No Robots

What I meant was that the Sermon on the Mount is a profound and important literary work. Certainly, most, if not all, of its precepts are drawn from earlier literature. But that does not diminish its importance as a literary work in its own right, just as Shakespeare's reworkings of English history are great literary works in their own right.

No Robots

That's why I said no one here would believe in literal raising of a dead man.

There is a difference of facticity here. Someone did state that Lazarus was raised, and someone did state the Sermon on the Mount. That someone actually raised Lazarus is prima facie unbelievable. That someone actually stated the Sermon on the Mount is demonstrable fact. If we just stick to the facts here, ie. literary statements, then we can begin to make sense of the whole thing.

bacht

Hmm, you lost me there. Why can't the Sermon on the Mount be a literary construction? (not to drift into deconstructionist territory) Are you saying that Matthew quoted some real speaker and put the words in Jesus' mouth?

I do believe there is "life after death" in a metaphorical sense, eg. for a trauma survivor. Someone who beats cancer may feel reborn.

No Robots

That's what I'm saying, it is a literary artifact and thus has someone as its artificer. The story of the raising of Lazarus is also a literary artifact. We cannot say that the raising is a fact in the same way that we can say that the story of the raising is a fact.

I'm saying that somebody stated the Sermon on the Mount, a literary artifact that continues to shape human culture. Who stated it? Well, the literature says that it is the same guy who said that "Heaven and Earth would pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Seems about right to me.

What we cannot accept as material possibility in the NT we must construe as metaphorical. The only material facts that we have from the NT, a work of literature, are literary. The power and impact of this literary work compell us to posit a uniquely talented source, and it is to just such a uniquely talented source that the work attests.

bacht

The power and impact of this literary work might have been lost forever if not for the political machinations of Constantine and his followers.

This sub-forum isn't the place for value judgments about the teachings of the Bible afaik.

aa5874

Well, so far the same guy who said "Heaven and Earth would pass away, but my words shall not pass away." have so far been shown to be a fraud.

The earth has NOT passed away in his "generation." And the sun and moon still give light/reflective light and not a single star has fallen to the earth since the days of Tiberius.

Now, parts of the Sermon on the Mount can be found in Hebrew Scripture. See Isaiah 61.2, 55.1-2, Psalms 31.7 and 2 Sam. 22.26.

But, exactly.

Jesus existed METAPHORICALLY.

No Robots

Part of conducting an adequate assessment of a literary work is assessing its cultural impact.

bacht

If you're going to argue that the outcome can inform us about the source I believe that's a logical fallacy. History is full of unintended consequences.

And what does any of this have to do with "John the Baptist and Josephus"?

No Robots

Cause and effect analysis is fundamental to all scientific inquiry.

I was responding to your call for an adequate assessment of the literary artifacts under discussion here:

Unless we can see their world through their eyes we're doomed to anachronistic conclusions.

Words to live by.

bacht

I see. So what is your analysis of contemporary views on John the Baptist or Josephus?