ChristMyth

There's probably one thousand threads on these boards concerning whether or not there was an actual Jesus. Hell, if half of the people spent the same amount of time writing fiction as they do on these boards writing about what some claim to be a fictional character, they would have a shelf of books that would dwarf even Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series.

So, I would like to start a new idea. Let's not discuss something so trivial as whether of not Jesus lived in some backwater hick town or even at all, because in the end, it really doesn't matter. What does matter to most, if not all, Christians is what Jesus was supposed to have said.

In this light, should we not spend more time looking at the teachings of Jesus instead of wasting time on the man/myth himself?

How about this: We pick one of the teachings attributed to Jesus and look at it, not caring if an actual man ever spoke the words themselves.

Any takers?

aa5874

Jesus taught many things.

How about the resurrection? Jesus taught his disciples about the resurrection.

Mr 9:31 -

corey

Three words: Thomas Jefferson's bible.

mountainman

I disagree entirely. There is a big difference between a first century legend and a fourth century fabrication. The authorship of the New Jesus Testament is at the moment a mystery in the field of ancient history. Nobody knows who dunnit. Unless we become aware of our collective history then we are doomed to repeat it. Therefore I think it does matter whether or not there was an historical basis to this mystery of christian origins.

The wisdom literature packaged inside the gospels has been harvested from the extant wisdom sayings of antiquity. Nothing in it is new. The epoch in which the authors of the new testament gospels lived and moved and had their being was an epoch devoted to the greek gods and the greek culture. The orthodox authors of the new testament canon appropriated wisdom sayings like the Roman Caesars took "The Barbarians" into slavery.

And yes, there is merit in examining the wisdom sayings for the sake of wisdom. But this should not not imply there is no merit in attempting to ascertain the ancient historical facts about the actual dates of authorship (or fabrication) of the new testament.

show_no_mercy

If Paul wasn't concerned with Jesus' teachings, I don't see why we should be.

bacht

Believe in me and you will receive eternal life

Isn't this the whole Christian message? The rest is either "proof" of Jesus' credibility or stories about the early believers.

Then there are the Kingdom of Heaven sayings which are really more like Stoicism or traditional Jewish virtue, more about living the good life here and now.

aa5874

Shouldn't that be the other way around?

The Jesus of the Gospels was not interested in Paul's teachings if it is assumed that the authors of the Jesus stories did attend Pauline Churches, read or heard the Pauline writers talk about Jesus before they wrote a single word about their God/man.

But, I think you have right. After the Pauline writers read the teachings of Jesus as found in the Gospels, they decided to change them, just like the author of gJohn.

The author of John must have noticed that there were deficiencies in the Jesus of the Synoptics.

It would be noticed that gJohn's Jesus is far more prepared for his crucifixion, death and resurrection than the Jesus of the Synoptics. John's Jesus placed a lot of significance to his death.

He died for the sins of mankind.

The Synoptic Jesus did not know or did not teach his disciples about the forgiveness of sin by his death.

But, the Pauline writers would change that. It was the resurrection that was the most significant event. Without the resurrection, no sins would be forgiven.

And a Pauline writer repeated this.

Galatians 1:8-9 - Why did not the authors of the Gospels make their Jesus preach and teach the doctrine of Paul to avoid being accursed?

The authors of the Gospels, even the later author of gJohn, knew not one thing about the Pauline writers, their churches, and their teachings.

No Robots

Christ the man, mystic and genius has nothing to say of interest to the vast majority of people. He speaks only to those who are spiritually receptive. “All do not receive the word, but those to whom it has been given” (Mt. 19:11). Even for those who are spiritually receptive, the words of Christ are a demand, not a programme. That is why we require the work of others to help us live, think and act in the spirit of Christ.

bacht

If this were true then the teachings of Jesus would have been relegated to obscurity. The Roman CATHOLIC Church was intentionally a universal institution, not an exclusivist esoteric cult. The exoteric teachings of the NT are aimed at the vast majority of people.

The quote you've cited is a "nudge nudge wink wink" at the silly Jews who rejected the marvellous message of Christ during his lifetime (from the pov of the gentile gospel author)

No Robots

Not necessarily. He has always attracted those who are spiritually receptive, and these individuals have a profound effect on general culture. The vast majority are pulled in by wanting to be part of something that is famous, but, "they know not what they do."