document". Nowhere. If that is the case, the Suhufi ibrahima wamoosa are called "Suhuf" which would definitely be a written document.

Injeel is the wahi that was given to Eesa. Thats all we know from the Quran. You are superimposing a secondary inherited baggage onto it. Do you understand?

The Quran comments on things we find in the Torah and Gospels and books between. For example, the Statues of Sulaiman (a).

It was not revealed in a vacuum.

 

[firedragon]

Not sure if it was clear but I'll quote and try to explain again: the first sentence in my first post was "I used various means before I abandoned all these methods together."

I was just telling you how I used to try and determine these things, I no longer do that, but I thought you'd appreciate a more consensus-historical approach than the deductions from Christian theology about how humans know things that I use now. All that about source critical approach is what I did before but not now.

Ah. Im sorry I may have misunderstood you.

I asked the last question because you said you hold on to the Matthaen priority.

So now I understand that you dont use critical methods. No worries.

 

[Link]

The Quran also mentions things we find in the infancy gospels.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran comments on things we find in the Torah and Gospels and books between. For example, the Statues of Sulaiman (a).

It was not revealed in a vacuum.

You repeated the same faith statement after that post of mine with out a single relevant response. Sorry to say this but a lot of people who hold on to a faith with out applying their Akal as the Quran says react this way.

Tell me brother. Who named the "four gospels" by the titles "Gospels"?

 

[firedragon]

The Quran also mentions things we find in the infancy gospels.

So are you saying the Quran was man made and copied from all of these sources like the Christian missionary do? Did you learn that from Anti Islamic apologetics? Please clarify.

 

[Link]

You repeated the same faith statement after that post of mine with out a single relevant response. Sorry to say this but a lot of people who hold on to a faith with out applying their Akal as the Quran says react this way.

Tell me brother. Who named the "four gospels" by the titles "Gospels"?

You don't see the relevance, but your post is not addressing what I'm saying. Quran was not revealed in a vacuum.

 

[Link]

So are you saying the Quran was man made and copied from all of these sources like the Christian missionary do? Did you learn that from Anti Islamic apologetics? Please clarify.

No, but God knows these things are in infancy Gospels and yet reveals them verbatim. There is a reason.

 

[firedragon]

You don't see the relevance, but your post is not addressing what I'm saying. Quran was not revealed in a vacuum.

Answer this one at least. Dont ignore it.

Tell me brother. Who named the "four gospels" by the titles "Gospels"?