Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

17 Things People Believe Jesus Said But He Never Did


Grim Reaper 6

Recommended Posts

In popular culture and everyday conversations, there are numerous phrases and sayings attributed to Jesus Christ, conveying wisdom, guidance, and moral teachings. However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that some of these commonly believed statements are not directly derived from the words of Jesus as recorded in the Bible. Here are 17 things people believe Jesus said but he never did.

17 Things People Believe Jesus Said But He Never Did (msn.com)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, quiXilver said:

No firm evidence the man ever existed, so everything attributed to him is simply more human story mode...

Well, that is certainly true, but the difference here is these quotes are supposably in the Bible when they actually never were. So basically, they are false quotes and most likely made by people who are not really familiar with the Bible!!!:yes:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems that Atheist always bring up Jesus more than Christians do. Maybe on a subconscious level they want to believe. :yes:

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hawken said:

Seems that Atheist always bring up Jesus more than Christians do. Maybe on a subconscious level they want to believe. :yes:

 

I think you're right. I think they do want to believe in Jesus. But if I may be so bold to say, I think they can't get around to it because they stubbornly worship evidence too much.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, Grim, the "17" seems a little bit of a reach. It's funny if somebody misattributes something from Shakespeare ("To thine own self be true") - assuming many people do that, maybe so. It's closer to dubious if they attribute something that is in the Jewish Bible to him ("Spare the rod ...") - dude is a rabbi, who's to say what parts of the Bible he quoted in the line of duty?

Then there's fuddydudditry. "The meek shall inherit the earth" rather than Matthew 5:5, "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

Hmm...

Fun fact: There actually is an English word for a saying that's attributed to Jesus, but is not included in the canonical Gospels. Agraphon, or plural agrapha. (The definition is narrower than "in the Bible" or "in the New Testament" so that Acts 20:25 qualifies: Paul says he is quoting Jesus as saying that it is more blessed to give than to receive.)

Dazzle your opponents at Scrabble!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, quiXilver said:

No firm evidence the man ever existed, so everything attributed to him is simply more human story mode...

I don't know... That same argument could be used to deny most written history. Did Socrates exist, or was he simply a rhetorical device used by Plato? Did Mohammad exist, or was he simply a character written by conquering tribes to justify their conquest? Did Charles Martel exist, or was he ginned up to boost Christian resolve against Muslim conquest? And then stories have a way of inspiring other stories, so mention of them in other sources could hypothetically be simply evidence of the original tall tale spreading. We can deny anything if we really, really want to.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The only "true" words of the Bible are the original text in the original languages. Everything that came after are approximations, interpretations, translations and mistranslations into dozens of other languages. Trying to parse the meaning of the words in English is, therefore, patently ludicrous.

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hawken said:

Seems that Atheist always bring up Jesus more than Christians do. Maybe on a subconscious level they want to believe. :yes:

Kinda like the Trump effect...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

The only "true" words of the Bible are the original text in the original languages. Everything that came after are approximations, interpretations, translations and mistranslations into dozens of other languages. Trying to parse the meaning of the words in English is, therefore, patently ludicrous.

As a linguist, I agree to a large extent. So far, the least-liberty-taking translations I have seen have been the KJV and the Reina Valera (Spanish) versions, which are very close to each other. They also tend to preserve a lot of the phrasing from the source material, which makes them awkward to read for modern readers. Many newer "translations" are actually just rephrased from the KJV into simpler, more modern-sounding English. But you are correct--the only perfect Bible would be the original copies of the letters written by the apostles themselves, and the original words of the Old Testament prophets as they spoke (or sometimes wrote) them.  Even the texts translated in the 1500s by monks were copies of copies of copies, and likely suffered transcription errors. 

Still, it is amazing (some might even say a miracle) that what we have has survived as well as it has.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Hawken said:

Seems that Atheist always bring up Jesus more than Christians do. Maybe on a subconscious level they want to believe. :yes:

They study the Bible more too, so that they can argue against it. Can you imagine studying something that diligently just to defend an argument? Kinda proves to me they intend to have disagreements and are probably looking forward to them.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, C L Palmer said:

As a linguist, I agree to a large extent. So far, the least-liberty-taking translations I have seen have been the KJV and the Reina Valera (Spanish) versions, which are very close to each other. They also tend to preserve a lot of the phrasing from the source material, which makes them awkward to read for modern readers. Many newer "translations" are actually just rephrased from the KJV into simpler, more modern-sounding English. But you are correct--the only perfect Bible would be the original copies of the letters written by the apostles themselves, and the original words of the Old Testament prophets as they spoke (or sometimes wrote) them.  Even the texts translated in the 1500s by monks were copies of copies of copies, and likely suffered transcription errors. 

Still, it is amazing (some might even say a miracle) that what we have has survived as well as it has.

The KJV, my favorite is, never-the-less, severely flawed, as is most translations. The "infallible word of God" shouldn't require center columns of corrections.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Michelle said:

They study the Bible more too, so that they can argue against it. Can you imagine studying something that diligently just to defend an argument? Kinda proves to me they intend to have disagreements and are probably looking forward to them.

Well, like they say, there's no place better for sinners to be than in church. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Well, like they say, there's no place better for sinners to be than in church. 

I doubt if there are many Atheists in church. I was talking about them studying the Bible just for arguments. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

Kinda like the Trump effect...

I would say Trump is now more popular than Jesus. Love him or hate him, he's talked about. Kinda like a drug addict can't get enough of meth. :wacko:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

I think you're right. I think they do want to believe in Jesus. But if I may be so bold to say, I think they can't get around to it because they stubbornly worship evidence too much.

 

 

Can someone worship evidence? 

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TashaMarie said:

Can someone worship evidence? 

 

Yes. Someone sure can. Like a fetish.

 

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, C L Palmer said:

As a linguist, I agree to a large extent. So far, the least-liberty-taking translations I have seen have been the KJV and the Reina Valera (Spanish) versions, which are very close to each other. They also tend to preserve a lot of the phrasing from the source material, which makes them awkward to read for modern readers. Many newer "translations" are actually just rephrased from the KJV into simpler, more modern-sounding English. But you are correct--the only perfect Bible would be the original copies of the letters written by the apostles themselves, and the original words of the Old Testament prophets as they spoke (or sometimes wrote) them.  Even the texts translated in the 1500s by monks were copies of copies of copies, and likely suffered transcription errors. 

Still, it is amazing (some might even say a miracle) that what we have has survived as well as it has.

What about the New Jerusalem Bible and the annoted Koine version? They are the ones Penn had you use for Biblical history. 

Edited by Piney
brain fart
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

They study the Bible more too, so that they can argue against it. Can you imagine studying something that diligently just to defend an argument? Kinda proves to me they intend to have disagreements and are probably looking forward to them.

One doesn’t have to be an Atheist in order to study the Bible to see where and how, and if, it relates to actual history. It’s exactly because of such research that I myself found out how badly it conforms to actual history and religious beliefs that caused me to leave organized religion. 
 

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There doesn't have to be proof in order for something to be true. :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Michelle said:

I doubt if there are many Atheists in church. I was talking about them studying the Bible just for arguments. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I was using "church" as a metaphor, remarking, sardonically, on the irreligious' obsession with all things religious. Also, there are plenty of atheist churchgoers, praying in the pews, their faux piety for all to see

Edited by Hammerclaw
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

There doesn't have to be proof in order for something to be true. :D

 

 

That is true, but for something as large as the claims of the Bible, you would expect there to be some pretty solid proof if it were true.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Will Due said:

There doesn't have to be proof in order for something to be true. :D

And yet claiming something is true doesn’t make it true. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And yet claiming something is true doesn’t make it true. 
 

cormac

 

No, claiming something is true doesn't make it true.

But something that's already true, is true, whether or not there's proof that it's true.
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.