Well, in that sense we don't. But we can be reasonably sure by critical and historical biblical scholarship.curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:We don't reallly know what Jesus said. We know what Paul said in his authentic letters. Paul didn't know what Jesus said. He knows what he may have been told Jesus said. I'm sure one of the reasons Paul visited with James, Jesus brother was to hear what James had to say about Jesus. There is no way to know how much Jesus message was embellished by others over a few years of oral retelling.curtpenn said:So, if Paul said that Jesus said something, then Jesus must have said that then?TexasScientist said:I didn't say Paul. I said what Jesus said. We know some of what Paul said from his letters, the ones he actually wrote. (not the ones attributed to him that he didn't write)curtpenn said:TexasScientist said:The message formulated in time, and there were differing teachings from the start. It's plain in the ealiest writings of Paul. There is no way to know what Jesus actually said, or taught, other than by supposition, speculation, and conjecture.Oldbear83 said:My point is that essentially from the start, Christianity had a popular and clear message. The arguments and division only showed up later, after the Church began to enjoy earthly wealth and influence among nobles.TexasScientist said:Early fourth century. My point is there were many aspects of Christianity, the nature and divinity of Christ, and even God that were unsettlled for centuries, all the way to Nicaea. Constantine wanted to resolve the conflicts. Even the council couldn't obtain complete resolution and uniformity. And yet, and even today there isn't uniformity of belief.Oldbear83 said:When exactly do you think Constantine was Emperor, TS?TexasScientist said:No need for the Constantine's First Council of Nicaea then. I guess he was wrong about the need.Oldbear83 said:
We do know that within a generation of the execution of Christ, the Christian movement was growing fast enough to concern both Jewish and Roman authorities.
I leave it to the reader to decide what caused that rapid growth, but I doubt it was confusion or a vague message.
That is, Christ's message was clear from the start, it has always been humans who changed the message to suit their personal ambition that muddied the waters.
If you can only know by conjecture, the you cannot know there were differing teachings or even what Paul said since you say it is all conjecture.
How do we know what Paul said without actually having his original writings complete with verifiable provenance? You assume writings attributed to Paul are somehow accurate whereas those attributed to others are not. Odd.
I rely on the consensus settled work of critical biblical scholars and historians. Scholars who make their historical judgments apart from what they would personally like to believe about the Bible from a religious standpoint.
I don't believe Paul wrote all of the letters attributed to Paul. There are numerous writings attributed to Paul and other christian leaders i.e. Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, 1st and 2nd Peter etc. that are obviously forgeries written in their names by other christians. A lot of the books considered for inclusion but omitted from the Bible were excluded in part due to questions of authenticity. Revelations almost didn't make it into the Bible in part for this reason. Obviously, some made it in that clearly have authenticity of the author in doubt.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair