Faithful

Looking at my Bible very carefully, I have no reason to believe that the words spoken on the sermon on the mount were not those of Jesus. Matthew is the only book with the sermon on the mount.

Then others will say that there are contradictions. So they each must have been written from a different source.

FatherMithras

So apparently you think it's logical that a bunch of illiterate people handed down the story orally, remembering it perfectly for people to write decades after jesus had supposedly died? Hmmm.. not to mention the fact there's nothing in the contemporary writing about what Jesus said to confirm it. Someone could have simply put all those words in his mouth!

No, they simply had a common source and had slight deviations from it. this can be seen when you study the structure of their writing.

The laws ascribed to Jesus don't fulfill anything. He goes completely against what God in the OT called PERFECT and UNCHANGEABLE (which you call a pale shadow, which appears to be utterly blasphemous. After all, who are you to tell the God you worship the laws he said were perfect and eternal were a pale shadow?) and than claims he fulfilled the Old Laws. That's like me robbing a bank and when they take me to jail I tell them I fulfilled the old laws and now I can rob banks.

dongiovanni1976x

Given the fact that Paul never met Jesus and believed he would see the cosmos pass away, is it safe to assume that the New Covenant is entirely Pauline in origin or is there some truth withint the gospels to the re-interpretation that Jesus offered?
When Gamera says, What are some moments in Christian history where such interpretations first made their appearance...? The reason I mentioned Marcion is because Bart Ehrman lays out how the proto-orthodox group that eventually won the argument did so primarily in reaction to other interpretations from rival "heresies".
How strong is the argument that Paul had this reinterpretation all figured out form the get go...?

Faithful

My Bible tells me that God is one, Father,Son and Holy Spirit. I hardly think God would want to blaspheme himself.

I think you are missing the whole premise here???

FatherMithras

See? Your Bible contradicts itself. On a side note, you failed to counter my point that God called his laws perfect and unchangeable in the OT and than changed them!

Not at all. I simply used an analogy. Breaking laws is not a way to fulfill them.

robto

I think this whole thread is in danger of being derailed into the inerrancy debate. Back to the original thread!

I don't know of any sayings in the "probably historical Jesus" category that involve the New Covenant. Paul uses the term, but it is basically a quote of an old testament passage IIRC. So it would have been Christians after Paul who developed the idea. So the development goes something like this:

Jesus: No New Covenant concept.

Paul: New Covenant concept, but no developed theology of the New Covenant.

Later Xns (who?): Develop the theology of the New Covenant.

Not very strong, I would say. It does not seem to be an idea that is central to his theology.

Gamera

Well starting with the gospels and into Acts the gospel is seen as a reinterpreation of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I refer you to Matthew 5, the sermon on the mount, which is a point by point reinterpretion of the law.

I also refer you to the following narrative from Acts 8, purported occuring just after Jesus' death, where Philip "reinterprets" the Hebrew Scriptures.

"But an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Rise and go toward the south to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." This is a desert road. 27 And he rose and went. And behold, an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a minister of the Can'dace, queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of all her treasure, had come to Jerusalem to worship 28 and was returning; seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah. 29 And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." 30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31 And he said, "How can I, unless some one guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 Now the passage of the scripture which he was reading was this: "As a sheep led to the slaughter or a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so he opens not his mouth. 33 In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken up from the earth." 34 And the eunuch said to Philip, "About whom, pray, does the prophet say this, about himself or about some one else?" 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this scripture he told him the good news of Jesus. 36 "

This is totally in concert with Paul's notion of the revelation of the meaning of the Law through Jesus.

Ephesians 3:5 - which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Galatians 3:23 - Now before faith came, we were confined under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed.


In a profound sense, Christianity is at its core a reinterpretation of Hebrew scriptures.

FatherMithras

It's a bastardization of them, which while in some parts may seem to closely relate to them, in others blatantly contradicts the old laws god himself apparently called unchangeable.

Valahan

Isn't there something about a New Covenant in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus document? Maybe the idea of a 'New Covenant' was prevalent at that time among certain Jewish sects, as a result of colonization by the Greeks/Romans.

Gamera

Yeah, whatever, great insight.