Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The book of Matthew has two allusions to the Jonah story.  One cites
    that just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days, Jesus
    would be in the earth three days.
    
    The second allusion is a proclamation that Jesus will give no signs
    except for the sign of Jonah.
    
    Luke has the second allusion to Jonah but not the first.
    
    In the book of mark when Jesus is asked for a sign, he says he will
    give no signs.
    
    So when asked for a sign, is Mark's quote correct that Jesus said he
    would give no signs-an absolute statement or is Matthew and Luke
    correct that he would give no signs except the sign of Jonah.

    The most important factor that will impact each of our answers to this
    question is, what is our Faith assumption about the Bible.
    
    Those who believe that the Bible is innerrant believe by faith that the
    two matthew references to Jonah and the whale, the Lucan reference, and
    the Markan reference  are all correct and complimentary.  They will
    work to solve the mystery of how all the statements might be true.
    
    Those who believe that the Bible is a recording of human's experience
    and thoughts about God, will be much more likely to accept that the
    contradictions contained within really are contradictions.  I fit in
    this group.  The questions I seek to answer are, What is the purpose of
    each author's 'slant', what is the source, what is the earliest
    renditions, what might Jesus actually have said.  What do we learn from
    the multiple versions and the comparisons.  I do not believe that any
    of the versions are meant to be historically accurate.  I believe they
    are sacred story that originated in oral tradition.  Story tellers by
    trade, take the outline of the story and fill in the details to
    captivate the audience.  The audiences did not think about History the
    way we think about History.  The audiences did not think about absolute
    knowledge the way we think about absolute knowledge.  Story telling was
    a simple, powerful way of inspiring people.  Jesus himself was an
    excellent story teller.  The stories, as sacred stories have the power
    to inspire us just as they have inspired people for 2000 years.  The
    stories do not have to be historically accurate to be inspiring or
    revelatory.
    
    So we have an original story teller, Jesus of Nazareth.
    
    We have four additional story tellers telling the story of Jesus from
    20 to 80 years after his death.  Story tellers who most likely never
    knew Jesus in the flesh, and who participated in the oral tradition
    hearing the stories themselves and finally writing them down in a way
    that made theological sense to each of the Gospel Writers.
    
    So how do we dig through these treasures and find out what Jesus really
    said.  And perhaps more important, is is really important to know what
    Jesus really said?  Many scholars will confess that we can make
    reasonable guesses about what the earliest Jesus tradition was but we
    can make no reasonable guess regarding whether it actually originated
    from Jesus or not.   That is the issue.  That and the fact that
    different human beings are comfortable with different degrees of
    ambiguity.

 ZZ   Many scholars will confess that we can make
 ZZ   reasonable guesses about what the earliest Jesus tradition was but
 ZZ   we can make no reasonable guess regarding whether it actually
 ZZ   originated from Jesus or not.   That is the issue.  That and the fact that
 ZZ   different human beings are comfortable with different degrees of ambiguity.
    
   I will get in to what I believe...but a question that really peeks my
    curiosity is this.
    
    There have been religious leaders who, believe it or not, have been
    less controversial, more endearing to the masses, far more politically
    correct...the whole gamit than Jesus of Nazareth.  Jesus made claims
    about himself, the Word of God and his little tantrums in the temple
    with the money changers was quite politically incorrect.  Patricia, it
    seems like you would want to follow a leader who was more in tune with
    your personal beliefs.  Yes, I know Jesus was the epitomy of love and
    you subscribe to that; however, Jesus was in my opinion politically
    incorrect to say the least.
    
    Regarding the synoptic gospels, I don't have a whole lot to offer.  My
    speculation is that Marks reporting of the discourse between Jesus and
    the pharisees omitted the Jonah incident because Marks audience was
    gentile.  Just as Mark omitted the geneology of Jesus unlike Matthew
    and Luke, the Jonah incident would be meaningless to that particular
    audience.
    
    Like I said, I don't have alot of depth in this...but I do know that
    the gospel writers tailored according to their audiences.  I agree with
    you and was going to answer anyway, that we can only know what Jesus
    said by faith...faith that the Word of God is a clear description of
    history.  By faith, I choose to believe that the account Jesus gave of
    Jonah is accurate and was actually an exchange between Jesus and the
    religious leaders.  I would have absolutely no reason to disbelieve
    that anymore than anything else he said or any other occurance that
    took place.  I don't have the authority to do this!
    
    -Jack

 Why even use the Bible at all Patricia? Obviously it is nothing but a bunch
 of "inspirational stories" to you.  Why not toss it out and use Aesop's Fables
 or Grimm's Fairy Tales?




 Jim

    Many women of faith  have made the choice to take their inspiration
    from the Goddess mythology.  A viable choice for them, but it is not
    the choice I have decided to make.
    
    I believe that each one of us individually owns the decision to
    determine where we turn for spiritual inspiration.  The fact that you
    Jim do not want me using "your" bible for spiritual inspiration does
    not impact my decision.

 I don't believe I asked you not to use "my" Bible.  I merely asked, since
 you dismiss the authenticity and origin of it, why you use it.  And I don't
 consider it "my" Bible.




 Jim

    Jim,
    
    Forgive me then if I misinterpretted the sarcasm in your inquiry.
    
    I use the Bible because I find the Word of God in it.
    
    It is like finding a "treasure, in a clay jar" 
    
    (treasure in a clay jar is an allusion to 2 Corinthians)

         <<< Note 1098.0 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>
    
>    So how can we know who Jesus really was and what Jesus really said?
    
    	See: The Bible.  How can we be sure?  Well, you yourself said:
    
.7>    I use the Bible because I find the Word of God in it.
    
    	Or are you talking just about some specific word...

    Jesus saw the Bible as an authoritative document and not just a guide.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1098.9 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Jesus saw the Bible as an authoritative document and not just a guide.

	You forgot.... according to the Bible.... 

    
    Patricia,
    
    How do you view the Sermon on the Mount recorded in Matthew chapters
    5-7 ?. Do you view these as Jesus' sayings or something else?. 
    
    Thanks, I'm interested in your reply.
    
    Phil.

    Was the "Bible" Jesus referenced the canonized OT we use today?

    	Eric 

    I didn't know that Jesus knew how to read!

    re .11
    
    To give you an example, one of the beatitudes in the Sermon on the
    Mount says "Blessed are the poor in spirit"  I believe that Matthew
    significantly distorted what Jesus probably said, which was "Blessed
    are the poor".
    
    Because the Sermon, Identified as the Sermon on the Mount and the
    Sermon on the Plain, is attested twice, I believe it has authenticity.
    
    I believe the Sermon on the Plain is closer to authentic than Matthew's 
    version.
    
                                      Patricia

    	re .13
    
    	Of course he did!  There are several Gospel accounts of Jesus
    	reading in the temple.  "Today this passage has been fulfilled..."

ZZ    I believe that Matthew
ZZ    significantly distorted what Jesus probably said, which was
ZZ    "Blessed are the poor".
    
    What he probably said?  By what authority do you say this?
    
    -Jack

BTW, I've been to the site which is believed to have been the location where
the Beatitudes were preached.

It is a large bowl-shaped plain on the side of a mountain overlooking the
Sea of Galilee.

/john

    
    
    re Jesus reading the Hebrew Scriptures. As I understand it, it is still 
    custom today for the Holy Scriptures to be read in synagogues. This
    was true in Jesus' day, Luke indicates that it was Jesus' custom to
    read on the sabbath day:
    
    "And he came to Nazereth, where he had been brought up; and, as his
    custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood
    up to read." Luke 4:16 KJV
    
    The surrounding verses in this account show that Jesus not only read
    but also commented on the reading and thus teaching those present.
    Must have been quite some sermon for those in attendance. 
    
    Phil.

    re. 14

    Patricia,

    Thanks for replying, I now understand your view. However, I don't see
    why the "poor" should be considered beautitudes for there are good and 
    bad persons whether they are wealthy or poor. What God sees is what a 
    person is on the inside and not by his outward appearance. Please consider 
    another translation on this verse that might help to see what is meant 
    by "poor in spirit".

    "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need(*), since the kingdom
    of heavens belongs to them." Matthew 5:3 NWT  (*) footnote in reference
    Bible mentions "or 'those who are beggars for the spirit'"

    Jesus audience would have been able to relate to this having been
    starved of spiritual nourishment by the then religious leaders. They
    had God's Word but they were overriding it with their own traditions.
    For example take verses 43-48 of Matthew 5, Jesus says "YOU heard that
    it was said, 'You must love your neighbour and hate your enemy.'
    Notice that Jesus, as in other verses, uses the term "YOU heard that
    it was said" now God's Law stated that they should love their enemies
    but nothing about hating their enemies this was something the
    Pharisees had added themselves. Now notice the contrast between the
    teaching of the Pharisees and Jesus, as he gives spiritual insight
    to God's Word, "However, I say to YOU: Continue to love YOUR enemies
    and to pray for those persecuting YOU; that YOU may prove yourselves
    sons of YOUR Father who is in the heavens, since he makes his sun rise
    upon reighteous and unrighteous. For if YOU love those loving YOU, what
    reward do YOU have? Are not the tax collectors doing the same? And if
    YOU greet YOUR brothers only, what extraordinary thing are YOU doing?
    Are not also the people of the nations doing the same thing? YOU must
    accordingly be perfect, as YOUR heavenly Father is perfect." NWT

    Jesus, gives spiritual insight and those conscious of their spiritual
    need will eagerly listen and meditate on these teachings from God's
    Word so that they can sound it into their hearts and apply it in 
    their lives.

    Even non Christians such as Ghandi have recognised Jesus' teachings for
    what they are. Take his comment to the British viceroy of India :
    "When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings laid down 
    by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the problems, 
    not only of our countries but those of the whole world." Rather than
    being a distortion of what Jesus said, such ones see the benefit of his
    teachings and ascribe them to God's Anointed One (Christ). But Mohandas'
    comment also highlights that many persons even today have not taken Jesus'
    teachings to heart (compare John 13:34,35).  
 
    Luke 6:20 does mention happy are you poor, however material prosperity
    is relative and already I have said a poor person can be either a good 
    or bad. One should take into account that those conscious of their
    spiritual need would keep their "eye simple" and thus in comparison to
    the world and those who pursue material things they will appear poor,
    for as James 2:5 NWT reads "Listen my beloved brothers. God has chose 
    the ones who are poor respecting the world to be rich in faith and heirs
    of the kingdom, which he promised to those who love him, did he not?"
    Those who love God would seek God, therefore be conscious of their spiritual
    need, in a worldly sense they would seem poor but in God's eyes they would
    be rich having stored their treasure in heaven.

    Just a different take on what is meant by poor and how this teaching
    should be received.

    Phil.                                       
    

re .19

thanks for entering this note phil.

your note makes a very good case that one cannot be too careful when 
interpreting what jesus is reported to have said.



andreas.

    Phil,
    
    THe beatitudes are wonderful whether what we have is exactly what Jesus
    said or not.  There is enough harmony between the two versions to
    believe their is authenticity there.
    
    Jesus' ministry was mainly to the poor in Jerusalem. As we know from
    the hebrew sacrificial system, there was much emphasis on ritual purity
    and perfection, i.e. male lamb without blemish.  Jesus ministered, to
    lepers, tax collectors, the poor, menstruating women.
    
    Jesus' teaching shows a great disdain for humanities lust for material
    well being.  "Blessed are the poor" is what he said.  I wish every
    Christian would reflect upon that, as Congress works to amend the
    budget to further take from the poor and give to those with more than
    enough material goods to meet their physical needs.
    
                               Patricia
    
                                 Patricia

 Z   I wish every
 Z   Christian would reflect upon that, as Congress works to amend the
 Z   budget to further take from the poor and give to those with more
 Z   than enough material goods to meet their physical needs.
    
    Patricia:
    
    Our Congress has single handedly mismanaged your money.  They have
    squandered it...yes on wasteful defense project.  Imagine how the
    discontinuation of just two new jets could be greater utilized on
    improving education, food for the hungry, etc.
    
    Th3e only question I have is that we have been pouring alot of money 
    and yet the war on hunger has been lost.  Why is that?
    
    -Jack

    I believe all beuracracies mismanage money.  That is not the issue.  I
    am fortunate that in my adult life I have never known hunger, I have
    never been without a place to live.  I never had any real physical
    needs that have not been met.
    
    As a child, there was times when food was scarce, there was a time when
    I spent three months with my family living in a sheltar.  My family
    never owned a car and we did not have a telephone until my siblings and
    I pooled our resources and had one installed when I has 16.  I am
    fortunate that I have known real poverty.  I lust over money and
    material well being as much as my peers and collegies.  I am guilty in
    that respect.
    
    I don't care how much of my excess money the government takes to make
    sure all children are fed and have a place to live.  It is a sin that
    every well fed adult participates in if we have children starving and
    without homes regardless of how bad the decisions of adults in there
    life may be.  

    Yes....and thanks for the testimony.  Hungry children cannot study,
    have hope, or excell in life if they have not the energy or resources
    to do so.
    
    Do you not trust that the private sector, i.e. churches, non profit
    organizations, and individual contributors are capable of picking up
    the slack?  In other words, our congress is lobbying not to cut, but to
    slow the growth of programs.  You don't feel that the private sector
    has the responsibility to do this?  Also two other quick things.  The
    United States IS a socialist country now...quite socialist.  Socialism
    to me doesn't utilize resources in the best way possible.  Secondly,
    everytime you spend a dollar, it costs somebody a dollar.  If the
    dollar isn't there, it is borrowed and interest accrues.  Under the
    current Clinton proposal, the deficit will increase 200 Billion yearly.
    
    How do you propose we reconcile the two.  At the current level, we will
    be bankrupt in the near future and starvation will become far more
    rampant than it is today.
    
    I think your goal and view on meeting the basic needs of humanity is
    honorable and should be pursued.  I'm just pointing out some of the
    dismal realities here.  
    
    By the way, increases in taxes will cause a loss of jobs and hendce
    less money goes into the treasury and less money is donated privately. 
    This is a proven undeniable trend so this option is unavailable to us.
    I know you and I don't have all the answers but what would be some
    ideas to work smartly and balance charity with governmental ability?
    
    -Jack

    
   "... Christian would reflect upon that, as Congress works to amend the
    budget to further take from the poor and give to those with more than
    enough material goods to meet their physical needs."
    
    Patricia,  You've got this totally wrong.  The Congress is working to
    take less from the taxpayer (including the poor).  Period.  The
    socialist ideal of wealth redistribution is succumbing to the
    republican ideals of our Founders.
    
    jeff
    
    

re Note 1098.25 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     Patricia,  You've got this totally wrong.  The Congress is working to
>     take less from the taxpayer (including the poor).  Period.  The
>     socialist ideal of wealth redistribution is succumbing to the
>     republican ideals of our Founders.
  
        Well, it appears to be more like the economic ideals of the
        robber barons.

        (The founders lived in a time of few large multi-national
        business enterprises.  If *all* the clocks could be turned
        back to the 18th century, that would be one thing;  but
        turning back only *some* of the clocks but letting others
        stay in late 20th century will produce quite different
        results.)

        Bob

    John F. Kennedy recognized that more money goes into the treasury when
    the tax burden is reduced.  
    
    I fail to understand how a country of intellectual people fail to see
    that lowering the tax burden combined with deep spending cuts would
    bring about more prosperity...not only for us but also for future
    generations.
    
    -Jack

    So true, Jack!  JFK would be a Republican today.

      I fail to see how a topic titles "The sayings of Jesus" could
      become a discussion on political theory!
    
      WOW!