Ierrellus

So Jesus was Jewish. Siddhartha was Indian. It can be said that much of Guatama's teachings are "rehashes" of ideas from other philosophers. So what? Why, by just stating a name do I evoke even a smidgin of anger as if one has suffered the childhood stings of fundy wasps? Even Darwin used other peoples' ideas.

The majority of people in this world are not "Christian". This leaves a lot of room for expansion of any other ideas on morality. So where is the collected sayings of Hillel? And why are the Stoics relegated to a footnote of Greek Philosophy?

Ierrellus

sidewinder

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. As another poster has mentioned, why do you feel compelled to interpret the life and teachings of Jesus arbitrarily? Many have done this in the last 100 years. Jesus has been everything from an alien to a Buddhist, and each of these interpretations claims to use the canonical gospels and history for their interpretations. There are some excellent historical Jesus studies out there, which seek to interpret the life and teachings of Jesus using the canonical gospels and his historical context. I'm not angry at all about it and I haven't felt the sting of any fundy wasp, as you put it. I just have a different method of interpreting the life and teachings of Jesus.

Tristan Scott

Irrellus asks:


I'm not sure, but there is a story in the Talmud in which a gentile that Hillel is trying to convert tells him he will if Hillel can recite the whole Torah while on one foot. Hillel stands on one foot and says "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and study it." The Talmud also contains a lot of dialogs between Hillel and a contemporary named Shammai.

Ierrellus

Sidewinder:

I apologize if I sounded contentious; but, you must admit that not a few responses here are laden with overtones of exasperation at least.

In the sixth century B.C., Thales proposed that the common denominator of physical phenomena is water. He was wrong, but his idea of looking for the substratum of diverse things probably announced the beginnings of philosophy and science.

Huxley was not outlandish to suggest that metaphysics could also benefit from a little reductionism. In viewing Christianity in this manner I find, along with Nietzche and Mark Twain, that "the last Christian died on the cross.' In other words nothing seems to exist in the historical religion as was stated by its supposed "Founder".

This makes it a bit difficult for finding a common denominator among the morality teachings of major religions when the followers do not follow. So the possibilities are 1. Jesus got a bad press.; 2. Jesus taught bullcrap.; 3. or all religions eventially sink to their lowest forms.

Nothing of space aliens here. I was, however, repeated stung by fundy wasps.

Ierrellus

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Ierrellus

Tristan Scott:

What are the dates of Hillel?

Sikh: On the trinity--being a musician, I prefer Pythagoras for his love of music and his understanding of musical harmony in a simple triad. Trinity is also used to explain cycles and processes from everything from genetic chemicals to Freud's interpretation of the psyche.
Apparently, 3 in 1 is more than an old brand of shoe polish.

Ierrellus

sidewinder

No need to apologize. I think sometimes it's hard to tell the tone of a post. I'm not trying to be contentious at all. I look at it as a friendly discussion.

I don't think Jesus "taught bullcrap". My point was that he taught his message within a very specific historical context. I've already described what I believe his teaching was in another post, so I won't repeat myself. We might be able to take some of those teachings and say that they could apply to all people at all times, which is fine. I don't see where much of his teaching can be applied universally. It is a very specific religious message. All his teaching presupposes a belief in the God of Israel.

Ierrellus

Sidewinder:

Please direct me to the post on which you speak
of the teachings of Jesus.

Thanks,
Ierrellus

sidewinder

It's in the second post of this thread. It's a high level overview of the teaching of Jesus, IMO. My main point is that people reinterpret the message of Jesus in many ways. They make his teachings mean what they wish them to mean. If you're interested in the historical Jesus, I would highly recommend John Meier's "A Marginal Jew" series. If that's too long for you, you could try the historical Jesus book written by E.P. Sanders. Good luck.

Tristan Scott

Ierrellus,

Hillel would have been approximately 2 generations older than Jesus. He may have still been alive at the time of Jesus' birth.

Tristan Scott

The similariries between stoics and Jesus may be more than coincidental. Much of what Jesus said may have roots in other Socratic/Platonic forms of philosophy as well. Q research has shown the similarity between sayings attributed to Jesus and the cynics, many of whom lived in Gallilee in the 1st c.

The Early Church also saw a connection between Paul and Seneca, the great Roman stoic who was also the defacto ruler of Rome at about the same time the story of Acts takes place. There are even a series of letters between Paul and Seneca that were considered to be authentic by the church and scholars at least until modern times. Whether these letters are authentic or not they do bring up a lot of questions about Acts.