“Jesus said . . . “

[Zzyzx]

.
We do NOT know what ‘Jesus said’. He left no writings. There are no records from the time of his preaching or speaking.

ALL we have are stories written decades later by people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians. There is NO assurance that Gospel writers actually personally knew Jesus or witnessed anything he said. It is not known how or from whom Gospel writers learned about what was supposedly said or done.

In fact, we don’t even have the Gospels as written in original form. The earliest copies are from two centuries later.

It is not unknown or uncommon for stories to be exaggerated, embellished, edited, or fabricated – particularly over decades of retelling and recopying.

HOW can anyone legitimately claim to know what Jesus said?

[bjs]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

It depends on what you mean by “know.�

If by “know� you mean have absolute, 100% unquestioned certainty, then of course we don’t know what Jesus said. Jesus writing the words himself would not change that. By that standard we know very little in life.

On the other hand, if by “know� you mean to be reasonable confident using normal standards that we apply to every other area of life, then we can know what Jesus said. We can make reasonable deductions based on historical evidence about who wrote the gospels. We can be confident about the words of Jesus while still recognizing the limitations of our knowledge in general.

We can’t know what Jesus said with absolute certainty, but because of the unusually large amount of records of the words of Jesus we can be more confident about what Jesus’ words were than virtually (perhaps literally?) any other person from antiquity.

[Elijah John]

. HOW can anyone legitimately claim to know what Jesus said?

We cannot. We can only know what was attributed to Jesus. Unless, or course, one has visions or direct encounters of the risen Christ, as Paul and some of the saints were said to have had.

We cannot ultimately know, but we can believe. And we can determine likelihoods based on historical-critical methods (as employed by HJ scholars) and culture context.

Given that, it seems very unlikely that Jesus of Nazareth, a first century Jewish preacher, ever claimed to be "God", and that he came to die in order to "pay for" humanity's sins. Such claims would contravene the context of the religious culture of his native Judaism.

[Zzyzx]

.

If by “know� you mean have absolute, 100% unquestioned certainty, then of course we don’t know what Jesus said. Jesus writing the words himself would not change that. By that standard we know very little in life.

On the other hand, if by “know� you mean to be reasonable confident using normal standards that we apply to every other area of life, then we can know what Jesus said.

In everyday life most of us probably realize that we can know a great deal through study of the real world. We also likely realize that our knowledge of past events is limited.

For instance: In spite of popular opinion to the contrary, we do NOT know exactly what Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address. There are at least five differing versions attributed to Lincoln himself. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/rea ... g-address/

Yet, some claim to know exactly what Jesus said 2000 years earlier.

We can make reasonable deductions based on historical evidence about who wrote the gospels.

What, exactly, is the ‘historical evidence about who wrote the gospels’?

Would that be ‘church tradition’? If other, kindly cite references to indicate true authorship.

Let’s consult the Catholic Encyclopedia (from the folks who produced the Bible):

There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.
http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine ... forger.htm

Bold added.

We can be confident about the words of Jesus while still recognizing the limitations of our knowledge in general.

That requires quite a leap of faith.

Notice that there is NOT verifiable evidence that Gospel writers were actual eyewitnesses to what they wrote about.

We can’t know what Jesus said with absolute certainty, but because of the unusually large amount of records of the words of Jesus we can be more confident about what Jesus’ words were than virtually (perhaps literally?) any other person from antiquity.

Are the words of anyone else from antiquity critical for formation of modern life view / decisions?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

We do NOT know what ‘Jesus said’.

Correct. We cannot say we know what Jesus said. What we can know with absolute certainty, is that we have several authors who claim to have given an account of some of the things which Jesus said.

Of course this would not be a guarantee that that we actually have the very words of Jesus. However, we do not have any sort of evidence that I am aware of, that would demonstrate that these accounts would be false.

He left no writings.

Well, we cannot say this with certainty, because he may have left something in writing that we simply do not have. What we can say with certainty, is that we have no writings that may have been left by Jesus.

There are no records from the time of his preaching or speaking.

We cannot know this for certain, because we do have a record of his "preaching or speaking", and it could be the case that these things were recorded as he was "preaching or speaking" and these records may have been used by the authors as they wrote. What we can say with certainty, is that we have no way to know.

ALL we have are stories written decades later by people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians.

WAIT! HOLD ON A MINUTE? If we cannot know who the authors may have been, then how in the world did we determine when they may have wrote? I mean think about it? If we do not know the identity of these authors, then they may have been historians at the time, who may not have been tied to Christianity at all, and may have been following Jesus around daily, recording every word, which could mean they may have released this report, immediately after he rose from the dead. What is the evidence to support the idea that these things would have been written down, "decades later?"

Would you like me to help you out here? Because you see, I am convinced they would have been written down "decades later", because I would argue that, this would be exactly what we would expect.

It would be true that we cannot know with certainty who the authors of 3 of what have been called the "gospels" would have been. However, we can know, beyond any reasonable doubt who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been, because we have certain evidence that would demonstrate this.

There is certain evidence that would demonstrate that this author traveled along with Paul on his missionary journeys. With this being the case, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that this author would have not only known the original Apostles, he would have also spent a considerable amount of time with them, and would have also been very familiar with the claims they were making.

We can know, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Paul was indeed opposed to Christianity from the start. So much so, that he was traveling around, with the mission, to put a stop to it, all the way, and up to the point he was willing to see Christians dragged to prison, and even consented to the death of at least one. We can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul, not only converted to Christianity, he also became it's biggest missionary.

We can know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul would have been placed under arrest, late in his life for the things he was proclaiming. We can know beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul wrote letters while in prison. We can know beyond any reasonable doubt that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been with Paul, while he was under arrest.

With all the above being fact, we can know beyond any reasonable doubt, that both Paul, and the author of the 2 letters to Theophilus, would have been alive at the time of the alleged, Resurrection, and would have not only known the original Apostles, but would have also both spent an enormous amount of time with them, and would have been very familiar with the claims being made.

I could continue on, and on, with the things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt by reading, and comparing these letters. The point is, it is certainly easy to point out the things we cannot know. It is quite another to actually sit down to understand the things we actually can know, beyond any reasonable doubt.

There is NO assurance that Gospel writers actually personally knew Jesus or witnessed anything he said.

There is also, "no assurance" that they did not. So then, what would be the point? On the one hand, we may not be able to be sure that they would have known Jesus, but we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that the author of the 2 letters to Theophilus would have personally known the original Apostles, and would have spent a considerable amount of time with them, and clearly knew the claims they were making, which must have compelled this author to go along with and follow Paul on his dreadful missionary journeys, all the way, and up until Paul was placed under arrest, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that this author would have been with Paul while he was under arrest.

We can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that after these events, this author sat down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to a friend, chronicling these events, and even begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing certain events some of which would have been miraculous in nature.

So again, you would be correct to say there are some things we cannot know. However, there are some things we can know, when and if we actually sit down to read, and compare these writings, instead of simply pointing out all the things we cannot know, as if this somehow would settle the case.

It is not known how or from whom Gospel writers learned about what was supposedly said or done.

Again, you are correct. However, we do know that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have known, and spent a great amount of time with the original Apostles, and this author actually tells Theophilus how he obtained his information. Moreover, as already pointed out, there is certain evidence inside the second letter which would indicate that the author actually witnessed much of what he wrote.

Also, we would have to keep in mind the fact that these two letters were personally addressed to someone at the time, which could mean that all of the rest of what have been called the "Gospels" could have been addressed to those at the time, who would have personally known the authors. With this being the case, the authors would have not had a need to identify themselves, nor their sources, since the original audience would have already known these things.

In fact, we don’t even have the Gospels as written in original form. The earliest copies are from two centuries later.

It is not unknown or uncommon for stories to be exaggerated, embellished, edited, or fabricated – particularly over decades of retelling and recopying.

And again you are correct. However, as we trace these copies back as far as we can, we see very little of this with the content contained in the Bible. Next, as we compare the two letters to Theophilus, with the letters written by Paul, they are coherent, and make sense of the recorded events.

HOW can anyone legitimately claim to know what Jesus said?

No one "can legitimately claim to know what Jesus said." What we can know with certainty is the fact that a number of authors seemed to be compelled to write down and give an account of what they claim to be the words of Jesus.

As we read these accounts, and compare them with each other, along with the other letters contained in the NT, we begin to see that while there may be things we cannot know with certainty, there are many things we can know by reading, and comparing these writings.

Ergo, while this would not guarantee we actually have the words of Jesus, it does give reason to believe that we very well may have the actual words of Jesus. Of course this would in no way mean that there would be no reasons to doubt. There very well may be reasons to doubt. However, simply because there may be reasons to doubt, would not negate the fact that there would be good reasons to believe.

[John Human]

Are the words of anyone else from antiquity critical for formation of modern life view / decisions?

Yes, Cicero's "De officiis" ( "Of moral duties") comes to mind, second only to the Bible as the most widely-read book in western civilization. As one example, when the Founding Fathers applied to college, the standard entrance examination included translating a passage from "De Officiis." Every Christian minister used to be well versed in the study of Cicero, because it was standard college fare, especially his works on rhetoric. Unfortunately, over the past century or so, Cicero has been systematically erased from public memory.

[Zzyzx]

.

We do NOT know what ‘Jesus said’.

Correct. We cannot say we know what Jesus said. What we can know with absolute certainty, is that we have several authors who claim to have given an account of some of the things which Jesus said.

Of course this would not be a guarantee that that we actually have the very words of Jesus. However, we do not have any sort of evidence that I am aware of, that would demonstrate that these accounts would be false.

Agreed – we have no way of knowing if writings attributing words to Jesus are truthful and accurate.

He left no writings.

Well, we cannot say this with certainty, because he may have left something in writing that we simply do not have. What we can say with certainty, is that we have no writings that may have been left by Jesus.

Agreed – we do not. That is my point. Thank you.

There are no records from the time of his preaching or speaking.

We cannot know this for certain, because we do have a record of his "preaching or speaking", and it could be the case that these things were recorded as he was "preaching or speaking" and these records may have been used by the authors as they wrote. What we can say with certainty, is that we have no way to know.

Agreed – we have no way of knowing the truth and accuracy of words attributed to Jesus.

ALL we have are stories written decades later by people whose identity is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians.

WAIT! HOLD ON A MINUTE? If we cannot know who the authors may have been, then how in the world did we determine when they may have wrote?

I am a bit surprised that anyone would have difficulty understanding how a writing could be dated without knowing its author.

If a writing mentions the bombing of Pearl Harbor it can be dated as AFTER December 7, 1941. If it also mentions being written on D Day it can be dated as June 6, 1944. If a writing mentions the surrender of Japan in WWII it can be dated as AFTER September 2, 1945. If it also mentions being written during Truman’s presidency it can be dated as BETWEEN April 12, 1945 and January 20, 1953.

There is NO assurance that Gospel writers actually personally knew Jesus or witnessed anything he said.

There is also, "no assurance" that they did not. So then, what would be the point?

Okay – if we have no assurance that someone did know Jesus and no assurance they did not know Jesus, a RATIONAL conclusion is �I don’t know whether they did or did not, and would be foolish to claim that they did�

On the one hand, we may not be able to be sure that they would have known Jesus, but we can know beyond any reasonable doubt that the author of the 2 letters to Theophilus would have personally known the original Apostles, and would have spent a considerable amount of time with them, and clearly knew the claims they were making, which must have compelled this author to go along with and follow Paul on his dreadful missionary journeys, all the way, and up until Paul was placed under arrest, and we can also know beyond any reasonable doubt that this author would have been with Paul while he was under arrest.

All this is saying is that according to a religion-promoting tome, certain events occurred.

Are there sources outside the Bible that verify the truth and accuracy of what is written? OR are we expected to accept the Bible verifying itself? If so, that would be akin to saying that a company's advertising literature verifies itself by making similar unverified claims on different pages by different salesmen.


Would you kindly address what is said by the Catholic Encyclopedia?

There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

"It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves ... they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written "according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John", as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church's shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.
http://www.sabbathcovenant.com/doctrine ... forger.htm

Bold added.

[Zzyzx]

.

Are the words of anyone else from antiquity critical for formation of modern life view / decisions?

Yes, Cicero's "De officiis" ( "Of moral duties") comes to mind, second only to the Bible as the most widely-read book in western civilization. As one example, when the Founding Fathers applied to college, the standard entrance examination included translating a passage from "De Officiis." Every Christian minister used to be well versed in the study of Cicero, because it was standard college fare, especially his works on rhetoric. Unfortunately, over the past century or so, Cicero has been systematically erased from public memory.

Destroying one's own argument?

Even if it was current, college entrance exams are hardly representative of 'critical information of modern life view / decisions.'

[dio9]

[Replying to Zzyzx]

You should know Buddha didn't write anything either . His disciples wrote everything down too. Of course Buddha was able to teach 40 yrs. Not so for poor betrayed Jesus . There were sayings sources of Jesus' words which Gospel writers used when describing his passion in their Gospels. You cannot justifiably say there is no record of Jesus' teaching. Jesus taught the ancient truth that God is one.

[1213]

HOW can anyone legitimately claim to know what Jesus said?

For me it is a matter of belief, same way as all history is.

And actually, I don’t think it would really make any meaningful difference. If we would have scriptures that are written by Jesus from that era. If the message would be the same, people would still reject it, if they don’t like it. I think the question is not really about the legitimacy of scriptures, it is about can person accept the message or not, even if it would be absolutely proven correct.