So Band, explain what 'the cross' philosophy/theology is to you.
Question of the Day: Why are so very few of Jesus ACTUAL WORDS...
by Terry 88 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Quentin
Heh, heh, heh...designs I'll keep that in mind.
I make no fun of Shelby's fath, or love for God. However she, and some others, always, always take a thread off topic. No channeling needed, lets stick with the question at hand and reason with logic, historical studies, critical thinking and common sense to answer the question at hand. A dialectic as it were, not a fideism that faith alone is all that's necessary. God told me so ( in my faith ) so that's what I hold too. That's subjective to the individual, not objective to the question.
-
Quentin
There is absolutely no proof that Jesus' exact words were lost.....Band
Western, or Easteren, there's absolutely no proof they werent....
-
Terry
Did Jesus speak in a way that caused people around him to understand? Or, did he speak "hidden" sayings?
What was the purpose of speaking in parables? To clarify? Or, to hide?
Were his Apostles understanding what he was saying or were they constantly baffled?
How is it Paul (who never spent a minute with Jesus in his teaching ministry) understood and COULD EXPLAIN every little detail in long speeches and descriptions and the Apostles constantly go the opposite direction from what Jesus is saying?
People knew what Jesus said, what he did, what others said and did. Why bother to repeat it? Better to tackle fresh problems. John writes pure theology b/c theology became a concern. It was not a concern for Mark, etc. I've always believed that the Gospel requires faith. As Paul wrote, it is folly. Strange belief. I don't know for a fact if Jesus exact words were used but it is a very unimportant point to me. The cross is the central message. What does it all matter without faith in the cross?
The Cross is Paul's idiom and central focus. Not the Apostles.
Paul provided a way to "save the game" by interpreting the failure of Jesus' ministry (he was executed, after all!) as a Victory.
This is an assertion on Paul's part.
The Apostles wrote AFTER Paul. They don't seem to see things the same way Paul did.
-
AGuest
Shelby, I admire your faith, but you have taken the thread off topic by carring the topic into an abstract debate over what language Jesus spoke. The language is not IMPORTANT.
I disagree, dear Q (peace to you!). Language is VERY important, again because what is stated/implied in one language does not necessarily mean the same thing in another. Here, however, dear Terry (peace to you, as well!) asked why so very few of my Lord's actual words were recorded; however, based on the record, quite a few of his words were recorded. Only a FEW were recorded in that actual language he spoke them, however: Aramaic. Most were translated into Greek (and Constantine and others had quite a bit to do with that).
Rather it is WHY we have so very few of Jesus actual words.
I agree that we have so little in comparison to all that he DID say; however, a great deal of what is recorded are his actual words, per se, as such have been translated. But again, I would ask you... and dear Terry... as well as others who consider this a conundrum: why not ASK and simply find out for yourselves? Why speculate and opine and debate? Why look to men who weren't even there, even alive... even conceived... to answer a question regarding someone who can answer it for himself?
Then "what I received from my Lord himself" being your appeal to authority. Okay, fine that's YOUR a posteriori experience. This is an a priori topic, we have NO experince of Jesus actual words.
Please see above... and please note that I still marvel at how folks like you would rather be lied to than simply hear the truth... FROM the Truth. Amazes me, particularly given how... ummmmmm... well, I guess the word would be "advanced" you consider yourselves to be. Me? I stopped putting my faith in what man told me was "true." Heck, he doesn't know.
That is the why we seek to answer. God speaks to me as well, through many venus.
And what did He say to YOU regarding this matter? (Note, He didn't... and usually doesn't... speak to me.)
I very seldom if ever inject that into a disscission, even with Terry, there's no value in it.
That's your choice... and your opinion. If I were to share with you what my Lord told me of a matter... but then pretend (there's that word, Terry!) that I came up with it on my own, I would be the ultimate imposter. I would be trying to make you think I am learned and "know something" when nothing could be further from the truth. As my Lord said to those who took issue with HIM when he said who sent and spoke to HIM: "If I came in my OWN name, you would receive me. I come not in my own name but in the name of Him that sent me." Why did he say this? Because he wasn't presumptuous enough to take credit for something that was NOT HIS. AND... because he loved those he shared such things with SO much, he would never have lied to them. Even if it made him look foolish to tell the truth. I have learned from him, dear one, so you most probably should expect the same... or, at least, not MUCH different.
Facts, logic, reason the correspondence theory of truth are our watchwords. Not what we precive as received from the Lord himself.
I gave you all the facts. He spoke in Aramaic, the primary language of the Jews in Judea and Galilee (per Terry's own admission), except on those occasions when he spoke to the "educated", the majority of whom opposed and rejected him. He spoke as if to family... because he considered them his "children." He was not formal with them but broke things down - except when the scribes, Pharisees, etc., were around, or when he wished to explain further to an intimate group (which included many more than just the 12). Then, he spoke in parables, explaining further to the intimates ones at a later time. He used Jewish metaphor and symbolism, stories and anecdotes... and did so in the language most familiar to the COMMON PEOPLE.
Take a red letter edtion of the Bible, read the red letter words only. Therein you will find that 10-20% of what is written may be the actual words of Jesus.
You and others keep saying this. While I now know that not ALL of what is attributed to him was said by him (although, even the atheists tend to gasp when I say the entire thing has been tampered with, including things that are now in the "Law" that weren't originally)... and that NONE of it matters, because it's only important to those who walk by SIGHT, versus by FAITH (to which my Lord said the holy spirit would bring back to THEIR minds ALL the things he'd said to/taught them), I would like to ask any one of you to support what you assert. Show me, please, what is NOT his actual words... and tell us how you KNOW this. I mean, at least I say that it is my Lord who told me such and so. Who tells YOU... and on what basis do YOU say it is the truth?
The rest being what the writers chose to incorperate into their gospels. Now, lets get back to the why and stay off these sidebars.
A lot of what is in the entire Bible is what the scribes chose to incorporate. I have stated that from the start. We are now talking about my Lord's actual words which you and others assert is "10-20% of what is written." Again, while I agree that he did not say 100% of what is attributed to him (for example, he did NOT say to the woman caught in the act of adultery, "Go, and sin no more!" but "Go! Your sin... IS NO MORE!"), a good deal more than what you are giving credit to was indeed said by him. MANY endeavored to write down what occurred and what he said... so there were/are actually WAY more accounts than the four contained in the Bible canon. The four, however, are not verbatim because (1) they were written many years later, from the memory of men and women who were present and heard what he said; (2) they were imperfect, however, as were their memories; and (3) what we have to today are translations of the originals, both the Aramaic AND the Greek, and include a LOT of what the particular translators thought was said/meant.
Now, no one here has to believe me, dear Q. I'm not asking anyone to. I heard... I shared what I heard... as well as who I heard it from. That folks cannot accept that is their problem, not mine. If I were to lie, however, and either take credit for what was/is NOT mine, but what I received from the Holy Spirit, Christ... OR deny the TRUTH that it was him who spoke to me and gave me this truth... that would be blasphemy. Against the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but while I do love you all... I will openly say NOT THAT MUCH. Not enough to deny the Holy Spirit... or take the glory that is due HIM... dear one, sorry. So long as I can help it, THAT ain't gonna happen. No matter what you think... or dear designs (peace to you, as well!) opines.
Again, I bid you peace!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA... who isn't afraid to look "foolish" to, ummmmmm... those [who consider themselves to be] more learned, enlightened, and "rational" than I... but won't trade looking so for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit... regardless of what such ones think about that...
-
tec
Peace to you, Shelby.
I know I don't have to ask you to keep speaking as you do, and sharing what you have been given. But I'm glad you share it as it is, in all truth, without worrying about what others think about it.
I would listen to Christ also, rather than what men say about Christ. I do my best (though I also fail in things) to be rid of all the biases we've been taught, and just empty myself, so that Christ can teach me, in Spirit. Because men have been and are wrong all the time. Believing one is the same as believing another, unless they have the Spirit of Christ, in which case, why not just go to Christ for that Spirit also? Christ is who we should go to, if we want to know the Truth, instead of thinking we know the truth.
Tammy
(sorry, Terry, for sidetracking the thread, but I had to say it. Well, had to as in wanted to, lol. Carry on.)
-
AGuest
older sages having expressed the same thought
Greetings, dear Wobble, and the greatest of love and peace to you! If my Lord existed before man, wouldn't it make sense than some of what he said would have preceded him in the flesh? For example, if he existed before Abraham... who knew the Golden Rule... then Rabbi Hillel's knowing it shouldn't be surprising, should it? And since Abraham was called out of the East (and his sons by Keturah returned there)... and Job originated in the East... and Israel had no issues with those who dwelled in the East... wouldn't it make sense that those in the East (i.e., Abraham's ancestors, etc.) would have similar beliefs, customs, etc.?
There was no written Law when Job and Abraham looked after the fatherless boy and allowed gleaning of their fields by widows, etc. There was no written Law when Joseph ran from Potiphar's wife. There was no written Law when Abel knew what would constitute a "pleasing" sacrifice.
Dear one, the Golden Rule wasn't a NEW law; it didn't start with my Lord's presence in the flesh: it existed before the physical world was created. My Lord only often tried to REMIND Israel of such things... things they had forgotten AGAIN... even though they were now WRITTEN.
Please keep in mind that many religions had the same origination: the East. From the East came Abraham and through Abraham came Islam (through Ishmael)... and Isaac (through whom came the 12 tribes of Israel and through two of those, Judaism)... and through Judaism... "christianity" (and all of the sects that have come from that).
My Lord only gave his disciples ONE "new" law: that they love one another... JUST as he had loved them. Everything else he taught, excluding the covenant for the kingdom... had already been summed up in the Law Covenant. Yet, it all existed before there was ever even a NEED for the Law Covenant.
I hope this helps and, again, the greatest of love and peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
JeffT
Terry, I'm pretty sure more copies of "The Girl with the Dragon Tatto" have been printed in English than Swedish. Why? More people can read it. Koine Greek was the common language of the day, it was the language used by a Roman and an Egyptian cutting a business deal in Gaul. The people that wanted to spread Christianity, not being complete idiots, put their literature out in a language more people could understand. Plugging books in Aramic then would have been like trying to sell books in Dutch today. You might corner a local market but you'll never go international.
-
AGuest
Greetings, dear Tams, and the greatest of love and peace to you! Thank you, always, for your very kind words. On another note, I think I'd like to say that I'm not so concerned with sidetracking: one, I'm a girl and so can multitask/post and not lose sight of where things are going; and, two, we can always get back on track. But to make it so that folks can't express themselves in a thread when a thought has been raised that leads in a bit of a different direction is, IMHO, absurd. The posts are permanent, so the record is set; anyone can, say, post a reminder such as, "Yeah, but what about the original question?" and get things back on track. Taking issue when things appear to veer (and not that they have) is, IMHO, a bit telling.
So, while I understand your apology to dear Terry (you're just sweet that way, girl!), I would hope that those who find topics branching off for a sec or two would take some very "sage" advice... and not hurry themselves in their spirits to be offended. Too small of a thing for it, if you ask me. MUCH more going on in the world to get offended over, IMHO.
Again, peace to you, my dear, dear sister!
Your servant, sister, and fellow slave of Christ,
SA
-
AGuest
The people that wanted to spread Christianity, not being complete idiots, put their literature out in a language more people could understand. Plugging books in Aramic then would have been like trying to sell books in Dutch today.
You make my point, dear JeffT (thank you and peace to you!): the TGWDT was FIRST written in Swedish, which was the first language of the author. THEN, in order to reach a larger audience, the publishers translated to English. Why did Stig not write them in English from the get-go... since most of the world speaks English? Could it be that what took place in the stories make more SENSE in Swedish life? At leaat, to HIM?
And NOW, they are working on a English version of the film trilogy. Why? Wasn't the Swedish with English subtitles "good enough"? Or is it perhaps because some folks don't like English subtitles? Or... perhaps what is translated into English is a tad... if not a great deal... different from what was said/implied in Swedish... almost rendering it another tale altogether?
(NOTE: I'm still not sure I want to see the English versions as the Swedish versions were SO good... and I am fearful that either something will be lost... or added... in the translation. You know, "artistic license" and all that... which usually renders such things into an almost entirely different tale altogether. We shall see.)
Anyway, THANKS for the backup and, again, peace to you!
Your servant and a slave of Christ,
SA