[zeek]

Originally Posted by testallthings

I have been accused by awareness and zeek to not have quoted the Lord Jesus in one of my last post (like this was a crime). Instead I quoted from Paul and John. In my post number 40 I showed how the Lord Jesus was a friend of sinners and how He made a difference between the sinners of the world and those who sin in the church.

I was referring only to post #44.

(To this verse zeek said, “It's unlikely that historical Jesus taught that. It's based on Deut. 19:15.
What he meant by the “historical Jesus” raised some doubts in me, but I didn't asked him for an explanation. At this point I would like to ask zeek, do you believe the Bible is God's inspired Word. If those in Mat. 18:17 are not the words of the Lord Jesus whose words are they?)

In John 10:24, the "Jews" accused Jesus of making them doubt. Jesus is the Word according to John 1:1. The Bible never makes the claim that it is the Word of God. How could it? It was written by a group of authors some of who were unaware of others who's writings would eventually become part of the canon.

Now I'm not certain who wrote the Gospel of Matthew but, as I understand it, it is merely a matter of tradition that it was written by Matthew. If you have better information on that, please, let me know.

Now let's see what zeek quoted...Deut.19:15 to disprove that the words in Matthew 18:17 probably were not uttered by the “historical Jesus”.

No, Deut. 19:15 I cited as the probable origin of the principle the author appropriates in Matthew 18:17. You know, the four Gospels never themselves make the claim that they are historically accurate in the modern sense like a news story claims to be. Why do people assume that they are? The short answer for many of us is that it was the indoctrination we received. If we are called on to back it up, we can't. But, maybe you are the exception. So, by all means, make your case for an historically accurate Bible and I'll read it happily.

If Bible stories are not historical they still may embody spiritual truth. We don't suppose that Jesus' parables are literally true and they require us to interpret them metaphorically, but yet convey deep truths. If other Bible stories are parables, that doesn't necessarily make them less meaningful, does it? Witness Lee used to give allegorical interpretations of what had been previously viewed by most fundamentalists as merely factual historical accounts. Whether you agree with his interpretation or not, he did demonstrate that the stories have meaning on another level than the mere historical-factual one.

Lee also drew our attention to passages in which Paul allegorized the Old Testament. For example, Lee notes that "an example of this insight is Paul's allegorizing Sarah, Abraham's wife, and Hagar, Abraham's concubine, as two covenants (Gal. 4:22-26). Apart from Paul's allegorizing of these women in Galatians 4, we could read Genesis again and again without seeing that Sarah and Hagar signify two covenants." (Life-Study of Acts, Chapter 64, Section 1) Allegorizing is a method of interpretation that is effective for interpreting Greek and other pagan mythologies despite the fact that few people take them to be literally historical. To what degree can Bible stories be demonstrated more accurate than Greek myths? Doesn't each story have to be evaluated in terms of what can be verified by independent historical documents? So, for example the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified has some independent historical documentation although none that is contemporary with him whereas the story of him raising Lazarus from the dead has none even in the other Gospels.