Your POV on the historical Jesus

[sooda]

Umm... what are you talking about?

We were talking about the Sermon on the Mount, not whichever part of the Gospels you were thinking of.

It's weird enough for you to assume that you know what I object to in the Sermon on the Mount without asking me, but absolutely bizarre that you would have assumed that my objections were about these anti-family themes that - AFAICT - aren't even in the Sermon on the Mount.

Edit: but getting back to the Sermon on the Mount, one of the objections I do have to it is that Jesus actually endorses and reinforces the traditions that you rightly point out are problematic:

Matt 5:17-19;

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place. 19 So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I was wondering what part of the Sermon on the Mount you objected to..

I think it helps to remember that Jesus was an observant Jew from his birth. and all of his brief life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was wondering what part of the Sermon on the Mount you objected to..

That's one of them.

Other parts that I object to:

- the part where he encourages the listeners not to resist oppression.
- the part where he tries to institute the idea of thoughtcrime.
- (included in the above part) the part where he insinuates that murder is no worse than being angry at someone.

And then there are the parts that contradict each other, which aren't necessarily a matter of morality but make Jesus's words impossible to follow.

And then there are the many things he says that are only morally good if based in fact and reprehensible otherwise (e.g. where he tells the crowd not to worry about where they'll get food, because God will provide). These sure don't seem true, but I can grant that they're taken as true within the context of the story.

I think it helps to remember that Jesus was an observant Jew from his birth. and all of his brief life.

Yes, but the Gospels are filled with him violating Jewish tradition in all sorts of ways, so it would have been good if he rejected some of the more abhorrent parts of that tradition instead of endorsing them.

And we also have to remember the implications of the paradigm we're using to interpret the Sermon.

It's all fine and good to say that Jesus was the product of his time and had all sorts of cultural baggage because of that, but this assumes that he was, well, the product of his time. That approach takes as given that Jesus was just a human preacher who was - along with his intended audience - steeped in a particular culture and had very understandable "cultural blinders" on that stopped him from recognizing how his words would be taken today, say.

OTOH, if we come at the passage assuming that Jesus is an omniscient god-man who really does intend for his words to be universally accepted by all cultures for all time, then we can't really use cultural factors as an excuse for why the negative parts of the sermon are in there.

 

[sooda]

That's one of them.

Other parts that I object to:

- the part where he encourages the listeners not to resist oppression.
- the part where he tries to institute the idea of thoughtcrime.
- (included in the above part) the part where he insinuates that murder is no worse than being angry at someone.

And then there are the parts that contradict each other, which aren't necessarily a matter of morality but make Jesus's words impossible to follow.

And then there are the many things he says that are only morally good if based in fact and reprehensible otherwise (e.g. where he tells the crowd not to worry about where they'll get food, because God will provide). These sure don't seem true, but I can grant that they're taken as true within the context of the story.


Yes, but the Gospels are filled with him violating Jewish tradition in all sorts of ways, so it would have been good if he rejected some of the more abhorrent parts of that tradition instead of endorsing them.

And we also have to remember the implications of the paradigm we're using to interpret the Sermon.

It's all fine and good to say that Jesus was the product of his time and had all sorts of cultural baggage because of that, but this assumes that he was, well, the product of his time. That approach takes as given that Jesus was just a human preacher who was - along with his intended audience - steeped in a particular culture and had very understandable "cultural blinders" on that stopped him from recognizing how his words would be taken today, say.

OTOH, if we come at the passage assuming that Jesus is an omniscient god-man who really does intend for his words to be universally accepted by all cultures for all time, then we can't really use cultural factors as an excuse for why the negative parts of the sermon are in there.

I always thought the Sermon on the Mount was about teaching the Jews how to cope with Roman oppression by shaming the enemy. Non violent resistance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I always thought the Sermon on the Mount was about teaching the Jews how to cope with Roman oppression by shaming the enemy. Non violent resistance.

Which makes no sense, since it describes Jesus explicitly saying "do not resist an evil person."

 

[lukethethird]

The list is quite long. The biggest problem is that we judge ourselves by ourselves. In other words, we created our own standard or righteousness thinking that we know what that standard is. Yet every decade that passes, we change our standard.

Jesus addresses the standard... let me pick just one:

"You say that adultery is when you have sex with someone other than your spouse, I say you have committed adultery when you so much as look at someone else and lust after them because you became an adulterer in your heart". (paraphrased)

That pretty much makes just about everybody an adulterer. And that is just one item.

The standard is perfectness. In God there is no darkness at all.

That paraphrased quote sounds like something a controlling sex perverted cult leader would say in order to control his flock. In my case he would have to die a thousand deaths every day.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Who is Jesus?

The greatest prophet till then, John the Baptist, said he wasn't worthy to help Jesus with his sandals

A great sinner anointed Jesus feet with expensive oil and kissed them weeping, even tho unworthy and he allowed her to, even saying her faith saved her and used her as and example of one who was forgiven much loving much

Jesus the most worthy washed his apostle's feet himself at the last supper

The high dwelling with the low, making a way home to God, the end and means of our salvation and the treasure of heaven.

 

[columbus]

I always thought the Sermon on the Mount was about teaching the Jews how to cope with Roman oppression by shaming the enemy. Non violent resistance.

This is among the reasons I believe that Jesus was most likely a terrorist/freedom fighter. Like many of His other quotes, this could be construed as "Don't give yourself away with petty resistance efforts. You can be more useful to the Cause of God's Kingdom if you're outwardly compliant with the Romans."
Tom

 

[columbus]

Who is Jesus?

The greatest prophet till then, John the Baptist, said he wasn't worthy to help Jesus with his sandals

A great sinner anointed Jesus feet with expensive oil and kissed them weeping, even tho unworthy and he allowed her to, even saying her faith saved her and used her as and example of one who was forgiven much loving much

Jesus the most worthy washed his apostle's feet himself at the last supper

The high dwelling with the low, making a way home to God, the end and means of our salvation and the treasure of heaven.

It would be more accurate to start this with, "According to what people wrote years after Jesus was gone, and some bishops voted to canonize centuries later..."
Tom

 

[sooda]

This is among the reasons I believe that Jesus was most likely a terrorist/freedom fighter. Like many of His other quotes, this could be construed as "Don't give yourself away with petty resistance efforts. You can be more useful to the Cause of God's Kingdom if you're outwardly compliant with the Romans."
Tom

You mean Jesus is a terrorist who is preaching non violence? I think he was trying to save them.. The various Jewish factions were fighting each other and the Romans. It was bound to end in disaster.

 

[Terese]

I believe he was real and an enlightened man

 

[columbus]

You mean Jesus is a terrorist who is preaching non violence? I think he was trying to save them.. The various Jewish factions were fighting each other and the Romans. It was bound to end in disaster.

No, I didn't say that.
The difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is pretty subjective. Apparently some Jews thought Him a freedom fighter while the Romans considered Him a terrorist. Kinda like some modern Muslims consider Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter, while American imperialists are certain that he was a terrorist.

The little people He valued and fought for used the term messiah where modern people would use freedom fighter. The rich and powerful had a very different opinion and used different terms.
Tom

 

[sooda]

No, I didn't say that.
The difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is pretty subjective. Apparently some Jews thought Him a freedom fighter while the Romans considered Him a terrorist. Kinda like some modern Muslims consider Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter, while American imperialists are certain that he was a terrorist.

The little people He valued and fought for used the term messiah where modern people would use freedom fighter. The rich and powerful had a very different opinion and used different terms.
Tom

Osama Bin Laden is not considered a freedom fighter by Muslims. He was Deobandi with Muslim Brotherhood influence.

 

[columbus]

Osama Bin Laden is not considered a freedom fighter by Muslims. He was Deobandi with Muslim Brotherhood influence.

Who made you spokesman for all Muslims?
Tom

 

[sooda]

Who made you spokesman for all Muslims?
Tom

I just lived in the Middle East a long time. OBL wanted all Americans to leave KSA, but the Saudis like Americans. MB is based on the teachings of Hassan al Banna and Sayiid Qubt. Both were very anti-western.

 

[Bobby Anderson]

The man I call the Teacher did exist, but mankind took some of his teaching and mixed with a Jesus story they made up. It is his true teachings that are important, not the story. How do we know what is true? If we know the true Heart of our Parent, then deep inside we know what is true and what is made up non-sense to control us. Why would our Parent not give us the means to know real truth and not real truth?

 

[columbus]

I just lived in the Middle East a long time. OBL wanted all Americans to leave KSA, but the Saudis like Americans. MB is based on the teachings of Hassan al Banna and Sayiid Qubt. Both were very anti-western.

What makes you spokesman for all Muslims?
Lots of Muslims aren't the wealthy Saudis you know about.

It's like telling me how Christians feel about the Pope because you once lived in Ireland.
Tom

 

[sooda]

What makes you spokesman for all Muslims?
Lots of Muslims aren't the wealthy Saudis you know about.

It's like telling me how Christians feel about the Pope because you once lived in Ireland.
Tom

You claim I only know wealthy Saudis?

 

[columbus]

You claim I only know wealthy Saudis?

I'm claiming that you don't even speak for most Muslims, much less all of them.
Tom

 

[sooda]

I'm claiming that you don't even speak for most Muslims, much less all of them.
Tom

Terrorists kill Muslims with suicide bombs.. Muslims don't like terrorists.

 

[columbus]

Terrorists kill Muslims with suicide bombs.. Muslims don't like terrorists.

Not all Muslims have a problem with targeting American imperialists, though. Not all freedom fighters/terrorists use suicide bombs.
All I'm saying is that the distinction between freedom fighters and terrorists is no absolute throughout the Muslim world. It's not even an absolute here in western Christendom.
Tom