Jesus didn’t write the Bible did he? If he existed he might have been a good teacher and someone to look up to. All I know is the Bible is a piece of political propaganda written after his death and edited/censored to serve an institution rather than as a moral compass for humanity.

Evidence: The gospels were selected from a much larger corpus of work.

Can you explicitly state why you think that Jesus was "not a great moral teacher"
based on the verses that you cited?

Can you explicitly state why you think that Jesus was "not a great moral teacher" based on the verses that you cited? — ThinkOfOne

Killing a child who curses a parent is not the moral thing to do.
It's an evil teaching.

All I know is the Bible is a piece of political propaganda written after his death and edited/censored to serve an institution rather than as a moral compass for humanity. — I like sushi

The truth lies in the past but it is a logical conclusion considering.

It's folly to take Jesus at face value. Jesus was a complex conceptual thinker. There are many layers that need to be understood to be able to understand what He IS and just as importantly what He IS NOT saying in any given passage. There are overarching themes and underlying concepts that run throughout that need to be taken into account.

If you're really interested in understanding Him, I can try to explain it to you. From what I gather, you are not a Christian. How familiar are you with the words spoken by Jesus while He walked the Earth? Overarching themes? Underlying concepts?

Be aware that for various reasons, the vast majority of Christians do NOT understand Him either. And the few that do that I've come across, can better be described as followers of Jesus rather than Christian. Also be aware that I am not and never have been Christian. Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs the core underlying concepts of which are, for all intents and purposes, antithetical to underlying core concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus.

Is this heading towards a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy? And how exactly in theory would one determine what counts as Christian and what does not count? There are no actual words of Jesus, just things written in books many years after the events depicted by anonymous sources. Which words exactly could we demonstrate as having been said?

Is this heading towards a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy? And how exactly in theory would one determine what counts as Christian and what does not count? — Tom Storm

Quite frankly I don't have any real interest in "what counts as Christian" per se. Just going by what is commonly understood as "Christian".

Consider the following:

1816 January 9. (Jefferson to Charles Thomson). "I too have made a wee little book, from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus. it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. a more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen. it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. they have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature.

Pasted from <http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs>

Evidently Jefferson had been accused of not being a Christian, but saw himself as a "real Christian" as opposed to his accusers who he evidently saw as "false". I don't have a problem with Jefferson identifying with being "Christian", though it seems to be out-of-step with how the word is commonly used .

There are no actual words of Jesus, just things written in books many years after the events depicted by anonymous sources. Which words exactly could we demonstrate as having been said? — Tom Storm

That - or some derivation thereof- can be said about many a historical figure. One can only go by what was attributed to Jesus. Quite frankly it makes no difference to me as to whether Jesus actually said them or even if Jesus actually existed. What's important are the underlying concepts conveyed by those words. For ease of conversation, it's just easier to speak as if the words were spoken by Jesus. Not sure why you seem to think it important. Why do you?

Quite frankly I don't have any real interest in "what counts as Christian" per se. Just going by what is commonly understood as "Christian". — ThinkOfOne

Ok but you seem to be arguing about what counts as Christian and what does not count, so you surely have some answer to this question?

What's important are the underlying concepts conveyed by those words. For ease of conversation, it's just easier to speak as if the words were spoken by Jesus. Not sure why you seem to think it important. Why do you? — ThinkOfOne

You seem to be trying to develop a version of Christianity, an interpretation, especially when you say things like:

It's folly to take Jesus at face value. Jesus was a complex conceptual thinker. — ThinkOfOne

Christianity is a remarkably self-serving system of beliefs the core underlying concepts of which are, for all intents and purposes, antithetical to underlying core concepts of the gospel preached by Jesus. — ThinkOfOne

There are overarching themes and underlying concepts that run throughout that need to be taken into account. — ThinkOfOne

That's all.

For ease of conversation, it's just easier to speak as if the words were spoken by Jesus. — ThinkOfOne

Not really. You've just said 'as if' - so which bits of the gospels count 'as if' and which ones do not?

It's folly to take Jesus at face value. — ThinkOfOne

Correct. What has come down to us is mostly fiction.

The moral novelty in Christianity is charity.

Not a small innovation.

What else there is of merit was already to be found, better expressed, elsewhere.

Jefferson to Charles Thomson

I hope Thomson reminded Jefferson that if we find ourselves cutting up Bibles to arrange the text differently and having dark thoughts about Jews then we may lose credibility on religious matters.

This was not an innovation, it is a part of traditional Judaism:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/charity-throughout-jewish-history

You don't seem to have understood much of what I wrote. Perhaps you'd do better if you were to:
1) Keep context in mind. Both mine and yours.
2) Respond to it as a whole instead of piece-meal.

Care to try again?

Meh. It is the only bit of moral teaching that is not explicit in classical philosophy. I wasn't attributing it to Jesus. The rise of Christianity brought charity on board with the other virtues.

It's also found in Buddhist teachings.

I hope Thomson reminded Jefferson that if we find ourselves cutting up Bibles to arrange the text differently and having dark thoughts about Jews then we may lose credibility on religious matters. — Cuthbert

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is widely open to interpretation and contains inconsistencies, discrepancies and outright contradictions. Though most Christians refuse to admit it, they pick and choose the verses and passages that support their beliefs and dismiss those that don't and often do so in a most disingenuous manner. Somehow many are able to do just that and delude themselves into believing that the entirety of the Bible is the "inerrant word of God".

No idea what you have in mind when you say "having dark thoughts about Jews".

"having dark thoughts about Jews" — ThinkOfOne

the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews

that bit.

It's folly to take Jesus at face value.
— ThinkOfOne
Correct. What has come down to us is mostly fiction. — Art48

It's unfortunate that you chose to ignore the bulk of what I wrote.

@Tom Storm's post was cogent and relevant. Don't blame the messenger.

Care to try again?

↪ThinkOfOne Tom Storm's post was cogent and relevant. Don't blame the messenger.

Care to try again? — Banno

Care to explain exactly how you arrived at that conclusion? Go ahead. Lay it out for me.

I had much the same thoughts as Tom as i read your post.

So like it or not, that incipient Scotsman is in what you wrote.

So, care to try again?

The fact that you declined to show how exactly how you arrived at that conclusion speaks volumes.

"having dark thoughts about Jews"
— ThinkOfOne

the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews

that bit. — Cuthbert

How does that reasonably equate to "having dark thoughts about Jews"?

That you failed to recognise my showing how I arrived at that conclusion speaks louder.

We can all play at passive-aggressive chit chat. You like demand explanations from others because it saves you from having to think.

If you actually have something to say, just say it. Stop being coy.

↪ThinkOfOne

That you failed to recognise my showing how I arrived at that conclusion speaks louder.

We can all play at passive-aggressive chit chat. You like demand explanations from others because it saves you from having to actually think.

If you actually have something to say, just say it. Stop being coy. — Banno

This from the guy making vacuous one-line assertions and then refusing to back it up. Passive-aggressive? How does that NOT much more aptly describe you?

Listen. If you want to actually have a discussion, then try adding some substance to your posts.

A more illustrative example of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's failure as a moral teacher is this:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right, turn to him the other also. — Matthew 5:39

In other words (intentional or not), do not fight – surrender to – "evil". :mask:

Jesus' teachings were for the challenges faced by the oppressed: how to become free of bitterness.

Those who need it will find it.

↪Art48 A more illustrative example of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's failure as a moral teacher is this:
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right, turn to him the other also.
— Matthew 5:39
In other words (intentional or not), reward, even encourage, "evil". :mask: — 180 Proof

Evidently Gandhi had quite a different understanding of what Jesus was saying in that passage:

Hence, the Sermon on the Mount had a significant impact and role in the transformation of Gandhi's personality.20 For he said: "Sermon on the Mount went straight to my heart."21 And "The Sermon on the Mount left a deep impression on my mind when I read it."22 Thus, the Sermon made a permanent and lasting impact on Gandhi, as he followed it till the end his of life, being called as the 'Apostle of non-violence.'

What really impressed Gandhi in the Sermon was the teaching of Jesus - 'resist not evil.' So he often quoted from Mathew 5: 39,

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you and pray for those who treat you badly. To the one who strikes you on the cheek, turn the other cheek; to the one who takes your coat, give also your shirt.
What Jesus expects in this passage is not tit for tat, but the end of all resentment and retaliation. We must graciously forgive others of their wrong-doings and our goodness must exceed the evil that is there in the world. We must win over the evil by our goodness. That means we must not return evil for evil, but our response to evil must be good. And how to respond to the evil with goodness is a challenge always. Gandhi understood this challenge and loved the noble teaching of Jesus to love your enemy (ahimsa) in the Sermon. This meant non-violence, non-retaliation and non-resistance to the evil and doing further good to the evil ones. For example, Gandhi saw in Jesus' verse "If any man will take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also?" a picturesque and telling manner the great doctrine of non-violent non-co-operation.

https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/mahatma-gandhi-and-sermon-on-the-mount.html#:~:text=of%20non%2Dviolence.-,',to%20those%20who%20hate%20you.

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right, turn to him the other also — Matthew 5:39

Something's gotta give, oui? Evil initiates/perpetuates a vicious cycle of violence (the Romeo & Juliet family vendetta) - in the long run reciprocal animosity is detrimental to both sides (both Romeo & Juliet died) - and that I feel is the rationale for "turning the other cheek". I haven't even mentioned the toll it exacts on other parties not directly involved in the feud - ripple effects!

Also, I find it more difficult to lose than to win - difficult is good, oui?

As far as the OP's concerned Jesus, whether mythical or not, hit the bullseye with respect to ethics. The controversy of whether Jesus was/is man or God is the gist of Christianity. You did it Jesus, you did it!

Care to try again? — ThinkOfOne

No, I think we can move on. Take care.

Thanks.