Jesus as a great moral teacher?
Me thinks not.
Old Testament.
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:17
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. Leviticus 20:9
In the following verses, it is Jesus himself who is speaking.
For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother, and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. Matthew 15:4
For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. Mark 7:10
Old Testament.
Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:17
For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him. Leviticus 20:9
In the following verses, it is Jesus himself who is speaking.
For God commanded, Honor your father and your mother, and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. Matthew 15:4
For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother; and, Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die. Mark 7:10
Comments (117)
Evidence: The gospels were selected from a much larger corpus of work.
Can you explicitly state why you think that Jesus was "not a great moral teacher"
based on the verses that you cited?
Killing a child who curses a parent is not the moral thing to do.
It's an evil teaching.
The truth lies in the past but it is a logical conclusion considering.
It's folly to take Jesus at face value. Jesus was a complex conceptual thinker. There are many layers that need to be understood to be able to understand what He IS and just as importantly what He IS NOT saying in any given passage. There are overarching themes and underlying concepts that run throughout that need to be taken into account.
If you're really interested in understanding Him, I can try to explain it to you. From what I gather, you are not a Christian. How familiar are you with the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth? Overarching themes? Underlying concepts?
Be aware that for various reasons, the vast majority of Christians do NOT understand Him either. And the few that do that I've come across, can better be described as followers of Jesus rather than Christian. Also be aware that I am not and never have been Christian. Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs the core underlying concepts of which are, for all intents and purposes, antithetical to underlying core concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus.
Quite frankly I don't have any real interest in "what counts as Christian" per se. Just going by what is commonly understood as "Christian".
Consider the following:
Evidently Jefferson had been accused of not being a Christian, but saw himself as a "real Christian" as opposed to his accusers who he evidently saw as "false". I don't have a problem with Jefferson identifying with being "Christian", though it seems to be out-of-step with how the word is commonly used .
Quoting Tom Storm
That - or some derivation thereof- can be said about many a historical figure. One can only go by what was attributed to Jesus. Quite frankly it makes no difference to me as to whether Jesus actually said them or even if Jesus actually existed. What's important are the underlying concepts conveyed by those words. For ease of conversation, it's just easier to speak as if the words were spoken by Jesus. Not sure why you seem to think it important. Why do you?
Ok but you seem to be arguing about what counts as Christian and what does not count, so you surely have some answer to this question?
Quoting ThinkOfOne
You seem to be trying to develop a version of Christianity, an interpretation, especially when you say things like:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Quoting ThinkOfOne
That's all.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Not really. You've just said 'as if' - so which bits of the gospels count 'as if' and which ones do not?
Correct. What has come down to us is mostly fiction.
Not a small innovation.
What else there is of merit was already to be found, better expressed, elsewhere.
I hope Thomson reminded Jefferson that if we find ourselves cutting up Bibles to arrange the text differently and having dark thoughts about Jews then we may lose credibility on religious matters.
This was not an innovation, it is a part of traditional Judaism:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/charity-throughout-jewish-history
You don't seem to have understood much of what I wrote. Perhaps you'd do better if you were to:
1) Keep context in mind. Both mine and yours.
2) Respond to it as a whole instead of piece-meal.
Care to try again?
It's also found in Buddhist teachings.
The Bible is what it is. The Bible is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most Christians refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner. Somehow many are able to do just that and delude themselves into believing that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God".
No idea what you have in mind when you say "having dark thoughts about Jews".
that bit.
It's unfortunate that you chose to ignore the bulk of what I wrote.
Care to try again?
Care to explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion? Go ahead. Lay it out for me.
So like it or not, that incipient Scotsman is in what you wrote.
So, care to try again?
The fact that you declined to show how exactly how you arrived at that conclusion speaks volumes.
How does that reasonably equate to "having dark thoughts about Jews"?
That you failed to recognise my showing how I arrived at that conclusion speaks louder.
We can all play at passive-aggressive chit chat. You like demand explanations from others because it saves you from having to think.
If you actually have something to say, just say it. Stop being coy.
This from the guy making vacuous one-line assertions and then refusing to back it up. Passive-aggressive? How does that NOT much more aptly describe you?
Listen. If you want to actually have a discussion, then try adding some substance to your posts.
[quote=Matthew 5:39]But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right, turn to him the other also.[/quote]
In other words (intentional or not), do not fight surrender to "evil". :mask:
Those who need it will find it.
Evidently Gandhi had quite a different understanding of what Jesus was saying in that passage:
Something's gotta give, oui? Evil initiates/perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence (the Romeo & Juliet family vendetta) - in the long run reciprocal animosity is detrimental to both sides (both Romeo & Juliet died) - and that I feel is the rationale for "turning the other cheek". I haven't even mentioned the toll it exacts on other parties not directly involved in the feud - ripple effects!
Also, I find it more difficult to lose than to win - difficult is good, oui?
No, I think we can move on. Take care.
Thanks.
The scriptures in the OP are from the Old Testament, Tim. It's not a NTS situation.
Quoting Art48
What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority?
Quoting Art48
This was superseded by the New Covenant, Tim. Catholics and Protestants all agree to that.
His authority derives from prophesy in the Old Testament - kind of the point of the narrative.
But that isn't what I was arguing. The OP is about whether Jesus has moral authority. The OP references two NT versus quoting the OT. Hence the circular relationship between testaments. Hence my interest in Jesus.
In my estimation going against one's parents is a gateway sin - once you do that, the door to a world of other sins opens wide. Hurting/killing one's parents is to get your ticket to hell confirmed im Buddhism. Kinda slippery slopeish, but to my reckoning the fear is well-founded. Christianity too has its own list of unforgivables.
Probably more from supposedly being the Son Of God.
Quoting Tom Storm
There's no circular relationship. Jesus is supposed by Christians to have ended or fulfilled the Mosaic Law. It was replaced by a New Covenant. This, as I pointed out, is standard doctrine for both Catholics and Protestants.
You're almost there.
The circular relationship refers to Jesus 'using' words from the Old Testament to establish his connection to prophecy and continuity with Yahweh. The New Testament makes frequent use of the Old Testament to establish Jesus' credentials.
I am addressing whether we take the notion of Jesus seriously or not. You might recall the title of the OP is Jesus as a great moral teacher. This invites a broader discussion about Jesus. Which we have partly had.
It's interesting that you sought to tell me that the scriptures cited in the OP was only OT when two NT quotes - Jesus purported words - were included.
.
True.
Fine by me. If you can't be bothered to keep context in mind (both mine and yours) in order to comprehend what others write, then you'll never post anything of substance anyway.
Mainly in Matthew. Each of the four gospels has a particular agenda. Matthew depicts Jesus as being a Messiah for the Jews only. Luke, being a gentile doctor, obviously is more sympathetic to gentiles. John is logos mysticism. Mark, the oldest of the gospels, is probably closer to the original Q.
My point is that you're in danger of getting theological if you draw your conclusions from the text alone. Focus on the historical Jesus if you want a relatively unbiased look at his teachings.
This is not something I have thought about before. Why this difference in attitude? Some quick musings:
Perhaps it has something to do with the Greek notion of virtue (arete), which includes the attributes of strength and power, and so, an indifference or disdain for weakness and poverty.
Jesus elevates the weak and poor:
and regards wealth as a liability:
There may be two related things at play here, the low status of the early followers and the messianic promise of a new world.
This is counter to the traditional Jewish view, that adhering to the Covenant leads to blessings you can see in terms of health and wealth. The idea of delayed justice is important for people who feel oppressed.
This is not what Jesus himself believed and taught! This was his reply to Pharisees who asked him "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?", referring them to their own scriptures.
How can Jesus ever say or think such a thing at the moment he was agains killing? (https://www.bible.com/bible/compare/MAT.15.1-20, https://biblehub.com/matthew/15-2.htm)
I was amazed by reading such a thing, esp. in here. And consider that I am not even a fan of Jesus.
It is not so simple. What is at issue is the distinction between tradition and commandments. (Matthew 15:3) The background here is likely to be the dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples regarding the Law. Jesus not only quotes the commandment, he says elsewhere that all the commandments, even the least, must be upheld (Matthew 5:17-20).
Quoting Alkis Piskas
The prohibition against killing is one of the ten commandments. The obvious problem is, how can one
uphold all the commandment when one commandment says do not kill and another says that one who reviles his mother and father must die? One possible answer lies in the distinction between death and wrongful death. The full statement passage from Matthew is:
It is the second clause, which does not appear in the Hebrew Bible, that seems to support the distinction between death and wrongful death. Whether the action is wrong and punishable will be judged. If it is in accord with the commandment then it cannot be wrong.
The background here is Jesus vs Pharisees. I have made that clear. I gave two references on that.
Yet, I couldn't find where does the statement "Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die" exactly refer to in the Old Testament. Maybe it is a problem of translation. Maybe it has naver been said.
So, you are right. It's not so simple! :smile:.
That's why I usually avoid getting involved in Christian scriptures! But I did, most probably because I din't find something really interesting for me today! :grin:
Again, it is not so simple. Paul himself discusses both his dispute with the disciples and the question of obedience to the Law. The Gospel of Matthew was written about 50 years after the death of Jesus. The stories it and other gospels contain are influenced by Paul and the schism that led to the separation between Jews and Christians.
Where Matthew portrays the Pharisees as the adversaries of Jesus, Mark warns against the Scribes (Mark 12:38) While some scribes were Pharisees not all were. The issue with both Scribes and Pharisees was the question of who had authority regarding questions of the Law. The question is further complicated by Paul's claims about the Law and Gentiles.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
That is because it is not there. As I said:
Quoting Fooloso4
This embellishment too is related to the question of who had authority regarding the Law.
But we should not lose sight of what is at issue in this thread. If Jesus taught obedience to the commandments, and it is evident that he does as he is portrayed in Matthew, then it is what he believed and taught. Or, more precisely, it is what Matthew's Jesus believed and taught.
This is a speculation.
OK, so I know what Jesus said according to the bible.
And I have someone I don't know on the Internet claiming to know what Jesus meant, what Jesus would have said if only Jesus could speak clearly so as to be understood.
Hm. What should I believe?
I noticed it while doing a bit of reading on the Christian persecution of pagan intellectuals. Charity does not appear in Aristotle's virtues, nor in stoic or epicurean thinking. It is found in the Buddhist D?na, where it is apparently as much to do with renouncing one's possessions as looking after others. Perhaps the eclectic Israelites borrowed charity from Buddhism.
The idea of looking after others seems to have entered Western thinking along with Christianity. So Charity is the main player in any claim to Jesus' being a great moral teacher. Whatever else of virtue that is found in Christian thinking was put there as the Church Fathers made their teachings compatible with the already existing body of ethical thinking. Christians tend to think ethics began with Jesus, or at best Moses, but of course that is self-serving bullshit.
I'd say there is no historical Jesus for us to access.
Historical Jesus
The Historical Jesus link to Wikipedia "Historical Jesus" has this: "There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait."
Hm. Sounds like some, if not all, of the portraits are fictional.
Confirmation bias is a powerful force.
Yes. Like Socrates.
It is. Historians try to limit its effects.
Nothing for you to consider, true.
But instead the thread bleats on about scriptural interpretation and Jewish history and so on...
Quoting Banno
He wasn't a great moral teacher if you define morality as a set of rules. He is supposed to have "replaced" the Mosaic Law with the law of love, which is a fairly radical thing to do. He's better seen as a spiritual leader for the oppressed than as a law giver.
Which is what?
Fascinating.
But love might be worth of consideration. I think I prefer charity as it is more obviously a virtue, and assessable in public terms.
It's mainly needed where there isn't much of an institutionalized safety net.
I don't see how the question of his teachings can be separated from questions of interpretation and the context within which those teaching occured, that is, the teachings and practices of his fellow Jews.
The moral teachings themselves, in distinction from the teachings about him, have much more in common with the teachings of the Jewish sects of his time than any differences we may find. As a moral teacher there is nothing remarkable about the teaching attributed to him. If he was not regarded as the Messiah, the savior and redeemer of mankind, it seems likely that he would be largely unknown today.
That's a pity.
Seems to me the worth of a moral teaching is found in the doing.
If a moral teaching is doing what is already found in the tradition should the "great moral teaching" be attributed to the one who repeats it?
Haven't you read what I said? "So, you are right. It's not so simple!' Which means, I have acknowledged and accepted what you are repeating above.
Haven't you also read "That's why I usually avoid getting involved in Christian scriptures!. But I did, most probably because I din't find something really interesting for me today Which means, I'm not actually interested. I have already spent too much time in this, including this --last-- reply.
It's not the first time that this happens. You are not "listening".
I'm no longer interrested in the subject since a few posts ago. Besides, I'm far from an expert on it. So, please sort it out yourself. Sorry.
Haven't you read what you said? You begin the post in which you acknowledge that it is not so simple by quoting me saying that the background here is likely to be the dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples regarding the Law. You dispute this saying:
Quoting Alkis Piskas
It is in response to this that I said again that it is not so simple. The setting of Matthew's narrative, Pharisees challenging Jesus, is not the background against which he presents his narrative.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
There are other people reading these posts and forming their own opinions. When someone makes a statement, even if he claims he is not actually interested, it is appropriate for others to respond if they have a different take on the matter.
The greatness of a moral teaching lies solely in the goodness of its contents. The person who repeats it, or even the person who invents it, are in my opinion not relevant at all to the worth of a teaching.
Quoting Fooloso4
They do not have that much in common with Judaism in general and at certain points can be even be considered polar opposites. (though maybe you are talking about specific branches of Judaism I do not know about).
Christianity has much more in common with classical Greek philosophy, especially (neo-)Platonism.
If you or I were to repeat teachings that we found elsewhere it may be that the teachings themselves are great, but would that make us great moral teachers?
Quoting Tzeentch
I agree, but the title of this thread is: "Jesus as a great moral teacher?"
Quoting Tzeentch
From the Sermon on the Mount:
The Law and Prophets are the basis of Jewish teaching. Jesus says they must be upheld.
Quoting Tzeentch
Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are not the same thing. While we have no way of determining what it might have been that Jesus taught, it is clear that the gospels contain significant differences. The early Jesus movement, the suppression of "heretical" gospels by the Church Fathers, and what was declared official Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea give us very different pictures of what Christianity is as it developed and changed
Put differently, the further we get from Jesus, the less apparent the Jewish roots of his teaching and the more it comes to resemble the pagan beliefs of Greece and Rome. This is not at all surprising given that following Paul's preaching to the gentiles the distinction between Jew and Gentile grew and became more and more acrimonious and Christianity came more and more to resemble the gentile world.
This is incredibly ignorant as it gives into the apologists tendency to de-contextualize the historical figure and simply accept the caricature that is portrayed. Essentially it downplays any new scholarship from Enlightenment onwards. You can complain that its not philosophical and more historical though but as long as people keep taking the caricature seriously as a philosophical figure than it is perfectly in the right of modern scholars to deconstruct the very caricature touted to be moralizing. Jesus of course isnt a philosopher but a figure in religious history and so that doesnt make it straightforward philosophy proper.
You are right.
Actually you were correct in your assessment that " Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die." is not what Jesus Himself believed and taught. Jesus merely quoted Levitical law in service of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes. NOT because it is something that He Himself believed and taught. @Art48's simplistic take on it is wrong.
Quoting Fooloso4
You are mistaken about what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:17-19.
What Jesus had in mind when speaking of "the law and the prophets" is NOT the Old Testament (OT). It's a mistake made by many - Christian and non-Christian alike.
The underlying meaning of the "law and the prophets" is, for all intents and purposes, the ways of God. Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4), in part, to "give sight to the blind". A recurring theme throughout the gospel preached by Jesus was that while the Jews understood some things about the ways of God, they misunderstood many things as well. Jesus was forever correcting them. Jesus was anointed to bring understanding of the true ways of God (which abrogated much of the OT), thus giving "sight to the blind".
Rather than the OT, the following is what Jesus had in mind when speaking of the "law and the prophets":
Matthew 22
37And He said to him, YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND. 38This is the great and foremost commandment. 39The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. 40On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.
Matthew 7
12In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the law and the prophets.
In essence, the entirety of the true ways of God boils down to what is often referred to as "The Golden Rule". Jesus effectively replaced a rules-based understanding of the ways of God (the OT) with a conceptual understanding (The Golden Rule).
Your misunderstanding of Matthew 5 has led you to be mistaken about Matthew 15 as well.
Interesting, since I came to the opposite conclusion. The closer we get to the teachings of Jesus, Q, the more it seems to resemble classical Greek philosophy; Stoic, Cynic, Platonic - something completely different from Judaism.
It's only logical, isn't?
Thank you. Well, at least one acknowledgment! :smile:
Anyway, it's silly to argue about things that are known to be plenty of inaccuracies, biases and question marks. That's why I have withdrawn myself from this subject.
You cite Luke 4 but do not take into account how often Jesus' responses quote what is written. The online version of the New International Version includes footnotes that identify Deuteronomy (the Law) and Isaiah (the Prophets). It is Isaiah not Jesus who claims to have been anointed (4:18)
The passage from Matthew is not an alternative to or "rather than the OT"
He is responding to the Pharisees and Sadducees who are challenging him as to how the Law and Prophets are to be interpreted. He is not proposing a replacement for them. It is, rather, that to follow the Law without love of God and your neighbor is not sufficient.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
In Matthew 5 he says:
The smallest letter and stroke of the pen refer to what is written. He goes on to discuss several specifs regarding the Law and how it is to be obeyed. He does not say to ignore all that written stuff. He says:
One of the least of these commands means that there are many not two.
:fire:
He says the opposite elsewhere. Welcome to the Bible.
The concept of the Messiah and the Kingdom are Jewish not Greek or Roman. The Greek and Romans, however, held to the idea of human gods. In Christianity the two are conflated and the messiah eventually comes to be regarded as God. The term "son of God" as it is used in the Hebrew Bible and literature of the time referred to a human being favored by God, not God himself begetting himself.
A king anointed by God (Greek Christos) is Jewish.
The belief in resurrection is a traditional Jewish belief.
Keeping the sabbath is a Jewish belief.
The existence of angels is a Jewish belief.
I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the Q source since it is hypothetical and we do not have any documents that can establish its existence. Paul, whose writings are the oldest never met or saw of heard Jesus and according to his own accounts he split off from the disciples and went to preach to the gentiles. What he said was not based on the authority of what Jesus said but was based on "inspiration", the belief that it was through the indwelling of spirit.
Indeed; but this is a philosophy forum. If Jesus is a great moral teacher, then we ought be able to cite his great moral teachings. But that is not what the posts here do.
Yeah it's logical, though one must have some clue as to the basic teachings of Jesus in order to apply logic there. That said, I suspect that some who post on this site are a bit short on logical thinking skills and/or the basic teaching of Jesus. Likely they mindlessly repeat things they found on the internet.
The Bible on the whole is really problematic. That said, the gospel preached by Jesus is by and large, reasonably sound and reasonably coherent in and of itself. If you have interest in synthesizing abstract complex problem domains, you should give it a try.
Your response is typical of someone who clings to their beliefs and refuses to look carefully at what the gospel texts actually say. You assume you have an adequate understanding of the basic teachings of Jesus and so reject anything that does not conform to your beliefs. Unfortunately for you, this includes what is actually said in the texts themselves.
Rather than confront and address what I have pointed to in the texts you ignore it and attempt to discredit me. That is a common tactic of someone who wants to protect their beliefs and must ignore the texts to do so.
There is a great deal of scholarly disagreement, but at a minimum one must be able to address specifically what is said in the text, rather than impose one's assumptions on it. As a general rule of interpretation, when there is evidence in the text that seems to contradict one's assumptions then you must either alter those assumptions or defend them on the basis of additional evidence found in the text. Vague claims about the basic teachings of Jesus won't cut it.
I agree with what you say and I like the way you say it. :up:
Quoting Fooloso4
Matthew 5
17Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. 19Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Based on things you've posted, seems unlikely that you are a Christian. Yet this argument is straight out of the evangelical Christian playbook. One I've seen many a time. A playbook with very simplistic views. It all begins with the belief that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" with a very strong tendency toward literal interpretation. No matter how much tells against it.
For example, "God made the animals of the earth according to their kind" (Genesis 1). Cows are cows. Birds are birds. Each created according to their kind. Clearly the theory of evolution cannot be true. Animals MUST have been "created according to their kind".
Never mind that that the creation story can be interpreted as allegory.
The Bible is inerrant. Animals MUST have been "created according to their kind".
Similarly with "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away". Clearly Jesus MUST be "referring to what is written". Therefore, Jesus MUST be referring to the entirety of the Old Testament. Therefore, Jesus MUST be saying that not the smallest letter or stroke of the OT shall pass way.
Never mind that Jesus often used figurative language.
Never mind that elsewhere in Matthew says that, in essence, the whole of the law and the prophets has the "Golden Rule" as its basis.
Never mind that on the heels of saying ""not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away" Jesus contradicts "an eye for an eye ".
Never mind that Leviticus 25 depicts God as condoning chattel slavery which flies in the face of the "Golden Rule".
Never mind that the dietary restrictions in the OT are irrelevant to the "Golden Rule".
Never mind all the other things in the OT that either fly in the face of or are irrelevant to the "Golden Rule".
The Bible is inerrant. Jesus MUST be referring to the entirety of the OT.
Quoting Fooloso4
I never said that Jesus did. There are many parts of the OT which are compatible with the "Golden Rule" There are parts that are not. You lost the context of what I wrote.
Quoting Fooloso4
Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah presenting it as prophecy of which He Himself is the fulfillment (4:21). You missed the context of Luke 4.
As an aside, Jesus claimed that He was
anointed to do the following three things:
1) To preach His gospel - These are the words He spoke while preaching His gospel.
2) To give sight to the blind - To open the eyes of those blind to the ways of God which Jesus explained in His gospel.
3) To set free the captives - To FREE those who abide in His word from the slavery of committing sin (see John 8). To FREE those who abide in His gospel.
Note that this is the core of the gospel preached by Jesus.
Note that Jesus was NOT anointed to serve as a "sacrificial lamb" as a means for vicarious atonement. It's not a part of the gospel that Jesus preached.
Why do you take parts of what I've written out of context and address them as if there is no context to be considered? Why do you do that with scripture? Are you unaware of the necessity of reading in context in order to comprehend what you are reading? Especially when what is being conveyed is not simplistic?
The argument is straight out of what the text says.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Rather than address what I have said you deflect by arguing against something I have not. My argument has nothing to do with inerrancy. It has to do with paying attention to what is said. Attention to what is said does not mean a literal interpretation but when Jesus says to follow the Law I do take him to mean that literally.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
No, it is not similar at all. The stories in Genesis are quite different than what Jesus says the righteous must do.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
He does use figurative language, and when he says something like "the least stroke of a pen" he is not talking about pen strokes but figuratively about what is written.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
This, I assume, you do not regard as figurative, so let's consider it. The basis of the Law is not the Law. Why would he talk about specific commandments if the Golden Rule is sufficient? Why would he say "the least of these commands" if there is only the one, the Golden Rule or two, love God and your neighbor?
When he says:
For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)
he means that it is not enough to simple obey the Law outwardly one must do it as a matter of devotion, as a matter of worship, with all one's heart, with love. For love is the basis of what you should do.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
What you said was:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Isaiah did not prophesy that Jesus would be anointed by God or that Jesus would
Quoting ThinkOfOne
What he said was:
What Jesus is referring to as being fulfilled is the promise of the Kingdom of God. Fulfilled not by "He Himself" but by the sovereign Lord, that is, God.
Jesus himself cannot be the sovereign Lord referred to by Isaiah, for he says that he, Isaiah, was anointed by the Lord, and you said that Jesus would be anointed by God, not by himself.
And so, I will ask you:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to your post instead of jumping the gun...
Quoting Fooloso4
Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views...
Quoting Fooloso4
Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...
.You had already said:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Of course, perhaps you don't. Perhaps this is the problem.
[quote="ThinkOfOne;738118"]Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...[/quote
I don't, but having confidence in myself is quite different than claiming to have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus. That is something I would not say.
If you have something substantive to say regarding the texts I will respond. Otherwise if your interest is in building yourself up and tearing others down I will not indulge you further.
That was in response to post by @Alkis Piskas. I didn't respond to your post until later. Not sure why you are unable to discern these type things, but it is what it is...
Quoting Fooloso4
That's not the problem. I've discussed these things with people I know in real life who are well educated, have good reading comprehension skills, good critical thinking and conceptual thinking skills. Based on what you've been posting, their skills are well beyond yours.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Well, one of those people was a Christian for over 40 years and was highly regarded within her church. She was also well regarded within her profession working for some highly regarded universities in the US. She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary. Though that wasn't until after I, as she put it, "held her down and pried her eyes open". Since having had her eyes pried open, she longer considers herself to be a Christian. Instead she seeks to become a "follower of Jesus".
And there are more than a few of those people here, but since they do not agree with you, you question their abilities.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
That's nice, but I do not find it extraordinary. But I promised not to indulge you.
Of course, it could be that I question the abilities of some because they have demonstrated that they are lacking in reading comprehension skills, critical thinking skills and/or conceptual thinking skills. NOT because they "don't agree with [me]". That's what those who are lacking in intellectual honesty as well as some or all of those skills sometimes say as a way to soothe their pride.
Quoting Fooloso4
That doesn't surprise me. I worked in software development for a long time for more than a few different companies. While most had a pretty good idea of their limitations, some believed that their skills were much better than they were. That's pride for you.
with the commandment against killing [10 Commandments] that Jesus cites at Matthew 19:18?
I think the answer can be found in another passage from Matthew:
What is at issue is not adherence to the commandments but who is fit to carry out judgment.
This is addressed later in Matthew beginning at 25:31. The people of every nation will be separated in two, those who will be blessed and those who will be cursed. Those who are blessed will inherit the kingdom. Those who will be cursed:
What we find here is not simply a morality of peace and love, but a traditional morality of good and evil, rewards and punishment
This is rank theology.
It's relevant in the case of Jesus because if he is simply normal saying these things he's pulling stuff out of his ass or he's delusional and very certain of his delusions. Normal humans do not make definitive claims about the afterlife or special knowledge of God.
Quoting Banno
Academic moral philosophy is largely secular; JC can use reason, but is in the context of a religious/dualistic/theistic metaphysic. He's almost more of an artist: JC paints a picture of a certain type of society, it's up to us to accept or reject that picture.
Altruism certainly does not enter the world through Christianity nor was it borrowed by the Jews from Buddhism. There were Jewish social reformers ("prophets") calling out rulers and Jewish cities for their injustice before the creation of Buddhism that became part of the Hebrew Bible. Noah and Abraham are praised for their righteousness and that text was written ~9th century BC. Judaism has a significant number of ancient texts from 9th or 10th century BC that promote caring/giving the poor and looking out for others.
I don't think of Jesus as trying to provide social architecture. There was no need for that in his world. His target audience was oppressed and full of bitterness. That's what he and other preachers like him were trying to deal with. And of course, the end of the world was mixed in.
Certainly in contrast to the Pharisees he does have an alternative vision. He spends much of his time criticizing the Pharisees, not really preaching about the end of the world. He definitely envisions a radically different type of society.
What kind of society do you think he envisioned?
If he is a man then he is a holier-than-thou nut. The Pharisees give to charity, JC just criticizes the manner in which they give. There's a lot of material on your question in the NT but in short he envisions a society where people flex by asking "how can I help you?" as opposed to "look how many people I have under me." It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision.
I hear that. When I read the Sermon on the Mount, the call for not reacting to violence with violence strikes me as particular answer to a specific situation, not an adequate response to all situations. In many articulations of Christian belief, this issue keeps coming up with the whole range of being comfortable with being a soldier of God or renouncing War as such.
He said they were like whitewashed tombs: appearing upright and clean on the outside, but full of decadence on the inside. Don't take it personally. He wasn't attacking all Jews, just the ones who pay more attention to how they appear than whether they show love, mercy, and ensure justice.
This went on to be a major theme in early Christianity.
Quoting Moses
He doesn't ever speak in terms of the content of a society or rules for how it operates. He and his followers were outsiders, probably influenced by desert dwelling Jews.
Jews have always had an idea that fixed societies are inherently evil, as if you're closer to God if you're detached from cities and able to dwell in the desert, free from the corruption that inevitably creeps into city life.
Think of Jesus as attempting to inject this ancient ideal back into a world that had become fixated on law to the exclusion of the kind of morality that comes from the heart.
Quoting Moses
It's more about how you engage the society you're in than how to build a functional society.
This idea was put forward in The Protocols of Zion.
Absolutely, the call to non-violence is not universal. The devil is not treated as something to passively give in to. When I hear "turn the other cheek" I'm thinking more about when someone has wronged or offended you socially and you say something like "I'll pray for you" to let them know they haven't got to you. Responding with love can definitely be useful. I don't really read JC as primarily trying to advance an agenda of non-violence but surely others have taken his work like that.
Quoting Tate
I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed society." I will say that Book of Genesis and JC have an anti-urban bias. I do find a link between Genesis and JC and I think this is a fascinating topic. I agree with you that JC definitely emphasizes the heart.
Quoting Tate
Well yeah, I mean it's both -- in engaging with a society you're helping shape it.
What is too often overlooked is the messianic promise. Jesus claimed that the Kingdom was at hand or near. Ordinary life with its ordinary concerns was about to end. He believed there was no need to prepare for tomorrow. This is why he could say:
What he could not know is that the promise was not and still has not been fulfilled.
This is Jesus thinking that applies regardless of whether the apocalypse/rapture is near at hand at not -- we're all going to die and what's far more important than our lives is the final destination of our soul according to JC. When Jesus talks about topics like death or the kingdom of heaven being near I don't interpret him in a narrow, fixed sense. He also says no one knows the time or place of the rapture.
That and the Old Testament, yeah.
If there was a society building scheme there, it was later edited out. Roman Christians didn't need help building a society.
The recognition of the reference connecting modern theories of influence to ancient texts is illuminating.
I googled it.
Yes, your effort in these matters is evident.
I'm actually one of the illuminati.
He is contrasting biological life with everlasting life.The needs of the body with those of the soul. Yes, we are all going to die, but without food and drink the death of the body will be soon. But he says not to worry about the body.
It is obvious that he does not mean this literally because he continues to eat and drink. He presides over the Passover seder. But it is also not meant literally that God will provide you with food and drink. It is this other life, the life that is at hand for the righteous that will be provided for.
Quoting Moses
The statement in Matthew and Mark is not so vague. Both say:
The day or hour implies soon. The next statement in Mark is:
It comes a bit later in Matthew:
This is not something that will happen in some indeterminate future. It will happen any day now.
Sure. They thought the end of the world was at hand.
We are not told why God did not find favor with Cain's offering, but it may be because God cursed Adam to work the ground and what Cain produced was from his working the ground. After killing Abel he becomes a wanderer but eventually built a city. (4:17)
He knew his wife. His progeny includes Lamach and his two wives. One of the sons of the first wife was the father of those who lived in tents and raise livestock, and the other of those who played stringed instruments and pipes. The son of the other wife forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. (4:20 -22)
Those who live in tents and raise livestock do not have remain in one place. They go where the flocks can forage. They are not, strictly speaking producers. Those who work the land are producers and are tied to one place. They have the knowledge to produce instruments, but their instruments are not weapons. It is only in cities that bronze and iron weapons are forged. Perhaps part of the problem with cities is an increase of people living in the same place, which requires developing different ways to live in order to find a place.
Lamach, like Cain, kills a man, and at this point the story turns abruptly back to Adam and Eve.