More obfuscation.

You are unable to explain the meaning of what Jesus is alleged to have said in this passage from John. So much for your "extraordinary" understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

There is a classic comedy theme that goes all the way back to the Greek comic poets. It is about what ensues when someone wildly overestimates their own abilities. Thanks for the laughs.

"I am the way, the truth and the life" is an equivalency just as "Time is money" is an equivalency. — ThinkOfOne

Looks more like an equivocation.

If someone asks what "time is money" means, it can easily be explained. You have yet to explain what "“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." means. You say only that it is meant figuratively. To say that "time is money" is a figure of speech tells us nothing. As an equivalence, to say "I am the way, the truth and the life" is a figure of speech tells us nothing.

Here is another pertinent example of figurative language:

Smokescreen -

An obfuscation.

Once again, a figure of speech has a meaning. That meaning is not that it is a figure of speech or an equivalency. What is the meaning of Jesus saying: "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?

I don't delve too deep into Christology I don't think we're ever going to understand it. — Moses

It is really quite simple: truth by decree.

It is not a problem that the humanities are a plateau. — Bitter Crank

I agree in so far as the ground has been plowed, but I do not consider the current state of the humanities as being at a plateau. I think the attempt to go further than what has already been said has led to a decline. But this is not to say that no good work is being done.

he puts love center stage. — Moses

Right, and he cites the Hebrew Bible as his authority:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. (Deuteronomy 6:5)

... love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

Jews love to debate — Moses

As do philosophers. Talmud is similar to dialect. Both are methods of inquiry based on weighing one claim against another. Jesus proved to be a skillful practitioner.

It often goes unnoticed how polemical the gospels are in response to each other. In addition, there were the debates over canonical NT texts and Council at Nicaea, which debated the ontological status of Jesus.

JC is firm and he speaks with an insane degree of certainty — Moses

As the insane often do. It is easy to make someone speak with certainty when the writer controls the narrative.

There are many types of figurative language. — ThinkOfOne

Here's a pertinent example:

Strawman -

A strawman is not literally a man made of straw.
It is a device used as an attempt to avoid addressing the argument by setting up another in order to knock it down.

The meaning of "I" is "the way, the truth and the life". — ThinkOfOne

So, the way, the truth and the life is the way, the truth and the life?

Another pertinent example:

Begging the question -

It does not mean literally to supplicate the question.
It means to answer a question in a way that leaves the question unanswered.

The question remains: what is the way, the truth and the life? A tautology does not provide an answer.

I explained how every academic discipline has the potential for further research and studies, so it advances our knowledge in each academic field. — Christopher

I think the problem with the humanities is the incessant push to say something new, something novel, something different. This leads, in most cases, to saying less and less about things that are of concern to human being and human life.

One irony is that there is a push in the classics to be "relevant", but this means to subject them to current political, social, and literary theories that are themselves motivated by the search for theoretical novelty and the need to demonstrate technical mastery of arcane terminology and insular, self-referential issues that are the flavor of the day.

He is figuratively "the way". — ThinkOfOne

And what does this mean?

A figure of speech is not without meaning.

Putting it together it, the point Jesus is making is that:
“no one comes to the Father except through [the way, the truth and the life]". — ThinkOfOne

And, as you say, the way, the truth, the life = Jesus. You have not said anything that is not evident in the statement from John. You have not identified what is figurative in the statement. It is a straightforward claim. Calling it figurative is a smokescreen.

What my point is, is that it is irrelevant for my argument whether Jesus thought he was the Messiah. My point is that he pushed a myth ... — god must be atheist

If by "he" you mean the character in the gospels, then yes, he pushed a myth. What I am speculating about is the man behind the myths. How much of what is said are things he actually said and how much is a myth pushed on him. I don't think we can answer this question, but I think to a greater or lesser extent he became the ventriloquist's dummy.

Jesus is speaking figuratively. — ThinkOfOne

So what does he mean by these figures of speech? What is he actually claiming?

Since Jesus insisted that the myths he pushed are real, he MAY have been a lunatic or a liar. — god must be atheist

I don't know if Jesus thought he was the or a messiah. Perhaps the role was pushed on him by those who wished it were true. Perhaps he came to believe it. Perhaps he saw it as an expedient.

One thing is clear, although John's Jesus, Paul's Jesus, and the Jesus of the Synoptic gospels have a common thread, the Messiah, they are not the same Jesus.

That there is a man who is "the way" is a myth. A man who is "the truth" is a myth. A man who is "the life" is a myth. That "no one comes to the Father except through [this man]"is a myth. If you argue that Jesus is not just a man, then you accept the myth.

Those would be words attributed to Jesus. — ThinkOfOne

Right, but are part of John's mythology wrapped around the words attributed to him.

That's not the problem. I've discussed these things with people I know in real life who are well educated, have good reading comprehension skills, good critical thinking and conceptual thinking skills. — ThinkOfOne

And there are more than a few of those people here, but since they do not agree with you, you question their abilities.

She finds the depth of my understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus to be extraordinary. — ThinkOfOne

That's nice, but I do not find it extraordinary. But I promised not to indulge you.

So when Jesus says in John:

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Are they words attributed to Jesus or the mythology?

Of course, you could have exercised a little patience and waited for my response to you post instead of jumping the gun... — ThinkOfOne

.You had already said:

That said, I suspect that some who post on this site are a bit short on logical thinking skills and/or the basic teaching of Jesus. Likely they mindlessly repeat things they found on the internet. — ThinkOfOne

Of course, perhaps I have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus and so reject simplistic views... — ThinkOfOne

Of course, perhaps you don't. Perhaps this is the problem.

Well, you certainly don't lack confidence in yourself...[/quote

I don't, but having confidence in myself is quite different than claiming to have a deep understanding of the entirety of the teachings of Jesus. That is something I would not say.

If you have something substantive to say regarding the texts I will respond. Otherwise if your interest is in building yourself up and tearing others down I will not indulge you further. — ThinkOfOne

I think it best to take compliments wherever we find them.

Yet this argument is straight out of the evangelical Christian playbook. — ThinkOfOne

The argument is straight out of what the text says.

It all begins with the belief that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God" — ThinkOfOne

Rather than address what I have said you deflect by arguing against something I have not. My argument has nothing to do with inerrancy. It has to do with paying attention to what is said. Attention to what is said does not mean a literal interpretation but when Jesus says to follow the Law I do take him to mean that literally.

Similarly with "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away". Clearly Jesus MUST be "referring to what is written". — ThinkOfOne

No, it is not similar at all. The stories in Genesis are quite different than what Jesus says the righteous must do.

Never mind that Jesus often used figurative language. — ThinkOfOne

He does use figurative language, and when he says something like "the least stroke of a pen" he is not talking about pen strokes but figuratively about what is written.

Never mind that elsewhere in Matthew says that, in essence, the whole of the law and the prophets has the "Golden Rule" as its basis. — ThinkOfOne

This, I assume, you do not regard as figurative, so let's consider it. The basis of the Law is not the Law. Why would he talk about specific commandments if the Golden Rule is sufficient? Why would he say "the least of these commands" if there is only the one, the Golden Rule or two, love God and your neighbor?

When he says:

For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:20)

he means that it is not enough to simple obey the Law outwardly one must do it as a matter of devotion, as a matter of worship, with all one's heart, with love. For love is the basis of what you should do.

Jesus read from the Book of Isaiah presenting it as prophecy of which He Himself is the fulfillment (4:21). — ThinkOfOne

What you said was:

Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4) — ThinkOfOne

Isaiah did not prophesy that Jesus would be anointed by God or that Jesus would

"give sight to the blind". — ThinkOfOne

What he said was:

... the Sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up before all nations. (61:11)

What Jesus is referring to as being fulfilled is the promise of the Kingdom of God. Fulfilled not by "He Himself" but by the sovereign Lord, that is, God.

Jesus himself cannot be the sovereign Lord referred to by Isaiah, for he says that he, Isaiah, was anointed by the Lord, and you said that Jesus would be anointed by God, not by himself.

And so, I will ask you:

Are you unaware of the necessity of reading in context in order to comprehend what you are reading? — ThinkOfOne

He is now pushing for a 90 day review process of the documents. Run the clock out until after the midterm elections.

I am not concerned. — NOS4A2

Well that settles it. NOS is not concerned. We can all rest assured.

He was the president of the United States, the commander in chief, and had the unilateral power to do whatever he wanted with those documents — NOS4A2

The commander in chief is not an emperor. He cannot do whatever he wants with classified documents. He cannot give them or sell them to Russia or China or use them as leverage against his enemies.

If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

And they’d be wrong. — NOS4A2

Only because they did not notice you were not referring to Trump, not because it does not describe what he continues to do.

They’re your interests, maybe. — NOS4A2

They are the interests of anyone who is able to see the threat of a nuclear Iran. On the one hand you point to Iran killing US soldiers but on the other pretend there is no danger with them being a nuclear power.

I don’t care about the article or the book of some establishment bureaucrat. I read what you quoted and what you tried to sell from it. — NOS4A2

You admit you didn't read it but that did not prevent you from saying:

This is a good little reminder, despite the breathtaking stupidity of the review. — NOS4A2

I won't say what stands as a good little reminder of breathtaking stupidity.

I did not try to sell anything from it. But, of course, you would not know that since you did not read the review and what it says in distinction from what you assume I rather than the review said. The review speaks for itself.According to the review Berman describes himself as a Rockefeller Republican and that during the 2016 presidential primary season, Mr. Berman volunteered for Mr. Trump’s campaign and later for his transition committee. Unlike you, Berman has first hand insider knowledge of the things he wrote about.

The idea that using the FBI to raid political opponents over national archives ... — NOS4A2

It is not simply that the material belongs to the national archives, it is that the material contains classified documents. Having them in his personal possession raises national security issues. The fact that he did not protect them from a whole host of people raises national security issues. Is it that you are not able to see why it is of concern, or are you just pretending not to?

The efforts of former bureaucrats to undermine the president of the United States ... — NOS4A2

If someone were to read this without having read what comes before it they might assume you are talking about Trump.

I don’t give a straw for the “allied interests of the world”. — NOS4A2

Spoken like a true Trumpster. The allied interests of the world are our interests. It is not as if we are separate and safe from a nuclear threat that only affects the rest of the world.

By "someone" I did not mean some particular someone.

You're conflating the words attributed to Jesus said while He walked the Earth with the mythology NT writers wrapped around His words. — ThinkOfOne

How do you disentangle the two? Are you referring to the findings of phase 1 of the Jesus Seminars?

The most obvious problem with trying to separate the mythology of NT writers is that any talk of God, whether it was said by Jesus or not, is mythology.

There is another problem that you have avoided. Your interest does not seem to be in what Jesus said but with subjecting his words to a tortured reading that turns them into what you want them to say while ignoring the words themselves.

I know that he was not in fact quoting Berman in the content you provided. — NOS4A2

Based on what you have said you have made it clear once again that you did not read the article. What do you hope to gain by providing further evidence of it?

when Iran was busy killing US soldiers in Iraq — NOS4A2

So, because Iranian soldiers were busy killing US soldiers while US soldiers were busy killing Iranian soldiers (it's called "war") efforts to salvage a nuclear arms deal made by several world powers should not have taken place? The allied interests of the world, not the unilateral interests of Trump or what he thinks are the interests of the US are at issue.

No, you quoted the reviewer. But you claimed it was Berman’s claim. So why won’t you show me Berman’s claim? — NOS4A2

From my first post on this:

...from an advance copy review by the NYT — Fooloso4

The reviewer quotes Berman. Perhaps I assumed too much, that you would know what an advanced copy is and how quoting sources work.

When asked about reports of him meeting the Iranian foreign minister he said “ Yes, I have. That’s accurate”. It was on the Hugh Hewitt radio show. — NOS4A2

He acknowledged meeting with the Iranian foreign minister. That is not the same as the claim that:

Kerry had a rogue “back-channel” with Iran during the Trump years. — NOS4A2

The problem is with your characterization of the meetings as rogue.

According to a report in The Washington Times, Zarik also met with Robert Malley, who was President Obama’s Middle East adviser and Obama-era Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. All were top U.S. negotiators of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The fact of the matter is that there were efforts throughout the Trump years to minimize the harm being caused by him. Kerry's allegiance was not to Trump, but to the US. And this failure to demonstrate allegiance to him is why Trump pushed for an investigation.

In 2019, Trump himself, according to the article, sought to open his own back channel of communication with top Iranian officials.

Then quote him. — NOS4A2

That is what I did! If you had read the piece you would know that. But you do not even read some of the things you link to, so there is no reasonable expectation that you would read this one.

Kerry himself admitted it. — NOS4A2

What did he say and where did he say it? Or don't you actually know because he didn't actually read more than a headline?

That said, I suspect that some who post on this site are a bit short on logical thinking skills and/or the basic teaching of Jesus. Likely they mindlessly repeat things they found on the internet. — ThinkOfOne

Your response is typical of someone who clings to their beliefs and refuses to look carefully at what the gospel texts actually say. You assume you have an adequate understanding of the basic teachings of Jesus and so reject anything that does not conform to your beliefs. Unfortunately for you, this includes what is actually said in the texts themselves.

Rather than confront and address what I have pointed to in the texts you ignore it and attempt to discredit me. That is a common tactic of someone who wants to protect their beliefs and must ignore the texts to do so.

There is a great deal of scholarly disagreement, but at a minimum one must be able to address specifically what is said in the text, rather than impose one's assumptions on it. As a general rule of interpretation, when there is evidence in the text that seems to contradict one's assumptions then you must either alter those assumptions or defend them on the basis of additional evidence found in the text. Vague claims about the basic teachings of Jesus won't cut it.

Perhaps whether or not it occurs to someone that it is a matter of choice is a matter of intelligence.

The concept of the Messiah and the Kingdom are Jewish not Greek or Roman. The Greek and Romans, however, held to the idea of human gods. In Christianity the two are conflated and the messiah eventually comes to be regarded as God. The term "son of God" as it is used in the Hebrew Bible and literature of the time referred to a human being favored by God, not God himself begetting himself.

A king anointed by God (Greek Christos) is Jewish.

The belief in resurrection is a traditional Jewish belief.

Keeping the sabbath is a Jewish belief.

The existence of angels is a Jewish belief.

I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the Q source since it is hypothetical and we do not have any documents that can establish its existence. Paul, whose writings are the oldest never met or saw of heard Jesus and according to his own accounts he split off from the disciples and went to preach to the gentiles. What he said was not based on the authority of what Jesus said but was based on "inspiration", the belief that it was through the indwelling of spirit.

Jesus was anointed by God (Luke 4), — ThinkOfOne

You cite Luke 4 but do not take into account how often Jesus' responses quote what is written. The online version of the New International Version includes footnotes that identify Deuteronomy (the Law) and Isaiah (the Prophets). It is Isaiah not Jesus who claims to have been anointed (4:18)

The passage from Matthew is not an alternative to or "rather than the OT"

He is responding to the Pharisees and Sadducees who are challenging him as to how the Law and Prophets are to be interpreted. He is not proposing a replacement for them. It is, rather, that to follow the Law without love of God and your neighbor is not sufficient.

In essence, the entirety of the true ways of God boils down to what is often referred to as "The Golden Rule". Jesus effectively replaced a rules-based understanding of the ways of God (the OT) with a conceptual understanding (The Golden Rule). — ThinkOfOne

In Matthew 5 he says:

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

The smallest letter and stroke of the pen refer to what is written. He goes on to discuss several specifs regarding the Law and how it is to be obeyed. He does not say to ignore all that written stuff. He says:

Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

One of the least of these commands means that there are many not two.

The greatness of a moral teaching lies solely in the goodness of its contents. — Tzeentch

If you or I were to repeat teachings that we found elsewhere it may be that the teachings themselves are great, but would that make us great moral teachers?

The person who repeats it, or even the person who invents it, are in my opinion not relevant at all to the worth of a teaching. — Tzeentch

I agree, but the title of this thread is: "Jesus as a great moral teacher?"

They do not have that much in common with Judaism in general and at certain points can be even be considered polar opposites. — Tzeentch

From the Sermon on the Mount:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

The Law and Prophets are the basis of Jewish teaching. Jesus says they must be upheld.

Christianity has much more in common with classical Greek philosophy, especially (neo-)Platonism. — Tzeentch

Christianity and the teachings of Jesus are not the same thing. While we have no way of determining what it might have been that Jesus taught, it is clear that the gospels contain significant differences. The early Jesus movement, the suppression of "heretical" gospels by the Church Fathers, and what was declared official Christian doctrine at the Council of Nicaea give us very different pictures of what Christianity is as it developed and changed

Put differently, the further we get from Jesus, the less apparent the Jewish roots of his teaching and the more it comes to resemble the pagan beliefs of Greece and Rome. This is not at all surprising given that following Paul's preaching to the gentiles the distinction between Jew and Gentile grew and became more and more acrimonious and Christianity came more and more to resemble the gentile world.

She claims — NOS4A2

Who is "she"? The reviewer, Benjamin Weiser, is not making any claims. He is reviewing a book by Geoffrey S. Berman. It is Berman who made the claim. How does this lead to your conclusion that the review is breathtakingly stupid?

Kerry had a rogue “back-channel” with Iran during the Trump years. — NOS4A2

You turn a rumor into a fact. Trump himself tweeted that what Kerry was doing was:

possibly illegal Shadow Diplomacy

More from the review you did not read:

Mr. Berman says that after an investigation of roughly a year, his office told the Justice Department that it would not prosecute Mr. Kerry.

A short time later, on Sept. 19, 2019, Mr. Berman writes, a senior adviser to the attorney general called to say that Mr. Barr expected to take the Kerry case to another U.S. attorney’s office, this time in Maryland.

That office reached the same conclusion as the Southern District had, Mr. Berman writes, “and the Kerry investigation just quietly died — as it should have.”

Haven't you read what I said? — Alkis Piskas

Haven't you read what you said? You begin the post in which you acknowledge that it is not so simple by quoting me saying that the background here is likely to be the dispute between Paul and Jesus' disciples regarding the Law. You dispute this saying:

The background here is Jesus vs Pharisees. I have made that clear. I gave two references on that. — Alkis Piskas

It is in response to this that I said again that it is not so simple. The setting of Matthew's narrative, Pharisees challenging Jesus, is not the background against which he presents his narrative.

Which means, I'm not actually interested. — Alkis Piskas

There are other people reading these posts and forming their own opinions. When someone makes a statement, even if he claims he is not actually interested, it is appropriate for others to respond if they have a different take on the matter.

the breathtaking stupidity of the review. — NOS4A2

Explain how a review of a book you have not read is breathtakingly stupid.

Seems to me the worth of a moral teaching is found in the doing. — Banno

If a moral teaching is doing what is already found in the tradition should the "great moral teaching" be attributed to the one who repeats it?

But instead the thread bleats on about scriptural interpretation and Jewish history and so on... — Banno

I don't see how the question of his teachings can be separated from questions of interpretation and the context within which those teaching occured, that is, the teachings and practices of his fellow Jews.

The moral teachings themselves, in distinction from the teachings about him, have much more in common with the teachings of the Jewish sects of his time than any differences we may find. As a moral teacher there is nothing remarkable about the teaching attributed to him. If he was not regarded as the Messiah, the savior and redeemer of mankind, it seems likely that he would be largely unknown today.

I like the approach of "The Historical Jesus in Context". The title is somewhat misleading because the focus is not simply on trying to establish who the historical Jesus was, but rather, looks at the historical context in which the gospels were written:

The Historical Jesus in Context is a landmark collection that places the gospel narratives in their full literary, social, and archaeological context. More than twenty-five internationally recognized experts offer new translations and descriptions of a broad range of texts that shed new light on the Jesus of history, including pagan prayers and private inscriptions, miracle tales and martyrdoms, parables and fables, divorce decrees and imperial propaganda.

I like to keep the various senses of foolosophy in play.

Fools who think themselves wise.
Wise about fools.
Wise enough to know that human wisdom may be no more than foolishness.
Wise enough to know when to fool
Wise enough to play the fool

He has repeatedly and without evidence made accusations about election fraud, and now ... he is being investigated for election fraud. He may once again avoid prosecution but some around him will no doubt be convicted.