Misquoting Jesus

[Jester]

It has been suggested several times that the New Testament is a severe distortion of what Christ actually taught. Generally, there are theories about past myths influencing the authors, or other suggestions about their motivations.

I, however, am much more interested in what, historically speaking, is the most likely position Christ took in his teaching. The suggestion of earlier influences doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not Christ himself was also "influenced". The same could be said of the issue of motivation. As such, I'd like to hear some thoughts about what is, to me, a much more important topic.

So, the official question: What can be inferred, or ruled out, from the evidence that we have regarding the actual teachings of Christ?

[Jester]

I am willing to believe without evidence that FB does not know of anyone who has walked on liquid water. The unanswered questions are "can a human walk on liquid water?" and "how is this relevant to the topic being debated?"

FB didn't state that he doesn't know anyone who walked on water. He stated that no one ever has. It is for that that I requested evidence.
I'm personally not sure that the matter of walking on water is deeply relevant. I was hoping to discuss the matter of Christ's teachings more than any particular miracle stories, but I do recognize that opening a topic does not give me authority to interpret it's intent.
Frankly, I simply don't have a lot to say about the issue of walking on water. I don't know that this one can even be discussed directly (as opposed to establishing/discrediting it by establishing/discrediting the overall texts, or the like).

[justifyothers]

It has been suggested several times that the New Testament is a severe distortion of what Christ actually taught. Generally, there are theories about past myths influencing the authors, or other suggestions about their motivations.

I, however, am much more interested in what, historically speaking, is the most likely position Christ took in his teaching. The suggestion of earlier influences doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether or not Christ himself was also "influenced". The same could be said of the issue of motivation. As such, I'd like to hear some thoughts about what is, to me, a much more important topic.

So, the official question: What can be inferred, or ruled out, from the evidence that we have regarding the actual teachings of Christ?

I like this topic. I usually try to find threads of consistency, which is not easy. But more recently, I read again the book of Mark. It seems to be widely accepted as the first of the four gospels written by the majority of biblical scholars. It's interesting that it says the least.

So, I looked at what was there. It's a very different read from the others. Something reiterated over and over was the idea that so many were "astonished" by his teachings. I think this says much. I think it was the authority and the newness both that caused this. I think there was something that drew people to him.

The scribes obviously felt threatened, no doubt. Although the spirits recognized him as the son of God, and that is what was spoken from above..."You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." No claim of deity from Jesus. Peter says "You are the Christ" - meaning the annointed Son of God. So, to read Mark, in no way would you think that Jesus was God.

In Ch 1:38, Jesus says..."Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth."

I thought this was the most interesting thing said in the whole book. Out of all the 'purposes' attributed to him, he chose to mention this one. He came forth to preach - to tell of the richness of God and our duty to each other as sons and daughters - his family.

[Lotan]

Hi Jester,

According to Rex Weyler, in his book The Jesus Sayings, the historical Jesus taught...

-Find the light inside, and share this light with the world
-Give to anyone who asks; knowledge and righteousness are revealed in action
-Beware those who claim to speak on behalf of God; first, know yourself

Weyler isn't a Jesus scholar himself, but he does a fair job of presenting a synopsis of scholarly opinion on this subject, IMHO.

[Jester]

So, I looked at what was there. It's a very different read from the others. Something reiterated over and over was the idea that so many were "astonished" by his teachings. I think this says much. I think it was the authority and the newness both that caused this. I think there was something that drew people to him.

Mark is a little different, and I definitely agree that he did have some kind of magnetism.

The scribes obviously felt threatened, no doubt. Although the spirits recognized him as the son of God, and that is what was spoken from above..."You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." No claim of deity from Jesus. Peter says "You are the Christ" - meaning the annointed Son of God. So, to read Mark, in no way would you think that Jesus was God.

I'm not sure if I agree with that one. I definitely wasn't left with that impression at the end of Mark, but I wonder if the claim is suggested more subtly. If I try to ignore my preconceived ideas, I feel like the story leaves one wondering what Christ was, exactly. Not explicitly pointing to anything, but leading us to figure it out. I think that God/the son of God are both arguable conclusions based on Mark myself.

In Ch 1:38, Jesus says..."Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth."

I thought this was the most interesting thing said in the whole book. Out of all the 'purposes' attributed to him, he chose to mention this one. He came forth to preach - to tell of the richness of God and our duty to each other as sons and daughters - his family.

Yeah, we do forget that at times. Its a shame, in my view, in that his teaching was so good.

[Jester]

-Find the light inside, and share this light with the world
-Give to anyone who asks; knowledge and righteousness are revealed in action
-Beware those who claim to speak on behalf of God; first, know yourself

Weyler isn't a Jesus scholar himself, but he does a fair job of presenting a synopsis of scholarly opinion on this subject, IMHO.

That actually seems like an excellent synopsis to me. I wish I had more to debate, actually.
I do feel that there are some issues about his own nature, the value of forgiveness, etc. but definitely these were all central to his philosophy.

Thanks, I'll remember that one (and check out that book).

[Goat]

So, I looked at what was there. It's a very different read from the others. Something reiterated over and over was the idea that so many were "astonished" by his teachings. I think this says much. I think it was the authority and the newness both that caused this. I think there was something that drew people to him.

Mark is a little different, and I definitely agree that he did have some kind of magnetism.

The scribes obviously felt threatened, no doubt. Although the spirits recognized him as the son of God, and that is what was spoken from above..."You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." No claim of deity from Jesus. Peter says "You are the Christ" - meaning the annointed Son of God. So, to read Mark, in no way would you think that Jesus was God.

I'm not sure if I agree with that one. I definitely wasn't left with that impression at the end of Mark, but I wonder if the claim is suggested more subtly. If I try to ignore my preconceived ideas, I feel like the story leaves one wondering what Christ was, exactly. Not explicitly pointing to anything, but leading us to figure it out. I think that God/the son of God are both arguable conclusions based on Mark myself.

In Ch 1:38, Jesus says..."Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also, because for this purpose I have come forth."

I thought this was the most interesting thing said in the whole book. Out of all the 'purposes' attributed to him, he chose to mention this one. He came forth to preach - to tell of the richness of God and our duty to each other as sons and daughters - his family.

Yeah, we do forget that at times. Its a shame, in my view, in that his teaching was so good.

Have you considered researching what the prevalent attitudes towards those phrases were in the 1st century Israel? "Son of God" was an expression meaning someone was 'exulted. While the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke bring in the virgin birth, that is absent in Mark, and it seems like he has Jesus becoming aware of being 'exualted' when he was baptised.

[Jester]

Have you considered researching what the prevalent attitudes towards those phrases were in the 1st century Israel? "Son of God" was an expression meaning someone was 'exulted. While the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke bring in the virgin birth, that is absent in Mark, and it seems like he has Jesus becoming aware of being 'exualted' when he was baptised.

That is definitely an important point. I still maintain that the book of Mark doesn't contradict the idea that Christ was the son of God (in any sense of the word). It definitely claims that he is Christ (exalted, as you say), but I often wonder if there is a clear understanding of what Christ is among any of us (even the concept of "Son of God" in the modern sense confuses me somewhat).
Given that Christ is the son of God in the ancient sense, I'm sure that this would affect my theology terribly much (though it is definitely worth considering). My main issue with it would be the number of times in the book that Christ speaks for God. In particular, he forgives sins. This seems to be a claim to be even more than the exalted one.

[Goat]

Have you considered researching what the prevalent attitudes towards those phrases were in the 1st century Israel? "Son of God" was an expression meaning someone was 'exulted. While the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke bring in the virgin birth, that is absent in Mark, and it seems like he has Jesus becoming aware of being 'exualted' when he was baptised.

That is definitely an important point. I still maintain that the book of Mark doesn't contradict the idea that Christ was the son of God (in any sense of the word). It definitely claims that he is Christ (exalted, as you say), but I often wonder if there is a clear understanding of what Christ is among any of us (even the concept of "Son of God" in the modern sense confuses me somewhat).
Given that Christ is the son of God in the ancient sense, I'm sure that this would affect my theology terribly much (though it is definitely worth considering). My main issue with it would be the number of times in the book that Christ speaks for God. In particular, he forgives sins. This seems to be a claim to be even more than the exalted one.

There seems to be a disconnect between the concept of the forgiveness of sins in the Jewish faith vs the Christian faith. Have you looked at the concept of forgiveness of sin in the Jewish faith, particularly from a historical perspective and looked at how it relates to how it is used in the Gospels? It is different than the Christian concept.

[Jester]

There seems to be a disconnect between the concept of the forgiveness of sins in the Jewish faith vs the Christian faith. Have you looked at the concept of forgiveness of sin in the Jewish faith, particularly from a historical perspective and looked at how it relates to how it is used in the Gospels? It is different than the Christian concept.

I could stand to read a bit more. In the mean time, would you mind givning me a synopsis?

[Goat]

There seems to be a disconnect between the concept of the forgiveness of sins in the Jewish faith vs the Christian faith. Have you looked at the concept of forgiveness of sin in the Jewish faith, particularly from a historical perspective and looked at how it relates to how it is used in the Gospels? It is different than the Christian concept.

I could stand to read a bit more. In the mean time, would you mind givning me a synopsis?

When it comes to forgiveness.. only the person who your wronged can forgive you. God can not forgive you for a sin you committed against another. God only forgives sins against himself.

Now, traditionally, if you are wronged, and someone comes to you with an honest heart 3 times, and asks for forgiveness, you are supposed to forgive them. .. else you are in the wrong.

Now, when the sin is not against another, asking God for forgiveness is not easy either. A person has to 'humble themselves'''' admit they are wrong. .. show, either fasting, sacrifice, prayer, etc etc. that they are serious about repenting of their error, and also change their actions so it doesn't happen again.

Just saying you're sorry is not enough. You have to make amends to those you injure, and ask for THEIR forgiveness. You have to take personal responsibility for your actions.

It is by your actions that show your sincerity for asking for forgiveness.