In another thread, it was said by a poster: "It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. As He said Himself. When discussing what He teaches and what He said and what He shows us, it doesn't matter how we personally see things - it matters what HE teaches, says, reveals. We personally can be (and often are) wrong."
The thread was long-winded to say the least, and there was likely context there - somewhere in all that mess - that pertains to the topic as a whole, which can be seen from the below.
In the spirit of the thread both there and here, it's 'what jesus said'.
Aside from the apparent fact (did jesus have a recording device with him for three decades to later be dictated down verbatim that I'm not aware of?) that what the bible says jesus, well, said... isn't an exact quote (even though it's often read as such). It's literally (at least) what someone said jesus said. Now that this is behind us, about the above quoted phrase:
If it doesn't matter how we see it, then why are any of us here on this forum? If how we see things (which, apparently are often wrong) doesn't matter... why even contemplate god, the bible, jesus, morality, right and wrong and all the other things so many of us discuss here? Why not just sit back and become unthinking sponges, absorbing all the muck the bible throws at us accepting it simply as a matter of faith?
Maybe that's what god wants - unthinking sponges?
For discussion: is it wrong (at least) or ignorant (at most) to say 'it doesn't matter how we see it - it only matters what he says'? Or is there wisdom (used exceptionally loosely) in this thinking?
View referred topic here:
viewtopic.php?f=38&p=1054784#p1054784
What jesus says
Moderator: Moderators
-
nobspeople
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
bluegreenearth
- Guru
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
- Location: Manassas, VA
- Has thanked: 681 times
- Been thanked: 470 times
Re: What jesus says
Post #2[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
This is almost certainly a contentious issue, even among various Christians. So, I'm not at all naive enough to believe that a resolution will be discovered here. Nevertheless, in accordance with the principle of charity, we could interpret the quoted notion to suggest that the teachings of Jesus described in the NT need not have been recorded verbatim for his basic underlying message to be transmissible through the gospel narratives.
Of course, to accept this notion is to assume the basic underlying message was accurately communicated by Jesus in the first place, accurately understood by his followers at the time it was originally communicated by Jesus, accurately retained as the original accounts were necessarily reformatted into versions which were more conducive for oral transmission by illiterate people, and accurately transcribed after decades of fallible oral transmission by illiterate people. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for Jesus's basic underlying message to have been retained despite thousands of subsequent unintentional and intentional alterations to the original accounts if the concepts he verbally communicated were simple enough and not easily confused by subtle nuances in the meanings of particular words, but I'm unaware of any justifiable reason to be highly confident in this possibility. The only way to justify more confidence would be to have Jesus himself appear at a conference of textual critics to either confirm or deny that his basic underlying message had been retained throughout all subsequent versions of the original accounts.
Also, it is a fact that every form of communication requires an interpretation on the receiving end. Even the small group of 1st century people who heard directly from Jesus before his crucifixion had to interpret his statements based on their understanding of his word choices, grammar, and body language. Therefore, when some people claim to consult the teachings of Jesus directly, they are often referring to their literal or direct interpretation of the language in the NT texts and are assuming a literal or direct interpretation was intended by the author. Accordingly, their literal or direct interpretation of Jesus's teachings as described in the NT texts is their personal way to "see it" which is no less subjective than any non-literal or indirect interpretation.
On the other hand, to be charitable, there are many circumstances where receivers of a communication can be relatively confident that a literal or direct interpretation was intended by the author because non-literal or indirect interpretations would seem to make less sense when other information is available to provide sufficient context. Unfortunately, with the NT texts, there isn't always sufficient information available to establish an obvious context in which to confidently interpret Jesus's statements.
This is almost certainly a contentious issue, even among various Christians. So, I'm not at all naive enough to believe that a resolution will be discovered here. Nevertheless, in accordance with the principle of charity, we could interpret the quoted notion to suggest that the teachings of Jesus described in the NT need not have been recorded verbatim for his basic underlying message to be transmissible through the gospel narratives.
Of course, to accept this notion is to assume the basic underlying message was accurately communicated by Jesus in the first place, accurately understood by his followers at the time it was originally communicated by Jesus, accurately retained as the original accounts were necessarily reformatted into versions which were more conducive for oral transmission by illiterate people, and accurately transcribed after decades of fallible oral transmission by illiterate people. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible for Jesus's basic underlying message to have been retained despite thousands of subsequent unintentional and intentional alterations to the original accounts if the concepts he verbally communicated were simple enough and not easily confused by subtle nuances in the meanings of particular words, but I'm unaware of any justifiable reason to be highly confident in this possibility. The only way to justify more confidence would be to have Jesus himself appear at a conference of textual critics to either confirm or deny that his basic underlying message had been retained throughout all subsequent versions of the original accounts.
Also, it is a fact that every form of communication requires an interpretation on the receiving end. Even the small group of 1st century people who heard directly from Jesus before his crucifixion had to interpret his statements based on their understanding of his word choices, grammar, and body language. Therefore, when some people claim to consult the teachings of Jesus directly, they are often referring to their literal or direct interpretation of the language in the NT texts and are assuming a literal or direct interpretation was intended by the author. Accordingly, their literal or direct interpretation of Jesus's teachings as described in the NT texts is their personal way to "see it" which is no less subjective than any non-literal or indirect interpretation.
On the other hand, to be charitable, there are many circumstances where receivers of a communication can be relatively confident that a literal or direct interpretation was intended by the author because non-literal or indirect interpretations would seem to make less sense when other information is available to provide sufficient context. Unfortunately, with the NT texts, there isn't always sufficient information available to establish an obvious context in which to confidently interpret Jesus's statements.
-
1213
- Savant
- Posts: 11427
- Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
- Location: Finland
- Has thanked: 324 times
- Been thanked: 369 times
Re: What jesus says
Post #3If person is a disciple of Jesus, which means "Christian", he obviously follow Jesus. This is why I think, for Christians, what Jesus says comes first. If you would be my disciple, then it could be that my words matter more. But, maybe it is not good to say, nothing else matters. Other people may have good things also, but for a disciple of Jesus, Jesus is the king.nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:56 pm ...
For discussion: is it wrong (at least) or ignorant (at most) to say 'it doesn't matter how we see it - it only matters what he says'? Or is there wisdom (used exceptionally loosely) in this thinking?
...
-
Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: What jesus says
Post #4What I've always found amusing is how some people equate a being with a personal characteristic. "God is hope." Jesus is love," and "Christ is the Truth."nobspeople wrote: ↑Thu Nov 04, 2021 2:56 pm In another thread, it was said by a poster: "It does not matter how we see it because we are not the Truth. Christ is the Truth. As He said Himself. When discussing what He teaches and what He said and what He shows us, it doesn't matter how we personally see things - it matters what HE teaches, says, reveals. We personally can be (and often are) wrong."
If this isn't simple hyperbole, someone please tell me what means to "be the truth" and how Christ can be it.
Considering that both god and Jesus have been wrong---god thought it was wise to make Saul the king of Israel, and Jesus thought "the end" would occur during the time of his present-day disciples---I don't see any wisdom in necessarily chucking our thoughts/opinions for theirs.In the spirit of the thread both there and here, it's 'what jesus said'.
For discussion: is it wrong (at least) or ignorant (at most) to say 'it doesn't matter how we see it - it only matters what he says'? Or is there wisdom (used exceptionally loosely) in this thinking?
.
