Misquoting Jesus

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:41 am

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?

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:35 pm

Isn't that what the Jesus Seminal was supposed to be determining? Do you think that we can do a better job at that task than them?

Goose · Post by **Goose** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:11 pm

McCulloch wrote:Isn't that what the Jesus Seminal was supposed to be determining? Do you think that we can do a better job at that task than them?

Sure we could. We could get some nicer beads.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:46 pm

McCulloch wrote:Isn't that what the Jesus Seminal was supposed to be determining? Do you think that we can do a better job at that task than them?

At the very least we're as likely to come to a consensus as they.
Also, we'll almost certainly be better at keeping the dialog amusing.

But, off topic, would you help me push Google Chrome around here? It has a spell-checker, which some of us desperately need.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 12:12 am

Jester wrote:
McCulloch wrote:Isn't that what the Jesus Seminal was supposed to be determining? Do you think that we can do a better job at that task than them?
At the very least we're as likely to come to a consensus as they.
Also, we'll almost certainly be better at keeping the dialog amusing.

But, off topic, would you help me push Google Chrome around here? It has a spell-checker, which some of us desperately need.

Firefox does too..a nice one at that.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:55 am

McCulloch wrote:Isn't that what the Jesus Seminal was supposed to be determining? Do you think that we can do a better job at that task than them?

Jester wrote:At the very least we're as likely to come to a consensus as they.
Also, we'll almost certainly be better at keeping the dialog amusing.

My personal opinion is that if you strip away the mythology and the prophesy and all you cannot be certain of, you will end up with very little. How much can we know about the real Jesus, not the one constructed from bits of Jewish prophesy and theology?

Jester wrote:But, off topic, would you help me push Google Chrome around here? It has a spell-checker, which some of us desperately need.

There are ways to add spell checking to Internet Explorer. Eventually, the guys from Redmond will catch up to the open source world and build it in by default, like it is in firefox.

Spell Checking

A built-in spell checker lets you enter text directly into Web pagesâ€” like blog posts and Web-based emailâ€”without worrying about typos and misspellings. Work directly with the Web and save yourself a step.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:44 am

McCulloch wrote:My personal opinion is that if you strip away the mythology and the prophesy and all you cannot be certain of, you will end up with very little. How much can we know about the real Jesus, not the one constructed from bits of Jewish prophesy and theology?

I basically agree. We humans know very little about anything, and even less about history. We're all so darn opinionated about the issue though, which is an implication that we think we know something, at least. We do argue a great deal over whether or not there is at least basic accuracy in the major points of the gospels. To be Christian, one would have to answer "yes". To be an atheist, would require a "no". When it comes to the actual discussion, it sometimes seems to me that both those answers can be arbitrary.
So, perhaps that is closer to my real question: Would we be accurately described as agnostics who have chosen to be decisive about such vague issues? I wouldn't infer that this is wrong myself, but it does seem to be well worth asking.

McCulloch wrote:There are ways to add spell checking to Internet Explorer. Eventually, the guys from Redmond will catch up to the open source world and build it in by default, ...

Excellent. I'll be pleased when that happens (or when more people start using open source).

Furrowed Brow · Post by **Furrowed Brow** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 4:11 pm

Jester wrote:We're all so darn opinionated about the issue though, which is an implication that we think we know something, at least.

I know no one has ever walked on water unless it was frozen solid. This is not an opinion.

Jester · Post by **Jester** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:01 pm

Furrowed Brow wrote:I know no one has ever walked on water unless it was frozen solid. This is not an opinion.

You're right, that's not an opinion; it is an assertion. As such, it requires evidence (preferably evidece that relates to the topic question).

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:10 pm

Furrowed Brow wrote:I know no one has ever walked on water unless it was frozen solid. This is not an opinion.

Jester wrote:You're right, that's not an opinion; it is an assertion. As such, it requires evidence (preferably evidence that relates to the topic question).

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?"