Did Jesus actually say that?

[Dan_471]

I think his real issue is whether the Bible is historically accurate. My question in return is, Dan, have you read up on the history of where the Bible came from?

I beleive the easy answer would be ‘yes’, I’ve read up on the history

 

[Dan_471]

Ahh…I know that road…it goes through an ugly gate called Christ myth theory which leads to a very sad place…a place where only heretics dwell…I took a quick look and I’m not going there, thanks.

I can certainly see that happening… I don’t think that’s the only possible branch to that road… one thing for me is that if a person doesn’t ask these questions, then they just dwell in the back part of your mind… a person becomes unaware of them, until something happens and then they flair up… kind of like the chicken pox virus that lives down by your tailbone and is unnoticable until your immune system gets whacked

 

[R_C]

I don’t think so, there’s a huge difference: thoughts like these can be meaningful but can also be strong temptations against the faith. There is an abysmal (and yet very subtle) difference between seeking the truth and impugning the truth. I closely relate these thoughts to human beauty: there is nothing evil or unnatural in someone’s beauty, but a very subtle line separates a most natural admiration (which is an altruist feeling of admiration and of thanksgiving) from lust (which is a selfish distortion of beauty geared towards its possession for self-gratification)

So in simplicity of heart I don’t dwell in such thoughts, because believing in Christ being God (as I explained) is enough to trust that He’d preserve the Scriptures, particularly concerning His own words, that are the basis of Christianity and the glass through which the whole corpus of the Old Testament is read through.

The words of Christ are infinitely simple, while the most complex reasonings against them are just mazes that the mind wraps itself into until no more light is seen, giving the illusion that the argument was successful, while in truth all it did was blind more and more the mind from the simple truth. Which is why all the great Doctors of the Church have usually been able to summarize Christ’s teachings in one sentence (“I shall not want, God enough suffices”, “Love and do what you will”, just a few examples, of course), and the very Christ was able to summarize the whole Bible in one sentence: “love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself”.

All these reasonings (for instance, the argument on the petrine primacy) are not inherent to salvation, but, rather to understanding the natural hierarchy that is to be established to bring order onto the nations, so that it may be “on earth as it is in heaven”.

And even from a purely scientific standpoint, we well-know that humans have a natural tendency to form communities, and that naturally within these communities will layers of leadership be formed, and history has shown that, from the times of the nomad tribes to the emperors to the modern democracies, as well as in the family and in businesses, there is always the need of one figure of leadership, which in its most enlightened form is a primus inter pares or princeps (that is, one that is not above the rest, but which the others trust as their leader). There are many other ways in which leadership arises, but at its lowest level it becomes what Hobbes calls “state of nature”, and others “survival of the fittest”…and we have seen these happen throughout history…and we must step high above the level of the animal realm, since we are endowed with an intellect far above that of other creatures.

The petrine primacy, which is fully based on the Scriptures, can be easily understood even from a non-scriptural standpoint: Christ, the invisible head of the Church, chooses one man to be the visible leader of the Church, whose office remains by succession though not by inheritance.

In fact, the hierarchy of the Church is rather extraordinary: we find the bishops, who by a succession traceable back to the apostles are the shepherds of major communities (in old times called “churches”, now “dioceses”), and priests (presbyters, elders) as their helpers within the different sections of the diocese (“parrishes”); eventually, as the number of bishops greatly increased, the honorary title of cardinal was created to designate a bishop on which other bishops relied (from which the name), and ultimately the bishop of Rome or pope is chosen among the cardinals, being the one cardinal that the cardinals trust as their leader, though we profess that God himself guides them in making the best decision.

It is no surprise that, throughout history, all sorts of governments have risen and fallen, while the Church has outlived them all, and is far from being in decadence.

Now that’s a lot of writing. Christ had a much more concise way to express this, in a few sentences: “I am the Good Shepherd”. But He could not remain as a human leader: “I go back to the house of the Father; And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” However, His will for the community he formed was that they did not remain without a visible leader (“They shall be one flock with one shepherd”, He says) so He chooses one of them, whom He calls “Rock”, endows him with special graces (“I have prayed the Father for you, that your faith may not falter, and when you come back, confirm your brethren”), and sets him as the visible shepherd (“Do you love me more than these?" “Lord, you know everything.” "Pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas” [where “pasce” means not just “feed”, but describes the office of the shepherd who brings lambs and sheep on green fields, gathers them together, protects them from the wolves, and goes seek for lost sheep]).

 

[R_C]

I do believe in the fundamental value of seeking for the truth and in seeking understanding (“I no longer call you servants, but friends; a servant does not know what his master does; instead I call you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.”) thus not acting with servile obedience but with filial obedience (and we well know that young children are notorious for always asking “why”, thus seeking understanding even when, through obedience and discipline, they’d accept a “because I am your father and I say so” ). However, like I said, the boundary between filial curiosity and rebelliousness is very subtle, and hardly we realize when we’ve stopped seeking understanding of the father’s will and started trying to oppose our will to his will until it’s very hard to turn back and acknowledge our error…which is why the sheer simplicity of trusting in God and in His Church benefits souls so much. There is more I could mention on the latter in terms of spiritual warfare, but that is meant to strengthens an existing solid faith, not to clarify doubts. But there is more to be said, indeed.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m curious, do you by any chance believe that Al-Qur’an is the word of God?

Since you refuse to answer, we’ll take that as a yes.

 

[MarkInOregon]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=10002454#post10002454

in reply #11, Ignatius wrote

Here we are. I think that’s fair to say that I don’t accept the revealed Word of God. I would put it this way, that when looking at a quote from the Scriptures (in this case Matt 16:18), we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it… here’s looking forward to a fruitful discussion!

Out of curiousity–Do you accept anything you didn’t hear with your own ears? Just where do you draw the line for when you’ll accept someone said something and when you won’t? Without understanding this I don’t think any meaningfull discussion can take place. In fact I find it hard to believe that you can accept that anything was said by any historical figure.

Peace,
Mark

 

[GangGreen]

On the issue of Peter, I believe that Peter’s name is also mentioned more than any other (besides Jesus) in the NT. It obviously shows the significance of the role that Peter played.

 

[Dan_471]

Hi Dan. Good topic! Please explain why you believe Jesus never said this:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Well, one thing is that the saying occurs only here… I like the idea of ‘out of the mouths of two or three witnesses let every matter be established’…

the more convincing reason to me is that Jesus seems to be into love and compassion… and not into respecting the traditions of the elders… so it seems strange to me that He would establish a new system based, essentially, on a tradition of a new elder…

 

[Dan_471]

So do you by any chance believe that Al-Qur’an is the word of God?

No, I don’t think that.

 

[Dan_471]

Faith definitionally is

" confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." [Heb 11:1]

So yes, It’s true what you say, faith is a choice. But 1st it’s a gift from God. Then we choose to accept or reject it.

Might God give different people different gifts of things to believe? that’s something I wonder about…

that’s why “believe” has the following dynamic based on one accepting or rejecting faith.

“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible”. stuart chase

There’s some truth there… tho I think many people would be in the process of moving from one camp to another…

That’s not to say faith has no proof.

Jesus is a historical person. He lived died and rose from the dead.

Right. I accept those things

Josephus, a 1st century historian, NOT a Christian, so it could be said he had no partisan agenda, said the following in his work (btw I left the footnotes functional)

1. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

From: Ch 3 V 3
ccel.org/j/josephus/works/ant-18.htm

Josephus is not trying to prove anything. He just records people places and events that happened in history.

Kind of a side-note here… I think Josephus was Jewish, and hired by the Romans… so he probably does have some biases and motivations… Is everything that Joe wrote the complete truth? then in the same way, is everything that ‘Matthew’ wrote the complete truth?

therefore,

look at the terms Josephus used in that short paragraph

"the Christ" btw, that isn't Jesus last name
if it be lawful to call him a man due to the works he did
taught men who received the truth with pleasure
he was crucified.
appeared again alive after 3 days as the prophets fortold
and 10,000 other things concerning him

If someone who has no skin in the game can say this about someone he doesn’t even know, isn’t a follower, is it such a stretch to think that his comment about 10,000 other things attributed to Jesus, which Josephus had no interest in writing about, did get written down by the followers of Jesus?

No, it’s not a stretch…

And of course we have that record…the bible, which was written by, and for, the Church Jesus started.

Just something to think about

Yes, good things to think about… I think lots of people probably did write stuff about Jesus, the question for me is how accurate is it?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Jesus is a historical person. He lived died and rose from the dead. Josephus, a 1st century historian, NOT a Christian, so it could be said he had no partisan agenda, said the following in his work (btw I left the footnotes functional)

look at the terms Josephus used in that short paragraph

1. 
   *]“the Christ” btw, that isn’t Jesus last name
   *]if it be lawful to call him a man due to the works he did
   *]taught men who received the truth with pleasure
   *]he was crucified.
   *]appeared again alive after 3 days as the prophets fortold
   *]and 10,000 other things concerning him
   
   If someone who has no skin in the game…
   Just something to think about

1. 
   Steve the problem with this approach, as with the Bible, is that Josephus didn’t write what you wrote above. This partial disconnect happens at various stages.
   For a start Josephus didn’t write English so you are relying on somebody’s accurate? translation. They may have had some “skin” in the game.
   Also, we do not have the original manuscript. We rely on copies. Guess who did the copies - Christian monks. Did they have skin? Hmmmn.
   
   Its been a while since I studied exegesis (historical/textual criticism) of this verse but I believe consensus is that it has been heavily distorted by editors (with a Christian leaning) other than the original writer. We may never know exactly what Josephus himself actually wrote.
   
   Having said that no sane person denies that such a person lived and died. Resurrected is another matter and while we believe it happened that “fact” cannot be considered “historical” in the usual scientific/literary meaning of that word.

 

[steve_b]

Steve* the problem with this approach, as with the Bible*, is that Josephus didn’t write what you wrote above. This partial disconnect happens at various stages.
For a start* Josephus didn’t write English so you are relying on somebody’s accurate? translation. They may have had some “skin” in the game.*

Are you suggesting then, because the bible wasn’t written in English, we can’t trust any translation of it? How far is that criticism going? Even back to the original writers themselves can’t be trusted?

show your proof.
B:

Also, we do not have the original manuscript.

At one time we did.
B:

We rely on copies. Guess who did the copies - Christian monks. Did they have skin? Hmmmn.

Those copies came from originals. Are you suggesting mass collusion and corruption among monks occured, to distort the original documents? And if corruption occured, that there was no way to find and correct it, so it wasn’t and couldn’t ever be corrected, so that what we have today isn’t to be trusted?

Where’s the proof of that?
B:

Its been a while since I studied exegesis (historical/textual criticism) of this verse but* I believe consensus is that it has been heavily distorted by editors (with a Christian leaning) other than the original writer. We may never know exactly what Josephus himself actually wrot*e.

I would just add, there is also “hysterical” criticism parading as “historical” criticism. Know what I mean?
B:

Having said that no sane person denies that such a person lived and died.

Based on your criticism so far, how do you know that?
B:

Resurrected is another matter and while we believe it happened that “fact” cannot be considered “historical” in the usual scientific/literary meaning of that word.

Why is belief and fact conflicting? If history is really being historical, and science is really being scientific, then there is no reason for the 2 to validly collide. It’s when history isn’t being historical and science isn’t being scientific, that they validly tangle. That’s not to say people won’t start arguments for the sake of arguing over these things…literarily speaking .

btw, do you recite the creed? If you do, do you really mean what you say you believe?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Are you suggesting then, because the bible wasn’t written in English, we can’t trust any translation of it? How far is that criticism going? Even back to the original writers themselves can’t be trusted?

show your proof.

At one time we did.

Those copies came from originals. Are you suggesting mass collusion and corruption among monks occured, to distort the original documents? And if corruption occured, that there was no way to find and correct it, so it wasn’t and couldn’t ever be corrected, so that what we have today isn’t to be trusted?

Where’s the proof of that?

I would just add, there is also “hysterical” criticism parading as “historical” criticism. Know what I mean?

Based on your criticism so far, how do you know that?

Why is belief and fact conflicting? If history is really being historical, and science is really being scientific, then there is no reason for the 2 to validly collide. It’s when history isn’t being historical and science isn’t being scientific, that they validly tangle. That’s not to say people won’t start arguments for the sake of arguing over these things…literarily speaking .

btw, do you recite the creed? If you do, do you really mean what you say you believe?

Steve I am suggesting your approach to historical texts is naiive and ignores the huge advances in scientific/historical criticism since around the 1800s.

 

[Dan_471]

Dan it matters little at all whether Jesus actually said exactly this or the Gospel writer exercised a little poetic freedom. What matters is that the believing community

Well, there was more than one community, wasn’t there? Even as today there were more than one group of believers, I think

accepted such writings into the Biblical canon and over time continued to interpret/correct and develop such words/theology into the highly refined teachings we have today (and which is still linked to this verse).

We are not Protestants. The Bible is but one (important) expression of the faith of the Church. The “obvious” meaning of the text is only a starting point and the interpreted end point may be significantly different depending on the influence of other expressions of the Church’s faith (e.g. tradition as expressed in teachings of the Early Fathers or the Magisterium)

 

[steve_b]

Steve I am suggesting your approach to historical texts is naiive and ignores the huge advances in scientific/historical criticism since around the 1800s.

And what huge advances in criticism, are you speaking of that I’m not considering?

 

[Philthy]

I think that’s fair to say that I don’t accept the revealed Word of God.

OK…you don’t accept that the canon of Scripture to be the revealed word of God. Got it.

I would put it this way, that when looking at a quote from the Scriptures (in this case Matt 16:18), we can’t really be sure if Jesus actually said it… apart from faith, choosing to believe He said it…

That is correct. But it is also true that there is nothing that anyone has said that you can “really be sure if” they actually said it. So what is your point?

here’s looking forward to a fruitful discussion!

What, exactly, is it you wish to discuss? Do you wish to hear why we believe the quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are actual quotes of Jesus?

 

[Dan_471]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_471
Confucius comes to mind.

Well, possibly He said some of them… possibly He was a really powerful teacher, and even if the Gospels are, say, just 80% ‘right’, there’s still enough juice there to propel His philosophy forward…

I don’t think I quite understand your response… possibly we are not fully understanding each other yet…

You sort of miss the point, here. Christ is not Confucius.

I agree. Both Christ and Confucius said things that impacted a culture 2,000 years later, so I think that fits what the question was about, tho, as I said, possibly we were not fully understanding each other…

Christ said: “I am the truth”…

Well, this is the issue for me… did Jesus actually say that? Suppose that’s how John remembered it, or maybe what John wanted Jesus to say… or perhaps John didn’t write that, maybe it was a disciple of John’s who understood that’s what John was saying Jesus said…

and everyone understood, both those who followed Him (and who followed Him for the next 20 centuries) and those who hated Him and wanted Him put to death, that He claimed to be the Son of God, “and thus one with God”.

Either what He said is true, or not. There’s no 80% right, here.

Well, yes… I think in the context of when I wrote the 80%, it was about perhaps what Matthew wrote was 80% exact quotes from Jesus, 20% not-so-good rememberings… (if that’s the case, it’s probably a better percentage that I would remember…) should we think that
every history writer that quotes someone is doing it exactly?

Either He resurrected and the fishermen saw Him and went on to change the world, or He did not,

Yes, I accept the resurrection… it’s the accuracy of the quotes that I’m interested in

and I do not understand why would anyone pay attention to these people (who, according to what is said, even had power to heal people and do other wonderful things in the name of this Christ, and some still do so today, apparently).

Yes, many religions have healing stories… if someone does a healing, does that mean that everything they tell you about God is true? or a historical event is rightly reported?

Then your next question would be: assuming He said all of that,

OK, we’ll assume that

all right, what about those who wrote down what He said after many years? What about those who had to preserve those writings in the centuries?

Bear with me for a minute, now: I will try to show you how we reason (at least, how I reason). If Christ was who He said He was, namely God incarnate, and thus omnipotent, do you think He’d have allowed His words to be distorted or lost?

possibly… we’d need to know the character of God first to decide… perhaps God doesn’t lay things straight out… there’s a concept in one of the Psalms, I think, something like ‘to the pure you show yourself pure…to the crooked you show yourself hard…’ so God may reveal Himself to different people in different ways…

Do you think He’d have allowed others to add words to His words? Would He not have, say, established a community to teach by words and deeds His teachings, to preserve His teachings in writing, and to discern and condemn any writing that was not authentic?

Finally, I don’t see the parallel between Christianity and Confucianism.

As I said above, I may not have understood the question

The former is a religion, the latter a philosophical system. Those who study that philosophy (including many Christians) have found that it has good teachings that can lead to a better life, as well as errors that can lead to not so good life…as many philosophies of the past have. The gospels, on the other hand, don’t resent of such defect. And ultimately philosophy is one thing, religion another thing.

very true, tho some overlapping…

 

[Dan_471]

Too bad there’s like 10 more parts in the Gospels (and I’m probably falling short of the real number) in which the Lord singles out Peter (or in which Peter, by his action, appears to be the leader of the group)

I f you know of more examples in the Gospels where Jesus says He is going to make Peter the head of the church, I’m interested… I can’t currently think of any, myself…

Anyways if the petrine primacy is confusing,

Well, I wouldn’t actually say I find it confusing, currently I’m wondering if Jesus actually said that…

there are a few centuries of studies out there,

Yes, lots of books… ’ in the multitude of counselors there’s no lack of success’… and ‘one man seems right in his case til another comes and examines him’… so I think it’s good to read books from many sources…

and at least I have only read like a few books on the topic, so you won’t find the answer you need until you start digging the library of sacred tradition

that’s one good source

The Catholic Church does not base the papacy on one line of the Gospel

Right… I was surprised by how many people wanted to refer to that one verse…

 

[Dan_471]

I don’t think so, there’s a huge difference: thoughts like these can be meaningful but can also be strong temptations against the faith. There is an abysmal… (truncated to fit 6k limit)

So in simplicity of heart I don’t dwell in such thoughts, because believing in Christ being God (as I explained) is enough to trust that He’d preserve the Scriptures, particularly concerning His own words, that are the basis of Christianity and the glass through which the whole corpus of the Old Testament is read through.

I’m hearing the “I simply choose to believe it” approach… which is fine, of course… I believe I put that as an option when I started this thread… for me, the issue is that there’s more than one thing to believe… to put faith in… one thing I’m attracted to is that the main thrust of Jesus’ message is love and compassion towards other people… a turning away from worldly lusts and towards Godly desires, which frees you up for better loving and compassioning… this idea is offensive to many people, so possibly they added to it over the years… that’s one idea I’m attracted to…

The words of Christ are infinitely simple, while the most complex reasonings against them are just mazes that the mind wraps itself into until no more light is seen, giving the illusion that the argument was successful, while in truth all it did was blind more and more the mind from the simple truth. Which is why all the great Doctors of the Church have usually been able to summarize Christ’s teachings in one sentence (“Love and do what you will”…) (shortened to fit)

“Love and do what you will”, yes I can see that as a possibility

All these reasonings (for instance, the argument on the petrine primacy) are not inherent to salvation,

We can be saved without accepting petrine primacy? OK, I’m cool with that…

but, rather to understanding the natural hierarchy that is to be established

established by God? cool, then we won’t have to worry about internet threads anymore…

to bring order onto the nations, so that it may be “on earth as it is in heaven”.

And even from a purely scientific standpoint…

Yes, I agree that humans form communities with leaders… I think that’s different from saying that Jesus established this or that leadership… or that He said these exact words…

The petrine primacy, which is fully based on the Scriptures,

possibly… one question here is whether the Scriptures contain good quotes of Jesus…

can be easily understood even from a non-scriptural standpoint: Christ, the invisible head of the Church, chooses one man to be the visible leader of the Church, whose office remains by succession though not by inheritance.

Yes, if that’s how God chose to do it, yes

In fact, the hierarchy of the Church is rather extraordinary: we find the bishops, who by a succession traceable back to the apostles

Yes… tho I’ve heard that info about the very early succession is “iffy”… I could be wrong about that, tho…

are the shepherds of major communities (in old times called “churches”, now “dioceses”), and priests (presbyters, elders) as their helpers within the different sections of the diocese (“parrishes”); eventually, as the number of bishops greatly increased, the honorary title of cardinal was created to designate a bishop on which other bishops relied (from which the name), and ultimately the bishop of Rome or pope is chosen among the cardinals, being the one cardinal that the cardinals trust as their leader, though we profess that God himself guides them in making the best decision.

It is no surprise that, throughout history, all sorts of governments have risen and fallen, while the Church has outlived them all, and is far from being in decadence.

Now that’s a lot of writing.

not that much… I’m still with you…

Christ had a much more concise way to express this, in a few sentences: “I am the Good Shepherd”. But He could not remain as a human leader: “I go back to the house of the Father; And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.” However, His will for the community he formed was that they did not remain without a visible leader (“They shall be one flock with one shepherd”, He says)

He definitely said that? also, the one shepherd is Peter or Himself?

so He chooses one of them, whom He calls “Rock”, endows him with special graces (“I have prayed the Father for you, that your faith may not falter, and when you come back, confirm your brethren”), and sets him as the visible shepherd (“Do you love me more than these?” “Lord, you know everything.” “Pasce agnos meos, pasce oves meas” [where “pasce” means not just “feed”, but describes the office of the shepherd who brings lambs and sheep on green fields, gathers them together, protects them from the wolves, and goes seek for lost sheep]).

well, I think there may be multiple interpretations for those passages… the critical piece for me to start with, is did Jesus actually say those things?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

And what huge advances in criticism, are you speaking of that I’m not considering?

Steve the sarcastic tone when someone challenges your views suggests debate with you is not possible.
Whole libraries have been written on the, at the very least, partially unreliable nature of the verse you accept so literally and readily. Summaries of these scholarly debates are easily found on the internet. That you appear totally unaware of them in your above view makes your approach unconvincing.
To be more convincing you need to do more homework and be more open to other points of view than you display above. I am not going to do your homework for you. My gift to you is simply to show you the need.