Do you know what Jesus said?

[Azvanna]

There are a many sayings in the English language that have taken on implications they are Biblical verses, but actually aren't in the Gospels e.g. 'God helps those who help themselves.' There are also currently many internet memes going around that casually quote what others believe to be the core teachings of Jesus. The question was posed: If faced with a statement like: 'Jesus said *insert slightly off-centre statement regarding the human condition here*,' would you know if that were true or not? Geoff Francis decided to embark on a study of the sayings of Jesus as presented in the canonised Gospels. His findings present 52 core 'sayings' that are central to Jesus's ethics. Have a look and see what you do/don't recognise. Are there any you would add? http://www.whatdidjesussay.com/

Already I hear some of you saying, the gospels aren't what Jesus said, they are what his disciples said he said. If that is your stance, consider the question to be 'Do you know the core teachings of the early Christians?' It's my stance that the Gospels are as close to what Jesus taught as is historically available. That doesn't make them his exact words, but I believe his teachings would be echoed in them.

[Azvanna]

So the text from this site isn't from all four gospels, just Matthew.

[jcaternolo]

There are a many sayings in the English language that have taken on implications they are Biblical verses, but actually aren't in the Gospels e.g. 'God helps those who help themselves.' There are also currently many internet memes going around that casually quote what others believe to be the core teachings of Jesus. The question was posed: If faced with a statement like: 'Jesus said *insert slightly off-centre statement regarding the human condition here*,' would you know if that were true or not? Geoff Francis decided to embark on a study of the sayings of Jesus as presented in the canonised Gospels. His findings present 52 core 'sayings' that are central to Jesus's ethics. Have a look and see what you do/don't recognise. Are there any you would add? http://www.whatdidjesussay.com/

Already I hear some of you saying, the gospels aren't what Jesus said, they are what his disciples said he said. If that is your stance, consider the question to be 'Do you know the core teachings of the early Christians?' It's my stance that the Gospels are as close to what Jesus taught as is historically available. That doesn't make them his exact words, but I believe his teachings would be echoed in them.

Being a Gnostic, I believe that Jesus' teachings in the Bible were not faithfully written down. Saint Paul wrote them down, and he's orthodox, while Jesus' teachings were radical. It's like George Bush writing down all of Huey Freeman's quotes. Thank the God and Goddess for the hidden Gospels.

[Azvanna]

I believe the Gospel of Thomas is an important Gnostic text. Read that one? Perhaps you could find a saying in there you would add. From what I remember of it, there would be a fair few sayings regarding the seeking of wisdom.

On an unrelated topic, St Paul wrote many of the Epistles, but none of the Gospels. Historians claim Matthew was written by a disciple of Jesus named Matthew or Levi who was a Jewish Tax Collector.

[anunitu]

If one has the ability to read the original Greek text,or for that matter the Latin bible,you must realize that the translations might not always be the meaning of said writing. At one time only the priests could read the bible in Latin.
The common person had to take what the priest said as to what the bible said. Not to mention many parts of the original "Books" were excluded from what is now the "Bible". My ex wife was married to a man that studied the original Greek text. I had much respect for a person with the tenacity to go to the original source material to fully understand every nuance and meaning. He was a Teacher,and also quadraphaligic from being in an auto accident years ago.

He died a few years back,but I do remember him as a scholar in biblical studies.

[Azvanna]

If one has the ability to read the original Greek text,or for that matter the Latin bible,you must realize that the translations might not always be the meaning of said writing. At one time only the priests could read the bible in Latin.
The common person had to take what the priest said as to what the bible said. Not to mention many parts of the original "Books" were excluded from what is now the "Bible". My ex wife was married to a man that studied the original Greek text. I had much respect for a person with the tenacity to go to the original source material to fully understand every nuance and meaning. He was a Teacher,and also quadraphaligic from being in an auto accident years ago.

He died a few years back, but I do remember him as a scholar in biblical studies.

My best friend's father was just like this, and she followed in his footsteps ^.^ Like you, I greatly respect that they went to Greek and Hebrew texts to understand. I agree that much of the nuances of language and cultural heritage is lost on us now and it is a shame. It is one of the dangers of interpreting the Bible literally.

I really don't want this thread to turn into a discussion about who wrote the Gospels. I am interested to know which teachings or sayings from the Gospels that are attributed to Jesus people value. A discussion relating to the authorship of the books in the Bible would belong in a different thread.

[DON]

To bring this back on topic, yes this is an interesting area and one that I've looked at before. There are a lot of very common sayings, even within Christian circles that are widely assumed to be biblical and are not. One that comes to mind is "Don't worry, God would never put you in a situation you can't handle", which is a complete pile of BS, and actually opposite to what scripture teaches.

To answer your question, no, not all the time. Although I can generally tell accurate teachings of Jesus, and the wider scriptures, there are bound to be some constructs that are false, and yet deceive me into thinking of them as accurate.

Actually, the accurate, and yet unpopular teachings are the easiest to spot...

I would also disagree on some of the modern translations in that article. Number 41 I am pretty sure isn't talking about how you treat children. It's a warning to leaders of Christians who are new to the faith, and it reiterates earlier warnings to all spiritual leaders that they will be judged with the greatest scrutiny because they can mislead their followers.

It is supposed to be a powerful warning to church leaders that they might think they can abuse their influence and position for political or material gain, but the payback will be exponentially greater for them in the long run. This passage directly applies to all the abusive, power hungry elites through history who used the name of Jesus or God to further their own interests.

[feathered_regalia]

Already I hear some of you saying, the gospels aren't what Jesus said, they are what his disciples said he said. If that is your stance, consider the question to be 'Do you know the core teachings of the early Christians?' It's my stance that the Gospels are as close to what Jesus taught as is historically available. That doesn't make them his exact words, but I believe his teachings would be echoed in them.

I am personally of the first part of this stance, that the disciples just passed on second-hand information. Now, what I find interesting is Jesus said all of the old laws were done away with, but you find in the gospels scores and scores of new "laws" that supposedly came from Jesus. So, if Jesus said the old laws were kaput and that we should just "love our neighbors as we would ourselves", also known as the Golden Rule in colloquialism, then where did the disciples dig up all these other laws from? How can I trust that the gospels have any of Jesus' teachings in them with such a blatant contradiction staring me right in the face?

I believe the Bible's writings were adapted to fit with the times and to help the ancient Israelites come to terms with the injustice they seemed to be suffering under time and again. I believe this is also true of Christ's followers. I've followed scholastic and theistic studies of the Bible. To me, this makes the most sense. The Bible seemed to be a method of conveying hope to a downtrodden people who were just getting stepped on by larger powers over and over again. Of course they would have to see that their God was on their side, after all, if God wasn't, then they might as well just give up the fight, lay down their hopes, and just be destroyed. This is one reason the Bible stands out as a religious text. While everyone else was busy worshiping entire pantheons, the sons of Abraham were attempting to find a way to distinguish themselves from their oppressors, keep up the good fight, and maintain civil order in their ranks all at the same time. That's a heavy order to fill, which needed an even heavier text.

This is why I don't believe the gospels would accurately portray Jesus' teachings. Jesus died. His disciples were being looked to as his followers on Earth. None of them knew what Jesus was really thinking, they weren't him, therefore they could never know. So, they did the best they could think of to do to give the people that sense of order and place in the world the only way they knew how to do it. Truth is, not one person could ever really know whether or not Jesus said any of the things that were penned in the Bible. This sort of thing certainly wouldn't stand in a modern court of law. It's referred to as hearsay.

On the topic of other concepts that are not Biblical but taken as such, for anyone who doesn't know this yet, the seven deadly sins are not a part of biblical teachings. There are the fruits of the spirit in the Bible, but nothing about seven sins.

[Azvanna]

To bring this back on topic, yes this is an interesting area and one that I've looked at before. There are a lot of very common sayings, even within Christian circles that are widely assumed to be biblical and are not. One that comes to mind is "Don't worry, God would never put you in a situation you can't handle", which is a complete pile of BS, and actually opposite to what scripture teaches.

I would also disagree on some of the modern translations in that article. Number 41 I am pretty sure isn't talking about how you treat children. It's a warning to leaders of Christians who are new to the faith, and it reiterates earlier warnings to all spiritual leaders that they will be judged with the greatest scrutiny because they can mislead their followers.

It is supposed to be a powerful warning to church leaders that they might think they can abuse their influence and position for political or material gain, but the payback will be exponentially greater for them in the long run. This passage directly applies to all the abusive, power hungry elites through history who used the name of Jesus or God to further their own interests.

I agree with you there. The child seems to me to be a metaphor for a querying heart, not from the point of disbelief, but from a position of wanting to know what is possible. I like your idea better.

Number 50 is another I wouldn't agree with the author wholeheartedly with. He interprets this as using natural talents to benefit the Kingdom of God, but I see it as a wisdom parable.. one that is asking the reader to grow their measure of faith. I agree with him that the underlying principle is about accountability, but I don't like the way the emphasis is put on using natural talents as it tends to support the idea that the pay-off is earthly wealth, recognition and distinction. I know that is not explicitly what the parable teaches, but that's the context I often hear it being taught within. Those things aren't eternally important. The treasures of Heaven lie within and so I think the parable is talking more about an inward response. However, the author and I may both be right! As feathered regalia put it, none of us really know what the exact words of Jesus were. I think the best we can do is read and allow the Holy Spirit to prompt us into understanding.

I am personally of the first part of this stance, that the disciples just passed on second-hand information. Now, what I find interesting is Jesus said all of the old laws were done away with, but you find in the gospels scores and scores of new "laws" that supposedly came from Jesus. So, if Jesus said the old laws were kaput and that we should just "love our neighbors as we would ourselves", also known as the Golden Rule in colloquialism, then where did the disciples dig up all these other laws from? How can I trust that the gospels have any of Jesus' teachings in them with such a blatant contradiction staring me right in the face?

Not sure which other laws in the gospels you mean. If they are there, they probably fall under the 'New Command' Jesus gave when asked which law is the most important. The response was that the entire law and teachings of the prophets hang on two commands to love God and to love others. Everything else might be exposition. I come back to these verses when I hear 'thou shalt not wear shorts on stage' or 'thou shalt not get tattoos' being preached from the pulpit. Christianity is a lot more permissive than leaders give it credit for.

I believe the Bible's writings were adapted to fit with the times and to help the ancient Israelites come to terms with the injustice they seemed to be suffering under time and again. I believe this is also true of Christ's followers. I've followed scholastic and theistic studies of the Bible. To me, this makes the most sense. The Bible seemed to be a method of conveying hope to a downtrodden people who were just getting stepped on by larger powers over and over again. Of course they would have to see that their God was on their side, after all, if God wasn't, then they might as well just give up the fight, lay down their hopes, and just be destroyed. This is one reason the Bible stands out as a religious text. While everyone else was busy worshiping entire pantheons, the sons of Abraham were attempting to find a way to distinguish themselves from their oppressors, keep up the good fight, and maintain civil order in their ranks all at the same time. That's a heavy order to fill, which needed an even heavier text.

That's some good insight into the motivation for writing some of the books of the Bible. Like I've said in other posts, I don't think the words of the Bible are the infallible Word of God and His revelation of Himself to all humanity. I see it as a journal of the progression of humanity's response to the Divine. I get the impression from reading the gospels that the disciples were really surprised when Jesus didn't actually free them from their oppressors and begin a new system of government. It took them a little bit to understand that Jesus wasn't going to lead a physical Kingdom, but a spiritual one that has no borders. Maybe these people were learning to free their minds and to live above their circumstances. The understanding that you are in favour with God and are ultimately his, even though you may be politically ruled by another power is a subtle way of gaining personal power.

On the topic of other concepts that are not Biblical but taken as such, for anyone who doesn't know this yet, the seven deadly sins are not a part of biblical teachings. There are the fruits of the spirit in the Bible, but nothing about seven sins.

Another one I didn't think of. I wanted to know where this one came from, so I did a quick Google search and the scripture that the seven deadly sins are supposed to be tied to is Proverbs 6:16-19. However, I counted the same sin twice in there and can't see gluttony mentioned in that reference at all. It is definitively early church tradition! Good thinking.

I read somewhere that the fruits of the spirit are supposed to counteract the seven deadly sins... but there are 9 fruits of the Spirit. I guess two luck out.

[Azvanna]

So I've heard a little bit about the Jesus Seminar from a podcast I've been listening to called The Spirit of Things on ABC Radio. I was really intrigued by what was being discussed and decided to look them up. So, as it turns out,

Among the findings is that, in the judgment of the Jesus Seminar Fellows, about 18 percent of the sayings and 16 percent of the deeds attributed to Jesus in the gospels are authentic. - http://www.westarinstitute.org/proje...jesus-seminar/

. Pretty cool I have yet to read all the links in their website, but it reminded me of this thread and I wanted to come back and share it