His teachings become like someone’s great-grandmother’s bone china dinner set, entirely too rare, valuable, and historic to actually be used at a dinner. — Art48

Excellent points. Reminds me of someone I've been learning about recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard

Let's say that I listen to sermons for years and hear all the great bible stories. One day God finally calls me to sacrifice my son. Just to make sure I'm not crazy, I check with my pastor. He tells me I am indeed crazy and calls the police. So did the pastor ever really believe in Abraham and Isaac ? Or were these stories all along more like magic spells, incantations ? Like Jesus walking on water. Like his mother becoming pregnant as a virgin. Now I'm thinking of a story that the pastor's daughter might want to tell....

On the other hand, if Jesus is God, then of course his teachings are great and valuable, but we normal, weak, sinful human beings really can’t be faulted for not following such elevated and noble teachings. — Art48

I would think Jesus is even easier to ignore if he's just some eccentric, wandering teacher with an opinion.

Can you think of one religion which hasn't strayed from its original message, where teachings aren't ignored?

What problem are you trying to solve with this thought experiment? Which teachings of Jesus are true and which ones are ignored?

I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48

I have generally held that if Jesus did live at any point (and we know almost nothing about this character) he was a human being who had some myths develop around him, like so many others. It would be a brave person who can identify actual teachings.

There are reasons he is called God, but that does not mean they are good reasons or even reasonable reasons. They are, however, reasons why Jesus would be pissed off if he knew someone was calling him God. But that's another story for another thread.

What is in the teachings of Jesus that are not in the teaching of Jewish scriptures and works of the rabbis?

I’m webmaster, zoom operator (services are online), and general tech resource. People often thank me for doing what I do — Art48

The problem arises when they thank Jesus for what someone does.

to avoid having to do what he taught — Art48

Im reminded of this idea from Erich Fromm:

"...people who are firm believers in Christ as the great lover, the self-sacrificing God, can turn this belief, in an alienated way, into the experience that it is Jesus who loves for them. Jesus thus becomes an idol; the belief in him becomes the substitute for one’s own act of loving. In a simple, unconscious formula: “Christ does all the loving for us; we can go on in the pattern of the Greek hero, yet we are saved because the alienated ‘faith’ in Christ is a substitute for the imitation of Christ.”

So in a sense it is a deflection of the responsibility to be and do what Jesus said.
It's easier to worship Jesus than to become Jesus so if you call him a god you are making that goal unreachable and then go your usual way.

Tom,

Most Christians say they believe God commands us to love our enemies and forgive seventy times seven. Yet when 9/11 happened, I don't recall any Christian saying we should turn the other cheek.

I'm NOT saying we should have turned the other cheek. I'm merely pointing out that there's an enormous gulf between what Christians (and other religious people say) and what they do, possibly in the Christian case enabled by the lofty view of who Jesus is.

TheMadMan — TheMadMan

Yes. And I like the Fromm quote.

Most Christians say they believe God commands us to love our enemies and forgive seventy times seven. Yet when 9/11 happened, I don't recall any Christian saying we should turn the other cheek. — Art48

And it was Islam, a religion of peace, that flew the planes into the buildings. I don't think any religion honors its tradition all that much. The gulf between theory and practice is one of the things which makes us human.

What is in the teachings of Jesus that are not in the teaching of Jewish scriptures and works of the rabbis? — Fooloso4

Jesus often spoke with the authority of someone who had direct knowledge of God, whereas the rabbis tended to rely on the authority of the Torah and the interpretations of previous rabbis.

He challenged the traditional interpretations of the Jewish Law, emphasizing the spirit rather than the letter. For example, Jesus taught that love for God and love for one's neighbor were the most important commandments, rather than scrupulous adherence to the Law.

He welcomed all people, regardless of their social status or background, whereas the rabbis tended to maintain the social heirarchy.

He emphasized the importance of a personal relationship with God, rather than relying solely on religious practices or following the teachings of religious leaders.

Jesus performed miracles, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, which were not part of traditional Jewish teachings, and which the Rabbis didn't or couldn't do.

Not much, apart from that.

Whatever else one might think of Kierkegaard, he saw the demand from a person to follow Christ as a direct requirement even if the metaphors were unclear. The wiki page you cite gives a few tastes from the Works of Love:

But the metaphorical words are of course not brand-new words but are the already given words. Just as the spirit is invisible, so also is its language a secret, and the secret lies in its using the same words as the child and the simpleminded person but using them metaphorically, whereby the spirit denies the sensate or sensate-physical way. The difference is by no means a noticeable difference. For this reason we rightfully regard it as a sign of false spirituality to parade a noticeable difference-which is merely sensate, whereas the spirit's manner is the metaphor's quiet, whispering secret – for the person who has ears to hear. Soren Kierkegaard, Works of Love, 1847, Hong 1995 p. 209-210

Love builds up by presupposing that love is present. Have you not experienced this yourself, my listener? If anyone has ever spoken to you in such a way or treated you in such a way that you really felt built up, this was because you very vividly perceived how he presupposed love to be in you. Wisdom is a being-for-itself quality; power, talent, knowledge, etc. are likewise being-for-itself qualities. To be wise does not mean to presuppose that others are wise; on the contrary, it may be very wise and true if the truly wise person assumes that far from all people are wise. But love is not a being-for-itself quality but a quality by which or in which you are for others. Loving means to presuppose love in others. Soren Kierkegaard Works of Love, Hong p. 222-224

His teachings become like someone’s great-grandmother’s bone china dinner set, entirely too rare, valuable, and historic to actually be used at a dinner. — Art48

Nice. :grin:

It's easier to worship Jesus than to become Jesus so if you call him a god you are making that goal unreachable and then go your usual way. — TheMadMan

:up:

That's what an idealized Jesus might say: take up your cross !

Thinkers that warn us against idolatry tend to become idols. There seems to be something deep in us that demands this transference of responsibility. We hide behind daddy. But there's also the project of becoming our own father, undoing our having been thrown (O heroic impossible hope !)

Jesus becomes an excuse to crucify. What myth is more extreme than the public humiliation and execution of a god by the ruling church and the state ? What is said here about an individuality (?) that transcends everything worldly and respectable ?

Whatever else one might think of Kierkegaard, he saw the demand from a person to follow Christ as a direct requirement even if the metaphors were unclear. — Paine

I think he's a hero, all things considered. It seems to me that Heidegger tried to generalize Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard was to Christianity as Heidegger would be to philosophy, a rebel voice calling it out for its complacent industriousness, calling it back to its terrible and wonderful roots. (?) Why is an excavation necessary ? There's too much plaque on the cross. If all the respectable people are Christians and philosophers, then none of them are. Foolishness to the Greeks, madness to the complacent knowledge industrial complex.

Kierkegaard wrote somewhere that the way he was treated by the Christian intellectuals of his day was as or more important than what he himself said. He was a questioning protagonist who forced them to reveal themselves as phonies, faint memories of the real thing ...

But is the real thing good ? Maybe the problem wasn't that they weren't Christians but only that they pretended to be.

Kierkegaard was pretty clear about what conditions he laid out required of an individual.

You will have to enlighten me how and where Heidegger 'generalized' that.

One challenge in that regard is how to see Heidegger as a bridge Kierkegaard saw Hegel unable to build.

Let me put it another way. The emphasis upon the Single Individual versus a 'person in their situation" is not a difference unless it is one.

Is that not the question?

Kierkegaard was pretty clear about what conditions he laid out required of an individual. — Paine

I suspect you know K's work better than I do. I'm new to it, and I read it as an atheist.

You will have to enlighten me how and where Heidegger 'generalized' that. — Paine

I think it's most visible in the early lectures. Ontology―The Hermeneutics of Facticity is a great one. So is The Concept of Time (all three 'versions' actually, but the lectures are richest.) For overviews, Van Buren's The Young Heidegger and Kisiel's 'Genesis' are great.

You follow with some great questions, but maybe we should explore them in another thread ?

So, if I said Jesus was just a regular guy with some great teachings that I really admire, then someone might ask me why I don’t practice those I teachings which I claim to value so much. On the other hand, if Jesus is God, then of course his teachings are great and valuable, but we normal, weak, sinful human beings really can’t be faulted for not following such elevated and noble teachings. — Art48

Haha, I like this. It is underhandedly criticizing :smirk:. You are rebuking Paul's main argument against the Law (of Moses), and rightfully so, because he was a wanker who didn't know shit from shinola other than to build castles in the sand to build up his new religion he made out of Jesus (meaning they were probably not from Jesus himself).

I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48

I don't think so. For instance, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is reported to have taught support of "evil" by not resisting "evil-doers" (re: "turn the other cheek" Matthew 5:38–42, "love your enemies" Luke 6:27–31, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" Matthew 16:24, etc). :brow:

Not a "word" preached against marital rape or incest, against slavery, against executions, or in favor of thinking for oneself – nothing but teachings on how to live self-abegnating lives like "sheep" to be flocked and fleeced by "the shepherd" for his piously mysterious (i.e. "revealed") purpose.

If the idea were true, would there be some sort of reason or motive for people to say Jesus is God anyway?

Idolatry. Familial/sectarian indoctrination. Masochistic gullibility (re: conversion).

Jesus often spoke with the authority of someone who had direct knowledge of God, — Wayfarer

We have no knowledge of how he spoke or what he said.

Paul spoke with what he claimed was the authority of Christ but did not call him a god.

He challenged the traditional interpretations of the Jewish Law, emphasizing the spirit rather than the letter. — Wayfarer

This was common practice for the rabbis's dialectical interpretations. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus stressed the letter of the Law.

He welcomed all people, regardless of their social status or background, whereas the rabbis tended to maintain the social heirarchy. — Wayfarer

More than likely this was the influence of Paul on the gospels, and reflected the split and growing animosity between Jesus' Jewish disciples and the followers of Paul. In addition, there were several Jewish sects with different social and religious beliefs and practices.

love for one's neighbor — Wayfarer

This is from Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus performed miracles, such as healing the sick and raising the dead, which were not part of traditional Jewish teachings, and which the Rabbis didn't or couldn't do. — Wayfarer

There were stories of other Jewish miracle workers in addition to the stories of Jesus.

:up:

The gulf between theory and practice is one of the things which makes us human. — Tom Storm

Do scientists have a gulf between theory and practice? If science says plutonium is deadly, do some scientists nonetheless carry plutonium in the pockets? Religion claims possession of the Truth (with a capital "T") but I'd say science respects the truth much more than religion.

Do scientists have a gulf between theory and practice? — Art48

No idea. Probably. Science in theory is meant to help and enhance humanity and yet scientists everywhere are engaged in activities of death and destruction. From denying climate change to building and designing chemical and nuclear weapons. Is scientism another gulf between theory and practice. A case of theory overreach at the expense of truth?

Religion claims possession of the Truth (with a capital "T") but I'd say science respects the truth much more than religion. — Art48

I hear you, but some here might call that scientism. In what sense does science deal in truths? Religion deals in different truths - foundational meaning and morality. Science, as we all learn, can't give us an ought from an is.

Okay. I see we are at the boundaries of the other's perspective.

Yes, another thread.

I will read your selected essays if you read The Concept of Anxiety.

:up:

If you have a good link to a pdf, please PM it. It's on my list.

That's what an idealized Jesus might say: take up your cross ! — green flag

I think that's what was implied in what he actually said, especially in the Gospel of Thomas.

Also that's why I like the Zen attitude towards the Buddha:
"If you meet Buddha in your path cut of his head immediately"
“Cleanse the mouth thoroughly when you utter the word Buddha.”
“There is one word I do not like to hear; that is, Buddha.”
“If I had been with Buddha at the moment of his uttering this, I would surely have struck him dead with one blow and thrown the corpse into the maw of a hungry dog.”

Their goal is Buddha and yet they are aware that it is also their biggest obstacle.

Their goal is Buddha and yet they are aware that it is also their biggest obstacle. — TheMadMan

I think you and I are very much on the same page. I'll drag in some psychoanalysis: the son must kill the father and lay with the mother (find this project dormant in himself). (Daughters can have an equivalent story.) Belief in the 'Buddha' projects authority and responsibility and realization Elsewhere, turns spirituality into that bonechina dinner set that no is 'really' supposed to eat with. Such 'transference' is probably necessary. Our plastic brains are wired to 'fall in love' (project that 'unnamable' X) on charisma. In animal terms, a boy will likely project on his big father with the deep voice. We begin so helpless that of course we reach for intercessors.

Science, as we all learn, can't give us an ought from an is. — Tom Storm

At the risk of diverting this thread, I'd say that science + goals can give us oughts.
Think of science as a map. I want to go from A to B. There are rivers, mountains, and private property between A and B. So, I look at the map and plan my optimum route. If I want to get to B as quickly as possible, I ought to drive the turnpike. If I want to take a scenic route, I ought to take highway H. Etc.

I'd say that science + goals can give us oughts. Think of science as a map... — Art48

:... experience-based goals (i.e. hypothetical imperatives). :up:

Some "goals" are moral and some are not; how do we tell the difference?

Some "goals" are moral and some are not; how do we tell the difference? — 180 Proof

Human flourishing is one, admittedly vague, answer. But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves.

Think of science as a map. I want to go from A to B. There are rivers, mountains, and private property between A and B. — Art48

Sure, I think that is the Sam Harris position in The Moral Landscape.

But it's far superior to the Bible's "morality" which says "witches" are to be put to death and which gives specific rules for the buying and selling of slaves. — Art48

Indeed - a divine command theory is a morality segregated from what is right and wrong. Socrates licked this one in Euthyphro.

Jesus often spoke with the authority of someone who had direct knowledge of God, whereas the rabbis tended to rely on the authority of the Torah and the interpretations of previous rabbis. — Wayfarer

We have no knowledge of how he spoke or what he said. — Fooloso4

I think it's possible that, supposing there was some fundamental truth, or logos, a prime "Logic" or reason that underpins the true nature of reality and the true basis for actual knowledge, and Jesus was a man who encountered/came face to face with that notion...

... Then he was an ordinary man with extraordinary insight. Empowered by pure precision reasoning ability.

Id imagine it as a bit like having a tongue that could cut through basically anyone and everyone's BS and separate delusion/false justifications from pure unadulterated truth.

This extraordinary or super rare ability could easily be misinterpreted as miracles through the centuries of exaggeration of his character, translation of scripture and evolution of language use/semantics. Perhaps "raising the dead" is akin to something like revealing a lack of true "death" of self, only death of current identity. Or perhaps "multiplying bread" was adding profundity or "a delicious zest/taste" to even the most common or basic staples, enhancing the sensorium/joy of awareness.

If that's the case then we can understand where the holy trinity would come from. The father (Logos) is mirrored or perfectly parallelled by the sons action: behaviour and voice (a regular man speaking and behaving of pure knowledge of logos).

In that way it would be sort of like if the universe had a voice and could communicate directly to people through a conduit (jesus).

The holy spirit then is the link between logos and the son (Man), something like "state of mind" or "consciousness" or "free will" to know and speak of the logos or not.

Finally, if such a man like Jesus was indeed of incredible insight, this would scare the living sh*t out of anyone who's trying to hide something. It would be like judgement day - imagine an acute clarity of reasoning (wave of elevated awareness) rippling out from mind to mind, person to person.

"A spreading of the word (logos)"

Where all the books are balanced. Grand accountancy.
Seeing as lying relies on deception, having some truth bearer around does not bode well for deceptors.
So naturally he was in mortal danger. But I would suspect he already knew this. It's logical.

Any great leader (truth speaker - knowledgeable because they know the truth and moral because they speak the truth to empower others) faces the prospect of assassination/martyrdom.

They don't neccesarily want to be leaders because they know what responsibility that truly carries. Meanwhile immoral people are "leader wannabes" because they love power but aren't prepared to bear the responsability.

I’m merely asking you to entertain for a few minutes the idea that Jesus was just a normal human being who had some good teachings about how to live. — Art48

I don't think so. For instance, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef is reported to have taught support of "evil" by not resisting "evil-doers" (re: "turn the other cheek" Matthew 5:38–42, "love your enemies" Luke 6:27–31, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me" Matthew 16:24, etc). :brow:

Not a "word" preached against marital rape or incest, against slavery, against executions, or in favor of thinking for oneself – nothing but teachings on how to live self-abegnating lives like "sheep" to be flocked and fleeced by "the shepherd" for his piously mysterious (i.e. "revealed") purpose. — 180 Proof

I hear you. He had some truly atrocious teachings.

For instance, the Old Testament in two places says a child who curses a parent must be put to death.
• Whoever curses his father or his mother shall be put to death.—Exodus 21:17
• For anyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother; his blood is upon him.—Leviticus 20:9

There are two places in the New Testament where Jesus specifically cites those Old Testament laws with approval!
• For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Matt 15:4
• For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’—Mark 7:10

And his teaching about disease being the result of sin and demons set medicine back a few centuries.

But I don't deny he had some good teachings, too.