Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2006, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

The commandment to love one's enemies is rather radical and
unique, at least in Jewish teachings.

Restricting the comparisons to Jewish teachings is a new qualifier that
seriously undermines the strength of your initial claim. In addition, this saying seems to me to be an extension of what is already expressed in Proverbs 25 which
calls into question whether you are correct even with this new restriction.

Quote:

I would also consider the parable of the good Samaritan extremely radical and unique for 1st century Palestine. Scholars tend to agree.

As far as I can tell, this is the only example that might qualify as "radical" from a specifically Jewish perspective but, unless we define "unique" so specifically as to be meaningless, the use of intentionally shocking imagery or language or actions to make a point is hardly unique. Cynics, for example, were known for it.

No Robots · 02-13-2006, 10:09 AM

I was looking for references and links for the classics quotations provided by countjulian. I found them:

The Plato. Laws.

Epictetus. The Dialogues.

Hey, if you guys are happy with Hellenistic thought, no problem. It's truly great stuff. I don't see why it means that you have to go and crap all over the Gospels, though. I would think that if you honour the thoughts as they come from the Cynics, that you would honour the same thoughts as expressed in the Gospels.

And it goes without saying that the similarity of ideas does not prove any causal relationship. As others have pointed out, many individuals from many cultures have expressed what may be called eternal truths.

John Kesler · 02-13-2006, 10:32 AM

Quote:

RUmike
A few of Jesus' teachings are so radically unique, however, that historical Jesus scholars recognize these as coming from no one other than Jesus. Some of these include:[*]Love your enemies - not found in Jewish wisdom teaching, and not common human or Christian practice.

John Kesler
See Proverbs 25:21-22 and 24:17-18:

RUmike
Neither of these instruct to love one's enemy.

To provide for one's enemy's needs demonstrates love. See also Exodus 23:4-5.

Quote:

RUmike[*]Turn the other cheek - a clever way of disarming a social superior from slapping you a second time. Has no parallel in antiquity.

John Kesler
See Lamentations 3:30.

RUmike
The passage you cited advocates complacency/acceptance. The sayings of Jesus that give advice to victims (i.e. turn the other cheek, go 2 miles instead of 1, give not just your coat but your shirt also) are forms of resistance, which is quite the opposite.

In Lamentations and Matthew the advice is to accept a face slap rather than exact revenge. Your distinction that Jesus' advice pertains to "resistance" seems arbitrary.

Clivedurdle · 02-13-2006, 10:40 AM

What about the parables? Are they original?

(This is alleged to be the only begotten son of God, our saviour our sacrificial lamb - is there anything original? - what about verily verily I say unto you - AN Wilson argued that is a verbal tic and is evidence of a unique human.)

No Robots · 02-13-2006, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

The Plato. Laws.
Epictetus. The Dialogues.

Err, sorry, that should be:

Plato. Laws.
Epictetus. The Discourses.

That is all.

sorompio · 02-13-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

They were specific ways of self-defense and resistance. Jesus wasn't telling people to not fight back, but rather he was giving advice on how to fight back (in non-conventional ways). Where does Epictetus give similar advice?

Neither Epictetus nor Jesus. As depicted in the Gospels, Jesus didn't have a method or a plan of fighting. He intended no factual revolution. Did Jesus actually incite revolt against Romans? Whatever action, direct or indirect, stop paying taxes, refuse census, anything? I don't think so, "give Caesar what is Caesars" was the motto. Did he even resist the intervention of Pilates? No, he didn't even defend himself. Did he incite people to revolt against the priesthood? He only critiziced, not got involved in direct action or incitation.

Christians intend all the time to put the literary character Jesus in the same league as historic figures like Gandhi and M.L.King, and use anachronic terms as "passive resistance" or "civil desobedience". But, according to the Gospels, that was not the case at all.

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Hey, if you guys are happy with Hellenistic thought, no problem. It's truly great stuff. I don't see why it means that you have to go and crap all over the Gospels, though. I would think that if you honour the thoughts as they come from the Cynics, that you would honour the same thoughts as expressed in the Gospels.

And it goes without saying that the similarity of ideas does not prove any causal relationship. As others have pointed out, many individuals from many cultures have expressed what may be called eternal truths.

This isn't about trying to "crap all over the Gospels" or to honor Cynic thought or be happy with Hellenistic thought or to establish a causal relationship but to dispute the notion that the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are unique.

No Robots · 02-13-2006, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This isn't about trying to "crap all over the Gospels" or to honor Cynic thought or be happy with Hellenistic thought or to establish a causal relationship but to dispute the notion that the teachings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels are unique.

I was responding to countjulian who seems to be asserting a positive hypothesis of the Gospels' derivation:

Quote:

Originally Posted by countjulian

If you take out the Jewish backround, Jesus is nothing more than a Palestinian Cynic preacher (except he never whacked-off in public.

This goes beyond establishing a correspondence of similarity between the Gospels and the Cynics, and asserts that the former is derived from the latter. It is this that I challenge.

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

This goes beyond establishing a correspondence of similarity between the Gospels and the Cynics, and asserts that the former is derived from the latter. It is this that I challenge.

Thanks for the clarification.

Vorkosigan · 02-13-2006, 03:20 PM

Quote:

This goes beyond establishing a correspondence of similarity between the Gospels and the Cynics, and asserts that the former is derived from the latter. It is this that I challenge.

The former IS derived from latter. The Jesus of the Gospels is a derived figure.

Vorkosigan

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

02-13-2006, 10:09 AM	#22
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	I was looking for references and links for the classics quotations provided by countjulian. I found them: The Plato. Laws. Epictetus. The Dialogues. Hey, if you guys are happy with Hellenistic thought, no problem. It's truly great stuff. I don't see why it means that you have to go and crap all over the Gospels, though. I would think that if you honour the thoughts as they come from the Cynics, that you would honour the same thoughts as expressed in the Gospels. And it goes without saying that the similarity of ideas does not prove any causal relationship. As others have pointed out, many individuals from many cultures have expressed what may be called eternal truths.

02-13-2006, 10:40 AM	#24
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	What about the parables? Are they original? (This is alleged to be the only begotten son of God, our saviour our sacrificial lamb - is there anything original? - what about verily verily I say unto you - AN Wilson argued that is a verbal tic and is evidence of a unique human.)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.