Do We Really Know What Jesus Said?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2024
- For more on the this question, see this article: www.reasonablefaith.org/writi...
For more information visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Follow Reasonable Faith on Instagram: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@reasonablefai...
Another point to add is that ancient people were capable of memorising large amounts of scripture. It was not uncommon for even for young boys to have memorised the entire old testament by age 14. So memorisation, in the case of Jesus' disciples, would be expected given they were disciples of a rabbi. Biblical scholars also indicate that Jesus most likely repeated his sermons and sayings many many times given that's what rabbis would do
Finally, if we have sufficient reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and thereby is who He claimed to be, then we can be confident that Jesus chose the right disciples and ensured that His teachings would be transmitted reliably (which coincidentally is exactly what we see when looking at the manuscript evidence)
So every 14 year old boy everywhere had the OT memorized?
@@mattr.1887 No, I didn't say that
@@mattr.1887the ones that were good enough to were selected for further teaching by Rabbi and would go on to become Rabbi's themselves when they came of age
amen Praise Jesus Christ
Luke even begins his Gospel by stating that he went to Jerusalem to investigate the claims of Jesus. Luke met with those who walked with Jesus. This gives me confidence that I can trust Luke.
On this question I recommend Dr. Peter Williams lecture, "New Evidences the Gospels were Based on Eyewitness Accounts"
Adding to what Craig said are the presence of many “undesigned coincidences”, the correspondence of the proportion of Jewish names in the NT with the proportion of those names used by first century Jews living in the land of Israel, and the good knowledge of geography in the Gospels (just mentioning what came off my head and hence this is not exhaustive).
yes. I've read Luke & Acts, it shows Luke was there and he had described the places comprehensively. . He is not inventing. NT is authentic
Could jesus sayings include both ippisima vox and verba
I'm a convict Christian, however I have some difficulty with the gospel of John, Jesus' sayings there seem deeply radical all the time, claimings of divinity and stuff, they kind of don't appear in the earlier gospels, it's one of Bart Earman's arguments, it makes sense, although I believe in the inspiration of scripture..
Bart ehrman is intentionally dishonest. I wouldn’t listen to a word he says.
@jeffersonneto1378 Pick up a copy of Craig L. Blomberg’s book: “The Historical Reliability of John’s Gospel” - I am about halfway through it, it’s heavily researched and loaded with “criteria of authenticity” points, and evidences of Jesus’ words being “interlocked” with the Synoptics, and the historicity of the narrative. I highly recommend it.
What is a “convict Christian” ?
I would suggest = you look up "Inspiring Philosophy Mike Licona Did Mark Think Jesus is God ua-cam.com/video/wDjh47C6TiI/v-deo.html", Also look up "Did Jesus Think He Was God? - Nazareth to Nicaea (Episode 7) ua-cam.com/video/f1QijjSZ3HA/v-deo.html" , and look up "Inspiring Philosophy The Gospels Teach Jesus is God! ua-cam.com/users/shortsryAOQIKlVo8". These all helped me a lot when having your same question.
There is a series of bible study by Mike Winger, going through all of Mark, wich is the earliest gospel. He shows how high the CHRISTology is. It's almost more radical than John when you get to know what the author tries to commmunicate, wich most modern readers, me included, miss at first glance
How did the disciples know what was said between Jesus and Pontius Pilot? Or when Jesus was questioned and not gave attention to swine?
Jesus likely told his apostles and the apostles told others.
@@samsmith4902
So at best you have the bible authors claiming that someone else claimed that Jesus claimed to have said something.
You sure are a trusting person if you are confident with that.
@@somerandom3247not really. How many things do we know in history that are from people hundreds of years after the fact? After all everything we know about Alexander the Great comes from Plutarch who lived 400 years after Alexander.
@dannyc3774 ”Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest,
but Peter was standing at the door outside. So the other disciple, who was known to the high priest, went out and spoke to the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in.“
John 18:15-16
That’s how, we have Peter and the other disciple as two eyewitnesses to the event between Jesus & Pilate.
We don't know for sure that they knew all of these conversations flawlessly verbatim.
U don’t know what Y’shua/Jesus says because u don’t know the Torah….🫤. & u don’t c Him in His Jewish context. it literally is the same story as Joseph and his brothers, and Messiah and his brothers, and you and Y’srael
✝️🙏🏽❤️
I told God 'give me your job' and he did. Bruce almighty was a movie about it, but I could not perform acts of grandeur
One phrase attributed to JESUS THE CHRIST, I have trouble understanding is this one:
Situation
JESUS is asked by someone "Why don't your disciples wash their hands before eating?" - Probably trying to discredit, to disqualify HIM as a Teacher.
This phrase:
What enters the mouth does not kill but rather what leaves the mouth.
This may not be the exact sentence, but it is what I could remember.
Thank you Doctor William Lane Craig.
It's from Matthew 15.
The Pharisees kept a law that you must wash your hands before eating. They asked Jesus why his disciples don't do so.
Jesus says "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them."
Jesus explains what he meant in the same chapter:
"Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts-murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”
@@unsightedmetal6857well said!
One of the 'few authentic pastors left in the world whom is 'not A Freemason Fraternal Occult member. Glory' be unto YHWH.
It all comes back to faith. Anything that any Historian writes may be true or maybe false. No one knows for certain. How does anyone know for certain that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote true historical facts ? It all comes back to faith and faith alone.
Under that same standard, we could never trust anything in history. You really need to do better to produce a legitimate argument.
@@Johnny-mz9ot \\ Under that same standard, we could never trust anything in history. \\
Agreed. That is why I wrote, “Anything that any Historian writes may be true or maybe false. No one knows for certain”. That is a legitimate argument.
History alone, nevermind archaeology is evidence enuf. Should we have faith? Yes, but should we have blind faith? No, and that’s what it sounds like ur saying .
@@QueenQaffir
Craig’s argument for knowing what Jesus said is not strong. Namely, because it must be accepted by faith that what Jesus said is true. The same goes for anything that was written thousands of years ago. How does anyone really know that what was written thousands of years ago really happened ? It really just comes back to blind faith. Archeology does not prove to me nor anyone else that Jesus walked on Water or turned water into wine.
@Johnny-mz9ot For many historical persons, there are corroborating credible firsthand accounts. For this Jesus, there is _not one_ credible firsthand account.
Doctor Craig,
Isn't the proof that the sayings come from Christ the divinity intrinsic to them? Isn't the true meaning of Christ's sayings disclosed when we realize that they express an infinite understanding, which we do not possess? That is, truly understanding His words involves awareness that they articulate thinking our finite minds cannot produce, and therefore are the product of a divine mind. When we grasp How they make sense it becomes evident that the sort of sense they make could not have ever occurred to us, but had to be revealed to us, because of how absolutely other the infinite context of that sense is. We don't need anything other than Einstein's theories to know that they actually come from the most brilliant astrophysicist, for example, because the brilliance of the theories evinces the singular brilliance of the theorist.
What “secular history“ is he talking about ?
Non-new testament-Post-apostolic writings of Jews, like Josephus, and others / Non-Christian scholars know those writings e.g. Bart Ehrman
All Josephus did was report on the beliefs of others. He wasn't even born until after jesus's supposed death.
@@somerandom3247And there is good reason to conclude both mentions of Jesus in FJ's _Antiquities of the Jews_ were 2nd century fraudulent intrusions.
Test
@@ctt59 how is the writing of jews (those who practice Judaism) secular?
Jesus is lord
Do we really know that Jesus was a historical person?
I have a idea, as I was trained by God for 6 months, Jesus was not real, but I am sure there is a greater mind, it can outwit even the smartest of skeptii
@@stephenkaake7016 And I am not quite so sure. Now what?
Actually, yes. There're plenty of surviving archeological artifacts. One particularly relevant here is James, the biological brother of Jesus[1]. You can find several articles about it, including, but not limited to: _"James...Brother of Jesus" Ossuary Is Rock Solid_
My advice: Don't parrot Dawkins' ignorant talking points. Even fellow atheists roasted him for claiming Jesus wasn't a real person in history. A lot more could be said here, but I digress.
[1]: Brothers born _after_ Jesus. It may surprise you to know that Mary, being a _married_ woman, did _not_ stay a virgin her entire life, like Catholics seem to think.
@code-dredd Did you actually _research_ this James Ossuary? Yes or no.
My advice: Don't ever present me advice. I don't represent Dawkins, nor he I. Either discuss the matter with ME or stfu. Understand?
How would we know what Jesus said ?
The gospels are anonymous , the titles were shoehorned in by the church hierarchy in the 2nd century, so you don’t even know who wrote them. Paul was a schizophrenic who was dealing with the guilt of murdering his own people, and never knew Jesus only in a vision and visions are illusions by definition. Paul also thought Jesus would return in his lifetime, he was WRONG !
So why should we believe anything Paul said ?
There was nothing written about Jesus whilst he was alive, not a single word. Jesus himself is the claimed son of god , could perform miracles, but couldn’t write ??????
When you start out with a theological obligation to biblical inerrancy, of course you will reach this conclusion. Survival instincts help a lot too (I HAVE to believe XYZ, or else I burn in hell forever).
You clearly didn't watch the video. - RF Admin
I did, my friend.
The book of Acts tells a different story of Paul’s conversion than Paul himself.
In what way?
This is not true. The "different" accounts of the same event have people focusing on different aspects/details/etc. They're complementary, not contradictory. The only way you can claim they're "different", and thus "contradictory" in any way, is if you already have an _a priori_ belief that this is the case, but this is just begging the question.
Pretty interesting take... for someone who, rather selectively, claims that the Bible does _not really _*_mean_* what it says when it says it.
For example, Genesis explicitly says God created everything in 6 normal-length days and rested on the 7th day; the 4th Commandment in Exodus 20 further drives this point home, unambiguously, not only by repeating this fact again, but also by noting that God's original work pattern is _the basis_ for our 7-day week[1]. Yet, based on his writings and public statements, Dr Craig is on record claiming the days of this creation week are _not really_ "days", but rather, periods of millions or billions of years, thus _not_ believing any of this to be actually true.
A tale as old as creation itself: "Now the serpent [...] said to the woman, “Did God actually say [...]?" -Gen. 3:1 (ESV)
Rather unfortunate, really.
[1]: "Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work [...] For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." -Exodus 20:9-11 (ESV)
Most Christians I know independently agree with Craig on this. There's no sin in that, not to mention it is the most common sense view, given the explanatory power, scope, etc. of science. Biblical infallibility doesn't have to mean exactly what you think it means.
@@anthonybond8466
There is no indication that anyone in the Bible would have accepted Craig’s view on the first 11 Chapters of Genesis.
@@anthonybond8466
*_> Most Christians I know independently agree with Craig on this_*
First, this is an appeal to majority fallacy. Majority opinion doesn't decide truth or correctness. Secondly, they are certainly not "independent". There are no historical traces of Craig's views in the first ~1.8K years of Christian exegetical history, until the last ~200 or so years, with the secular push for evolutionary models.
One very influential man was Charles Lyell, a lawyer turned "geologist", who pushed for the concept of uniforminarianism (i.e. everything must be explained using present processes; "present is the key to the past" rather than the other way around, etc.[1,2]), who was explicitly on record saying that he wanted to "free science from Moses". This man preceeded, and was very influential in the life and theory of, Charles Darwin.
Lastly, said agreement is mainly due to eisegetical reasons, not exegetical ones.
[1]: This, by implication, denies the possibility of the global world-wide flood, among other things.
[2]: Interestingly, this concept _seems_ to have been anticipated by 2 Peter 3:4: "They will say, 'Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, *all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.'*
*_> There is no sin in that_*
I didn't say there was, but how do you _know_ there isn't? On what basis do you so confidently assert that "there's no sin in" contradicting what God said he did?
Also, you do realize that you have made no exegetical arguments from the Bible itself, right? Only assertions. I'm not here to change your mind; I'm only pointing this detail out.
*_> not to mention it is the most common sense view, given the explanatory power, scope, etc. of science._*
If you, Craig, and/or your Christian friends were to be _logically consistent_ with this line of thinking, instead of arbitrarily choosing from the salad bar, you'd also have to reject all the miracles mentioned in the Bible -including the resurrection of Jesus. After all, science also _assumes_ that miracles are not possible and _shows_ that dead people _don't_ come back to life. You need to get a better grasp of the limits of science and also notice the cognitive dissonance you're carrying around.
On this point, I leave you with this:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are *against common sense* is the key to an understanding of the real *struggle between science[1] and the supernatural.* We take the side of science _in spite_ of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, _in spite_ of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, _in spite_ of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, *a commitment to materialism.* It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by *our **_a priori_** adherence to material causes* to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that *materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."* (italics original; bold my emphasis)
-Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons (review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, 1997)
Don't you find it ironic that, while _you_ think your view is "common sense", the _influential scientists/academics_ that push the anti-Christian views you've now mixed your faith with, openly admit that their claims are "against common sense"?
[1]: Do note that what Lewontin means by the word "science" is not actual science, and that should be clear based on everything else he claimed in the quote. It's a fallacy of equivocation.
*_> Biblical infallibility doesn't have to mean exactly what you think it means_*
No, apparently, it can mean whatever the reader wants it to mean at any particular point in time, based on what's most convenient for the individual. Obviously.
Given that mentality, I'm not surprised you hold the position you do, sir. What I _am_ surprised about, though in a good way, is the fact that people as inconsistent as you, Craig, and your friends have not left the faith outright like so many before all of you (e.g. evangelist Charles Templeton).
Good luck.
Just because something isn't literal, doesn't mean it isn't true.
Also, at a practical level, you can't really unify early Genesis with the reality-based facts of earth and the universe. The example Craig uses is that of a certain species of plant that needs a full year in which to grow. Its growth can't take place in a day.
Things like this is why Craig is lead to (reasonably) assume that Genesis takes place over, say, a vast epoch of time, during which things like the forming of earth's vast land masses can take place.
To reiterate, the events in Genesis don't need to be literal in order to be true; the same can be said of the abstract axioms of mathematics.
@@code-dredd I am curious about examples of "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs". Best regards,
Yes.
Christ is not only self evident, the Living Word of God defines all the Messiah was, is now, and will be in the future.
No, we (= everybody including you) don't.
You definitely didn't watch the video. - RF Admin
Luke mentions a worldwide census where everyone in the Roman Empire has to go to the city of his ancestors in order to be taxed. So why is William Craig acting like the author of Luke & Acts gets things historically accurate again?
Probably because he's actually read "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History" by Colin J. Hemer. - RF Admin
Because the purpose of the infancy naratives in Luje and Matthew were primarily to show linkage between the Jewishvscriptures andctheir gospels. They were not based on the apostolic witness like the rest of their gospels.
William Lane Craig is a millionaire, which means he is a rich man
What did Jesus say about rich men ?
(I don't need to quote him, you already know)
with God all things are possible (specifically including rich men entering the kingdom of heaven)
@@zaca353
So it must be possible for God to die.
@@tedgrant2God die? Er, yeah... how do you think anyone enters the kingdom of heaven? Jesus' death ;)
Sorry, that's a bit facetious of me. The proper answer is: That's not how language works. The "all things" is governed by the context, which has to do with who can be saved 👍
P.s I'm certain WLC has a nice little video on what God - who can do anything - "can't do" (e.g., logical incoherent things)
Who said Craig is a rich man?
@@Easternromanfan
Several websites state that his net worth is about $2 million.
And just look at him. Nice clothes and a big smile.
And his books are best sellers.
Apparently, Jesus didn't like rich men.
(Luke 16:19)
“Do we really know what Jesus said?”, No. All we know is what people claimed Jesus said. Was anyone taking verbatim notes? No. Do we have anything Jesus wrote? No. Is hearsay good evidence? No.
there is a letter, Jesus wrote 'i am very busy, my disciplines will perform a miracle after I am killed for sins''
The apostles were direct eyewitnesses. Reports from direct eyewitnesses is not "hearsay" and _is_ evidence -even in today's courts.
For your sake, this is the one case where ignorance is not "bliss". But, you do you.
@@stephenkaake7016 Did he sign it yours sincerely or yours faithfully, Jesus Christ?
@@code-dredd Given that the Gospels are anonymous, bro, it’s hearsay. You do not appear to know your bible history, bro. Your ignorance can be fixed with a little education.
@@horridhenry9920Whatever helps you sleep at night, "bro" 😂