The new teachings of Jesus

Nuggin writes

quote:

---

What if it "sounded like something Jesus would say"?

---

Jesus once said that the healthy do not need physicians but the sick do, just as the sinners need spiritual healers.If Jesus says something that needs to be added to the bible, wouldn't it has to be something of moral significance not obvious enough for us to just come up with it? If so, how would we know that it "sounded like something Jesus would say"?

quote:

---

Let's all assume that the message is valid and Christ-like.

---

We can't go anywhere past an assumption that makes no sense. How would we know that a message is christ-like if it is something new? If it really sounds christ-like, then we have already collectively came to the same moral conclusion and therefore there would be no need for such a message.

quote:

---

Would the brand new chapter in the Bible become retroactively literally true?

---

The answer would still be no.

Nuggin writes

quote:

---

It sounds like you are saying that new teachings can't be verified as being Christ-like since they wouldn't be coming from Christ, and therefore should not be put into the Bible and held up as the word of God.

---

No, that's not what I meant. I mean that new teachings can't be verified as being christ-like because we wouldn't know what "christ-liked" sounds like.For example, if tomorrow and alien race shows itself and we need a whole new set of moral laws to deal with this new alien race and someone claims to have a whole new set of moral laws from christ that deals with this new alien race, we wouldn't have a clue if they'd be christ-like or not.The very idea of "christ-like" is an insult to the idea of a supreme being looking down on us. Being able to tell if something is "christ-like" or not is the same thing as imposing your view onto god, forcing him to say what you want him to say.

quote:

---

But are you suggesting that what is in the Bible is therefore the actually teachings of Christ?

---

I wouldn't know, since the guy supposedly died over 2k years ago.

quote:

---

In short, are you a literalist? Or, like someone who posted before you, do you think that the Bible is an ongoing work constantly being updated and changed?

---

All I know is that translations are imperfect, just like cellular fusion. Eventually, the minute changes accumulate and you have something that is significantly different than the original.

quote:

---

And, if the later, how do you reconcile not wanting to add new stuff to the Bible after so much has already been added/deleted/changed over the years?

---

If you want to add anything to the bible, you'd have to do it over the Pope's dead body.

Nuggin writes

quote:

---

Which Pope? 99% of them are already dead.

---

Which ever pope that reigns during the time you want to make changes to the bible.If you want to do it during the current pope's benevolent reign, you'll have to do it soon.

Jar writes

quote:

---

Remember, in the originals (or early copies of originals actually) there are no chapters and verses. It is really just one long run on sentence.

---

Yes, but that was because ancient hebrew didn't have vowels, spaces between words, or punctuation marks. It was more of shorthanded notes for the priests at the time.