aa5874

It is preposterous to claim that Jesus the so-called Son of God is greater than his Father. God, the Father, cannot teach his followers to love their enemies only their neighbours, what absurdity.

The Sermon on the Mount was never said by Jesus. The sermon on the mount is a prepared document inserted into the book of Matthew. It is not possible that any one could have memorised over two and a half thousand words without introducing errors, mis-interpretating or omitting what was actually said.

The Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, is Jesus' most important speech, yet the authors of Mark, Luke and John do not have a single word, I repeat,not one single word of the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew5:1, " And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:' So we can infer that the disciples did hear this most important sermon which the author of Matthew memorised word for word.
The author of book of Matthew has already been proven to be extremely erroneous with regards to prophecies of Jesus in the OT, and now the Sermon on the Mount shows this same author trying to give himself credibilty by claiming to have recorded the direct words of Jesus. Nothing can be more further from the truth.

Clivedurdle

Any clues on who wrote it, when and where? Seneca?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antithesis_of_the_Law

EthnAlln

Actually, large parts of it can be found in Chapter 6 of Luke, especially variants of the beatitudes. Luke makes it the Sermon on the Plain, however. Jesus came down from a hill to deliver it. Most people just assume he gave this sermon more than once. Most evangelists wind up repeating themselves many times, so this wouldn't be surprising. That would explain how the disciples came to know the words so well. They probably heard them until they knew them by heart. Not that the authors of any of the Gospels are likely to have known Jesus personally.

aa5874

My oh my, now we have the Sermon on the Plain is the Sermon on the Mount. The Christian Bible has no historic value. The book of Matthew has no historical value. The Sermon on the Mount was fabricated. As I have pointed out, I have examined the prophecies written in the book of Matthew and have found that none refers to Jesus. The sermon on the mount is in the book of Matthew and therefore cannot be regarded as authentic.

RuMike, I see the problem. You still believe Jesus was historic, I have been through that stage. Jesus was fabricated. No real God could be depicted in such contradictory, inconsistent way. It just cannot happen. This God who made the Sermon on the Mount does not exist anywhere or ever did.

mountainman

According to the literature of Philo and Josephus, the Essenic philosophy
embraced most of the explicated sayings incorporated into the "wisdom"
inserted into the fabrication of the Galilaeans, a fiction of men.

Not only were such explicit "widom sayings" in existence in the first century
BCE, but the text of these same "wisdom sayings" were locally available,
perhaps translated to the Greek (perhaps by Origen) and sitting around
the library of Caesarea, completely at the disposal of Constantine and
the wretched Eusebius.

For a list of these sayings, see below:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essene...philosophy.htm

Note the second last comparison:

"The Essenes enjoined the loving of enemies." (Philo.)
So did Christ say, "Love your enemies," &c.



Pete Brown

EthnAlln

Thank you. That's what I was asking about in my post above. Now I'll sit back and wait for Gamera to claim that the earlier texts were copies of the later ones.

RUmike

Good logic

Perhaps not, but a man could definitely be depicted in such a way.

mindovermyth

(Text highlighted by MoM)

That is what we call "tough love" i suppose.:devil:

Jesus: "Love your enemy"
Paul: "Love your enemy with the goal to add to to his/her torture in the afterlife"

EthnAlln

Well, I'm sure Christians would say the "burning coals" were the person's own pangs of conscience about treating someone badly who is being so nice. It does work, just as "a soft answer turneth away wrath," with most normal people. I don't recommend it as a way of dealing with Idi Amin or Pol Pot or Hitler or Stalin, though. Their consciences had asbestos linings.

And, in a situation that (I admit) seldom arises, you may see someone about to murder a child. Are you supposed to love this person or bash him over the head with a cricket bat? I'm on the side of the cricket bat, but Tolstoy, that profound thinker, said, no, don't do that. "You don't know the future," he said, "not even five minutes in advance. The person about to commit a murder may have a stroke or something, or change his mind, and then you would yourself have become a murderer and gained nothing." I pass this on, as Mencken said, as a typical example of theological thinking and move on to other matters....

mindovermyth

(Text highlighted by MoM)

If christians makes such a wild interpretation of a very clear text, what can one do, but to ask them to take a reading course.

The context again: Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." 20 No, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.

How can this be misunderstood??
Not only is Paul's devious thinking here scary as it betrays his view of why you should love your enemies (i.e, the ultimate goal is to make your enemy suffering more!!), he also clearly implies that "your enemy", iow enemies of those who read and accept the teachings of Paul, are automatically enemies of god.
A kind of thinking that is the root of all evil?