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

Which is what?

Read him. Best book - Did Jesus Exist. He is not a mythicist - Richard Carrier is your guy for this position. Ehrman says there was likely a guy the myth was based upon but we don't have access to what he taught.

Read him. Best book - Did Jesus Exist. He is not a mythicist - Richard Carrier is your guy for this position. Ehrman says there was likely a guy the myth was based upon but we don't have access to what he taught. — Tom Storm

Fascinating.

I like the approach of "The Historical Jesus in Context". The title is somewhat misleading because the focus is not simply on trying to establish who the historical Jesus was, but rather, looks at the historical context in which the gospels were written:

The Historical Jesus in Context is a landmark collection that places the gospel narratives in their full literary, social, and archaeological context. More than twenty-five internationally recognized experts offer new translations and descriptions of a broad range of texts that shed new light on the Jesus of history, including pagan prayers and private inscriptions, miracle tales and martyrdoms, parables and fables, divorce decrees and imperial propaganda.

Rules are not laws? Odd.

But love might be worth of consideration. I think I prefer charity as it is more obviously a virtue, and assessable in public terms.

I think I prefer charity as it is more obviously a virtue, and assessable in public terms. — Banno

It's mainly needed where there isn't much of an institutionalized safety net.

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

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.

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. — Fooloso4

That's a pity.

Seems to me the worth of a moral teaching is found in the doing.

Seems to me the worth of a moral teaching is found in the doing. — Banno

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?

Last I checked, there's absolutely nothing extraordinary about the way Jesus died - painfully, on the crux. If I or you or anyone else were crucified, we would've gone in the same manner. What happened before the cruxifixion and after is where Jesus and we differ (miracles, we can't do 'em). If death were a measure of truth in re mortals like us, to consider Jesus as mythical is quite unwarranted, oui mes amies?

Again, it is not so simple. — Fooloso4

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".

What should I believe? — Art48

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 I said? — Alkis Piskas

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:

The background here is Jesus vs Pharisees. I have made that clear. I gave two references on that. — 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.

Which means, I'm not actually interested. — 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.

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? — Fooloso4

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.

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. — 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.

The greatness of a moral teaching lies solely in the goodness of its contents. — Tzeentch

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?

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. — Tzeentch

I agree, but the title of this thread is: "Jesus as a great moral teacher?"

They do not have that much in common with Judaism in general and at certain points can be even be considered polar opposites. — Tzeentch

From the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 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.

The Law and Prophets are the basis of Jewish teaching. Jesus says they must be upheld.

Christianity has much more in common with classical Greek philosophy, especially (neo-)Platonism. — 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.

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... — Banno

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 it’s 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 isn’t a philosopher but a figure in religious history and so that doesn’t make it straightforward philosophy proper.

You are right.

• 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. — Alkis Piskas

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.

↪Alkis Piskas

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. — 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.’ 38“This is the great and foremost commandment. 39“The second is like it, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40“On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets.”

Matthew 7
12“In 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.

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. — Fooloso4

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.

Actually you were correct in your assessment that " ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’" is not what Jesus Himself believed and taught. — ThinkOfOne

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.

Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4), — ThinkOfOne

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.

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). — ThinkOfOne

In Matthew 5 he says:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

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:

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

One of the least of these commands means that there are many not two.

[T]he 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. — Fooloso4

:fire:

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: — Fooloso4

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.

Jesus of course isn’t a philosopher — schopenhauer1

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.

Actually you were correct in your assessment that " ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’" is not what Jesus Himself believed and taught.
— ThinkOfOne
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. — Alkis Piskas

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.

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. — ThinkOfOne

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:

The smallest letter and stroke of the pen refer to what is written. — Fooloso4

Matthew 5
17“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. 18“For 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. 19“Whoever 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. 20“For 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.

He does not say to ignore all that written stuff. — 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.

It is Isaiah not Jesus who claims to have been anointed (4:18) — 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?

Yet this argument is straight out of the evangelical Christian playbook. — ThinkOfOne

The argument is straight out of what the text says.

It all begins with the belief that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" — 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.

Similarly with "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away". Clearly Jesus MUST be "referring to what is written". — ThinkOfOne

No, it is not similar at all. The stories in Genesis are quite different than what Jesus says the righteous must do.

Never mind that Jesus often used figurative language. — 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.

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. — 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.

Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah presenting it as prophecy of which He Himself is the fulfillment (4:21). — ThinkOfOne

What you said was:

Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4) — ThinkOfOne

Isaiah did not prophesy that Jesus would be anointed by God or that Jesus would

"give sight to the blind". — ThinkOfOne

What he said was:

... the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations. (61:11)

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:

Are you unaware of the necessity of reading in context in order to comprehend what you are reading? — ThinkOfOne