Jesus Never Chatted.

Matthew 12:36 KJV, "I [Jesus] say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgement."

Proverbs 10:19 KJV, "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin; but he that refraineth his lips is wise."

Titus Ch. 2:2-6 KJV specifies "Aged Men," "Aged Women," "Young Men," and "Young Women" to all be "sober."

I Peter 4:11 KJV, "If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God."

Jesus is recorded in Scripture to have always spoken concisely, briefly upon any given topic, and always germane to the Agenda of The Father using The Father's Words.  Jesus did not speak extra words, and did not use words to merely fill up time.  Jesus did not pursue trivia or small minded issues.

I John 2:6 KJV, "He that sayeth he abideth in him [Jesus] ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked."

2945 reads
Rob Fall's picture

The problem is you are arguing from silence.  Moreover, from John 21:25

Quote:
25  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
we know our Lord said much more than what was recorded in the Gospels. In other words, the Lord could easily have commented on the weather, "Yes, Peter, it is cold and wet."  or "Martha, that was a good meal."
 

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

JoReba's picture

Rob Fall wrote:

The problem is you are arguing from silence.  Moreover, from John 21:25

Quote:
25  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
we know our Lord said much more than what was recorded in the Gospels. In other words, the Lord could easily have commented on the weather, "Yes, Peter, it is cold and wet."  or "Martha, that was a good meal."
 

 

Would that be similar to saying from silence, "We know our Lord said much more than what was recorded in the Gospels?"  And, "The Lord could easily have ... ?"

Remember, John 21:25 refers only to what Jesus "did," and not to what He said.  "We know" that there is no Scripture which either commands or exemplifies for us to add the contents of our imaginations to The Word of God supplied in the record.  In fact, the 35 of 36 specific OT and NT references to human "imagine/imagination," which use 12 different original Textual words, clearly identifies "imagine/imagination" as:

1.)  "Evil."

2.)  Or, "Of the devil."

How valid, then, is the use of human imagination to state what "We know" and what "The Lord could easily have" done apart from the Text?  Or, is it more valid to use what we do know from the Text to accurately characterize and conclude what are the parameters of Jesus' speech?  Please cite any Scripture showing Jesus ever chatted.  For instance, note that His conversation with The Woman at The Well contained no "Light, informal talk," which is Webster's Dictionary definition of "chat."  Rather, Jesus was quite rude to her.

Remember, as well, that it serves no purpose to change this issue related topic into an ad hominem exchange.  Does this sound good to your intuitive heart ... ?  Lol.

 

wkessel1's picture

How do you know he never chatted? 

Not everything Jesus ever said was recorded, so I don't see how you can say he never chatted.

Are you saying we should never chat with someone, just because you don't find an example of Jesus doing it?

 

JoReba's picture

wkessel1 wrote:

How do you know he never chatted? 

Not everything Jesus ever said was recorded, so I don't see how you can say he never chatted.

Are you saying we should never chat with someone, just because you don't find an example of Jesus doing it?

 

Should Believers speak as though they are uttering The Oracles of God as specified in I Peter 4:11?

Is there any evidence from Scripture Jesus ever chatted?  Yes?  No?

Rob Fall's picture

John 20:30 to the mix.  And I'm not being ad hominum.  I'm only saying it is difficult to formulate a regulatory position from silence.  Now, would an outside observer perceive our Lord as being somewhat dour and definitely straight forward?  Yes.  But, I'm not trying to put words in His mouth.  On the other hand, I'm not trying to say He didn't say something when I lack the evidence to know for sure.  Like, Emil said when questioned about one of his stories, "Vas you dere, Charlie?"  I wasn't.

However, we are humans.  We don't have His omniscience.   So, I need to ask Fred how are his crops.  Our Lord didn't.

 

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

JoReba's picture

Rob Fall wrote:

John 20:30 to the mix.  And I'm not being ad hominum.  I'm only saying it is difficult to formulate a regulatory position from silence.  Now, would an outside observer perceive our Lord as being somewhat dour and definitely straight forward?  Yes.  But, I'm not trying to put words in His mouth.  On the other hand, I'm not trying to say He didn't say something when I lack the evidence to know for sure.  Like, Emil said when questioned about one of his stories, "Vas you dere, Charlie?"  I wasn't.

However, we are humans.  We don't have His omniscience.   So, I need to ask Fred how are his crops.  Our Lord didn't.

 

John 20:30, as in John 21:25, does not refer to what Jesus said.  Let's not keep making that error.

If I Peter 4:11 specifies Believers are to speak as if they are speaking the Oracles of God, and since they cannot know all of what Jesus ever said but can know only what is recorded in Scripture of Jesus' Words, then they are not to exceed the recorded Words of Jesus.  Hence, it is of no value to speculate on what "Jesus might have said" merely because one might think they confidently understand that Godly speech follows popular norms.

Even though "We were not there," are we as Believers not to have the Mind of Christ, thereby being able to speak as Christ who did not chat?  Yes?  No?

Just in case anyone here has not quite yet figured this out, as soon as any comment is made about another participant in here, the discussion has indeed become ad hominem. 

Rob Fall's picture

When my father looked over my home work and said, "Rob, you've got a problem with this algebra equation."  He wasn't being ad hominem. 

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

JoReba's picture

Rob Fall wrote:

When my father looked over my home work and said, "Rob, you've got a problem with this algebra equation."  He wasn't being ad hominem. 

 

Wikipedia, "ad hominem ... is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it."

Your father was not speaking to the discrepancy within your homework, but was rather speculating upon a "problem" in you which was not part of the homework.  He was being ad hominem.

Rob Fall's picture

He was saying I missed a step or a term.  At least, that's how I read the quote.  Again, you weren't at the dining room table where I was doing my home work.

 

The same could be said by my college logic teacher.  "Mr. Fall, you have a problem with this syllogism."  Unless, you are trying to say he should have said, "Mr. Fall, the syllogism of yours has a problem."  Regretfully, most people talk in the former manner.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

We simply do not know what Jesus said or did other than what is recorded, therefore we cannot assert either way. My question is "Why does it matter?" So Jesus never talked about the weather or used the acronym LOL - is this meaningful to us in some way? Does this infer a prohibition of some kind? And if so, why are we chatting about it?

Rob Fall's picture

This is what I've been trying to say.

Susan R wrote:

We simply do not know what Jesus said or did other than what is recorded, therefore we cannot assert either way. My question is "Why does it matter?" So Jesus never talked about the weather or used the acronym LOL - is this meaningful to us in some way? Does this infer a prohibition of some kind? And if so, why are we chatting about it?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

JoReba wrote:
How valid, then, is the use of human imagination to state what "We know" and what "The Lord could easily have" done apart from the Text?  Or, is it more valid to use what we do know from the Text to accurately characterize and conclude what are the parameters of Jesus' speech?  Please cite any Scripture showing Jesus ever chatted.  For instance, note that His conversation with The Woman at The Well contained no "Light, informal talk," which is Webster's Dictionary definition of "chat."  Rather, Jesus was quite rude to her.

I would agree that when we talk about what Jesus said, we shouldn't put words in His mouth, or come up with a bunch of hypothetical conversations that He might have had to try to prove a point. Is that what you are objecting to? 

I have heard 'preaching' that made Jesus sound like He was in an episode of Cheers. Not good. 

Chip Van Emmerik's picture

Methinks we have a troll in our midst.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

FWIW, I teach logic at the high school level. All that means is that I've read a couple of books on it... but most people haven't done that much, I'm pretty sure.

Anyway, "ad hominem" suffers a lot of abuse these days. Here's a little lecture on arguments and fallacies.

An argument is a statement or set of statements we make to support a claim (or 'conclusion').

An argument may be valid or invalid. If it's invalid, it's a fallacy

Many of the well known "fallacies" also have legitimate forms. For example, the ad baculum (means "to the fist" or "to the stick"... can't remember at the moment) fallacy is an illegitimate appeal to authority/implied threat. If I tell tell my neighbor that he should vote Republican or "something bad might happen to your dog," I'd be committing an ad baculum fallacy. There is no legitimate appeal to force there.

But if I tell my son he must do his chores or he'll lose privileges, I'm making an ad baculum argument. It's a valid appeal to authority (though, really, all ad baculum arguments are pseudo-arguments; they are coercive, not persuasive, but that's another topic).

When it comes to ad hominem, we also have valid and invalid uses.

Suppose someone passes out in a crowd and a bystander ("Jack") says, "He's having an allergic reaction to something he ate three days ago. Elevate his feet, toss some salt over your left shoulder and say 'homeopathy' aloud three times, and he'll be fine." An ad hominem argument would be "Jack is not a doctor. I don't think we should do what he says. Call 911."

An ad hominem fallacy: "Jack's not from Wisconsin. I don't think we should do what he says." It's invalid not because it's "to the man," but because it tries to support the conclusion with a feature of "the man" that is not relevant. (This would also be a species of genetic fallacy. Invalid argument based on where or what something came from)

A more common ad hominem fallacy is arguing "to the man" in a situation where nothing about him is relevant. So a guy says, "Romans 5:1 reveals that justification comes by faith," and an opponent says "You're only saying that because you've been brainwashed by Protestants all your life" or "Like we should listen to a high school sophomore!" or "Maybe you'll have a point after you get out of jail!"  

These are all ad hominem fallacies because no special credentials are required to make an appeal to outside authority (in this case, Scripture).

So ad hominem is sometimes valid and sometimes not (on average, not).

(Also, people tend to use ad hominem as a synonym for "personal attack." That's not what it means. A personal attack may be an ad hominem argument or fallacy but not all ad hominem arguments or fallacies are personal attacks.)