Precious little written down from the MAIN figure.

[Free]

I'm curious: how do you know which words are inspired and which ones are not? How do you know which are direct quotes and which are not? How do you know which are the words of men and which are not?

I see a good majority of the Psalms as being from men. That's not to say it's a "bad thing". To me, it means a WHOLE lot more if you read them as they actually are, notes from [say] David as he is fleeing from Saul or being pursued by his enemies, . . . when he lifts up his faith to God, that's real. To say that God gave him those words to say, that greatly takes away from what was written, because it only makes sense when they ARE from a man.

That barely even touches the questions I asked.

The questions I asked above should make this clear.

Can you point me to where you asked this?

The ones that were immediately preceding in that same post. You gave yourself the answer as to why there is so much fighting among denominations and why there would be no matter how much clearer Jesus could have made things.

 

[Orion]

It is one part of the question where I state that the Psalmist, David, wrote what he did, and it wasn't "the direct words of God". Thus, inspired BECAUSE of who God is, but thought up and written BY David. How much of the Old Testiment reads like one groups view of history? Was that "inspired", or just history? How much of Pauls words were his, and how much of it were his, but inspired by God? The question can't be answered since none of us were there at the time.

Apparently, the gospel ISN'T enough for salvation, at least when it comes to what that even means. My point is "salvation" is interpretted many ways by various denominations. None of us can be so arrogant to openly state that OUR denomination has it right. How would we know?

 

[DanR]

If it hasn't been pointed out already, it should be understood that if Jesus had 'written' anything himself, in those days generally one used a secretary, technically called an 'amanuensis', to write down things dictated.

So what difference does it make that John wrote down what Jesus said later, or wrote down what he might have dictated? I have a feeling that those who are disappointed (it's not an uncommon complaint, one of my own many years ago) not to have anything written down in Christ's own hand, would wind up frustrated anyway.

It appears that the gospel as presented by Christ was to be taken in living context, not separated from his life and actions and doings.

If not that complaint, there will always be the complaint that we have no original copies of the books of the Bible, that we only have copies of copies of copies. For that matter, some might complain why Jesus doesn't just come along and say something for himself right here and now.

Are you ready?

'Be careful what you pray for, you might just get it.' --old saying.

 

[Orion]

I gladly pray for that, Dan. I hope I DO get it!

Paul is the person who may have written a good part of the New Testiment. However, he was no where near Jesus, and in fact, didn't even become a believer until after the death of Jesus, and was pursecuting Christians before his "road to Damascus event". Whereas I usually question why God would choose to be THAT forward to a persecuture, when it is VERY seldom done afterwords, or today (aren't such people's hearts usually hardened?), Paul was definitely not in any inner circles to know what Jesus may have said, or what Jesus may have wanted us to know.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I can give you that they may have waited a while before writing things down.

 

[DanR]

One of the peculiarities of the Gospel (and the rest of the Bible, for that matter), is its emphasis on narrative. Almost every other 'religion' is founded on the sayings, or teachings, of its founder(s). In the Gospels and Acts, and in many of Paul's epistles, there is a lot of info on what people were doing. This gives it a real-life tangibility absent from other beliefs.

But if someone wants a book of personal writings of its founder, it would be hard to point to any religion at all. Even the Koran (I understand) was not hand-written by Mohammed, but he dictated it to a secretary. Hence Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses', which drove Muslim fundamentalist clerics up the wall.

For that matter, the personal writings of the founding fathers of atheism would be hard to locate.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I can give you that they may have waited a while before writing things down.

I tend to believe that people who followed him around (and watched Him turn water to wine, walk on water, feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fish, make the lame walk, the blind see, and the deaf hear, and raise the dead) more than likely were writing things down at the time.

 

[DanR]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, I can give you that they may have waited a while before writing things down.

I tend to believe that people who followed him around (and watched Him turn water to wine, walk on water, feed the multitudes with a few loaves and fish, make the lame walk, the blind see, and the deaf hear, and raise the dead) more than likely were writing things down at the time.

Good insight. This is reasonable. People did write letters in those days, just the same as we do today, many of them were able to read and write, and it seems absurd that someone would write about their baby's first steps, or some other news or events of interest, and not write a letter about some guy that happens to raise people from the dead.

If I saw such things, I'm sure it would be no hassle for me send off an e-mail or two:

'Hey there's a guy here who raises up dead people. Interesting huh? Something new every day...'