How many people does the Bible say were at the sermon on the mount?
.
It states 5000. in one book
I would agree, but if the teacher was teaching against the Jewish heirarchy, and not against Rome, would Roman leaders look at it in the same light?
Yes, but Antipas would have beheaded him if he drew large crowds like JtB
Depends on what you consider a large crowd. I have seen people speak outside, and their was at least a couple of hundred people there. I don't know if all of them could hear clearly, but the crowd was not significantly diminished by the end of the lecture, so I would assume they could hear well enough. I don't see why someone would listen to someone when they couldn't actually hear them.
The large crowd almost an impossibility.
What doesnt make any sense is that these parables were not ment to be read one after another as written. They loose all meaning.
These parables were ment to be told one at a time to let them sink in. These have meaning that one has to think about to understand.
Try reading them as writen and see ho wmany you can even understand that way.
I would agree with the teaching and healing to support himself, among other things in my opinion, but if there were hundreds of teachers just like him doing the same thing than why did he get chosen to become, arguably, the most influential person in modern human history?
Bceause he sacrificed himself at the temple in front of hundreds of thousands of people for their benefit.
None of the other teachers were willing to loose their life for the common hard working man.
We were also at a time when the division between Hellenistic Judaism and traditional Judaism if one can even call it that, were increasing.
Hellenistic Judaism used this man as their messiah after death, Jesus was like the match that lit the flame.
I agree with the aspects of Galilean life being generally rough. But what exactly does the Bible say about Galilean life, or imply for that matter?
Not much
And why would hellenist write these extravegant stories about a man whom they knew, literally nothing about? Just for the morals? It seems to me that the morals Jesus' spoke of existed prior to him speaking of them. Why choose the story of this particular teacher to portray preexisting moral codes and ideas?
This was a time in Judaism when it was hard to describe, they had for hundreds of years had opened it up to Hellenism. But there was a lot of heat generated over this. There were large socioeconomic divides between the Hellenist who played ball with the Romans working hand in hand, and traditional poor oppressed Jews.
The morals and teachings were filed in later and written towards a Roman gentile audience with jewish laws explained clearly for non Jews.
For hundreds of years you had many Hellenist who were partial converts to Judaism, Gate Proselytes, God-Fearers, and general Proselytes who would not fully convert to Judaism not wanting to follow all their laws BUT wanting to follow the one monotheistic god.
For hundreds of years these groups of proselytes grew to such large amounts they finally broke free, and Jesus was the catylist.
I would agree that the writers were fairly far removed from the event. But I think you slight them in their ability to deduce fact from fiction.
Im saying they added it, so the theology would meet their political needs as well as theological.
Considering the fact that they were obviously decently educated by the fact that they knew how to write, do you think that they did not have some form of historical analysis in order to seperate actual events, as opposed to non-actual events, discluding the reality of actions that were realistically performed?
Preserving Jesus Jewish life was not on their agenda at all.
These people were writing and reflecting about events and needs from 70 CE when the temple had fell, and they wanted to not be viewed as a sect of Jews.
How accurately could you portray events portrayed 40 years ago? Granted, written accounts were surely not as available then as they are now, which lends itself to less accurate tradition. But at the same time oral tradition during those times was assuredly more of an artform/science than it is today.
Correct
Of course literary devices would most likely be employed to make the "story" more listenable, but would someone who is educated not be able to decipher the difference between the two?
Each gospel was a compilation of pre existing literature and oral traditions, and each author had artistic freedom to parallel who they wanted that met each and their personal needs.
There was no need to decipher between the two, this wasnt about telling Jewish history, it was about seperating itself from Jewish history and identity.
I would agree, but again I ask, what is a large following? And would it matter not what he was teaching?
For him in rural Galilee going from village to village, 20-60 people woul d have been the reality, that and 3-4 disciples who would set him up prior to his arrival, telling the people a great teacher was coming.
Remember, these peoples goal was to eat to survive. they wanted to be invited to the dinner table to teach and eat. They did not charge to heal people they lived off food scraps from the poor who would share what little they had. If Jesus traveled with large groups he would have starved and looked like a threat running around with 12 dudes.
Who, the hellenists who wrote the gospels, or the sect of Jesus' and his followers? And it seems to me that Roman oppression wasn't nearly as bad for the Jews as it was for other conquered peoples. It least according to Roman standards
Jews had it very bad. But the movement did not succeed there. It grew in the Diaspora and the gospels originated from the Hellenist in the Diaspora.
These were Proselytes and Gentiles and Roman citizens.
opcorn: