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. — Fooloso4

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to your post instead of jumping the gun...

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. — Fooloso4

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views...

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. — Fooloso4

Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to you post instead of jumping the gun... — ThinkOfOne

.You had already said:

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

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views... — ThinkOfOne

Of course, perhaps you don't. Perhaps this is the problem.

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. — ThinkOfOne

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to you post instead of jumping the gun...
— ThinkOfOne
.You had already said:

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 — Fooloso4

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...

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views...
— ThinkOfOne

Of course, perhaps you don't. Perhaps this is the problem. — 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.

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. — 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".

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. — ThinkOfOne

And there are more than a few of those people here, but since they do not agree with you, you question their abilities.

She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary. — ThinkOfOne

That's nice, but I do not find it extraordinary. But I promised not to indulge you.

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.
— ThinkOfOne

And there are more than a few of those people here, but since they do not agree with you, you question their abilities. — Fooloso4

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.

She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary.
— ThinkOfOne

That's nice, but I do not find it extraordinary. — 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.

How can we reconcile Jesus' adherence in Matthew to the commandments :

‘Honor your father and your mother,’ [10 Commandments] and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die [Exodus 21:17]’ (Matthew 15:4)

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:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. (7:1)
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the the speck from your brother’s eye. (7.5)

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:

Go into everlasting fire that was prepared for the devil and his angels! (25:41)

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.

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. — Tzeentch

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.

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. — 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.

JC paints a picture of a certain type of society, it's up to us to accept or reject that picture. — Moses

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.

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. — Tate

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.

He definitely envisions a radically different type of society. — Moses

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.

It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision. — Moses

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.

The Pharisees give to charity, JC just criticizes the manner in which they give — Moses

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.

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. — 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.

It is a society of righteous people where outside behavior is apparently pretty rigidly constrained. It's kind of strange vision — Moses

It's more about how you engage the society you're in than how to build a functional society.

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 8nto city life. — Tate

This idea was put forward in The Protocols of Zion.

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. — Paine

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.

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. — 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.

It's more about how you engage the society you're in than how to build a functional society. — 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:

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? (Matthew 6:25)

What he could not know is that the promise was not and still has not been fulfilled.

Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? (Matthew 6:25)

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.

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 8nto city life.
— Tate

This idea was put forward in The Protocols of Zion. — Paine

That and the Old Testament, yeah.

Well yeah, I mean it's both -- in engaging with a society you're helping shape it. — Moses

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.

The recognition of the reference connecting modern theories of influence to ancient texts is illuminating. — Paine

I googled it.

Yes, your effort in these matters is evident.

, your effort in these matters is evident. — Paine

I'm actually one of the illuminati.

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. — Moses

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.

He also says no one knows the time or place of the rapture. — Moses

The statement in Matthew and Mark is not so vague. Both say:

But about that day or hour no one knows ...

The day or hour implies soon. The next statement in Mark is:

Be on guard! Be alert!

It comes a bit later in Matthew:

Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come ...
So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

This is not something that will happen in some indeterminate future. It will happen any day now.

This is not something that will happen in some indeterminate future. It will happen any day now. — Fooloso4

Sure. They thought the end of the world was at hand.

In order to understand the problem of cities we have to follow the story of knowledge. The story of knowledge, is the story of production. It begins with a single tree that produces fruit that is both good and bad or evil. Adam who knew Eve produce Cain who worked the soil and to Abel who kept flocks.

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.