FAO Christians

Ziggy

Ziggy

Ziggy

Permabanned
Joined
4 Apr 2009
Posts
2,560
Does anyone know of a site where I can find a collection of Jesus's teachings without weird biased explainations? Just a list of the passages from the Bible containing Jesus's teachings basically.
 
^^^

Although I don't think Jesus wrote any of the Bible himself, so even that is at risk of containing 'weird biased explanations'.
 
Jesus as far as my non Christian understanding goes didn't write the bible. It was all (mostly?) done after his death by his followers. Clever sods.
 
Is it in the book of Matthew? Not read it myself but seem to remember seeing/reading that somewhere.
 
Yes it was written by various authors across a vast time frame supposedly.

Reference:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
 
http://www.biblegateway.com/preferences/

In preferences select "display Jesus' words in the colour red" then update your preferences go back to the rest of the bible. Just be aware that there may be records in books other than the four gospels (e.g. Revelation) where Jesus is recorded as speaking and will be highlighted in red. Bear in mind this isn't generally the earthly, human Jesus speaking, but the resurrected Christ appearing to believers after the ascention (so depending on belief might not be what you're after).
 
Last edited:
Greenlizard:
Jesus as far as my non Christian understanding goes didn't write the bible. It was all (mostly?) done after his death by his followers. Clever sods.
Click to expand...

So... the Bible is to Jesus what "Still ballin'" is to Tupac?
 
Yes I know the Bible was not written by Jesus, I am just after those passages where Jesus is telling others his beliefs (if that's the right word). I don't want to read the entire Bible to find them.
 
Last edited:
Read the Gospels. Matthew is a good one to start with. John is markedly different from the other 3 and somewhat warmer and more personal due to John's closer relationship with Jesus.

If you want very specific teachings, read the sermon on the mount, which is Matthew 5 to 7. If you want parables (allegorical stories that Jesus told to illustrate a point) Luke has the most.
 
Gothic Draconia said:
Know that if you are not 'saved' and by that i mean your former self has been replaced, essentially a new O/S, the only part of the bible meant for you are the gospels.:confused:
Click to expand...

This is pure ******** and to prove that, the Torah at the start of the Bible is Jewish teaching (along with the rest of the OT) that is still important (although how literally you take the now out of context and culture rule systems is debateable).

Also yeah read Luke before Matthew, imo it offers an easier to read and understand view of Jesus' teaching and life, written by a doctor so has a more logical perspective on his life. However if you don't read all the gospels you miss bits and different ways in which things are portrayed by the four scribes and the witnesses they got to talk to.
 
Last edited:
jmc007 said:
Yes, one of those 'clever sods' was the apostle Luke, who was a doctor and who was therefore able to read and write. Clever sod this Jesus getting a doctor to follow him.

This has all the words of Jesus in bold. http://www.livingwater.dornaslighthouse.com/words_Jesus.html
Click to expand...



While there may have been an apostle Luke, the Book of Luke was not written by him. The oldest gospel is Mark, generally believed to date to about 80 AD. Luke and Matthew date to about 100 AD, and John to about 120 AD. There's some wriggle room about these dates, but none of the gospels were written by a witness to the events described: all are hearsay.


M
 
Luke's gospel never claims to be written by someone that knew Jesus, let alone one of the 12 apostles. He was a follower of Paul, as recorded in Acts. He compiled his gospel from various accounts.

Meridian - you're stuck in with 19th to mid 20th Century scholarship on your gospel dating. The idea of such a late John in particular was blown out of the water by a few archaeological discoveries. The current consensus is much earlier.

Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [31]) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73,[32] c 65-70[3]
Matthew: c. 70–100.[32] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90–110,[33] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65.[citation needed] Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70
Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson, a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

There is currently an argument in academia about whether Mark may have actually been written in the 40s. Too current for wikipedia sadly.

Papias wrote in the late first and early second century and was already familiar with the synoptic Gospels, quoting from them (Matthew, Luke and probably Mark), indicating that they were in widespread circulation. At the time, much more authority was put on the few remaing living witnesses that had known Jesus and his disciples. That was how the gospels came to be approved - because living witnesses affirmed them. See Richard Bauchman's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for more details.
 
Last edited:
Uriel said:
Meridian - you're stuck in with 19th to mid 20th Century scholarship on your gospel dating. The idea of such a late John in particular was blown out of the water by a few archaeological discoveries. The current consensus is much earlier.
Click to expand...




While I appreciate the info, "much" seems a tad strong: at most they seem to be pushed forward ten to twenty years if you believe historians. I don't believe the serious Christians, who indulge in wishful thinking rather than scholarship.


M
 
Meridian said:
While there may have been an apostle Luke, the Book of Luke was not written by him. The oldest gospel is Mark, generally believed to date to about 80 AD. Luke and Matthew date to about 100 AD, and John to about 120 AD. There's some wriggle room about these dates, but none of the gospels were written by a witness to the events described: all are hearsay.


M
Click to expand...

And? You say that as though the re-telling of stories can't ever be remotely accurate. As though people in a society without ready access to writing might not be able to recall a story well enough to cope without being able to write things down...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom