Recent content by jd01

No one is saying anything is a fable. Just that our Christian sources are not perfect, but we can still understand what the authors wanted us to. We just have to use discernment and have an open-mind when reviewing.

That's the problem. Luke CLAIMS 'perfect understanding' but obviously has quite a few things wrong. Therefore why have to read his account with discernment, some parts are accurate and not doubt correct, while others are not. We have to understand the errors as best we can and then decide what...

Tell me what the Form Critics say.

I can only write about what I read, and that is the historical sources we have. Do you agree? My point, be very very careful about opinions which have no backing evidence. For the book, I claim nothing beyond what the historical sources say - what else would there be?

It is more of a question of which are more useful towards understanding Jesus. Both John and Mark are to be preferred over Luke and Matthew. Why? Because Luke and Matthew, non-eye witnesses, simply recopied (and embellished) Mark and Q. They then added some extra details which seem rather...

Sorry, all about Jesus.

Which I do in the book and a lot more!

I agree that John and Mark are based on eye-witness testimony. Luke & Matthew copy Mark so to that extent we can say they are based on eye-witness testimony, but they themselves were not eye-witnesses they had to rely on two copied texts and some other sources which we do not know. I don't know...

Huh? I never said that. I simply read what is there.

One must be careful where one places faith, woudn't you agree? I say he is what was as described by two gospel writers.

I assumed a Bible discussion forum was a place to learn about Jesus. I agree, the Gospels teach all we need to know about Jesus, although two are not eye-witness accounts.

Hmmm .... you can have a conclusion not based on evidence, that is not based on history?

Should we distinguish between the historical (real) and the Christ of Theology? Shoudn't they be the same? If so, then a complete analysis on the Historical Jesus, such as found in the new book Salt & Light; The Complete Jesus, should describe the Christ then?

Jesus never mentioned, let alone condemned, homsexuals or homisexuals.

What did Jesus teach, in a nutshell?