Even in areas and times when homosexuality was tolerated or even common, afaik, no one thought of “Gay marriage”. Marriage was for making kids. It’s only recently it has so many legal ramifications, like taxes, that gay marriage has become a necessity.
Jesus made it clear what he thought of rules like "no gay sex’ “no adultery” etc “Let those without sin cast the first stone.” Love and forgive.
But what are those “nuggets of truth” when it comes to Jesus? How do we know? It is so clear that each of the gospel writers had their own agenda in crafting an image of Christ that I don’t see how we can really take any of them as “gospel.”
For instance…
Oddly enough, that particular passage in John is among the most troublesome. Not only because it would appear to equate all wrong-doing as equal and therefore preclude any notion of a human justice system (I mean, what other “sins” do we have to cast a blind eye to just because everyone said a cross word to their parents once in a while as a kid?), but also because it’s authorship and place in the gospel is somewhat questionable (more so than other random sayings attributed to Christ), as it is noticeably absent from the oldest manuscripts:
What I keep coming back to is that we have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said, but then even if we did I’m not sure why anyone should care.
why do we care what the Buddha said? Or Confucius? or Mohammed? Or Socrates? Or anyone not alive today? Because their teachings and sayings are immortal.
I don’t care. Maybe that’s why you care, but I don’t. If a saying is true or useful, it is so irrespective of who said it. I’ll leave it at that because we’re in GQ, but needless to say I disagree.
I personally am quite dubious as to the existence of Q itself. However, it is not “making assumptions” to think that other sources existed, when Luke explicitly tells us that they did. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. . . .” (Luke 1:1) That’s the whole reason why Luke wrote his Gospel, because some of those other sources evidently did not have as much knowledge about what Jesus said and did as Luke.
Incidentally, any “consensus” by scholars (who evidently are not worthy of the title), that none of the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, is worth diddly-squat. Luke explicitly tells us that he was an eyewitness. And if you’re going to ignore or designate as unreliable the vast bulk of the primary source material just because you don’t like what it says, any subsequent research is going to invariably lead you to false conclusions.
It’s amazing to me how so many people who consider themselves to be academics and researchers in pursuit of the truth treat research into Jesus so much differently that research into other ancient figures. You never see researchers into Aristotle, for example, throw out 90% of the source material right off the bat and then construct hypotheses from the remaining 10%. Like it or not, the four Gospels are our primary sources of information regarding Jesus, and any research that ignores or denigrates that fact is worthless.
It would have been really awesome for Luke (here referring to the anonymous author or authors) to actually name his sources. That he did not might tell us something about just how rigorous his source-gathering methodology was. With that said, I’m happy to concede that he would have used at least two sources: Mark and something else (my vote is for Matthew, but as previously discussed, many scholars still hold to Q). Those two sources alone quite obviously could account for the bulk of the content in Luke, and the differences seem to point to just kind of making things up to sell his particular narrative on the nature of Christ, rather than to other (unnamed) sources.
Kindly cite chapter and verse for that. My impression was that, at best, assuming we take his word for it on his sources, he claimed to have spoken with eyewitnesses, but not to actually have been one himself. Wasn’t the traditional view of scholars that the author of Luke-Acts was merely a follower of Paul?
Nobody bases their religion on Aristotle or, by extension, tries to enact policy “because Aristotle said.” At least not lately, anyway (the medieval Church being a notable exception).
But if memory serves, the historicity of at least one of the Socrates/Plato/Aristotle trio (I’m thinking Plato) is sometimes called into question, positing that he was merely a character employed in dialogues. With that said, whether he existed or not does not lend any more or less weight to his philosophy. The same should be true of Jesus, but alas many people take “he probably existed” and then run with it to to conclude that he was also “probably was resurrected, and probably was the son of God, which means god exists and all the stuff that we attribute to Jesus is true, and so is everything in the Old Testament, whether we have to follow it (Matthew’s Jesus) or not (Luke’s Jesus).”
Oh, boy.
Here’s the Wikipedia article on the Authorship of Luke-Acts. Note that while likely written by the same person and there is some bits in Acts that suggest that the author was a traveling companion of Paul and witnessed at least part of Paul’s mission first hand, the *Gospel of Luke *is another thing entirely.
Quoting from the article:
"The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, … " [My emphasis.]
Note that this is the traditional view.
To go around slamming people who clearly know more about this than you do is ridiculous.
The author of Luke-Acts clearly did not witness a lot of what he wrote about. He gets a lot of historical facts wrong. Acts is the most error filled book in the New Testament.
If you were going to pick one of the four gospels to be the most likely one written by an eyewitness, Luke is the last one you’d choose.
Flyer, it is you that is ignoring the material in the New Testament.
Correction to the above: the answer is Socrates. Though Socrates is acknowledged as a historic character (as, FWIW, Jesus currently is), the words attributed to him are passed down to us primarily (exclusively?) through the works of his student, Plato, and other philosophers of the era. As with Jesus, the views expressed by Socrates in these various surviving works and the details of his life tend to vary—or even contradict one another—and so cast doubt on whether or not we can ever actually know “what Socrates said,” in spite of the wide volume of works that are supposed to feature him. It’s known as the Socratic problem and is, I think, a perfectly appropriate analogue to the problem of someone claiming “Jesus said.”
The difference is, honest historians acknowledge this and no one finds it particularly controversial because Socrates is not a major religious figure. But try and apply a similar level of skepticism to the sayings attributed to Jesus and, well, you get some of the responses in this thread.
Even if I grant (for the sake of argument) that the gospels are eyewitness accounts or the work of good historians (for their time), it should not be a controversial view at all that the words of Jesus may not have actually been spoken by Jesus, but rather were put into his mouth by (possibly much later) followers trying to advance their own particular philosophy.
I’m surprised that no one has mentioned what they call the Sayings Gospels, which (like Q) are a theoretical lost work that the canonical gospels and other books drew from. The idea is that it was pretty much a list of quotes from Jesus, rather than a narrative work.
Someone did mention the Jesus Seminar, which is relevant.
As a nonexpert, I don’t believe that there’s some secret key to the sources of early Christian writing. There must have been countless texts going around which all influenced each other. There were a good roughly 40 years between crucifixion and the earliest gospel. That’s plenty of time for ideas to intermix.
Having sat through the church readings of the nativity story in the last few days, it is hard not to appreciate the obvious embellishment present in the gospel stories. There was a Syrian census a few years BC, but nobody - especially not day labourers - had to traipse halfway across the country for days to simply register where they did not live. It sounds like something someone else would have added decades later to twist their messiah to be of divine origin. Similarly, Josephus had no problem describing Herod the Great’s misdeeds and misfortunes in detail, (Including his rotting genitals) and never thought to mention that he ordered the massacre of all (male) babies in a wide area of his kingdom? So widespread that one would need to travel all the way to Egypt to escape?
As a non-expert, it seems to me the nativity gospels provided several things that advanced the young church’s party line - affirmed Jesus’ divine lineage, his link to David (wait, through Joseph who actually wasn’t his father??), the fact that he was also fully human from birth, not just a divine apparition (to contrast another early “heresy”), and that both the heavens and civil authorities believed his divinity and the prophecies.
While the story is almost certainly made up, having spoken to people who live in places where you have to register with the government, notify them of movements, get permission to move, etc. it seems common to simply let your data linger in an old condition. A married couple might, officially, live in different provinces just because one of them never bothered to update their registration, even though they’ve been living together under the same roof for the last decade.
But that does inconveniences at time since you might be called upon to continue the lie, report to vote, or whatever.
So, I could conceive of a situation where you might end up having to go back to where you’re registered as living, for some government thing.
A bigger issue is that the “prophecy” that the Bethlehem birth was supposed to fill had already been filled. Micah 5.1 is (pretty likely) an addition to the original works of Micah (chapters 1-3). The later parts were written after Israel was taken over by Cyrus the Great and then given great freedom and money to rebuild the Temple.
The king at the time (a descendant of David), and the person who commissioned the Bible was Josiah.
The prophecies refer to the works of Josiah and Cyrus, establishing the rightness of the work they were doing by putting words into the mouths of earlier religious leaders. This is less apparent if you quote snippets of text out of the prophecies but become more clear if you read about Cyrus and Josiah and then read through the whole text with that context set.
We don’t know where either man was born. I’d lean towards suspecting that Josiah was born in Bethlehem on the basis of Micah.
Note that there are two significantly different genealogies for Jesus given in Matthew and Luke. (Which in the older parts also disagree with the Old Testament.) One explanation for some of the differences is one is goes thru Mary rather than Joseph. But that, and a bunch of other explanations are all problematical.
That neither the of author’s of Mark and John didn’t care about genealogy, virgin births, etc. and pretty much picked up the story with John the Baptist and then Jesus getting baptized is telling, facts-wise. Paul clearly didn’t care about any of this. (He, in fact, stressed how Jesus was born in a not unusual way.)
All these facts were known to early Church scholars, and yet …
Sure, that certainly could have happened. We do think that MOST of the sayings were the Words of Jesus, but I dont believe in divine intervention to make them all 100% kosher (pun intended).
Who is “we” and on what grounds?
Since the existence of Yeshua bir Miryam is uncorroborated, and many attributed sayings in both canonical and apocryphal books have long lineages, one can find or invent almost any Wisdom Saying or Divine Relevation to blame on that Holy Mouthpiece. Thus Xianity is the most flexible of religions, infinitely malleable, like tinfoil.
Actually in practice quite a lot of the church’s authority is usually a cite to Paul. But it appears that when Paul states the authority of the church he is stating things from what he knew as a expert of Jewish temple law, which is what Jesus came to free us from. Paul admits what he says is sometimes things knowingly not of God but only from Paul himself, and other times that Paul states a command from God which Paul is apparently not in agreement with. Paul frequently talks about this war going on inside himself.
And that’s the whole Paul founded Christianity thing, as a mix of what people ask for (wanting rules, leaders), and what God wants (Christ is sufficient). It is the same thing that God did with the Jewish people, giving them things to try to get them to understand they never needed them.
Contrast this to what Jesus taught, the kingdom is near, drop everything and follow me, lean accept and do as I do. That is not Christianity as we know it, however it may be a stepping stone to the way Jesus lives and teaches for those willing to make the leap of faith.
Well, Jesus does, at the Last Supper, command his disciples to celebrate the Eucharist, which is the climax of a church service in most Christian denominations. So I don’t think it’s correct to say that Jesus said nothing about services.
in your earlier response, remember the Last Supper was a passover feast. Not sure about :“services” but he did say “where 2 or 3 are gathered together,there am I”
My understanding is that there was a popular folk belief among Jews of the time that the Messiah was going to be born in Bethlehem. Hence the far-fetched “census” story was needed to explain why their guy, despite being widely known as “Jesus of Nazareth” had actually been born in Bethlehem.
That is explicitly said in the Old Testament: Micah 5:2.