[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Because it is written right there. It’s right there. And if you don’t trust that those words are His words then none of it means anything. Do you really not understand this?
[/quote]
I think this conversation has gone as far as it possibly can. Nevertheless, I’ll try one more time to explain what our problem is with your “Jesus’ words only” motto.
Your assumptions are…
(1) The original gospel authors transcribed the VERY WORDS of Jesus Christ, such that we can interpret them ourselves without having to rely on the apostles interpreting or expanding on Jesus’ words for us.
(2) The gospels can be trusted as genuine, accurate repositories of Jesus’ sayings DESPITE the “fact” that the apostles (a) taught things outside of and/or against what Jesus would have taught, and (b) advocated immoral actions.
Both Tirib and I have showed you why both of these assumptions are erroneous. Some of our frustration derives from your response to our arguments - rather than trying to present counterarguments, you have continually responded with the same appeals to intellectual necessity. In other words, your responses have amounted to, “well, if you don’t accept my assumptions, then the whole bible falls apart and faith is impossible.” Why is that annoying, you ask? Because your response seems to imply that, since YOU can’t find a way out of the hole you have dug with your fallacious assumptions, your assumptions HAVE to be correct.
Now, my guess is that you really, genuinely WANT to believe in Jesus, but for whatever reason, you have grown discontent with SOMETHING in the epistles. I’m not sure what turned you off - maybe it is something theological, like predestination, or ethical, like women’s roles - but whatever it is, you’ve convinced yourself that one can reach Jesus by bypassing the apostles.
Whatever the case may be, your feeble attempts to demonstrate that Paul and the other apostles taught things contrary to the teachings of Christ or advocated immoral actions have failed.
More importantly, your naive assumption that the gospels provide “the very words” (ipsissima verba) of Jesus is unsustainable. I will try to explain to you one more time why its wrong by providing an illustration. I encourage you, if you actually care, to read through these passages as well; use the HCSB, as it is definitely better than the KJV (though still not great). Some of what I say will be controversial, but I know Tirib can clean up the aftermath easily if necessary.
Matthew 21 and Mark 11 tell the same series of stories, beginning with Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The series is almost identical between the two chapters, except in one key story - the cursing of the fig tree. In Mark’s version, Jesus enters and exits Jerusalem THREE times - he enters Jerusalem and surveys the temple (Mk 11:1-11), departs to spend the night at Bethany (11:11), leaves Bethany in the morning and encounters a fig tree, which he curses (Mk 11:13-14), enters Jerusalem and drives out the money changers and sellers (11:15-18), departs back to Bethany at night (11:19), and on the morning of the third day, on their way back to Jerusalem a third time, Jesus and his disciples see in the sunlight that the fig tree Jesus cursed has actually withered (11:20-25). That’s Mark’s version.
Matthew’s version is noticeably different. In Matthew’s version, Jesus enters and exists Jerusalem only TWICE (Matt. 21:1-10, 21:18); Jesus cleanses the temple of money changers and sellers BEFORE he curses the fig tree (Matt. 21:12); and most significantly, rather than having to wait a day before seeing the effect of his curse on the fig tree (Mk 11:13-14, 20-25), Jesus sees his curse take IMMEDIATE effect on the fig tree (Matt. 21:18-22).
Those are two significantly different accounts of the same story, dude. I didn’t even go into the differences between the “transcriptions” of Jesus’ statements in the two stories. So which story is original? Which one tells us what really happened and what Jesus REALLY said?
You make think, “ahh, what jesus says in Mark and what Jesus says in Matthew are different, but still relatively close.” Well, here’s the curveball - Mark uses, throughout his gospel, a technique scholars lovingly refer to as a sandwich. Mark will often divide a story in half with another short story or speech, and the purpose of the story/speech of Jesus’ in the middle of the two halves is to shed light on the meaning of the divided story. In other words, you cannot interpret the divided story the way Mark means for you to without understanding the story/speech in the middle.
NOW, with what story does Mark divide the story of Jesus’ cursing of the fig tree? [I] The cleansing of the temple from impurity . Did you know that, in the Second Temple period, the temple was often referred to as “the mountain” AND “the fig tree?” Where does Jesus mention BOTH the mountain and the fig tree? Mark 11:20-25, the second half of the cursing of the fig tree story. So what is happening here?
Simple - in Mark’s version of the story, Jesus is cursing the fig tree as a prophetic indictment of the temple. The cursing of the fig tree is a symbolic act, and what Jesus really wants his disciples to realize is that Jesus desires, through his disciples, to replace the physical temple with a spiritual one, i.e., himself. The disciples can contribute to this, having through faith the ability to command “this mountain” (from their position, they would have been able to see the Temple, which the Jews of the time also called “the mountain”) to be thrown into the sea.
So, by his organization of the story, Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ words carries a meaning primarily rooted in and relevant to 1st century Christians, who would see the destruction of the temple and thus the fulfillment of Jesus’ curse against the fig tree and Jesus’ vindication as the Son of God.
In other words, the meaning of Jesus’ words in Mark’s version is HIGHLY specific and ENTIRELY DEPENDENT on the organization of the story.
So what about Matthew’s version? Well, let’s not forget the fact that Matthew’s gospel was composed USING Mark’s Gospel as a template. In other words, Matthew’s gospel is reliant on Mark’s. Now, what are Matthew distinctive emphases? Mark uses the “sandwich” technique all the time; what does Matthew focus on? Matthew, throughout his gospel, emphasizes Jesus’ POWER. He constantly emphasizes the miracles of Jesus that occurred instantly, not the ones that took time.
Now, what does Matthew do with Mark’s story of the fig tree? Matthew condenses it, making Jesus’ utterance of the curse and its effect occur instantly. With Matthew’s version, the story simply emphasizes how powerful Jesus is AND the fact that Jesus’ disciples are capable of exhibiting the same degree of power (Mt. 11:20-22). Thus Jesus’ statement about faith in Matthew 11:21-22 becomes a general truth about the power of faith, not a specific message referring to the disciples’ mission of replacing the temple in Jerusalem.
Now, which story is “historically accurate?” In other words, which one depicts what Jesus “really” meant? You may think that Mark’s use of a literary technique makes him suspect; however, does that automatically mean that Matthew’s version is correct? If Matthew’s gospel came after Mark’s and USED Mark’s, it is equally possible (if not likely) that Matthew, having no independent knowledge of the story , altered Mark’s version in a way that was consistent with Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ power. In other words, Matthew would not then be an independent witness to the same story; he would be entirely reliant on Mark, and Matthew’s changes to the story would not then be meant to make the story more accurate, but rather to make it fit with Matthew’s theological perspective and goals for his gospel.
Do you finally see the problem? In both Matthew AND Mark, Jesus’ words are being interpreted. Which is the right interpretation of Jesus’ words? Should you take away Mark’s point from his depiction of Jesus’ words, i.e., that the church, with Jesus at its head, replaces the old physical temple, and that faith makes this transition possible? Or should you follow Matthew’s version and assume that faith can actually move a physical mountain if great enough?
The point is this - YOU DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO JESUS’ ACTUAL, UNINTERPRETED WORDS. YOU ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO THE APOSTLES’ AND GOSPEL WRITERS’ INTERPRETED VERSIONS OF JESUS’ WORDS.
THAT is what Tirib and I have been trying to get across to you. Now, if you recognize that Jesus empowered the gospel writers to make such interpretations, there is no problem - both Matthew and Mark are bringing out different but equally true emphases from the very same words of Jesus, though whatever those EXACT WORDS may have been is unknowable. In other words, you can still affirm that we get to know Jesus, but you cannot get passed the interpretive lenses of the gospel writers. However, if you recognize and affirm the reality of inspiration, you can have your cake and eat it too. You have to accept apostolic authority, not simply their authority as preservers of Jesus’ sayings, but as interpreters of those sayings as well.
NOTE: Nothing I said here was controversial at the scholarly level, but it certainly may be new information to some unfamiliar with such detailed study of the gospels.
