Words of Jesus

  • Thread starter Thread starter teachccd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

teachccd

Guest
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
 
teachccd said:
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
Is he suggesting the Apostles let themselves be imprisoned, tortured and painfully killed for something that didn’t happen??
 
The Apostles after Pentecost faithfully and without compromise passed on what Christ said and did.
 
teachccd said:
But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
The short answer - no, most of the words and deeds in the gospels are not first hand or second hand accounts and we probably have very few of the actual words. of Jesus.

The longer answer (but not too long) - You really need to read the church’s*** Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. It is available online and there is an excellent side document you will also find by the priest who translated it (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J). It goes into detail as to what is really in the gospels as opposed to what people assume is there.

Yes, the authors faithfully passed on the teachings of Jesus but what they wrote is not at all related to his exact words,
 
teachccd said:
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
The ressurrection was a historical evident, and the Church has historical evidence to back it up - one evidence of which is the gospel. If this man has evidence that the resurrection didn’t take place, than let him present it. The Church is not afraid of evidence and he shouldn’t be afraid to cooperate in truth.

The words of Christ are the actual words of Christ. If they aren’t, nobody has found evidence to prove they aren’t. And if someone has, let him or her present the evidence. The truth speaks truly, after all.
 
124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97
[125](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/125.htm’)😉 The *Gospels *are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.98
[126](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/126.htm’)😉 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: 1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

[127](javascript:openWindow(‘cr/127.htm’)😉 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:
There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.102 But above all it’s the gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103
 
teachccd said:
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
This teacher is unfortunately infected by Modernism-Liberalism and making claims explicitly condemned by the Church.
From St Pius X’s syllabus of Modernist Errors:**Condemned:**13. The Evangelists themselves, as well as the Christians of the second and third generation, artificially arranged the evangelical parables. In such a way they explained the scanty fruit of the preaching of Christ among the Jews.

**Condemned:**14. In many narrations the Evangelists recorded, not so much things that are true, as things which, even though false, they judged to be more profitable for their readers.

**Condemned:**15. Until the time the canon was defined and constituted, the Gospels were increased by additions and corrections. Therefore there remained in them only a faint and uncertain trace of the doctrine of Christ.

Condemned: 36. The Resurrection of the Savior is not properly a fact of the historical order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order (neither demonstrated nor demonstrable) which the Christian conscience gradually derived from other facts.

Condemned: 37.** In the beginning, faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much in the fact itself of the Resurrection** as in the immortal life of Christ with God.
 
Eucharisted said:
The ressurrection was a historical evident, and the Church has historical evidence to back it up - one evidence of which is the gospel. If this man has evidence that the resurrection didn’t take place, than let him present it. The Church is not afraid of evidence and he shouldn’t be afraid to cooperate in truth.
Click to expand...
There is no real historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever. There are no resurrection stories. The appearance stories we have are confused and contradictory accounts given only third hand and only attributed to people who already knew Jesus and were part of the “in group”. There are no independent accounts or witnesses or any other documentation. If there was a shred of real “Historical” evidence, why hasn’t a single historian mentioned that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

The possibility that a few followers were martyred for preaching the teachings of Jesus is no proof at all.
The words of Christ are the actual words of Christ. If they aren’t, nobody has found evidence to prove they aren’t. And if someone has, let him or her present the evidence. The truth speaks truly, after all.
Click to expand...
You must be kidding - the words were spoken in Aramaic, recorded in the gospels in Greek long after they were spoken, and then translated to our languages AND we don’t have any of the original texts!!! What strange sort of logic is there that insists we have anything like the exact actual words of Christ???
 
teachccd said:
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
*Is the Catholic Church able to travel back in time?

We must consider that Jesus did not employ a number of scribes to follow Him around taking notes… we must also consider that Jesus was Crucified, Resurrected, and Ascended years prior to the first Epistle/Gospel being written down… we must also consider that Oral Tradition was the immediate form of the Gospel… finally, we must consider that the Holy Spirit, the other Paraclete, was sent to the Church by Jesus so that He could Guide and Teach the Church…

A person that suggests/claims that the Holy Scriptures are not Christ’s Word can only be an anti-Christ seeking to place doubt in the mind of the Believers.

When we read the New Testament we find that these people were already assailing the Church in her infancy; they bagan to twist the Word of God (Oral Teachings) and attempted to subvert the Authority of the Church. So it is not surprising that today we may find the wolves hiding in sheeps’ clothing as they attempt to lure away the weak and unlearned.

Maran atha!

Angel*
 
patg said:
There is no real historical evidence for the resurrection whatsoever. There are no resurrection stories. The appearance stories we have are confused and contradictory accounts given only third hand and only attributed to people who already knew Jesus and were part of the “in group”. There are no independent accounts or witnesses or any other documentation. If there was a shred of real “Historical” evidence, why hasn’t a single historian mentioned that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago?

The possibility that a few followers were martyred for preaching the teachings of Jesus is no proof at all.

You must be kidding - the words were spoken in Aramaic, recorded in the gospels in Greek long after they were spoken, and then translated to our languages AND we don’t have any of the original texts!!! What strange sort of logic is there that insists we have anything like the exact actual words of Christ???
Click to expand...
I’m not going to listen to you until you show me sources of evidence for your claims. Why? Because I’m open to the truth, not to personal opinion.
 
patg said:
The short answer - no, most of the words and deeds in the gospels are not first hand or second hand accounts and we probably have very few of the actual words. of Jesus.

The longer answer (but not too long) - You really need to read the church’s*** Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI. It is available online and there is an excellent side document you will also find by the priest who translated it (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J). It goes into detail as to what is really in the gospels as opposed to what people assume is there.

Yes, the authors faithfully passed on the teachings of Jesus but what they wrote is not at all related to his exact words,
Click to expand...
I did read that document in its entirety and that is why I became even more confused…God Bless
 
buffalo said:
124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God’s Revelation. Their central object is Jesus Christ, God’s incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church’s beginnings under the Spirit’s guidance.97
125 The *Gospels *are the heart of all the Scriptures “because they are our principal source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior”.98
126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels: 1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, "whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised on the saints at all times:
There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds.102 But above all it’s the gospels that occupy my mind when I’m at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is the one thing needful. I’m always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto.103
Click to expand...
Could you please cite the source for the above text? Thank you…teachccd
 
Eucharisted said:
I’m not going to listen to you until you show me sources of evidence for your claims. Why? Because I’m open to the truth, not to personal opinion.
Click to expand...
None of what I said was personal opinion:
  • Unless you have an original gospel written in Aramaic, you can’t have the actual exact words of Jesus.
  • If no historian has written a history text stating that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, there isn’t convincing historical evidence of this event. We may undeniably believe it is a fact, but that is a statement of faith.
  • If you still think we have the exact actual words of Jesus, don’t believe me, read the church’s documentation in ***the Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels ***by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI.
 
teachccd said:
Recently I attended a theology workshop which was slightly disturbing to me. The presenter is a well known author and Ph.D but some of what he taught was quite different from what I was used to. The topic was Christology and he frequently referred to scripture in his talk. He mentioned that because the Gospels were written years after the Resurrection there was much Church influence on what was written. While maintaining that the works are the very Word of God and inspired texts, he stressed that Jesus’ words were probably not exact ,if some were said at all. He went on to say, among many frightening things, that the resurrection of Christ could have just been an internalization of those who procaimed it or perhaps Jesus “was just a light” and no one really knows for sure what Jesus looked like after He rose from the dead.

But, I guess my question is; are the words of Christ in the Gospel His actual words or are they what the Church made them out to be years after the ascension? I thank all of you who can help me out here…God Bless…teachccd :confused:
Click to expand...
Please remember there was no written Christian tradition in the time of Christ, that is, no New Testament. Followers began to document various aspects of the ‘Jesus Experience’ later, and in the 4th Century, it was the *Catholic Church *that decided which of those documents – and there were many – would meet the criteria for inclusion in the New Testament. Many did not make the cut.

Yes…the presenter is right, I’m afraid. This is yet another reason why isolating the Bible as a ‘stand-alone’ Christian authority, is a bad idea. It simply didn’t come into existence in that context. The Church came first, then the Bible.
 
Eucharisted said:
I’m not going to listen to you until you show me sources of evidence for your claims. Why? Because I’m open to the truth, not to personal opinion.
Click to expand...
What he is teaching is down right heresy and blasphemy, and the quotes I gave earlier in red have Papal condemnations for those errors.
 
There is a new book out which, though from a Protestant point of view, gives excellent evidence for the Resurrection. “The Case for the Real Jesus,” by Lee Strobel. I checked my copy out of the Library, but it’s on my Christmas list.

Lord have mercy on us all,

Ruthie
 
It is obvious from just the few of you who shared in this thread that there is an ongoing debate as to how far this should be taken. Obviously the Gospels were written years after the resurrection and there is a sense of the new Christian community sprinkled in the text. Yes, the Church was a very much alive and growing entity whereby we hear the oral Traditions and eventually get the Written Gospel.

Now, let me expound on some of what I was told that day that promted my original post. 1) the discourse in John Chapter 6 probably never took place since Jesus would never have discussed the eucharistic doctrine prior to its institution. 2) The events where Jesus walks on water were merely a way for the evangelists to convey that Jesus is truly God since this is how it was seen in the Old Testament where God walks on water. 3) Luke 24: the Road to Emmaus account is a liturgical event and probably never really occurred but was written to give the sense of the Mass and its importance.

The presenter also commented on how silly it is that the Protestants carry Bibles that have Jesus’ words in red since He probably never spoke some of them and the rest were definitely not accurate.

So, anyway, how far do we take this? At what point do we just accept that perhaps Jesus really did do and say the things that the Gospels mention? Or, let’s say in fifty years are we going to find that the Historical- Criticism Method is all wet and find another way to interpret the Gospels?

I’m not stirring the pot here. I’m just really confused as to how far can we go…teachccd
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top