2 Cor 11:4 PROVES there were various versions of Jesus and gospels BEFORE the gospels

by yadda yadda 2 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  yadda yadda 2

  The gospels were written AFTER Paul's epistles. This is commonly acknowledged by both apologist and neutural Bible scholars. YET we see that Paul says clearly in 2 Corinthians 11:4 that persons were preaching different versions of Jesus and different gospels BEFORE the orthodox canonized gospels were written:

  "For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough." NIV

  This basically proves that there were various oral and written versions of Jesus and his teachings BEFORE the canonized gospels were written, and that there was a clear tendency for these to be readily accepted by the early Christian communities. Basically, 2 Cor 11:4 proves that the canonized gospels are not reliable.
• 

  Band on the Run

  This isn't a news flash. The church fathers knew there were differences in the gospels. One gospel was discussed. They went for diversity. I am not certain why. There is also the existence of Q in dispute. Q would be an earlier source than the synoptic gospels. Whenever I read academic literature, which is not often, Q is absolutely proven, never existed, or a majority of scholars believe it. Someone said that we should not discuss early Christianity because there were many Christianities.
• 

  Perry

  So, Paul counsels not to listen to false gospels and that somehow proves the gospels are false? That's weird.

  We would all have done well to follow Paul's advice. It would have saved us from a self serving cult.

  "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." 2 Cor. 11:3

  He's just saying to "Keep it simple". You're a sinner, Jesus offers a substitute death in place of the death penalty for YOUR sin. It is good news that this pardon is even offered. You should take the offer.

  That's the gospel..... Very simple.
• 

  Earnest

  Gospel simply means "good news", in the time of Paul it would not have referred to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John or others but simply to the message of good news. So he is not speaking about a biography but just about the message. But apart from Q there is also a thought that there were sayings of Jesus that were written down and distributed among the Christians. In fact, it would be most unusual were that not the case but as far as we know they were not thought to be inspired.
• 

  Pistoff

  The gospels we have are the ones that proved politically expedient for the shapers of Christianity in the 3rd and 4th centuries; they only represent the beliefs and serve the interests of the community that produced them.

  The gnostic gospels show the extreme diversity of the Jesus communities, but it is easy to see why those responsible for the bible canon did not select them; they are not as friendly to building a religion as Matthew Mark Luke and John. (Of course, Jesus also never mentions building a religion or even congregations.)

  It is disingenuous to suggest that the gospels in the bible canon are the true gospels; they are just the ones that seemed good to include to the empire builders hundreds of years after Jesus.
• 

  Maranatha

  Amen, Perry!

  Paul is simply warning us about false prophets and antichrists (like you). Jesus told us the same thing in Matthew, Mark and Luke and warned us in the gospels about false religions, like the Pharisees, Sadducees and Roman Catholicism...to name a few.
• 

  smiddy

  Maranatha

  Have you ever wondered why jehovahs witnesses took up the name Jehovah ? a name that was invented by a Roman Catholic monk ? in the thirteenth century A.D. ?

  smiddy
• 

  sarahsmile

  Smiddy what is your understanding as to why?

  Here us what I understood because the King Jame Bible use the name of God,Jehovah.

  And Rutherfords group captured readers hearts toward the name as something that should be known. Let Your Name Be known

  Considering King James placed the name with LORD.

  Anybow,back to the subject maybe there were other Jesus besides Lord Jesus.
• 

  designs

  What you discover when you study Judaism is that Paul abandoned a Jewish Messiah for an entirely new invention of his own making. His idea, while trying to tie in Jewish verses, is not the Jewish messiah. Paul (or whoever it was writing under that name) knew the Jewish response and moved his ministry to the Gentiles who were gullible and naive about Judaism. first major error with Paul's Gospel- The Messiah and Originl Sin in Romans, complete and utter lie and fabrication. It goes downhill from there.
• 

  yadda yadda 2

  The point Perry is that during the oral tradition period, well before the synoptic gospels were written, there were easily accepted alternative versions of who Jesus was and the good news he preached. Some of these different gospels had already been accepted in the Corinthian congregation Paul is warning. He says they were putting up with these different versions, proving that embellishment and corruption of the message was rampant very early on right in the thick of the congregations.

  Remember, most of these early Christian communities in the far flung regions of the pagan Roman empire that Paul was preaching too were not literate people. They relied on oral traditions. They had previously believed in mythological deities like Mithras, etc, and they wanted their Jesus to be just as powerful and god-like as their former pagan gods. A Jewish vagrant preacher telling of peace and mercy who then dies on a stake didn't quite cut it for these pagans.

  Christian apologists try to refute this by saying that the authentic oral tradition was protected from embellishment by the authentic Jerusalem apostles/disciples who had been eyewitnesses of Jesus being out travelling amongst these far flung congregations to act as a preserving influence against corruption of the true oral traditions. But 2 Cor 11:4 proves that this had not really occurred. No original Jewish eyewitness disciples were out there in Paul's congregations protecting the original eyewitness accounts, or if they were, they largely failed.

  Christian apologists also assert that as the gnostic gospels were written after the synoptic gospels (except Thomas, arguably), this proves that the synoptic gospels are the authentic gospels. But Paul's statement at 2 Cor 11:4 proves that there was a marked tendency very early on for very different and easily accepted oral versions of Jesus and his message to develop and get preached.

  In a nutshell, 2 Cor 11:4 shows that the oral period was fluid and rife with embellishment and variations from the beginning, and that these embellishments had got ingrained in the congregations well before the written accounts were recorded. In other words, the synoptic gospels cannot be trusted as written records of the original, authentic, eyewitness accounts. The original oral tradition is lost, and in any event were probably mostly 'Q' accounts that quickly got mythologised.