Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 12-22-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I'm certain you can't since very few mss of any kind are older than the Christian scriptures. You would probably be engaging in retrojection in finding similar themes in later texts that had been influenced by Christianity.

But in any case, there simply is no known text earlier than the Christian scriptures that teach loving one enemies (except allusions to it in the Hebrew texts).

heh.

Jesus never existed in the first place, so banking on an absurd argument that the oldest carbon dated manuscript defines the origin of the idea is kind of pointless.

And yes, the Hebrew texts have falsified your position well enough already.

Do I think loving my enemy is a crazy idea? I think the first order is defining what that actually means in context.

I am pretty well satisfied it does not mean letting them mow me and my family, neighbors, and friends down with machine guns as they approach over the horizon.

People have asked me why I do not hate those who have done some pretty shocking things to me, such as attempted murder - literally. I see nothing gained by it. And I think even having compassion is fine. Romantic love? No way.

So in direct answer to you, I think trying to make this sound unique is just foolishness combined with muddled thinking on what it means to begin with.

John Kesler · 12-22-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Nothing here about LOVING your enemy, just treating him in a certain way. That's the critical difference, a requirement of an emotional state not just action, and this is what makes Jesus' teaching unique, especially from the Law.

Where did Jesus require a certain "emotional state"? The problem with emotional states is that they tend to fluctuate. Let me ask you. If you provide food and drink for your enemies (Proverbs 25:21-22), help them when in need (Exodus 23:4-5), and don't rejoice when they fail (Proverbs 24:17-18), isn't this showing love, even if not explicitly identified as such?

John Kesler · 12-22-2006, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Well, let's look at a reconstruction of Q. Two things stand out: Firstly, fantastic elements (IE, the temptation by the devil and miracle references) retard its overall reliability. Second, it bears no marks of eyewitness testimony. It was written in Greek, when Jesus and his disciples probably spoke Aramaic. If it was passed down through oral tradition, which of course is extremely unreliable, that basically ruins any hope for historical accuracy.

Also, we must keep in mind that when Christianity was popularized, Jesus had probably already died. New converts heard the preaching of men like Peter and Paul, not Jesus. While there were certainly some Christians in the 40s and 50s who had heard Jesus preach, the majority probably had learned about Jesus through the Apostolic or post-Apostolic generations. The sayings collected in Q, and later the Matthew and Luke, probably came from their sermons, not Jesus'. And that's assuming the author of Q didn't simply invent some or all of the material.

I don't think that any of these reasons is good enough to conclude that the Sermon, at least its contents if not Matthean format, didn't originate with Jesus. For your consideration, here is what Robert A. Guelich, writing in The Oxford Companion To The Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk), states on page 687:

Quote:

Why then the extensive differences between the two accounts, such as length (Matthew has over a hundred verses, Luke thirty)? Careful examination of the material indicates that some of the differences arose in the development of the tradition used by each evangelist respectively, and some, especially in wording, arose from the evangelists' adaptation of the tradition for their purposes. Much of Matthew's additional material, however, appears elsewhere in Luke's gospel (e.g. 7.7-11, 13-14, 22-23; Luke 11.2-4, 9-13, 34-36; 12.22-34; 13.23-27) and suggests that Matthew thematically combined other parts of the tradition common to Matthew and Luke (Q) to expand the "sermon" tradition. And if Matthew has drawn from the larger, common tradition with Luke, it is likely that he also drew from other traditions to fill out this discourse (e.g., 5.17-19, 21-24, 27-28, 33-37; 6.1-8, 9-13, 16-18). Consequently Matthew's Sermon on the Mount represents an underlying "sermon" tradition expanded by the use of other traditions.

Does the Sermon on the Mount come from Jesus? If one precisely defines the Sermon as the discourse found in Matthew 5-7, the answer is no. Matthew 5-7 as it now stands is the evangelist's final product of an oral/literary process involving several traditions. Yet analysis of the traditions found in the Sermon indicates their strong claim to being rooted in Jesus' own ministry, and to represent his teaching faithfully.

hatsoff · 12-22-2006, 12:36 PM

Interesting. I may have to re-think my position on this. However, I still find it to be unlikely that the Sermons were very similar to the actual teachings of Jesus. I'll keep my eyes open for more evidence and arguments.

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

12-22-2006, 12:36 PM	#74
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Interesting. I may have to re-think my position on this. However, I still find it to be unlikely that the Sermons were very similar to the actual teachings of Jesus. I'll keep my eyes open for more evidence and arguments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.