Sorry wrong sub forum forum
Jesus said
Posts
Total:
17
-->
@Stephen
No need to be sorry.
Education or conditioning or brainwashing or whatever one cares to call, is how religious non-sense such as "Jesus said" gets perpetually transferred.
1187 days later
-->
@zedvictor4
No need to be sorry.Education or conditioning or brainwashing or whatever one cares to call, is how religious non-sense such as "Jesus said" gets perpetually transferred.
Jesus did say many things that are still disputed today.
-->
@Shila
Jesus did say many things that are still disputed today.
-->
@FLRW
Jesus did say many things that are still disputed today.
That is not one of the disputed quotes.
Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.
Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.
Are you following what Jesus actually spoke, or what his disciples said about him?
-->
@Shila
Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.Are you following what Jesus actually spoke, or what his disciples said about him?
You think you know the difference? You think you know what Jesus actually spoke?
All we have are the Gospels, and the Gospels aren't straightforward historical records nor are they eyewitness accounts; and they were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years. They contain details of events that had no one else present to record them and on a historical basis, they do not concur on all details, making them "historically" suspect.
Consequently, the Gospels are certainly open to interpretation, they tend to conflict, and they certainly do not provide an independent historical narrative. They were "versions of His life" likely promoting the spiritual interests of different factions of a very diverse early Christianity. It is quite likely that the records we now have are tinged with denial or exaggeration by different interest groups who may have altered the records in an attempt to unify Christianity and support their claims to power.
This is not to challenge the prevalent contention that the Bible was divinely inspired, nor is it to deny the validity of popular understandings of the texts. But it is naive to think we have any knowledge about Jesus that does not come from what was said about him.
-->
@Shila
Are you following what Jesus actually spoke, or what his disciples said about him?You think you know the difference? You think you know what Jesus actually spoke?All we have are the Gospels, and the Gospels aren't straightforward historical records nor are they eyewitness accounts; and they were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years. They contain details of events that had no one else present to record them and on a historical basis, they do not concur on all details, making them "historically" suspect.Consequently, the Gospels are certainly open to interpretation, they tend to conflict, and they certainly do not provide an independent historical narrative. They were "versions of His life" likely promoting the spiritual interests of different factions of a very diverse early Christianity. It is quite likely that the records we now have are tinged with denial or exaggeration by different interest groups who may have altered the records in an attempt to unify Christianity and support their claims to power.This is not to challenge the prevalent contention that the Bible was divinely inspired, nor is it to deny the validity of popular understandings of the texts. But it is naive to think we have any knowledge about Jesus that does not come from what was said about him.
This is not meant to discredit the Bible or the man the Bible is about, it is only to recognize that Christianity is based on what Jesus became after his death, it is about the Jesus of Christian experience. For two thousand years Christians have continued to experience Jesus as a living reality, as a contemporary presence and a spiritual living divine reality.
The foundational meaning of Christianity results directly from the fact that Jesus' followers have experienced his continuing presence as a living reality for two thousand years, so it is only the Jesus of this living tradition that we know, it is all we can know.
-->
@Sidewalker
Jesus was a rather unradical old school mystic.
The legacy of such are still prevalent today in their millions, still preaching old school mystic stuff...Such is generational data transfer.
And then their are those that put satellites into orbit and think Mars and beyond.
-->
@zedvictor4
Jesus was a rather unradical old school mystic.
The Bible is a foundational narrative to half of the world’s people; this would be completely unaccountable if it were merely an account of “a rather unradical old school mystic”.
The legacy of such are still prevalent today in their millions, still preaching old school mystic stuff...Such is generational data transfer.
Especially if you consider His legacy, there must be a reason Jesus is the single most influential person who has ever lived, I think we need to consider the fact that the effect his life has had on the world is profoundly radical. It's pretty clear that within the social, religious, and political context of his day, Jesus was astoundingly radical; in fact, he was a revolutionary in every sense of the word.
Jesus was absolutely anti-establishment, radically liberal, and vehemently critical of the authoritarian establishment, aligning Himself instead with the poor, the oppressed, and others the establishment considered social outcasts. Jesus fiercely defied the ultra-conservative religious, political, and social power structures of the day, bringing a radically liberal theology to the masses, healing on the Sabbath, blessing outside of the rigid purity system, forgiving the sins of those condemned by the establishment, and calling for the liberation of women and minorities from their social, political, and religiously sanctioned oppression.
To the existing power structure, Jesus was a subversive that taught people that they do not need to conform to the strict and orthodox views of God, religion, and life that the corrupt establishment perpetuated. He condemned the ruling elite's greed, violence, their glorification of power, their amassing of wealth without social balance, their judging of others, their lifestyles, and their beliefs. He ferociously rebuked the religious right of His day for embracing the letter of the law instead of the Spirit, calling the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites and vipers, and they assassinated Him for it.
I really don’t see how you can look at that and call it “unradical”.
And then their are those that put satellites into orbit and think Mars and beyond.
Do they wear cheese heads and play with toy chainsaws?
This is not to challenge the prevalent contention that the Bible was divinely inspired, nor is it to deny the validity of popular understandings of the texts. But it is naive to think we have any knowledge about Jesus that does not come from what was said about him.
The red letter Bible highlights the actual words spoken by Jesus in red to distinguish it from what others said about Jesus.
What does the red letter mean in the Bible?
In the first red-letter Bible, the words "universally accepted as the utterances of our Lord and Saviour" were printed in red. So were Old Testament passages that Jesus quoted or that were directly related to incidents to which he referred (with the relevant cross reference also printed in red).
There are three main disadvantages of a red letter New Testament or red letter Bible. These disadvantages are presented in the order of greatest importance to the least importance.
1.Red Letter Bibles Confuse What Is Authoritative
2. Red Letter Bibles Are Not Consistent In Coloring
3. Red Letter Bibles Function As Commentaries
-->
@Shila
This is not to challenge the prevalent contention that the Bible was divinely inspired, nor is it to deny the validity of popular understandings of the texts. But it is naive to think we have any knowledge about Jesus that does not come from what was said about him.The red letter Bible highlights the actual words spoken by Jesus in red to distinguish it from what others said about Jesus.What does the red letter mean in the Bible?In the first red-letter Bible, the words "universally accepted as the utterances of our Lord and Saviour" were printed in red. So were Old Testament passages that Jesus quoted or that were directly related to incidents to which he referred (with the relevant cross reference also printed in red).
Oh, well, if it's printed in red then that proves it is a verbatim quote, Jesus probably spoke in English too.
-->
@Sidewalker
Jesus was anti-establishment, hence the Christian establishment.
And establishments always have their Anti's.
And Jesus wasn't greatly influential at all....The chief influencers all came later, and founded a theo-political business empire which they referred to as Christianity...(Give us your money you heathens, so that we can live like kings... And just like poor old Jesus, we will send you to heaven when you die).
Nothing more ultra-conservative and oppressive than Christianity in the succeeding centuries either. Tyrants vipers and hypocrites all....(Actually, perhaps Catholicism)
And OK, radical is as radical is interpreted..
Though in my book there are always people who can influence the gullible, because the gullible are always keen to be influenced...And they love mysticism as an alternative to the daily grind. And so a new addition to the daily grind was invented and they called it Christianity...LOL.
Though by the time that Jesus the man was born, Middle Eastern deistic Mysticism was old hat and far from radical. He just put a new spin on it.
And then 600 years or so later along came Muhammad and spun things around some more.
And of course lesser sub-sects have been spinning in any alternative direction that they can possibly make up, ever since.
In my opinion.
This is not to challenge the prevalent contention that the Bible was divinely inspired, nor is it to deny the validity of popular understandings of the texts. But it is naive to think we have any knowledge about Jesus that does not come from what was said about him.The red letter Bible highlights the actual words spoken by Jesus in red to distinguish it from what others said about Jesus.What does the red letter mean in the Bible?In the first red-letter Bible, the words "universally accepted as the utterances of our Lord and Saviour" were printed in red. So were Old Testament passages that Jesus quoted or that were directly related to incidents to which he referred (with the relevant cross reference also printed in red).Oh, well, if it's printed in red then that proves it is a verbatim quote, Jesus probably spoke in English too.
The red letter Bible highlights the actual words spoken by Jesus in red to distinguish it from what others said about Jesus.