Ella S.
Well-Known Member
I had never heard this phrase before, but it sums up my own opinions on the teachings attributed to Jesus quite elegantly.
If Jesus had been truly revolutionary, I don't think he would have had as much mainstream appeal.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists acknowledging historical Jesus' goodness
- Thread starter Estro Felino
- Start date
I had never heard this phrase before, but it sums up my own opinions on the teachings attributed to Jesus quite elegantly.
If Jesus had been truly revolutionary, I don't think he would have had as much mainstream appeal.
Brian2
Veteran Member
The stating of the Golden rule as "Love thy neighbour as thyself" actually comes from the Jewish Commandments and Jesus mentioned it (Matt 22:37-39) as the second greatest commandment, the first being to Love God with our whole heart etc.
So the second command is qualified by the first and even when we do not feel 'prosocial' we are to act prosocial for God's sake.
When the Golden Rule is stated as "Do to others as you would want them to do to you" (Matt 7:12) This is probably the real Golden Rule and even if we are not feeling good about ourselves we do not act to others as we might be acting to ourselves, we act to others as we would want them to act towards us. IOWs we take care of others because when we are ill mentally or physically we would want someone else to take care of us.
So the golden rule does not really begin with me first.
With the hug 2 people are involved, a hugger and a non hugger. With each the object is to do to the other as they would want the other to do to them.
The hugger should try to graciously accept the hug (as they would like someone to graciously accept a gift from them even if they did not like it) and the hugger should learn to adjust his/her hug for each person, depending on the vibe they get about it or after being told the other person does not like it. (as the hugger would like the other person to consider the feelings of the hugger in some other instance which may not involve hugging at all.
It's easy to work out really if you leap out of a literalist reading of the Golden Rule and consider a more nuanced approach.
I did not say we are unforgiving, I said that Jesus forgives us when we do not deserve forgiveness.
If we are unwilling to forgive others then maybe God will say that we aren't deserving of forgiveness.
But of course for a Christian, we have already been forgiven freely and so because of that we should forgive others freely also.
Well perhaps you should have seen it as the petulant and nasty response it was, for which he should have responded immediately by apologising rather than trying to dig up dirt on the chap. This kind of thing in the wealthy and powerful doesn't tend to instill respect or belief as to their abilities or intentions. And is why so many were alarmed at his Twitter intentions perhaps. Much like why so many despised Trump.
Last edited:
He is a South African, and mostly mixes in American society, which, as with British society, wouldn't probably see such a remark as anything sexual - as I pointed it out. It is a common expression of telling someone to 'get lost' as to their comments. What you see is irrelevant.
No it wasn't at all just another nasty remark. As I pointed out, this kind of thing is a nasty slur that often just clings, even when it is totally wrong. Innocent people have died because of such remarks or whispers being passed around.
And what happens in the USA doesn't necessarily define right and wrong. If it was deemed slander in many countries, probably the UK too, he would have been found guilty.
joelr
Well-Known Member
That's because Musk has no idea that that line is taken from the Greek OT, The Septuagint . The Sermon was derived from that. It's repackaged Judaism.
Brian2
Veteran Member
That is what it was meant to be, the New Covenant (also promised in the OT) with God's Spirit given and God's Word in our heart.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
That is still inappropriate as there is no valid reason someone who doesn't like being hugged should be expected to suffer them.
Yeah, that just sounds harsh amd cruel to say we don't deserve it.
If someone shows no signs of remorse or repeatedly wrongs me, why should I forgive them?
If it were free you wouldn't even have to ask forgiveness and accept Jesus. Free means you just get it, no strings attached.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Nobody would need to suffer them after people find out about that not wanting hugs feeling.
Nobody would be blamed for doing the wrong thing if the hugged person understood that the hug was innocent.
It does sound harsh. Maybe God does see that we deserve forgiveness and that is why He sent Jesus. We are invited back to fellowship with Him but the condition is that we want to change our ways and do what God says is right. We certainly don't succeed 100% of the time, and it is up to God to put a desire into us to change.
Exactly. It is what I just said,,,,,,,,,,, sort of.
Forgiveness is one of those things that we don't succeed at 100% of the time even if we know God has freely forgiven us and wants us to forgive others.
God loves us and wants to forgive us. The call is out there for everyone to accept that forgiveness or not. But of course if we don't want to change God is going to have a bunch of sinners doing their own thing for eternity. This is what God wants to end.
I must admit however that when I became a Christian there were many things I did not want to change and did everything to keep doing them. But on the journey God eventually puts in us a desire to live the way He wants us to.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I would blame such people, telling them to keep their hands to themselves and that's inappropriate to touch someone without permission. The hug may be innocent. But it makes some people uncomfortable to be hugged.
Thus you must ask permission before hugging someone.
You seemed to suggest they should just suffer them. Graciously accepting the hug, adjusting the hug, no. If someone doesn't like being hugged you don't hug them and don't put them in an uncomfortable position over it.
You have to ask permission when you don't know.
He doesn't freely forgive if he expects things of people. A free gift means you get it and do not have any stipulations attached to it.
That sounds cruel and abusive. To kill his son over it? That is unacceptable to me.
If he loved amd forgave us he'd just do it without the violence and threats of eternal damnation.
Funny. He never did that for me and my struggles never eased.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Right but the author of Matthew copied Mark verbatim (97% of the original Greek from Mark is in Matthew line by line) then added the sermon from the Greek OT.
But it didn't become an updated Judaism, it became Judaism with Greek, Persian and some Roman mythology.
nikunj irani
New Member
The human energy is divided into 9 emotions called the Nav-rasas they are as follows:-
- Happiness/ Humor.
- Sadness/ sorrow.
- Disgust.
- Heroism/ courage.
- Anger.
- Surprise/ wonder.
- Peace or tranquility.
- Love.
- Fear.
Now these rasas or emotions are further divided into 2 types of vibrations: the positive vibes and the negative vibes.
The positive vibes are as follows: –
- Love.
- Laughter.
- Courage.
- Peace.
- Sorrow.
- Anger.
- Disgust.
- Terror/ fear.
HUMAN EMOTIONS & MONEY. - ENERGY2KARMA
Brian2
Veteran Member
I don't know of the Sermon on the Mount coming from the OT at all.
What Greek, Persian and Roman mythology are you talking about?
What do you think the New Covenant should have looked like?
I would say that the later church, which was attached to the Roman Empire, did take over feast dates that the Roman Empire had.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Brian2
Veteran Member
That's one way to let someone know, but you want to blame them and also say that the hug might be innocent.
OK but causing offense in some way is easy to do innocently in human interactions and understanding from both sides is a good thing when it happens.
We get the forgiveness freely without having to earn it when we believe in Jesus and the gospel. The gospel also has teachings about how God wants His people to live.
Jesus is the Son of God who is by nature the same as His Father and decided before the creation of the world that His sacrifice would be needed. There was agreement between them then as now.
The eternal damnation is the consequence of our sins and it is banishment from the presence of God and could entail a complete annihilation. It is called the second death.
It might sound like a threat, but really it is a warning of the judgement to come, where those who have not accepted Jesus have to hope for mercy at the judgement.
I'm still struggling with things that I desire which are contrary to what God wants from me. All Christians do. No Christian is without sin.
Instantaneous perfection is not promised. It's a journey to overcome and on the way we hopefully begin to see that God's ways are the best and hopefully don't drop out along the way because of what seems to be out lack of progress, and our moral imperfections.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Historians in the field consider the Sermon to be taken from the Septuagint.
"..Sermon on the Mount, which is a well-crafted literary work that cannot have come from some illiterate Galilean. In fact, we know it originated in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic, because it relies on the Septuagint text of the Bible for all it's features and allusions. It relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isa. 50.6-9. These are not the words of Jesus. This famous sermon as a whole also has a complex literary structure that can only have come from a writer, not an everyday speaker.
And again, it reflects needs and interests that would have arisen after the apostles began preaching the faith and organizing communities and struggling to keep them in the fold. So it's unlikely to come from Jesus."
Carrier then demonstrates a use of triadic structure in the Sermon taken from a paper by Dale Allison - in the Journal of Biblical Literature
The argument goes on from there - it fits neatly within rabbinical debates of how Jews could fulfill the Torah after the destruction of the temple, Jesus is made into a new Moses and so on......
On The Historicity of Jesus, Richard Carrier, pg 468
That's a huge subject? Literally everything? Salvation, savior gods, baptism, eucharist, virgin born world saviors, God vs devil, end battle where all members get resurrected, souls get redeemed and go to an afterlife.......
Just Greek:
HELLENISTIC IDEAS OF SALVATION IN THE LIGHT OF ANCIENT ANTHROPOLOGY
PAUL WENDLAND
University of Gattingen, Germany
"
Christian and Hellenistic ideas of redemption cannot be sharply separated.
The deity's resurrection from the dead gives to the initiates, who see their own destiny prefigured in his adventures, hope of a life after death…. the soul, conscious of its divine origin, strives for redemption from its foreign and unrelated companion, the body. It seeks deliverance from things sinful, material, and mortal. But the fundamental motive in these various representations is the same; it is longing for elevation above the earthly world and its ruling powers, i.e., for deification. The end of redemption is a life of eternal blessedness. The redeemer is the deity to whose service one devotes his whole life in order to obtain his help and favor.
he ecstatic Dionysus religion becomes the most important factor in this development. In this religion t common people, the poor and the needy, directly attain a more profound and personal relation to the deity. The believer loses his individual consciousness in enthusiasm and receives the divinity into himself. In moments of orgiastic ecstasy he experiences the ultimate goal of his existence, abiding fellowship with the god, who, as redeemer and savior will free him through death from the finiteness, the suffering, and the exigencies of the earthly life. Orphism sets forth this religious experience in a mystic theology which exerts a strong influence upon Pindar and Empedocles, for example, and which suggested to Plato his magnificent treatise on the dest of the soul.
The Relationship between Hellenistic Mystery Religions and Early Christianity:
A Case Study using Baptism and Eucharist
Jennifer Uzzell
Baptism has been widely compared with initiation into the Mystery cults. In many of the Mysteries purification through ritual bathing was required as a prerequisite for initiation.
Eucharist.
-Perhaps the clearest point of contact between the Mysteries and Christian Eucharist, and one of which the Church Fathers were painfully conscious, lay in a sacramental meal of bread or cakes and wine mixed with water in which initiates to the cult of Mithras participated.
"
Within the confines of what was then the Roman Empire, long before and during the dawn of Christianity, there were many dying-and-rising gods. And yes, they were gods—some even half-god, half-human, being of divine or magical parentage, just like Jesus (John 1:1-18; Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35; Philippians 2:6-8 & Romans 8:3). And yes, they died. And were dead. And yes, they were then raised back to life; and lived on, even more powerful than before. Some returned in the same body they died in; some lived their second life in even more powerful and magical bodies than they died in, like Jesus did (1 Corinthians 15:35-50 & 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Some left empty tombs or gravesites; or had corpses that were lost or vanished. Just like Jesus. Some returned to life on “the third day” after dying. Just like Jesus. All went on to live and reign in heaven (not on earth). Just like Jesus. Some even visited earth after being raised, to deliver a message to disciples or followers, before ascending into the heavens. Just like Jesus.
Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier
https://wwwc.com/topic/Hellenistic-religion/Beliefs-practices-and-institutions
These were the changes Hellenism took into all of the local religions, Christianity was the last.
-the seasonal drama was homologized to a soteriology (salvation concept) concerning the destiny, fortune, and salvation of the individual after death.
-his led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.
-his process was carried further through the identification of the experiences of the soul that was to be saved with the vicissitudes of a divine but fallen soul, which had to be redeemed by cultic activity and divine intervention. This view is illustrated in the concept of the paradoxical figure of the saved saviour, salvator salvandus.
-Other deities, who had previously been associated with national destiny (e.g., Zeus, Yahweh, and Isis), were raised to the status of transcendent, supreme
-The temples and cult institutions of the various Hellenistic religions were repositories of the knowledge and techniques necessary for salvation and were the agents of the public worship of a particular deity. In addition, they served an important sociological role. In the new, cosmopolitan ideology that followed Alexander’s conquests, the old nationalistic and ethnic boundaries had broken down and the problem of religious and social identity had become acute.
-Most of these groups had regular meetings for a communal meal that served the dual role of sacramental participation (referring to the use of material elements believed to convey spiritual benefits among the members and with their deity)
-Hellenistic philosophy (Stoicism, Cynicism, Neo-Aristotelianism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, and Neoplatonism) provided key formulations for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim philosophy, theology, and mysticism through the 18th century
- The basic forms of worship of both the Jewish and Christian communities were heavily influenced in their formative period by Hellenistic practices, and this remains fundamentally unchanged to the present time. Finally, the central religious literature of both traditions—the Jewish Talmud (an authoritative compendium of law, lore, and interpretation), the New Testament, and the later patristic literature of the early Church Fathers—are characteristic Hellenistic documents both in form and content.
-Other traditions even more radically reinterpreted the ancient figures. The cosmic or seasonal drama was interiorized to refer to the divine soul within man that must be liberated.
-Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
-and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)
- Particularly noticeable was the success of a variety of prophets, magicians, and healers—e.g., John the Baptist, Jesus, Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Alexander the Paphlagonian, and the cult of the healer Asclepius—whose preaching corresponded to the activities of various Greek and Roman philosophic missionaries
Brian2
Veteran Member
Matthew, seems to have been a literate Galilean and probably of the tribe of Levi, having a knowledge of the scriptures (which Jesus also seems to have had) and the Matthean gospel is organised into sections (eg parables, miracles, teaching etc) and the organising of the Sermon on the Mount may reflect the way Matthew organised what Jesus said. But also as a believer I see no reason to say that Jesus did not just teach it that way.
Actually it is thought that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic or Hebrew.
Again thanks for that. Of course I find it not as compelling as you do because I believe Jesus lived and did what is said and fulfilled OT prophecies.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
First, he doesn't live perfectly. No one does. Second, he cannot know what is good if he's deriving the definition of good only from his imperfect mind.
And why would loving your neighbor even be a goal in the dog eat dog world of survival of the fittest?
It's only logical if life is more than just survival.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Well Matthew sourced Mark and then added what he wanted. 97% of the original Greek is verbatim in Matthew. The Synoptic Problem has been largely decided based on the work of Marc Goodacre. But this is also up to 50 years after the time of Jesus and it's all in the Greek OT. There is much more detailed information in papers that demonstrate how scholars know the Septuagint was used. But the idea that someone gave a sermon that long and 50 years later someone remembered it is not possible. Also Matthew definitely used Mark so he wasn't remembering any words from a Jewish Rabbi. He was re-working Mark because he probably thought he could do a better job.
This is before Goodacre really put this to rest but there are several strong arguments as to why Mark is the source. They use Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction as source material.
The Wiki entry says - Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[16][17]
They source a professor in religion and an independent writer as sources so not perfect. This was Bart Ehrmans stance also who is a proper peer-reviewed historian. But the new scholarship does away with Q and M.
So Matthew isn't writing anything he heard.
Not in Biblical scholarship? The earliest fragment from the 3rd century is Greek. He also wrote for a Greek speaking audience.
Yes beliefs, but is there evidence? The OT was canonized during the 2nd Temple Period and messianic world saviors, virgin born to human parents was a myth in the Persian religion. Saviors providing salvation to get souls to heaven was also a Greek invention (both cultures occupied the Israelites leading up to Christianity) but the Hebrews began to make predictions they too would be getting their own savior.
The NT authors used the OT narratives in creating stories so they were writing the NT to be an update. Of course this was the chance to bring all the popular myths into Judaism. There also was a new Judaism being taught which is what is credited as the teachings of Jesus. But it's clear Rabbi Hillel was teaching this before Jesus would have been doing sermons.