Peter Kirby

By the way, I want to apologize to NatSciNarg for being so curt.

--
Peter Kirby

NatSciNarg

I agree with Davies that the attempts to distil a single message from the gospels that is the authentic voice of an historical Jesus has not been successful. To me, the multipicity of different, distinct messages that have been extracted from the same texts by different people does suggest that many ideas have been put into the mouth of Jesus, probably to give authority to one point of view over another: 'Don't take my word for it - look, it says here that Jesus said it'. I agree that we need to look further than Jesus as prinicipally a teacher.

But why would anyone put teachings into the mouth of Jesus to give them authority unless there was a tradition that he was, at least in part, teacher of some sort? Perhaps he wasn't prinicipally a teacher, perhaps he had nothing to say himself but received it following spirit possession, perhaps the gospels as so overlaid with ideas from the early church that there are no authentic sayings of Jesus left, but I am struggling with the idea that people would attribute teachings to a healer to give them authority. How did such a teacher idea start?

Could the 'healings' themselves give be a sign to later followers that he had authority to make pronouncements? Could beeing a teacher and a healer go together? GMark suggest to me that the author considered healing and teaching as linked:
23Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an evil[e] spirit cried out,
24"What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!"
25"Be quiet!" said Jesus sternly. "Come out of him!"
26The evil spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.
27The people were all so amazed that they asked each other, "What is this? A new teaching—and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him." (from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=1&version=31; NIV)

Yours, generally baffled by it all anyway,

Matthew

NatSciNarg

No problem. I'm probably out of my depth here anyway. :blush:
Matthew

dzim77

The core of Jesus' teachings were concerning how human beings should live in view of who God is. Since his teachings were based on the OT concept of God, it would be hard to categorize them as 'original'. However, his interpretation and expansion of these teachings were new and perhaps revolutionary. (see the sermon on the mount, Matt. 5-7)

*loving and praying your enemies
*forgiving 70 times 7
*becoming the servant of all
*Sacrificial love
*Acceptance of others, specifically the marginalized
... these are all ideas that Jesus explicitly taught and actually modeled through his lifestyle and sacrificial death.

What is certainly original in Jesus' teachings is that he taught that the best way to live was, really, living in reliance on *him*... that Jesus himself is the source of "life to the fullest".... the "way, the truth, and the life". (i.e... Buddha pointed out the way, but Jesus claimed to *be* the way)

James Brown

This item was mentioned to the person in question. He shrugged that off. He said that because people were so terrible back then that God's hands were essentially tied. God had to stand back and allow the Hebrews to commit mass genocide in order to "sweep the decks" and begin again. Once the Hebrews were able to live in peace and harmony without fear of contamination from depraved neighbors, then God was able to begin the long process of hammering out a superior moral system through the Hebrews. Sort of like how we might have to mistreat a wild animal if we are going to have any success in taming it.

Yes, he actually said this, and I suppose he really believes it. For him, Jesus was not Old Testament 2.0, he was a transcendence of it.

The very fact that Christians don't engage in mass genocide today (with certain exceptions that we'll conveniently ignore for now) is proof positive that Christianity is superior to all other religions, according to him. QED.

But at any rate, I still haven't found any other wisdom teacher argue that we should love our enemies, so I suppose that might be something original we can subscribe to Jesus.

Malachi151

I would be quite surprised if no Greek philosopher ever said this, nor "Buddha".

I seriously doubt it was "original".

dzim77

to what are you referring?

Malachi151

"Love your enemies"

Greek philosophy was so varied I would be astounded if there is any idea that one of them didn't espouse at one time or another.

dzim77

oh, I see. thanks.

PhilosopherJay

In the Republic, Socrates says, "Then if a man says that justice consists in the repayment of debts, and that good is the debt which a man owes to his friends, and evil the debt which he owes to his enemies — to say this is not wise; for it is not true, if, as has been clearly shown, the injuring of another can be in no case just."

The main concept here is that you should do good to both your friends and enemies. You should treat both of them the same way -- well.

We may add the concept "Love your Neighbor" which is an Old Testament concept.

When we combine the Greek thought "Treat your enemies as you treat your friends/neighbors and the Jewish thought, "love your neighbors," the result is the concept "Love your enemies."

There is also the compatible concept of universal love that Mo Tzu (circa 400 B.C.E.) promoted: Certainly Heaven desires to have all men benefit and love one another and abominates to have them hate and harm one another.

However, we may also see the concept "Love Your Enemies" as a characature. One might attribute such a concept to an opponent to portray him as soft-hearted to the point of folly.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin