Replies to post #3538 on Zeev's Turnips Talk Politics (ZTTP)

[Jar]

>Your analysis is correct. I do have objections to the bible being the words of Jesus and to be taken literally.

SoxFan,
Here's why I believe the bible records the actual words of Jesus.

Of the 4 gospels, 2 (Matthew, John) were written by disciples who spent 3 years with Jesus. Another (Mark) is thought to be dictated by another disciple (Peter). The 4th - Luke - was written by the same physician/historian that recorded the history of the early church in the book of Acts. Limiting the discussion to Matthew and John for brevity's sake - why would 2 of Jesus' closest followers be untruthful? If they were, the other disciples would discredit them and the writings would not have had authority in the early church. John wrote 3 letters later and the church received them as valid. He also wrote Revelation near the end of his life. I think it's unreasonable to think these books would have had any credibility if his early recordings of Jesus' words were invalidated by the other living disciples.

Note that all 4 gospels agree so really we have a case of multiple witnesses agreeing in their testimony about events recorded. This would stand up in a modern court.

Note further that the content of the gospels agree with the New Testament writings of Paul and James - again, more sources concurring. Paul's letters are not historical records of Jesus earthly teaching. But Paul's letters agree with the content of the gospels. Paul's letters were accepted by the church which at the time was led by Peter and James. James was the biological brother of Jesus' so he had personal knowledge of Jesus' teaching, (although there is no record that he actually believed Jesus was the Christ before Jesus' death - his acceptance came later). It is unlikely and unreasonable that he would accept Paul's teaching if it was inconsistent with Jesus'. And Paul's teaching agrees with the gospels.

So you have a group of witnesses from varied backgrounds encountering Christ at different times and yet recording a consistent message. The message of the gospels is largely recorded in direct quotations of Christ. If Matthew and John really believed Christ was God, they would not tamper with His words. If they did not believe He was God, but made the whole thing up and knew it was a lie, they would not be willing to die for a god of their own making.

So while it's possible to think Jesus' closest friends intentionally (or unintentionally) mangled His teachings, I don't think it's reasonable. The reasonable conclusion is that they accurately recorded the amazing things that happened during those 3 years of following Christ.

I'm sure you have more questions - let me know. Thanks for the chance to dialog.