The scriptures in the OP are from the Old Testament, Tim. It's not a NTS situation.

It's about Jesus' authority and there is this:

For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48

It's about Jesus' authority and there is this: — Tom Storm

What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority?

For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48

This was superseded by the New Covenant, Tim. Catholics and Protestants all agree to that.

What does the Old Testament have to do with Jesus' authority? — Tate

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.

So there's this Hindu story about lord Shiva, his wife Parvati and two sons, Ganesha & Kartikeya. Shiva playfully asks his sons to go once around the universe. Kartikeya immediately mounts his peacock and flies off, certain that his brother Ganesha couldn't beat him (Ganesha's mount is a mouse) but when he returns after "some time" he finds Ganesha already there. Kartikeya is bewildered. Ganesha explains "my father and mother are my universe. I simply went around them."

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.

His authority derives from prophesy in the Old Testament - kind of the point of the narrative. — Tom Storm

Probably more from supposedly being the Son Of God.

Hence the circular relationship between testaments — 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.

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. — Tate

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.

.

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. — Tom Storm

True.

Care to try again?
— ThinkOfOne

No, I think we can move on. Take care.
— Tom Storm

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.

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. — Tom Storm

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.

It is the only bit of moral teaching that is not explicit in classical philosophy. — Banno

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:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20)

and regards wealth as a liability:

Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

There may be two related things at play here, the low status of the early followers and the messianic promise of a new world.

Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23)

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.

• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48

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).

How can Jesus ever say or think such a thing at the moment he was agains killing? — 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:

You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment. (5:20)

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 likely to be the dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples regarding the Law. — Fooloso4

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:

The background here is Jesus vs Pharisees. — Alkis Piskas

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.

Yet, I couldn't find where does the statement "Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die" exactly refer to in the Old Testament. — Alkis Piskas

That is because it is not there. As I said:

The prohibition against killing is one of the ten commandments ... It is the second clause, which does not appear in the Hebrew Bible ... — 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.

The stories it and other gospels contain are influenced by Paul and the schism that led to the separation between Jews and Christians. — Fooloso4

This is a speculation.

• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ Matthew 15:4 — Art48
This is not what Jesus himself believed and taught! — Alkis Piskas

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?

This is not something I have thought about before. — Fooloso4

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 Dāna, 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.

Focus on the historical Jesus if you want a relatively unbiased look at his teachings. — Tate

I'd say there is no historical Jesus for us to access.

I'd say there is no historical Jesus for us to access. — Tom Storm

Historical Jesus

Tate,

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.

Doesn't change my view on JC. There's really nothing much for us to consider.

Hm. Sounds like some, if not all, of the portraits are fictional. — Art48

Yes. Like Socrates.

Confirmation bias is a powerful force. — Banno

It is. Historians try to limit its effects.

Doesn't change my view on JC. There's really nothing much for us to consider. — Tom Storm

Nothing for you to consider, true.

What pisses me off about threads such as this is that, from a philosophical vantage, if Jesus is a great moral teacher, then we ought be able to cite his great moral teachings. Hence my comment about charity.

But instead the thread bleats on about scriptural interpretation and Jewish history and so on...

there are three things that identify a move from a philosophical enquiry to mere theology:
claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith. — Banno

I generally take Professor Bart Erhman's lead on the historical Jesus.

What pisses me off about threads such as this is that, from a philosophical vantage, if Jesus is a great moral teacher, then we ought be able to cite his great moral teachings. Hence my comment about charity. — 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.