Jesus quotes only?

[LittleFlower378]

Very well could be although it seems like he is focused on all that is said in the red ink only but still twists it to his own liking. All this talk and thinking is getting me so tired. Why do I get tired when I talk and think about religious things!

 

[zz912]

He has elected himself as his own pope. He follows the traditions of a man, himself.

 

[LittleFlower378]

That is not what he says. He says he follows Jesus in the quotes.

 

[Splagchnizomai]

That is not what he says. He says he follows Jesus in the quotes.

You may wish to point out that Jesus often quotes the Old Testament, such as when he is on the Cross and says, “Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani?” which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” Here he is directly quoting Pslam 22. If the “red-ink only” reader doesn’t know this, he may believe that Jesus is despondent. Psalm 22 begins in anguish but ends in triumphal praise. Christ is crucified in anguish, but will rise in the Resurrection.

I mention this only to point out that Jesus’ words at this point must be understood by looking at something outside of Jesus’ words. By knowing the Psalm, we are better able to understand what Jesus is telling us. We have to rely upon something beyond the red-ink quote to help us figure out what is going on.

This is just one example.

 

[bmullins]

Honestly Travis, its really unreal. He really twisted everything I said and kept saying “do you believe what Jesus said in the quotes or not.?” I wonder if he is a Mason.

Why do you think he would be a Mason?

 

[Splagchnizomai]

He has elected himself as his own pope. He follows the traditions of a man, himself.

Not really, for even the Pope can’t interpret the Bible independently of the Magisterium.

 

[LittleFlower378]

What I tried to point out was that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience so that is why he always quotes from the Old Testament. For him it doesnt matter what audience or who the author is writing to, all that matters is what Jesus said.

Well if he is taking the Thomas Jefferson Bible only and very very political, anti-Catholic and anti-religion, I thought he may have ties to the Masons, but I am not for sure. Then again I think the Masons believe that every religion is the same, it doesnt matter what religion you are.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

I came across someone on a message board (who is very very political) and discussed religion with him. He only takes the words of Jesus in quotes as the only basis for his faith. He does not believe that Jesus is God the Son but says he believes in the Trinity? He believes that every time in the Gospel it says “Jesus said” that that is actually quoting Jesus. He doesnt take into account Pauls writings just the quotes from Jesus. So therefore he can make up things like “Jesus never said homosexual acts are wrong.” How to respond to such a person who always thinks he is right by going back to the exact words of Jesus?

If you need to categorize this person in case you meet a similar person like this again in the future, they are called “Red Letter Christians” who only accept red letters in the new testament in certain translations, and those red letters are what Christ spoke.

 

[in_servitude]

In this person’s case, I suppose it is unfortunate that Jesus didn’t have the simple foresight to employ scribes to follow him around. Instead, he chose to just talk to people that would later write down a small fraction of what he said. This reality gives weight to the institution that Jesus created while he was here on earth.

 

[SonCatcher]

In this person’s case, I suppose it is unfortunate that Jesus didn’t have the simple foresight to employ scribes to follow him around. Instead, he chose to just talk to people that would later write down a small fraction of what he said. This reality gives weight to the institution that Jesus created while he was here on earth.

Actually, one ancient pious tradition is that was Matthew’s job.

 

[in_servitude]

Actually, one ancient pious tradition is that was Matthew’s job.

You have a reference for this? I’d love to see it - I hadn’t heard this, but I’m just now digging deeper into Sacred Tradition.

 

[SonCatcher]

You have a reference for this? I’d love to see it - I hadn’t heard this, but I’m just now digging deeper into Sacred Tradition.

This tradition doesn’t quite qualify as Sacred Tradition as it is not dogmatic. That is why I referred to is as a “pious tradition.”

The Catholic encyclopedia covers most of the details in the “Testimony of Tradition” section of its article on the Gospel of St. Matthew.

The last detail of the tradition I received (that Matthew may have written the events as they occurred and compiled them into a book after the completion of Jesus’ ministry) points to instructions given to prophets in the Old Testament:

[BIBLEDRB]Exodus 34:27[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Jeremiah 36:2[/BIBLEDRB]

It also revolves around Matthew’s extensive education. As a tax collector, he needed to be as literate as the scribes.

Unfortunately, I don’t currently have a written source for this tradition at this time but I did hear it from disparate sources. Perhaps drilling down the encyclopedia references will turn up something.

 

[LittleFlower378]

I don’t know much about this but a very good Bible study teacher said that at one point there was a list of Jesus actual sayings. I am not sure if this was what the authors of the Gospels used in some cases to bring Jesus to others, probably so. I am pretty sure that for the most part, correct me if I am wrong, that the stories where they are written in all four Gospels accounts that the events for the most part probably did happen.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

I came across someone on a message board (who is very very political) and discussed religion with him. He only takes the words of Jesus in quotes as the only basis for his faith. He does not believe that Jesus is God the Son but says he believes in the Trinity? He believes that every time in the Gospel it says “Jesus said” that that is actually quoting Jesus. He doesnt take into account Pauls writings just the quotes from Jesus. So therefore he can make up things like “Jesus never said homosexual acts are wrong.” How to respond to such a person who always thinks he is right by going back to the exact words of Jesus?

Then he should have no problem following the teachings of the succesor of Peter and the church that he instituted after HIs ascension into heaven.

Problem solved.

 

[John7]

I came across someone on a message board (who is very very political) and discussed religion with him. He only takes the words of Jesus in quotes as the only basis for his faith. He does not believe that Jesus is God the Son but says he believes in the Trinity? He believes that every time in the Gospel it says “Jesus said” that that is actually quoting Jesus. He doesnt take into account Pauls writings just the quotes from Jesus. So therefore he can make up things like “Jesus never said homosexual acts are wrong.” How to respond to such a person who always thinks he is right by going back to the exact words of Jesus?

but,
problems like in John 3 where does Jesus stop talking and John pick up commenting?
Does this person you are talking about know precisely where in John the speaking stops
and commentary begins??

many John-scholars think that from “time to time in this Gospel we have the meditations of
the evangelist, but it is difficult to know where they begin and end…perhaps the dividing point
comes at the end of verse 15.” L.Morris ‘John’

9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.
12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

 

[LittleFlower378]

Its so funny you say that John7 because he uses this verse to deny the Trinity and say that Jesus is only God’s son and not the God the Son.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

Those words are not in the quotes!!! So Jesus did not say those words so how could he believe them? thank you.

 

[TimothyH]

I can understand his line of thinking.
He trusts Jesus’ words…but not the others. We can’t even know if Jesus’ words are exactly accurate, but…if he’s going to trust someone, he’s picking the founder of his own religion, after all. So at least he’s going to the top.

Harry Truman said, “The buck stops here.”

So we should look at what the Head Honcho himself said in Matthew 13. There he uses several parables to explain what his kingdom will look like.

Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; 32 it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (Matthew 13:31-32)

All throughout the Old Testament, trees were used to represent strong nations and birds represent the Gentiles. Jesus being a good Jew, and from the fact that as God he was the one who inspired the Old Testament, we can see that In the case of this parable, Jesus tells us that his kingdom will start small, like a mustard seed, but grow in to a strong nation. Indeed Jesus uses the word “Kingdom” twelve times in this chapter alone. That Jesus was establshing a Kingdom is what he himself has told us with his own mouth.

All kindom’s have a King, but they also have a Queen who is typically the Mother of the King. Kingdoms have various ministers appointed by the King, first among them being the Prime Minister, who has authority to run the day to day affairs of the kingdom on behalf of the King. Kingdom’s have wealth, and power, and if they are governed correctly, will grow into a strong nation, just as Jesus told us would happen.

So what kingdom most resembles that which Jesus has told us with his own words?

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

I guess…like a great many people…the OP’s friend doesn’t trust politicians to “govern correctly” on the King’s behalf!

(PS…isn’t the King’s Queen usually his wife?)

Regarding the Queen, no, the king took many wives, usually the duaghters or nieces of kings whith whom he made military alliances. This set up the situation where the daughter of a potential rival could have great power should she become queen. For this reason the king gave the queenship to his mother. Consider Solomon who’s mother was Bathsheba.

Then Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, and the king stood up to meet her and paid her homage. Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right. (1 Kings 2:19)

Bathsheba, Solomon’s Mother, was the Queen. The Jewish word for this was “Gebirah” meaning Grand Lady or Queen Mother. The word Gebirah is in Strong’s Hebrew Concordance here. The Queen Mother is mentioned explicitely in Scripture.

Jehu met the kinsmen of Ahazi’ah king of Judah, and he said, “Who are you?” And they answered, "We are the kinsmen of Ahazi’ah, and we came down to visit the royal princes and the sons of the queen mother." (2 Kings 10:13)

The authors of some of the historical books of the Old Testament went through great trouble to tell us who the Gebirah was.

*In the eighteenth year of King Jeroboam, Abijah became king of Judah; he reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother was named Micaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. (2 Chronicles 13:1-2)
.
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, daughter of Omri. (2 Chronicles 22:2)

Uzziah was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-two years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jecoliah, from Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 26:3)*

There are dozens of passages like this in 1 and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles, going through all the kings of the nation of Israel in the Nothern and the Southern nation of Judah, listing the names of all the mother’s of the kings. The author is telling us who the mother of the King was because she was the Gebirah - the Queen. The author is letting us know who the queen was.

And the reason we are told this in the Old Testament is so that when we see Jesus the King in the Gospels, we understand that His Mother Mary is the Gebirah - the Queen.

-Tim-