"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.

[bjs]

[Replying to polonius]

I think that saying “Jesus said…� is a reasonable shorthand for a more complicated belief.

Orthodox Christianity has always claimed to be built on the teachings of the Apostles (Peter, Paul, John, etc.)

We recognize that when we quote the Gospel of Mark that we are quoting words of Jesus according Mark, the traveling companion of Paul and Peter, who under the guidance of the Holy Spirit recorded what Peter taught about Jesus in the form of biographical theology.

However, that is a really long sentence to say when “Jesus said…� holds essentially the same meaning. Most reasonable people can accept the shorthand without too much objection.

[polonius]

Wikipedia I Peter “(S)ome scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. “
Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Wikipedia II Peter
Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[7] Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical.

Wikipedia Gospel of Mark
Although written anonymously and in third-person, the author of the Gospel of Mark is believed, per Christian tradition, to be Mark, the interpreter of Peter the Apostle. However, this tradition should be taken with a grain of salt, for Papias, the originator of this tradition, was, by far, no scholar. It has been suggested that the book was originally intended as fiction and further that its author understood the non-historicity of Jesus

[bjs]

Wikipedia I Peter “(S)ome scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman[8] are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter; according to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by one of the disciples of Peter in his honor. “
Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). Forged. HarperOne, HarperCollins. pp. 65–77. ISBN 978-0-06-201262-3.

Wikipedia II Peter
Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical.[4][5] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[6]
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. For Petrine authorship to be authentic, it must have been written prior to Peter's death in c. AD 65–67. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—the only time a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[7] Scholars consider the epistle to be written between c. AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical.

I’m not sure what this has to do with anything.

Wikipedia Gospel of Mark
Although written anonymously and in third-person, the author of the Gospel of Mark is believed, per Christian tradition, to be Mark, the interpreter of Peter the Apostle. However, this tradition should be taken with a grain of salt, for Papias, the originator of this tradition, was, by far, no scholar. It has been suggested that the book was originally intended as fiction and further that its author understood the non-historicity of Jesus

Yes Mark’s authorship should be taken with a grain of salt, as should most history from antiquity. Mark authorship is the most likely conclusion, but not a conclusion we can reach beyond reasonable doubt.

The suggestion that the Gospel was intended to be fiction is a fringe theory at best.

[marco]

Jesus left no writings himself.

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

One wonders why Jesus left no writings himself. As to his words being accurately reported, it seems that people take a meaning THEY THINK Christ intended, and adjust text or translation to fit. "I tell you: TODAY you'll be with me in Paradise" or "I tell you today: You'll be with me in Paradise." Does it matters - yes, religious groups depend on one meaning or the other.


I think we can say the entire record of Christ's words is fabricated. He may have said approximately what is recorded but there may be a Red Sea of difference between what is written and what was actually said.

I think people FIRST imagine what Christ wanted to say, and they have him saying it. Our hymns illustrate this perfectly: they invent a whole world that Jesus never inhabited.

[polonius]

BJS posted:

Yes Mark’s authorship should be taken with a grain of salt, as should most history from antiquity. Mark authorship is the most likely conclusion, but not a conclusion we can reach beyond reasonable doubt.

The suggestion that the Gospel was intended to be fiction is a fringe theory at best.

RESPONSE: Actually there are a number of writingis in this area. The web posts a number of them. Here is one example:

https://vridar.org/2013/09/28/why-the-g ... l-fiction/

“Again, we are given no idea what Jesus taught. He had to say more than “The Kingdom of God is at hand�. Mark is not interested in telling us what Jesus taught because that is not his point. What he wants to show readers is that this Jesus is the Son of God. He has the authority of God. And that’s what makes him a mystery. All that is important about Jesus’ teaching here is the reaction of the crowds. They are astonished at the mysterious authority of Jesus.

“Again, there is no hint that Mark is relaying to readers information that has been handed down from eyewitnesses who knew something of what Jesus taught and how various people really came to respond over time. The scene is entirely artificial. It is the scene of a deity or holy spirit from God himself possessing a man in such a way that crowds respond not to the (historical) person but to the divine presence. The crowds are mystified and awed as is appropriate when in the presence of the divine, of God or the Son of God himself.�

And it is important to keep in mind that both the writers of Matthew (80 AD) and Luke (80 AD) used Mark (70 AD) as a principle source.

[bjs]

[Replying to polonius]

Yes there are a large number of writing in the area. The overwhelming majority of them are like the one you provided a link to: crackpot internet theorist with no actual knowledge of the topic they are writing about.

Only a small handful of those educated in biblical history take the hypothesis seriously.

[JJ50]

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.

We have absolutely no idea what the real Jesus was really like, the gospel writers stories accounts of his life and utterances were written many years after he was dead. Much of which was not credible.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 8 by JJ50]

We have absolutely no idea what the real Jesus was really like, the gospel writers stories accounts of his life and utterances were written many years after he was dead. Much of which was not credible.

That is the view of skeptics, of which there are many.

Believers, of which there are many, see no real reason to question what is written in the Gospels as to what Jesus said.

[JJ50]

[Replying to post 8 by JJ50]

We have absolutely no idea what the real Jesus was really like, the gospel writers stories accounts of his life and utterances were written many years after he was dead. Much of which was not credible.

That is the view of skeptics, of which there are many.

Believers, of which there are many, see no real reason to question what is written in the Gospels as to what Jesus said.

Can you remember word for word what people said to you last week, let alone many years later? Have you ever played the game of 'Chinese Whispers', when a sentence is whispered to a group of people in turn. By the time it gets to the last person it is nothing like the way it started out. Questioning is good, unquestioning acceptance is bad!