How Much of The NT Gospels Are Actual words of Jesus, Or Interpretation Of The Apost

[Greektim]

Brothers, let's just cut to the chase on this topic. The Word is impeccable, as these great men wrote what they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. If you can not take the bible at it's face value, then go read a comic book. Not saying anyone has spoken bad about the Word, but something's aren't coming across in a "clear" manner.


The Word is impeccable, pristine, pure, unalderated, powerful, wise, and all about Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. I may doubt myself sometimes, but never the Word. If I have something wrong, it's my fault. The Word IS what it IS, nothing more, nothing less.

"The word is what it is"... tautology.

We are trying to clarify what is the word, in this case the stories and statements of and in the gospel accounts. It is a good question and deserves attention. Determining this will help solve many NT studies problems. Perhaps you can offer your opion as to the OP. Are the passages in the 4 accounts quotations or summary statements of Jesus? Or to put it in another way, were the evangelists writing a theological presentation of Jesus or a chronological biography of Jesus? If the first, then I would submit that we don't need quotations or exact uniformity but understand the central message of the evangelist (vertical examination).

 

[JesusFan]

This is a good point.

One of the big conversations going on right now is whether or not Jesus and His disciples would have been illiterate. (The fact that we can't know should say something...but it is a rising criticism in scholarship) Ehrman's position is that they were all likely illiterate and couldn't have composed the Gospels and other NT literature. Bock has responded with vigor and is close to defeating the position, but it is a rising criticism nonetheless.

Think that there was a SINGLE reference to matthew composing Gospel in Aramiac, but that would be the ONLY NT book written as such if true...

Rest were all wriiten in the Koine Greek of the era, and think that when the bible refers to the Apostles as being "unlearned" men, did NOT mean stupid/ignorant etc, justthat they did not have formal education, as under a rabbitic school/teacher...

they all had the MEST teacher, Jesus Himself, they were learned enough to at least write/read/speak common greek language, and Luke was able to write/converse high levels of Greek proficiety, ditto Paul, and writer of Hebrews, and John had rich insight/understanding with way he parrelled darkness/light in His Gospel...

So they were not nearly as badly off as Bart would say, and some would be PHD in theologies today, and ALL had ultimate teachers, jesus and HS!

 

[Greektim]

Think that there was a SINGLE reference to matthew composing Gospel in Aramiac, but that would be the ONLY NT book written as such if true...

Rest were all wriiten in the Koine Greek of the era, and think that when the bible refers to the Apostles as being "unlearned" men, did NOT mean stupid/ignorant etc, justthat they did not have formal education, as under a rabbitic school/teacher...

they all had the MEST teacher, Jesus Himself, they were learned enough to at least write/read/speak common greek language, and Luke was able to write/converse high levels of Greek proficiety, ditto Paul, and writer of Hebrews, and John had rich insight/understanding with way he parrelled darkness/light in His Gospel...

So they were not nearly as badly off as Bart would say, and some would be PHD in theologies today, and ALL had ultimate teachers, jesus and HS!

Not to mention that even if they were illiterate, that does not mean they were too stupid to use an amanuensis. Paul did, and he was educated!

 

[beameup]

Brothers, let's just cut to the chase on this topic. The Word is impeccable, as these great men wrote what they wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Of course.
The Holy Spirit is not "illiterate" as some would imply. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[convicted1]

"The word is what it is"... tautology.

We are trying to clarify what is the word, in this case the stories and statements of and in the gospel accounts. It is a good question and deserves attention. Determining this will help solve many NT studies problems. Perhaps you can offer your opion as to the OP. Are the passages in the 4 accounts quotations or summary statements of Jesus? Or to put it in another way, were the evangelists writing a theological presentation of Jesus or a chronological biography of Jesus? If the first, then I would submit that we don't need quotations or exact uniformity but understand the central message of the evangelist (vertical examination).

I seriously doubt that the four Gospels were written while Jesus was talking and doing miracles(these men walking around with paper and ink jotting it down as they went), but more likely to be writing from memory while the Spirit was inspiring them as they wrote down what they wrote.

 

[SolaSaint]

I'm not sure if there is a doctrine that states what we have today in various translations is the word of God but I like what the Second Helvetic Confession states, "We believe and confess, that the canononical Scriptures from the holy prophets and apostles of each Testament are the true word of God, and that they posses sufficient authority from themselves alone and not from man. For God Himself spoke to the fathers, and the prophets, and the Apostles, and continues to speak to us through the Holy Scriptures."

Here I believe that the Reformers felt as I do also that God preserves His word through the ages and I believe this is done supernaturally through men. If God meant for us to have His inspired, inerrant and infallible scriptures then He is also able to preserve it until today and eternally.

 

[JesusFan]

I'm not sure if there is a doctrine that states what we have today in various translations is the word of God but I like what the Second Helvetic Confession states, "We believe and confess, that the canononical Scriptures from the holy prophets and apostles of each Testament are the true word of God, and that they posses sufficient authority from themselves alone and not from man. For God Himself spoke to the fathers, and the prophets, and the Apostles, and continues to speak to us through the Holy Scriptures."

Here I believe that the Reformers felt as I do also that God preserves His word through the ages and I believe this is done supernaturally through men. If God meant for us to have His inspired, inerrant and infallible scriptures then He is also able to preserve it until today and eternally.

That is right though where the dispute can occur, as I would say that he did preserve the original texts as the best Greek/hebrew texts for us today, whiles others would say that applies to say the KJV!

 

[Greektim]

That is right though where the dispute can occur, as I would say that he did preserve the original texts as the best Greek/hebrew texts for us today, whiles others would say that applies to say the KJV!

But does this have to do w/ the OP??? I'm not sure that Sola Saint has brought up something that is pertinent to this discussion (unless I'm missing something).

 

[JesusFan]

But does this have to do w/ the OP??? I'm not sure that Sola Saint has brought up something that is pertinent to this discussion (unless I'm missing something).

He did bring up a very salient point regarding the OP, so feel free to disregard my prior point, as no need to derail my own OP!

 

[SolaSaint]

What I am saying is God is control through the inspiration, transmission and preservation of the Gospel through the ages. So this ties into the OP as showing no matter if it is Jesus actual words or not, it was what God wanted and that is what is important.

 

[JesusFan]

What I am saying is God is control through the inspiration, transmission and preservation of the Gospel through the ages. So this ties into the OP as showing no matter if it is Jesus actual words or not, it was what God wanted and that is what is important.

Yes....

I think John 3:16 passage would be a good case to look at regarding this OP, as some hold that the Apostle recorded down actually words of Jesus in toto, while others hold that it was a mixture of jesus actual words and John inspired interpreatation of the message that was said?

 

[Greektim]

Yes....

I think John 3:16 passage would be a good case to look at regarding this OP, as some hold that the Apostle recorded down actually words of Jesus in toto, while others hold that it was a mixture of jesus actual words and John inspired interpreatation of the message that was said?

2 Things:

First to SS... I agree that the final form of the text is what is most important for us today. But that still has an affect on the way we study and interpret the passage. For instance, looking at the Sermon on the Mount and recognizing its highly structured nature will reveal theological motives of Matthew that help develop the theology of the book. So it is good to go beyond the simple concepts and do some deeper considerations.

Second, JF, have you heard of the view that 3:16ff. was an explanation by John and not meant to be a quotation at all on the part of the evangelist? It makes good sense in that light. The discourse marker ουτω γαρ would definitely allow for that. Just a thought to consider.

 

[Rippon]

Second, JF, have you heard of the view that 3:16ff. was an explanation by John and not meant to be a quotation at all on the part of the evangelist? It makes good sense in that light. The discourse marker ουτω γαρ would definitely allow for that. Just a thought to consider.

I have pointed that out to B4L and others on the BB before. Fans of red-letter editions think that everything in red was spoken by Jesus (well most of it is). Also these folks think that having His words highlighted in such a fashion are somehow superior to the rest of the New Testament.

 

[convicted1]

I have pointed that out to B4L and others on the BB before. Fans of red-letter editions think that everything in red was spoken by Jesus (well most of it is). Also these folks think that having His words highlighted in such a fashion are somehow superior to the rest of the New Testament.

I tend to agree with you here, Brother.....


All of the bible, OT and NT was written under the inspiration of the Spirit. So in a sense, Jesus spoke it and they wrote it.

 

[psalms109:31]

I am glad it is is the inspired word of God and not the inspired word of man, that we can do a surgery with what don't quite agree with us.

I do believe that if God didn't want something in scripture He wouldn't of let it be put there in the first place. He put the scripture together for us to get to know Him and had it translated so we can see what He has to say for ourselves and not to depend on man alone to translate it or let us know only what they want you to know.

 

[JesusFan]

2 Things:

First to SS... I agree that the final form of the text is what is most important for us today. But that still has an affect on the way we study and interpret the passage. For instance, looking at the Sermon on the Mount and recognizing its highly structured nature will reveal theological motives of Matthew that help develop the theology of the book. So it is good to go beyond the simple concepts and do some deeper considerations.

A simple way to see that would be in the fact that each writer "narrated" their discourses around some main theological point theywere meaning to convey...

Not interested so much in all 4 Gospels had same time line that everything happened in, but that each Gospel had a destict reason why they placed the events in jesus life the way that they did!

Second, JF, have you heard of the view that 3:16ff. was an explanation by John and not meant to be a quotation at all on the part of the evangelist? It makes good sense in that light. The discourse marker ουτω γαρ would definitely allow for that. Just a thought to consider.

While in school, the text that wes tudued from implied that much of the entire discourse was indeed the "Holy Ghost Inspired" interpretation of the person/mission/work of Messiah!

Good to have these type of discussions, as easy to jusy have the mindset that "Bible is inerrent" period, and refuse to dialog and discuss what that exactly means!

 

[SolaSaint]

2 things:

First to ss... I agree that the final form of the text is what is most important for us today. But that still has an affect on the way we study and interpret the passage. For instance, looking at the sermon on the mount and recognizing its highly structured nature will reveal theological motives of matthew that help develop the theology of the book. So it is good to go beyond the simple concepts and do some deeper considerations.

Second, jf, have you heard of the view that 3:16ff. Was an explanation by john and not meant to be a quotation at all on the part of the evangelist? It makes good sense in that light. The discourse marker ουτω γαρ would definitely allow for that. Just a thought to consider.

i agree tim