Freethought & Rationalism Archive

worldling · 12-14-2006, 10:23 AM

Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus actually existed and said the things that the gospels say he said. Did he have any original thoughts, or make any original contributions to human philosophy?

Thanks.

gstafleu · 12-14-2006, 10:39 AM

Apparently not: Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, both by Robert Price.

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby · 12-14-2006, 10:48 AM

Richard Carrier is even more on point, but cf. the response of Mark McFall.

--
Peter Kirby

No Robots · 12-14-2006, 10:49 AM

Apparently so: Our Christ by Constantin Brunner and Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Klausner. Quotations here and here, respectively.

Malachi151 · 12-14-2006, 10:56 AM

According to the second century critic Celsus, no:

http://members.aol.com/PS418/celsus.html

Quote:

UNORIGINALITY IN CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

"Many of the ideas of the christians have been expressed better-- and earlier-- by the greeks, who were however modest enough to refrain from saying that their ideas came from a god or a son of god. The ancients in their wisdom revealed certain truths to those able to understand: Plato, son of Ariston, points to the truth about the highest good when he says that it cannot be expressed in words, but rather comes from familiarity-- like a flash frpm the blue, imprinting itself upon the soul... But Plato, having said this, does not go on to record some myth to make his point (as do so many others), nor does he silence the inquirer who questions some of the truths he professes; Plato does not ask people to stop questioning, or to accept that god id like such and such...Rather, he tells us where his doctrines come from; there is, in short, a history to what he says, and he is happy to point to the sources of his knowledge, instead of asking us to believe that he speaks on his own authority..." (92-93).

"Not only do they misunderstand the words of the philosophers; they even stoop to assigning words of the philosophers to their Jesus. For example, we are told that Jesus judged the rich with the saying 'It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of god.' Yet we know that Plato expressed this very idea in a purer form when he said, 'It is impossible for an exceptionally good man to be exceptionally rich.'* Is one utterance more inspired than the other?" (94).

[*Plato, LAWS, 743A]

"You christians have a saying that goes something like this: 'Don't resist a man who insults you; even if he strikes you, offer your other cheek as well.' This is nothing new, and its been better said by others, especially by Plato, who ascribes the following to Socrates in the Crito...'ts never right to do wrong and never right to take revenge; nor is it right to give evil for evil, or in the case of one who has suffered some injury, to attempt to get even...'" (113).

"Christians, needless to say, utterly detest one another; they slander each other constantly with the vilest forms of abuse, and cannot come to any sort of agreement in their teaching. Each sect brands its own, fills the head of its own with deceitful nonsense...". (91).

"What do the christians say? They say, "First believe that the person who tells us these things is god's son... Now if these beleivers confess Jesus and others confess someone else, and if they all together have the slogan "Believe and be saved, or damn you," what is to happen to those who really do want to be saved? I mean, which path are they to follow, since advice of the same sort comes from all quarters? Are the ones who crave salvation to throw dice in order to find out where they should turn?" (93).

As for satan being cast down to earth, "Homer writes as follows of the words spoken by Hephaestus to Hera: 'Once when I was ready to defend you, he took my by the foot and cast me down from the heavenly places.' Zeus speaks to Hera as follows, 'Do you remember when you were hanging on high, when I attached anvils to his legs and cast unbroken chains of gold about your arms? You were hanging high in the ether of clouds. Then the gods struck...but I, seizing him, pitched him from the threshold of heaven, and he fell helplessly to earth.'" (100).

Peter Kirby · 12-14-2006, 11:12 AM

More to the point than anything else, Stevan Davies suggests it to be a category error to evaluate Jesus as a teacher.

--
Peter Kirby

No Robots · 12-14-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

More to the point than anything else, Stevan Davies suggests it to be a category error to evaluate Jesus as a teacher.

This is conterindicated by Birger Gerhardsson, who points out that Jesus is referred to and refers to himself as a teacher, and that he provides instruction in the traditional form of meshalim.

Peter Kirby · 12-14-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This is conterindicated by Birger Gerhardsson, who points out that Jesus is referred to and refers to himself as a teacher, and that he provides instruction in the traditional form of meshalim.

Blah. If Jesus were a teacher, why did nobody agree on what he taught, either in the first century or the twenty-first?

--
Peter Kirby

James Brown · 12-14-2006, 12:03 PM

I talked to someone who insisted that Jesus' command to love your enemies was completely original. He acknowledged that others expressed the Golden Rule (although most were in negative form, not the positive form like Jesus did.) But no one had ever uttered anything like "love your enemies" which is why the person argued that Jesus was worthy of worship.

Of course, the follow-up question would be, "Is loving your enemies a worthwhile teaching?

No Robots · 12-14-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Blah.

Charming.

Quote:

If Jesus were a teacher, why did nobody agree on what he taught, either in the first century or the twenty-first?

It would probably help you if you knew what was meant by "Meshalim":

MASHAL (plural meshalim): In the Hebrew tradition, a mashal is a broad, general term including almost any type of figurative language from short riddles to long, extended allegories. It denotes "mysterious speech." Some of the Psalms, for instance, are designated as meshalim. The New Testament Greek often translates the term as parabole or "parable." The translation, however, causes some problem. In Greek, parabole are always allegorical and open to point-by-point interpretation. Parabole were often used as a simple method of teaching by example or analogy. The meshalim in Hebrew, however, was often intentionally confusing or deliberately obfuscating in nature--much more like the Greek enigma (riddle). We can see this confusion in the New Testament, where Mark interprets the purpose of the parables as Hebrew meshalim: In Mark, Jesus tell shis disciples: "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise, they might turn and be forgiven'" (Mark 4:11-12). The common, modern idea that Christ uses parables for simple pedagogic purposes (i.e., "so that even a child could understand the secrets of heaven") is a creation of the medieval period, much later.

12-14-2006, 10:23 AM	#1
worldling Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: UK Posts: 156	Originality of Jesus? Let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus actually existed and said the things that the gospels say he said. Did he have any original thoughts, or make any original contributions to human philosophy? Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-14-2006, 10:39 AM	#2
gstafleu Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,719	Apparently not: Deconstructing Jesus and The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, both by Robert Price. Gerard Stafleu

12-14-2006, 10:48 AM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Richard Carrier is even more on point, but cf. the response of Mark McFall. -- Peter Kirby

12-14-2006, 10:49 AM	#4
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Apparently so: Our Christ by Constantin Brunner and Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Klausner. Quotations here and here, respectively.

12-14-2006, 11:12 AM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	More to the point than anything else, Stevan Davies suggests it to be a category error to evaluate Jesus as a teacher. -- Peter Kirby

12-14-2006, 12:03 PM	#9
James Brown Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Texas, U.S. Posts: 5,844	I talked to someone who insisted that Jesus' command to love your enemies was completely original. He acknowledged that others expressed the Golden Rule (although most were in negative form, not the positive form like Jesus did.) But no one had ever uttered anything like "love your enemies" which is why the person argued that Jesus was worthy of worship. Of course, the follow-up question would be, "Is loving your enemies a worthwhile teaching?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.