Did Jesus preach with intent to start a new religion?

[outhouse]

How can anyone have a conversation on what Jesus preached starting from a position that what Jesus said is unknowable?
You did notice the title of the topic didn't you?

Its my opinion awoon is wrong here and you pose a great question, that is why I stated a vague conclusion of what we know, because it is all we know.

When building history, credible history. You start out if you can with a foundation of what is known. From there you can build on plausibility and what is more likely based on cultural and physical anthropology.

 

[outhouse]

I thought that Matthew was the Gospel with text fragments surviving from the first century.

Nope. None have been dated to this time yet.

They are a working on a piece of Mark, but these people are dragging their feet and it raises suspicion.

Earliest fragment is P52 I believe, which is John.

Where do you suggest that I quote from to find someone who "really knew Jesus"?

There is none. Our best possible traditions and even these you have to keep your fingers crossed. It could also be John the Baptist traditions or just Galilean parables, But Thomas and Q is our bet hope for traditions based on Jesus sayings. There is little certainty here.

 

[rosends]

At least you admit it is unsubstantiated rhetoric.




More jewish hubris. Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You have nothing to base that on except what Hellenist out of the Diaspora wrote and attributed to Jesus.

You call it hubris. I call your opinion agendized claptrap. Now everyone is happy.

Just wondering -- what is the hubris? That I dare have an opinion or that my opinion is based in the gospel texts? How is either one hubris? Are you saying that I exhibit excessive self confidence when I give my own personal understanding or that my reading the gospels texts as the evidence to support my understanding is a function of excessive pride?

 

[outhouse]

You call it hubris. I call your opinion agendized claptrap. Now everyone is happy.

One of us has an education on this topic, one admitted he had none.

That I dare have an opinion or that my opinion is based in the gospel texts?

That you speak of things with certainty with no historical knowledge what so ever.

The hubris was directed at your certainty of Jesus Judaism, because you think you know his Judaism because your a Jew, when you may not know it as well as your pride tells you.

Your description of first century Judaism in regards to your legal and economic comment really doesn't apply at all, as written.


You want to expand on that, and rephrase your words to "the Hellenist" who had been perverting Judaism for a long time would go a long way, then placing blame on a Aramaic Galilean Jew you know little about.

 

[Awoon]

How can anyone have a conversation on what Jesus preached starting from a position that what Jesus said is unknowable?
You did notice the title of the topic didn't you?

Some people can dig out Jesus' teachings. Like the Cana wedding. No way did he turn water into wine and give it to the people when they were already drunk. He simply gave them water to drink and the Governor called it the best wine.

 

[rosends]

One of us has an education on this topic, one admitted he had none.

One of us has an intimate knowledge of the contextual details, one does not. One of us is willing to speak from with an experiential basis and one is not. Sounds about right.

That you speak of things with certainty with no historical knowledge what so ever.

That's a bit presumptuous on your part. My admission that I am no scholar doesn't equate to an absolute lack of knowledge. Do you always jump to erroneous conclusions, or just here?

The hubris was directed at your certainty of Jesus Judaism, because you think you know his Judaism because your a Jew, when you may not know it as well as your pride tells you.

Your description of first century Judaism in regards to your legal and economic comment really doesn't apply at all, as written.

Your assessment both of my position and my source for it is inaccurate. You may not like that I have a developed opinion based on things I have read and an understanding of exactly what was modified and manipulated but that doesn't mean that my opinion is a priori wrong or bad, just not yours. Feel free to jump to whatever else you want -- conclusions or otherwise, if it makes you feel more secure in your notions.

You want to expand on that, and rephrase your words to "the Hellenist" who had been perverting Judaism for a long time would go a long way, then placing blame on a Aramaic Galilean Jew you know little about.

I will continue to develop ideas to be presented in a "religious debate" forum based on the religious texts adhered to by certain religions. To begin with a belief that the texts are inaccurate and can be replaced with other source material is nice, but immaterial, when discussing the approach to religion as developed through the text in question.

 

[outhouse]

. To begin with a belief that the texts are inaccurate and can be replaced with other source material is nice, but immaterial, when discussing the approach to religion as developed through the text in question.

Wrong.

You made a historical statement. You did not source it, and as I stated it was unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I will continue to develop ideas to be presented in a "religious debate" forum based on the religious texts adhered to by certain religions.

That's great, but all text fit into history, and that history is often the only way to place those text into context.

Your assessment both of my position and my source for it is inaccurate.

That may be, but as long as you provide unsubstantiated rhetorical positions, you leave yourself open in a debate.

I am no scholar doesn't equate to an absolute lack of knowledge.

I never said it did. Its that knowledge you think you had, that placed you into this debate.

If you want to understand the current state of work done on these topics, to learn your possible errors. Start here.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.



I would have to ask since you made statements regarding Jesus Judaism with certainty. What do you know of Zealots religious practices? what do you know of the Essenes practices?

Do you understand the division in the Pharisees between Hellenistic Pharisees, and those who mirrored Zealots following a more traditions Israelite pious Judaism?

And do you understand how the Hellenist divorced cultural Judaism and did what you accuse Jesus of, after Jesus death???? oh no we know you don't need to answer that you already did.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

But you missed the most glaring and obvious ones. Him being a Jew would have instructed his followers to keep the laws. Some try to justify not following the laws by referring to an exchange Yeshua had with someone about washing their hands before a meal saying (it's not what enters a mans mouth but that which proceeds forth). Im paraphrasing there. But the obvious commandment from Yeshua was to keep the law and don't teach others to not follow it because if you did you would not be welcome into heaven.

Matthew 5-18 -
For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

So his commandment sounds cut and dry to me....but what do you all think?

 

[rosends]

Wrong.

You made a historical statement. You did not source it, and as I stated it was unsubstantiated rhetoric.

This depends on one thing -- are you starting from the position that the text of the gospels as it exists now is inherently inaccurate, flawed or downright fallacious. If so, then no source that I could give from the gospel accounts will satisfy you, and no statement about religion which developed from the gospels and their interpretation will be at all useful to you. If you want to have a purely historical debate about the era, I'd be happy to do so otherwise, but my position would be markedly different and inspired by a different understanding that isn't based in the words of the various texts.

Its that knowledge you think you had, that placed you into this debate.

Actually it is the knowledge I know I have. It doesn't agree with the knowledge you know you have because my sources are in conflict with your sources. I speak of the pronouncements made by (attributed to) Jesus textually and their relationship to the religion of Judaism which existed at his time as evidenced by Judaic texts which I have studied. You want there to be more than that, but there isn't. If you want to discount the sources as tainted or inaccurate, feel free to do so. That doesn't mean they don't exist, just that the conclusions I draw from them are useless to you. Good thing I am not trying to convince you of anything or worry about your opinion of my ideas.

And just because I'm curious, do you understand the specific differences in the beis din staffed by prushim and the one run by tzedukkim starting with where each was and WHY each was?

 

[outhouse]

This depends on one thing -- are you starting from the position that the text of the gospels as it exists now is inherently inaccurate, flawed or downright fallacious.

Wrong.

Your starting from an impossible position that all the different books collected and compiled into the NT describe the same event equally. They factually do not.

None of the books even have authors less 7 ish of Pauls epistles which he admits some were co authored with others in his community, such as Tim ect ect, as noted in each letters opening header.

And books written by not a single eyewitness to the man, decades later from another part of the world, really does leave accuracy, not up for debate.


But you keep running on that and see how it works for you. Could I ask you not to bring a stick to a gunfight?

 

[outhouse]

I speak of the pronouncements made by (attributed to) Jesus textually and their relationship to the religion of Judaism which existed at his time as evidenced by Judaic texts which I have studied.

Sorry all those Jewish text are from traditions a few hundred years later and usually hold no historicity in regards to anything to do with Jesus.

And just because I'm curious, do you understand the specific differences in the beis din staffed by prushim and the one run by tzedukkim starting with where each was and WHY each was?

You want to know about the 36 Nistarim?

or the disciples of the Vilna Gaon?

 

[outhouse]

I speak of the pronouncements made by (attributed to) Jesus textually

Yes correct.

Attributed to Jesus. Which does not mean there is historicity that Jesus made these pronouncements.

But I believe you assumed such

 

[rosends]

Yes correct.

Attributed to Jesus. Which does not mean there is historicity that Jesus made these pronouncements.

But I believe you assumed such

It is not whether I assumed anything but whether, in the topic of religious debates, I was willing to discuss the religious implication of the text as understood by the religion based on it. I could easily go into a historical arena and claim that Jesus never existed or that the gospels are all later quilted together and coopted mythologies, but that's not what is in play here.

 

[rosends]

Sorry all those Jewish text are from traditions a few hundred years later and usually hold no historicity in regards to anything to do with Jesus.

Ah, so you are familiar with the expurgated Rashi from Yuma 10 well done!

You want to know about the 36 Nistarim?

or the disciples of the Vilna Gaon?

nope. I already know about those. I asked about something else.

 

[outhouse]

I could easily go into a historical arena and claim that Jesus never existed

No you couldn't. Not with credibility or anything not laughable. I happen to debate the majority of mythicist authors today, and they don't make the mistakes you do.

or that the gospels are all later quilted together and coopted mythologies, but that's not what is in play here.

It is in play here. Without the real history you don't know the context. The gospels are theological pieces written in a rhetorical prose that contains pseudo history, mythology, legend, allegory, metaphor and more. Your literal view really doesn't apply.

Brother you made a mistake, you may never admit. Don't expect you will.

Sample Chapter for Levine, A., Allison, D., Jr., Crossan, J.D., eds.: The Historical Jesus in Context.



I could easily get into the OT mythology I know you would never agree to. But as Israel Finkelstein stated, I cannot argue a flat earth.

 

[Unification]

To establish a few suggestions for debate can we assume Jesus was a Jew?
Him being a Jew He would have been well educated in Jewish Law.
This is presented in the N.T. when Jesus was a boy and it was witnessed that He had great
knowlege of Jewish law.
"And Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit. News about Him spread through all the surrounding district and He began teaching in their synagogues and was praised by all."
Lk. 4:16-24.
In my reading/studying of the Christian bible I have yet to see anything specific that suggests He intended
to start a religion different than the Jewish faith.
There is no doubt Jesus had Jewish roots and echoed the plea of former prophets before Him
to repent and return to God. That would be parochial, to follow Jewish law.
" I have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 15:24
It is indesputable that a new religion was born out his teaching, His life and His death & resurrection.
His intent was to bring people back to God and to draw all people to Himslef. John 12:32
His purpose was to reform the existing religious institution that would abolish the corruption
of the existing religious hierarchy.
Anyone can feel free to post here if they like unless the staff prohibits such.

He taught that all is ONE, that the kingdom was within, that the only way to know the truth and life and God was through and in ones own physical body, that everyone erred in the Hebrew Scriptures by taking them literally when they all apply within. He taught what all of mankind have in common. That the sun rises on every human, just or unjust. That it rains on every human, just or unjust. To love all, no matter where they stand, to not judge another. That what one does to another, they do it to God. He taught humility, humbleness.

Anything that goes against ones own created vain belief or religious system that doesn't pertain to their imagination , the beast of the bottomless pit takes over, is viewed as a threat, and the ego and animal nature of the animal mind kicks in.

 

[rosends]

No you couldn't. Not with credibility or anything not laughable. I happen to debate the majority of mythicist authors today, and they don't make the mistakes you do.

feel free to believe what you must.

It is in play here. Without the real history you don't know the context. The gospels are theological pieces written in a rhetorical prose that contains pseudo history, mythology, legend, allegory, metaphor and more. Your literal view really doesn't apply.

You certainly think so. Those who are part of a developed religion based on the content of the gospels would often disagree. You have made a mistake here whether or not you want to admit it. That's ok. I forgive you.

I could easily get into the OT mythology I know you would never agree to.

especially when it would be irrelevant as it would be here.

 

[outhouse]

Those who are part of a developed religion based on the content of the gospels would often disagree.

That's because apologist are not in charge of creating history. So no one really cares, we expect them to disagree.

You have made a mistake

Not one you can show with credibility.

had I been talking about orthodox Judaism in the same faith section, and wanted to know about theology. I would get you. Not for anything historical though.

I did not cross the line from apologetics theology to history, you did.

 

[Unification]

The truth is, we do not even know if a man named Jesus ever existed. He could be a myth, but that does not matter. What matters is that we know the sayings attributed to him do exist. It is the message, not the messenger that matters. He says it is only the message that matters himself.

 

[rosends]

Not for anything historical though.

I did not cross the line from apologetics theology to history, you did.

And if I felt that this was about history, I'd call you. But it isn't as far as I can tell. It is about what the text reports and its impact on the religious practice and theological development of people. That's why the thread title is about what Jesus's preached, not about how scholars think society developed or how scholars think the text as reported is inaccurate. You crossed from a question about text into an answer about history. That's your mistake.