It seems to me that Jesus' message to US is simpiler than previously thought

by sabastious 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  PSacramento

  The scientific way to work out what Jesus meant is to take the three synoptic gopels, and discard whatever doesn't appear in all three. What is left is the hypothetical 'Q' document. Simple.

  That would leave us with these "facts": Jesus lived, he healed and raised the dead, he preached love and compassion and the kingdom of God, he was crucified and was ressurrected.

  Is there a reason you would leave out the GOJ? since it is very well attested by other sources, like the apostolic fathers writing less than 100 years after Jesus's death and is the oldest evidence we have of any gospel ( fragment dated to late 1st/early 2nd century) ?
• 

  transhuman68

  IMO the GoJ is propaganda possibly written to discredit the earlier written Gospel of Thomas. The reasoning is laid out in Elaine Pagel's book Beyond Belief. The synoptic gospels are probably more accurate in describing Jesus actual sayings.
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  The oldest documents we have date to 100 years after his death ( which means that copies were circulating outside of Jerusalem by that time already), the oldest COMPLETE works we have date to 300 years after his death, that is VERY RECENT in terms of historical evidence and is very comparable to other historical figures, perhaps more so in some cases.

  I'm with you. Sort of. I'm not trying to debunk his existence or even many of his works and speeches. But there is absolutely NO WAY the quotes attributed to him, especially the longer ones, are verbatim, nor the details of his deeds precise. At BEST they're a rough paraphrase in which the authors, who were tainted by Judaism, tried to get the gist (though admittedly throughout the gospels, they are chided for NOT GETTING IT).

  So what amount of trust should we put in these quotations from people who admit several times they didn't understand what Jesus' point was, and who are trying to quote him decades later? I think it is prudent to temper one's faith with reason. You, PSac, often do. A huge number of Christians do not.

  Is there a reason you would leave out the GOJ? since it is very well attested by other sources, like the apostolic fathers writing less than 100 years after Jesus's death and is the oldest evidence we have of any gospel ( fragment dated to late 1st/early 2nd century) ?

  That's a great question. Is John's uniqueness because he was trying to fill in the gaps in the story that the existing gospels left? Or was he just old and starting to lose his faculties? Was it due to personal reasons? A combination of all? I really don't know, but if you're going to accept, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then IMO you have to also accept John.

  But it gets back to my point, which is: to just what extent should any of it be accepted? I'm of the view that one has to temper their faith with some reason.

  And another question. I have little doubt that most of the OT was compiled and put together during and post-exile and that the pre-exile documents, such as they were, were edited and redacted. How much editing and redacting happened with NT documents? Perhaps not as much but surely there was some.
• 

  moshe

  The reason why there is no history of the historical Jesus is because it was DESTROYED.

  And why, pray tell, did God allow all the tangible proof about Jesus to be destroyed? Does He not want any skeptics to be in His Kingdom?
• 

  PSacramento

  IMO the GoJ is propaganda possibly written to discredit the earlier written Gospel of Thomas. The reasoning is laid out in Elaine Pagel's book Beyond Belief. The synoptic gospels are probably more accurate in describing Jesus actual sayings.

  I don't know of ANY scholar or historian that dates GOJ AFTER GOT.

  GOT was written in the coptic and is, realistically, dated to late 2nd century, though SOME do date it to late 1st or early third.

  The GOJ is spoke about by the apostolic fathers ( late 1st century) and the oldest copy we have is date, CONSERVATIVELY to early 2nd century, and that is an existing copy, so the original was earlier and the original unedited one even earlier than that.
• 

  PSacramento

  I'm with you. Sort of. I'm not trying to debunk his existence or even many of his works and speeches. But there is absolutely NO WAY the quotes attributed to him, especially the longer ones, are verbatim, nor the details of his deeds precise. At BEST they're a rough paraphrase in which the authors, who were tainted by Judaism, tried to get the gist (though admittedly throughout the gospels, they are chided for NOT GETTING IT).

  So what amount of trust should we put in these quotations from people who admit several times they didn't understand what Jesus' point was, and who are trying to quote him decades later? I think it is prudent to temper one's faith with reason. You, PSac, often do. A huge number of Christians do not.

  The bible is but ONE of the ways we know of God and Christ, God's word is revealed in the bible, yes, and in Christ and the universe and more importanlty, the Holy Spirit.

  That said, we MUST indeed, temper our faith with reason, indeed faith must be based in reason ( never been a fan of blind faith, whatever that is).

  That's a great question. Is John's uniqueness because he was trying to fill in the gaps in the story that the existing gospels left? Or was he just old and starting to lose his faculties? Was it due to personal reasons? A combination of all? I really don't know, but if you're going to accept, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, then IMO you have to also accept John.

  But it gets back to my point, which is: to just what extent should any of it be accepted? I'm of the view that one has to temper their faith with some reason.

  And another question. I have little doubt that most of the OT was compiled and put together during and post-exile and that the pre-exile documents, such as they were, were edited and redacted. How much editing and redacting happened with NT documents? Perhaps not as much but surely there was some.

  RE: John, writing AFTER the others, the writer of John decided to make a his understanding of the Gospel sort of "what they others guys didn't focus on" and it is also quite possible that, since the beloved disciple had some "special understanding" of Christ and his nature, that he wanted to make that clear to his readers. John also makes Jesus's ministry more complete with the multiple visits to Jerusalem and such.

  We must remember that quite probably, not all the disciples where with Jesus 24/7 or even at ever trip and as such, not all where privy to every parable or every event.

  RE: Editing and redacting.

  Yes, of course it happened, GOJ is a prime example as some parts seem to be out of "order" at times.

  We can't think of the Writers as guys siting down to a desk and writting the Gospels in one sitting, it was no doubt a slow and gradual process that may well have been finalised ( put into final format) by THEIR followers.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  I don't know of ANY scholar or historian that dates GOJ AFTER GOT.

  The Gospel of Thomas contains the more detailed versions of the snippets found in the synoptic gospels. That's a dead giveaway which one came first. It's interesting how the stuff they left out of the Bible all has to do with self-awakening or gnosis. It seems whoever edited the synoptic gospels was really good at what the Watchtower does... deceptive quoting and cherry-picking verses. And why not? It's the same cabal of hooligans behind both of them.

  "G-O-O-O-O-D-D-D is not SLOOOOOOWWWWW respecting his promise...."

  "Waaaaaaiiiiiitttttt on Jehhhhhhhooooovvvvaaahhhhhh...."

  Same shit, different day. They want us all to continue sleeping for as long as possible. When people wake up they're finished.