Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 21, 2015 at 8:26pm

No, those words are very Jewish, and make a lot of sense in the historical context of his time -- when many contemporary Jews were divided over how they'd need to  escape Roman oppression and taxation, which was impoverishing the peasant majority of the population. [Those 'Poor' people weren't just picturesque, but suffering chronic malnutrition that made recovery from illness or injury very difficult.] Near-contemporary resistance included both armed revolts and mass nonviolent responses to pagan sacrileges...

Certainly these sermons -- 'on the Mount', and 'on the plain' in Luke -- were clearly core teachings on how to live in accord with God's purposes. The context, as J.D. Crossan pointed out, was "100% political and 100 religious", so they lose a lot if one neglects either aspect...

Comment by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 21, 2015 at 11:58pm

Really?  You listened to one person and that swayed you?  There is a huge, enormous, gigantic, amount of evidence that the Sermon on the Mount are the actual words of Jesus.  Much of the atheist critique of the Gospels use standards that if applied to other historical figures would cause us to have to doubt the existence of Alexander the Great, Socrates, and Julius Caesar.  What I'm getting at is that they apply standards of evidence to the Gospels that are never applied in other historical circumstances.  It's good to look at atheist arguments; but it is also good to examine the views of non-atheists of various kinds.  The views of atheists are just as much shaped by their assumptions as the views of non-atheists.  I would encourage you to explore more; widen your reading.  For example, you could start with Bart Erhman's book "Did Jesus Exist".  Ehrman is not a Christian and is either an agnostic or atheist; not sure which at this time.  Yet his book is an articulate defense of the historicity of Jesus from a non-Christian point of view.  It would also be helpful to note that Jewish writings on Jesus never doubt the historicity of Jesus and they would have been highly motivated to cast such doubt.  

Again, I suggest doing some more independent reading and research.  

Comment by Eric E. Sabelman on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:06am

There is precious little to prove Jesus said anything attributed to him. The Biblical scholars of the Jesus Seminar tried by a sort-of-consensus method to decide which words were his (published as "The Five Gospels"). Their primary criterion for authenticity was that Jesus' words NOT be something that some other Jewish sage might have said, which eliminates a lot.  Of the 9 verses in Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount, they agreed that 3 were authentic, 2 were possibly Jesus' words, and 4 were somebody else's.  Whose?  Maybe somebody in later times stood in worship and said what he or she thought Jesus ought to have said.  If there is that of God in us, and the message is from God, then I have no problem with the source being other than Jesus.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 1:56am

Well, why should anyone need to prove that words of genius were spoken by a genius [rather than someone else with another name?]

You have discourses that make a great deal of sense in a particular historical context which existed in the Roman province of Judea during the time when Jesus is pretty universally considered to have lived. These were transcribed in three versions showing considerable divergence, but far too much overlap to be explained unless, prior to transcription to written form, they had been circulating in oral form among a popular movement (known to have existed at the time) which took these seriously enough to preserve them by regular recitation and discussion.

Among people who'd made the unlikely assumption that Jesus' sayings were preserved only as isolated one-liners -- as most scholars of the late 20th Century did -- and did not agree on the basic meaning & context of his speeches -- It would indeed to reach agreement as to which particular sayings originated with him. But someone named Jesus had considerable influence in that time & place, with a distinctive message and style, suitable to the time and place; and most of the sayings attributed to him, particularly in this 'sermon', fit appropriately into that message.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 6:11am

Greetings Eric:

I don't consider the Jesus Seminar to be reliable for the following reasons:

1.  The Seminar invited only a tiny portion of American scholars; the group is not representative.  Only a small number of explicitly liberal theology departments were called upon to participate.  For example, there were no representatives from Baptist or Orthodox or Evangelical institutions to provide a balance.  It is rather like sending a vegan to review a standard restaurant; you know in advance what they will like and what they will dislike.  

2.There were no scholars from Europe (West or East), Africa, South America, Asia, or the Middle East.  There were no Jewish scholars which is relevant for the reasons Forrest is touching on.  The Jewish context of the NT is crucial to an understanding of the NT and liberal theologians have a tendency to ignore this, though there are exceptions.  From what I have read, Jewish scholars would not agree with their assessment of what was going on in the Jewish community at that time.

4. And there were no Hindu scholars who often have very interesting insights into the NT (e.g. Ravi Ravindra's commentary on John).  And there were no Moslem scholars who often have a very different take on criteria for authenticity in the NT.

3.  The methodology used to determine authenticity is severely flawed.  When people read the Seminar's work, like the 'Five Gospels' most think that the color coding of sayings is based on a majority vote.  But what the Seminar actually did was to take a statistical average of the votes.  What this means is that if the majority voted 'black' (meaning they thought it was not authentic), but a significant minority voted 'red' (meaning they thought it was authentic), the average might be pink or gray.  In other words it is entirely possible that a specific saying is coded with a color that not a single member of the Seminar would actually sign on to.  And this is not just a theoretical consideration; reports are that this actually happened.  For this reason the coding of the sayings is, I think, not a reliable indicator of even what the participants in the seminar believe, let alone those who were not at the seminar.

The Seminar is literally a running joke among biblical scholars world wide.  Those reading this should not take my opinion at face value.  Those who are interested can explore the failures of the Jesus Seminar on their own.  Here is a link to an essay by N. T. Wright, an Anglican scholar who is widely admired, on this topic:

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Five_Gospels.pdf

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 9:57am

[Sorry abt my typo in the earlier comment!]

Since Islamic scholars would undoubtedly be starting from Mohammed's take on Jesus, which he seems to have gotten from a minority Christian sect who'd been purged from the chief Roman Christian organization -- which might have brought in new insights, but in his case seems mainly to have distorted the results in a gnostic direction. (Rumi has a nice take on Jesus' character, http://www.dar-al-masnavi.org/n-III-2570.html [Coleman Bark's paraphrase is more concise, and quite powerful, but I can't find the link.] -- but he wasn't looking at matters from an academic historical perspective.)

Wright makes far more psychological and historical sense than many Liberal scholars, including his admirable friend Marcus Borg -- especially on the issue of ~ What did this guy have in mind, running around Judea saying all these strange things that could (and did) only get him in trouble? -- which yet resonated so strongly with the people who heard him? That is, though the social science perspective of people like John D. Crossan & William Herzog brings out the peasant-movement aspect of Jesus' activities a little better, Wright is the only one with what I'd call an adequate rationale for Jesus' life & doings. (A strange rationale, to our ears, & still a little ragged around the edges, but one that makes sense.)

I do think Wright occasionally fudges too much in a traditional-theological direction... and he's utterly tone-deaf to the mystical! Also a bit long winded in a 'told-you-so sort of way (though often with considerable justification!) [I like him very much when he doesn't just exasperate me!]

Comment by Keith Saylor on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:49pm

Hello Richard.

I am interested in your phrase "evidence that we have no proof." Would expand on this phrase? For example: What is the evidence? What is the nature of  "proof." Are you speaking of proof gained through the scientific method? Discursive thought, etc.? If so, is absolute scientific or discursive proof that the words recorded as Jesus' words in the bible possible? Wouldn't absolute proof depend on being in the presence of Christ to verify? I guess it could be argued that if enough independent sources were found and they all matched (relatively speaking) one another, then the combined outward representational evidence might compel some to call that evidence proof? However, I don't think many would concede it was proof itself. Is it possible there is another way to knowledge of Christ's message (the Word) that is not discursive and analytical of outward representational evidence? Is it possible to know and interact with Christ, that is, to live the Anointing, and in that direct interaction, to know the word of Christ? Is being present in and with Christ another way of knowing, another source of evidence?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 5:48pm

I went looking for that well-known quote, & found a fuller version, plus much else...

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Blaise_Pascal  

-----------------------

"...

• The full quote as I know it: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of... We know the truth not only by the reason, but by the heart." - Blaise Pascal

• The part already here in Wikiquote has only the first part: "The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of."

I personally prefer the latter half of the quote, which is why I was surprised not to see it here. But anyways, the half of the quote already here is translated from French, whereas I don't have the full French version of the quote. (I got the English translation straight from my old 'History of Psychology' textbook.) Some other editors might have the full French version. Cougroyalty 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the original French:

Le cœur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connaît point. On le sent en mille choses. C'est le cœur qui sent Dieu, et non la raison. Voilà ce que c'est que la foi parfaite, Dieu sensible au cœur.

The Project Gutenberg translation is as follows:

"The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know. We feel it in a thousand things. It is the heart which experiences God, and not the reason. This, then, is faith: God felt by the heart, not by the reason."

..."

--------------

-- This one from there being rather nice as well:

"Atheism shows strength of mind, but only to a certain degree."

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 7:44pm

Also read the reflection and analysis of the Sermon on the Mount by the Buddhist Thich Nhat Hanh. It's the best meditation.  

Thich worked to bring reconciliation to both sides in the Vietnam War, sought to apply peace-making and compassion toward everyone, and was nominated for the Nobel Prize.

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 22, 2015 at 8:09pm

This liberal Quaker has come to know 'Love and Light' as the true reality.  And it is undeniable that the Spirit which was apparently present within the historical Jesus, was a full enough measure of that reality. So much so that his reality and hope for humankind spread throughout the world. 

Do Zen Buddhists insist that the Buddha literally said everything written as his literal words?  No, they don't!  Instead, they hear loudly his message about suffering and enlightenment and they go on to verify that by their own experience.

While the literal words of Jesus in the Bible may be off a bit, I sense through my own contemplation that an attempt was made nearly 200o years ago to capture the spirit of Jesus so future generations could experience the power of his reality; his teachings.  And his teaching about love, forgiveness, and compassion come through loud and clear - even if the written words are inaccurate.

These written accounts of Jesus' words are merely entreaties for me (and everyone) to have their own encounters and experiences with Light and Love so we can experience how real it is.  The knowledge that these may not be the actual words of Jesus should not be a downer for anyone.  Rather, it is just a reminder that we must experience the truth of the spirit of these written accounts for ourselves.

And we can be grateful that our liberal Quaker tradition challenges us to not become obsessed with the literal accuracy of these written words of Jesus.  I am grateful for this challenge to not make an image of Jesus into my reality.  Instead, we are called to a higher reality - the "kingdom of God" NOW, which is nothing more than a living experience of Light and Love.  And we can each know this experientially.  Atheists within my meeting know this well, and appreciate the essence of Jesus' message and are the biggest advocates for 'Light and Love' among us.  I have not heard even one of them discourage anyone from appreciating the spirit of Jesus' teachings as true and the hope for the world.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page