RE: Was Jesus a great moral teacher?
April 7, 2014 at 5:31 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2014 at 5:34 pm by xpastor.)
(April 7, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Alex K Wrote:Duh. Where did I say ALL the other stuff is verbatim from one historical person? For one thing I would toss every bit of the Gospel of John as totally unhistorical.(April 7, 2014 at 9:17 am)xpastor Wrote: "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me. Anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." I could be wrong, but my best guess is that Jesus did not say this.
Duh. As opposed to all the other stuff, which is verbatim from one historical person? Come on!
As for the stuff in the other three gospels, the earliest one (Mark) was written at least 30 years after his death. I would also agree with modern critical scholars that Jesus probably never claimed to be the messiah or to be the apocalyptic figure referred to as the Son of Man, and he never said many other things which are attributed to him.
You can usually tell sayings which are made up because they speak to a situation which applies to the church decades after Jesus lived. That is the test that I applied to the words above.
You can sometimes tell sayings which are authentic because the church would NOT be likely to write them in. (This is known as the criterion of dissimilarity.) Examples would be Jesus' statement that the law of Moses will continue in force until the end of time and elsewhere that he was sent only "to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." By the time the gospels were written the mission to the gentiles was in full swing and Paul had convinced most Christians that the law of Moses had been replaced by salvation through Jesus' death, etc. The only plausible reason for attributing these contradictory statements to Jesus would be a tradition of his authentic sayings.
(April 7, 2014 at 4:52 pm)truthBtold Wrote: Who is this long haired hippy you speak of??An obscure guru who believed in flower power. "Consider the lilies of the field ...."
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House