Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 12-21-2006, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Please tell me what else Keener said, first. Your quote does not include any kind of assertion that Jesus is behind the sayings, much less a justification for making one. I can't very well present a counter-argument when the initial argument has not been given.

You intially said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

It is possible Jesus gave a Beatitudes-type sermon on two occasions, but it is not plausible to say Matthew *and* Luke record those two occasions with any degree of accuracy. Infinitely more likely is that they both record a the general themes of one or more of Jesus' teachings, or, better yet, that the teachings were never taught by Jesus at all.

At this point I'm simply asking you why you think that it is more likely that Jesus never said the words recorded in the sermon. You made the assertion, so I'm asking for your reason(s) for it.

Toto · 12-21-2006, 07:04 PM

The Amazon link is searchable. Keener appears to assume that Jesus is the source of the sayings.

hatsoff · 12-21-2006, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

You intially said this:

At this point I'm simply asking you why you think that it is more likely that Jesus never said the words recorded in the sermon. You made the assertion, so I'm asking for your reason(s) for it.

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.

Gamera · 12-21-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

There's at least four of them in there. Meek, Poor, Peacemakers, enemies...

But I'm pretty well certain we can rummage around in many cultures and find similar, and either predating or independently derived ideas.

Now the idea that I am held to blame for God specifically engineering an ancestor to be imperfect, and that he'll "forgive" me for that if I allow him to kill himself in place of me.

That's original LSD-25 material right there.

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). Even today most people think loving one's enemies is a crazy idea. I suspect you do too.

Gamera · 12-21-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

"Utterly unique"? A claim I often hear made. But it's simply (and demonstrably) not so.

My quotes are samplings from: http://www.unification.net/ws/theme144.htm

Buddhism (Dhammapada 3-5):

He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me!" In those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred is appeased.

Hatreds never cease through hatred in this world; through love alone they cease. This is an eternal law.

Jainism (Vitaragastava 14.5):

My Lord! Others have fallen back in showing compassion to their benefactors as you have shown compassion even to your malefactors. All this is unparalleled.

Sikhism (Adi Granth, Asa-ki-Var, M.2, p. 474):

What kind of love is this that to another can shift? Says Nanak, True lovers are those who are forever absorbed in the Beloved. Whoever discriminates between treatment held good or bad, Is not a true lover--he rather is caught in calculations.

Taoism (Tao Te Ching 49):

The sage has no fixed [personal] ideas.
He regards the people's ideas as his own.
I treat those who are good with goodness,
And I also treat those who are not good with goodness.
Thus goodness is attained.

I am honest with those who are honest,
And I am also honest with those who are dishonest.
Thus honesty is attained.

Taoism (Tao Te Ching 63):

Do good to him who has done you an injury.

Hinduism (Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115):

A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them--for who is without fault?

Now, as to:

I'd submit that the above quotations from other religious texts (and, indeed, their teachings in general) at least suggest such a notion.

However, I'd further submit that your take on Jesus' teaching - that one is somehow "as bad as a murderer" just for having "anger in your heart" - is certainly not a "moral" teaching that I, or most other moral, thoughtful humans, would agree with.

Look at the age of the mss you are quoting and get back to us. They are very young mss, and definitely post Christian. The Hindu mss for instance are mostly from the 1500. Most Buddhist texts are from 800 ce and after, though a few fragments are earlier.

So the likelihood is they have been influenced by Christianity and the very words of Jesus you are trying to show aren't unique

Gamera · 12-21-2006, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The Essenic tradition is extant BCE.
That is, to put it simply, nothing about
the wisdom of Jesus is unique.

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

The Essenes enjoined,
"Doing unto others as
you would have them do unto you."
The Confucian golden rule,
as taught by Christ.

Pete

Hard to tell what Philo took or didn't take from Christianity, since he was in the thick of it.

Doing unto others is not Jesus' teaching -- he taught that if you're angry at somebody it's as bad as murdering them.

Stick with the details and show us what other teacher taught this prior to Jesus.

Good luck

Gamera · 12-21-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I guess you didn't read John kessler's citation of Proverbs above.

Really, one should not fly in the blind.

Yep I read it. Show me where it says to LOVE your enemy.

See the difference yet?

Gamera · 12-21-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

A few of Jesus' sayings which have affinities with the OT or Apocrypha (not exhaustive):Matthew 5:44
But I say to you, Love your enemies...

Proverbs 25:21
If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat; and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink;

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.

mountainman · 12-21-2006, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Hard to tell what Philo took or didn't take from Christianity, since he was in the thick of it.

Philo was most certainly not in the thick of christianity.
If he was, he most certainly would have mentioned it.
Dont you think? He does not mention Jesus, or anything.

To presume "Philo ... was in the thick of it" is to infer that
the source was unaware of his immediate environment.
Surely, you cannot expect anyone to believe this.

I prefer to infer that Philo was unaware of Jesus because
Eusebius and Constantine had yet to invent Jesus, out
of the literature of Philo, and of the LXX, three centuries
hence, for the political expediency offered by a monotheistic
religious order throughout taxable provinces, like the Persians
had, and which worked very well, for military regimes.

judge · 12-22-2006, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinumb

I don't think I said great thinkers have to be original - though it is a matter of opinion whether they should be - nor did I say SotM weren't great thoughts - though again that is debatable. At this moment I am more interested in the origins of the thoughts ascribed to him, and when and why they might have been synthesised into the sayings of a mythical figure.

Rich

OK well I 'll give you my thoughts. I have off and on for a while been reading Emmet Fox's bookk The Sermon on the Mount (or via: amazon.co.uk)

He has the following to say

Quote:

The plain fact is that Jesus taught no theology whatsoever. His teaching is entirely spiritual or metaphysical. Historical Christianity, unfortunately, has largely concerned itself with theological and doctrinal questions, which, strange to say have no part whatever in the gospel teaching. It will startle a good many peiople to learn that all the doctrines and theologies of the churches are human inventions built up by their auhtors out of their own mentalities, and foisted upon the bible from the putside; but such is the case. There is absolutely no system of theology of doctrine to be found in the Bible; it simply is not there Worthy people who felt the need for some kind of intellectual explanation of life, and also believed the Bible was a revelation of God to man, drew the natural conclusion that one must be withion the other; and then , more or less unconsciously, proceeded to manufacture the thing they wished to find. They did not have the spiritual or metaphysical key. They were not upon what is called the Spiritual Basis , and consequently they sought a purely intellectual or three dimensional explanation of life- and htere can be no such explantion

If what Fox says is correct then it may make little sense to ask the question "where did he get this teaching" and IIRC this is exactly what some people ask in Johns gospel. They wanted to know where Jesus got this teaching?

Jesus told them he got it from "the father" or "his father"

It might be like asking Gotama which book he got his teaching from, if that makes any sense.

Any way just my thoughts

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

12-21-2006, 07:04 PM	#62
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The Amazon link is searchable. Keener appears to assume that Jesus is the source of the sayings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.