"Jesus said..."

[polonius]

Many "believers" use the claim about some subject that "Jesus said..."as proof for some doctrines.

Perhaps they overlook the dating of New Testament authorship.

Jesus lived from about 4 BC (Matthew) and died about 30 -33 AD.

Paul never knew Jesus in the flesh.

The gospels were written between 70 and 95 AD by non-witnesses.

Jesus left no writings himself.

So we really don't know what Jesus actually said.

[ttruscott]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Ehrman, Bart D. and any other modern literary critic of the bible has no authority with me. Their purpose is to destroy faith and to only accept any verse by proof. This is contrary to the teaching of the NT.

This rests upon the doctrine that Satan uses the truth to tell lies and manipulate us against YHWH which means even the truth can be used to deceive. The Bible says what GOD wants it so say so every interpretation must uplift, not downgrade, GOD. Is there even one critical literary analysis of GOD by a confirmed believer? Have they not all denied the faith?

[liamconnor]

The insinuated argument of the OP rests on a fantastical picture of history: it makes the gap of a few decades between the historical Jesus and the composition of the gospels sound like a few centuries; it either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the majority of our beliefs about the ancient past are based on documents written much longer after the events they purport to retell--the gospels were written within two generations of the events they report: can we say the same of Plutarch's works?; it is guilty of the fallacy that anonymity immediately disqualifies an historical work: the fallacy is involves dragging court-room principles into historical. As if hyper-skeptics here would suddenly drop their skepticism of the resurrection should a bios be uncovered which was undeniably written by a follower of Jesus! Or that the reports of Herodotus are accepted simply because, well, at least we know his name! Nonsense.

The argument also works only if we accept the most implausible picture of the early churches: that the disciples of Jesus either died instantaneously or had no concern in in relaying faithfully the words of their master from the very start (i.e., 33 AD onward), or that they did not care if new members of their group suddenly made up stories about him. All hyperskeptical nonsense.

[Tcg]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Ehrman, Bart D. and any other modern literary critic of the bible has no authority with me. Their purpose is to destroy faith and to only accept any verse by proof.

Actually, if you study his history, you'll find that his goal was to support the Bible his faith was built on. In doing so, the evidence he found caused him to reject the faith that started him on his journey. To claim his purpose is to destroy faith is not accurate. He simply reports what he has uncovered.



Tcg

[brianbbs67]

The insinuated argument of the OP rests on a fantastical picture of history: it makes the gap of a few decades between the historical Jesus and the composition of the gospels sound like a few centuries; it either ignores or is ignorant of the fact that the majority of our beliefs about the ancient past are based on documents written much longer after the events they purport to retell--the gospels were written within two generations of the events they report: can we say the same of Plutarch's works?; it is guilty of the fallacy that anonymity immediately disqualifies an historical work: the fallacy is involves dragging court-room principles into historical. As if hyper-skeptics here would suddenly drop their skepticism of the resurrection should a bios be uncovered which was undeniably written by a follower of Jesus! Or that the reports of Herodotus are accepted simply because, well, at least we know his name! Nonsense.

The argument also works only if we accept the most implausible picture of the early churches: that the disciples of Jesus either died instantaneously or had no concern in in relaying faithfully the words of their master from the very start (i.e., 33 AD onward), or that they did not care if new members of their group suddenly made up stories about him. All hyperskeptical nonsense.

Or they were destroyed by Rome and replaced with suitable believers. Actual history shows James leading the church, followed by Simeon and Jude. All Christ's brothers. Rome conquered Jerusalem and burned it. The Jerusalem church no longer existed after that thing. Only Rome to guide.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 14 by brianbbs67]

Or they were destroyed by Rome and replaced with suitable believers. Actual history shows James leading the church, followed by Simeon and Jude. All Christ's brothers. Rome conquered Jerusalem and burned it. The Jerusalem church no longer existed after that thing. Only Rome to guide.

Here is what you said that has some basis:

James was a leader of the early church.

Peter (your Simeon? He was called Cephas) was a leader of the early church.

Rome conquered and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

--All that is historically corroborated.

Here is what you ahve said that has no basis:

The other brothers of Jesus were fundamental leaders in the early church. No evidence for this.

Here is what you have insinuated that has no basis, but is a figment of your imagination:

Rome took control of the Christian movement.

--This is made so highly implausible by the fact that Rome was terribly confused by the Christian movement and tried to crush it. That is a fact (witnessed by actual documents, cf. Trajan and Pliny).

The destruction of the city of Jerusalem magically led to the destruction of the early Christian teachings.

--As if Jerusalem were a library of Christian documents!

The scenario you ahve given is nonsense. Why do you even entertain it?

[liamconnor]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Ehrman, Bart D. and any other modern literary critic of the bible has no authority with me. Their purpose is to destroy faith and to only accept any verse by proof.

Actually, if you study his history, you'll find that his goal was to support the Bible his faith was built on. In doing so, the evidence he found caused him to reject the faith that started him on his journey. To claim his purpose is to destroy faith is not accurate. He simply reports what he has uncovered.



Tcg

Not entirely true. I was audience to a debate between him and some Christian "celebrity" and he announced, quite passionately, "I want to trouble evangelicals!"

I concluded he is far from a dispassionate historian; after all, most dispassionate historians don't get involved in religious debates.

[Tcg]

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Ehrman, Bart D. and any other modern literary critic of the bible has no authority with me. Their purpose is to destroy faith and to only accept any verse by proof.

Actually, if you study his history, you'll find that his goal was to support the Bible his faith was built on. In doing so, the evidence he found caused him to reject the faith that started him on his journey. To claim his purpose is to destroy faith is not accurate. He simply reports what he has uncovered.



Tcg

Not entirely true. I was audience to a debate between him and some Christian "celebrity" and he announced, quite passionately, "I want to trouble evangelicals!"

Troubling evangelicals and destroying faith are two drastically different goals.

I concluded he is far from a dispassionate historian; after all, most dispassionate historians don't get involved in religious debates.

I never described him as a dispassionate historian, especially given the fact that his training is in theology.



Tcg

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 14 by brianbbs67]

Or they were destroyed by Rome and replaced with suitable believers. Actual history shows James leading the church, followed by Simeon and Jude. All Christ's brothers. Rome conquered Jerusalem and burned it. The Jerusalem church no longer existed after that thing. Only Rome to guide.

Here is what you said that has some basis:

James was a leader of the early church.

Peter (your Simeon? He was called Cephas) was a leader of the early church.

Rome conquered and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

--All that is historically corroborated.

Here is what you ahve said that has no basis:

The other brothers of Jesus were fundamental leaders in the early church. No evidence for this.

Here is what you have insinuated that has no basis, but is a figment of your imagination:

Rome took control of the Christian movement.

--This is made so highly implausible by the fact that Rome was terribly confused by the Christian movement and tried to crush it. That is a fact (witnessed by actual documents, cf. Trajan and Pliny).

The destruction of the city of Jerusalem magically led to the destruction of the early Christian teachings.

--As if Jerusalem were a library of Christian documents!

The scenario you ahve given is nonsense. Why do you even entertain it?

There was no magic involved. There is or was no such thing as Christianity. Sure that's what its called. Christ was a devout Hebrew and never claimed different. The early followers of the Way of Christ, followed the way of christ. The apostles and disciples followed the way of christ. We follow, but some now say we aren't because we are? The modern church is the non sense. Follow Christ and you are a Judiazer, but , wait, christ was a Jew. There is a way that seems right unto man which leads straight to death.

[polonius]

[Replying to post 14 by brianbbs67]

Or they were destroyed by Rome and replaced with suitable believers. Actual history shows James leading the church, followed by Simeon and Jude. All Christ's brothers. Rome conquered Jerusalem and burned it. The Jerusalem church no longer existed after that thing. Only Rome to guide.

Here is what you said that has some basis:

James was a leader of the early church.

Peter (your Simeon? He was called Cephas) was a leader of the early church.

Rome conquered and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

--All that is historically corroborated.

Here is what you ahve said that has no basis:

The other brothers of Jesus were fundamental leaders in the early church. No evidence for this.

Here is what you have insinuated that has no basis, but is a figment of your imagination:

Rome took control of the Christian movement.

--This is made so highly implausible by the fact that Rome was terribly confused by the Christian movement and tried to crush it. That is a fact (witnessed by actual documents, cf. Trajan and Pliny).

The destruction of the city of Jerusalem magically led to the destruction of the early Christian teachings.

--As if Jerusalem were a library of Christian documents!

The scenario you have given is nonsense. Why do you even entertain it?

RESPONSE: Perhaps he believes correctly the Roman Emperor Constantine (c 325) was the real founder of the Christian Church. In fact, it was at Constantine's insistence (prompted by another Church personage) that Jesus and God were both divine. Later they added the Holy Ghost. Look up the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constance. These are facts of history attested to by hundreds of bishops who attended these councils.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 19 by polonius]

RESPONSE: Perhaps he believes correctly the Roman Emperor Constantine (c 325) was the real founder of the Christian Church. In fact, it was at Constantine's insistence (prompted by another Church personage) that Jesus and God were both divine. Later they added the Holy Ghost. Look up the Council of Nicea and the Council of Constance. These are facts of history attested to by hundreds of bishops who attended these councils.

The term "church" and "Christian" appear prior to Constantine. Constantine authorized Christians, that is all. For the sake of solidarity Constantine required that the leaders of the church reach an agreement on the issue of Jesus' nature. It is far from the case that the leaders of the church were all Arians and then Constantine slammed down the gamut and said "Nay". Nonsense. Arianism likewise continued and even thrived after the death of Constantine.

None of this really deals with the issue of the OP: whether the gospels record accurately the words of Jesus. Unless of course one is claiming that the gospels were not written until after Constantine.

(thank you for the invitation to look up the councils; I did, in my church history class in grad school).