Were the teachings of Jesus really that great?

[McQ]

Gawen, the only thing I'd like to add to the list of quotes from the gospels is this. By presenting them out of context, you've cherry picked items to support your assertion that the teachings of Jesus were not that great.

I honestly don't want to get very wrapped up in this thread, because I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time in it. It's a good topic, and worth discussing, though. I'm glad it's on the forum. And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings. People have been repeating shit all throughout human history. Sometimes it takes someone different to say the same thing in a slightly different way for others to finally "get it".

Being intimately familiar with the gospels for all of my life, I can assure you that many of the items you posted are taken out of the context of their greater meaning, so again, my only bone to pick is that you are not treating the subject entirely fairly, in my opinion.

[bandit4god]

A very thought-provoking post, McQ, thanks for sharing that.

Another twist on "were the teachings of Jesus really that great?"  This thread has heretofore considered "greatness" through the lens of "worthwhile" or "morally sound".  I'd suggest they were great from a slightly different perspective in that the groundswell of response was tremendous, even before Constantine made it the official religion of the world.  One could argue about the groundswell being for the good or bad, but it causes me to question the reason for this groundwell.  Would sensational oratory skills have been enough?  Would not the groundswell, the deafening "thrum" of this perplexing beehive in the first two centuries AD, necessarily had to have been sparked with more than mere words?

[Tank]

The Jefferson Bible no God required.

[bandit4god]

The Jefferson Bible no God required.

By what amplificatory forces did Jesus' life have such ongoing impact?  How would Christianity have ever gotten off the ground--while thousands of its proponents were dying peacefully for it--if not based on actual words AND events?

[Too Few Lions]

The Jefferson Bible no God required.

By what amplificatory forces did Jesus' life have such ongoing impact?  How would Christianity have ever gotten off the ground--while thousands of its proponents were dying peacefully for it--if not based on actual words AND events?

b4g, you seem to be ascribing to the same questionably biased view of history that your fellow Christian Bruce put forward in another thread. The evidence from the Roman sources is that many early Christians weren't peaceful in the slightest, a lot were fairly fanatical and actively seeked out martyrdom, promoting it as the best way to gain access to heaven.

It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years. On top of that there were a few smaller localised persecutions no doubt. Far more Christians were killed by fellow Christians in the doctrinal disputes of the fouth century than the Romans ever killed in the preceding three centuries.

And it's really quite illogical to suggest that Christianity 'got off the ground' because it was based on actual historical words and events. By the same logic Heracles, Zeus and Mithras must have been real historical people. Otherwise how come they had so many followers?

Christianity was undoubtedly a fairly popular mystery cult in its first few centuries, but before Constantine, it's estimated that it represented about 10% of the empire's population.  Constantine's conversion and the subsequent brutal persecution of all other religions by the Christian emperors that followed him are why Christianity became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire and later Europe. It had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. All other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.

[Crow]

And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.

Just to clarify for any readers this wasn't my intention to devalue any of the teachings but rather create the basis for people to look at the teachings devoid of the mythical aspects for people to make up their own mind if they deem the teachings to be good. Nor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.

[bandit4god]

It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years.

If we focus narrowly on the first ~30 years after Jesus' death, the persecution actually came from the Jews.  With the available primary sources on that period, it takes no small amount of tap dancing to explain away how a few dozen uneducated Jews grew to tens of thousands in a climate of scathing persecution.

All other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.

Then why didn't it work against the first century Christians?

[Too Few Lions]

It's debatable how many Christians were actually killed by the Romans, they were only ever officially persecuted for five years.

If we focus narrowly on the first ~30 years after Jesus' death, the persecution actually came from the Jews.  With the available primary sources on that period, it takes no small amount of tap dancing to explain away how a few dozen uneducated Jews grew to tens of thousands in a climate of scathing persecution.

what 'primary sources' are these pray tell? To my knowledge none exist. And please don't mention any NT book as a source, as they are far from objective, reliable or historical, and were written decades after any supposed events. I don't think there's any evidence of early Christians having to live in a climate of 'scathing persecution'.

All other religions were outlawed and people were told to either become Christian or they'd be killed, and over time most people became Christian. The same tactic would work for any ideology.

Then why didn't it work against the first century Christians?

because there's no solid evidence that Christians were persecuted in the first century. We actually don't have very much evidence for Christianity per se from the first century. Christians only properly enter into the historical record in the second century.

The Christian emperors issued laws outlawing all 'pagan' religions under the penalty of death in the fifth and sixth centuries. To my knowledge, no pagan or Jewish rulers ever issued such draconian edicts against Christians. If you know of any, please enlighten me.

[Gawen]

Gawen, the only thing I'd like to add to the list of quotes from the gospels is this. By presenting them out of context, you've cherry picked items to support your assertion that the teachings of Jesus were not that great.

Being intimately familiar with the gospels for all of my life, I can assure you that many of the items you posted are taken out of the context of their greater meaning, so again, my only bone to pick is that you are not treating the subject entirely fairly, in my opinion.

I have listed the Sermon on the Mount in another thread. The Sermon, taken in context with all Jesus' other teachings is the end of the world is near and these are the ways to gain salvation to the afterlife. Jesus's entire time on earth (for those that believe it) preached the end of the world and the Kingdom of God was at hand...and the ways to get there. I have taken nothing out of context...as all his teachings can be related to precisely to getting to Heaven.

I honestly don't want to get very wrapped up in this thread, because I'm just not willing to spend a lot of time in it. It's a good topic, and worth discussing, though. I'm glad it's on the forum.

That's a good thing

And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated.

Yes, some of it can be.

But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.

That other people have said it previously does not negate or devalue the philosophy, I agree. The teachings Jesus is said to have uttered can be devalued on their own merit. Never does Jesus say "do the right thing because it's simply the right thing to do". It all boils down to a promise of an afterlife singing praises unto the Lord or tortured for eternity.

What I need people to do is show me where I have failed....not only that I have.

[Gawen]

And I also agree that many, most, or even all of what Jesus said can be found elsewhere, often times predating him, and often times better stated. But that doesn't devalue the philosophy necessarily, or the teachings.

Just to clarify for any readers this wasn't my intention to devalue any of the teachings but rather create the basis for people to look at the teachings devoid of the mythical aspects for people to make up their own mind if they deem the teachings to be good.

It's a great topic.

Nor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.

I have tried to show that they are not really that great.

[Crow]

Nor did I want to try and persuade anyone that they are bad.

I have tried to show that they are not really that great.

I agree with the majority of what you have posted in other posts, sure some examples were out of context but they aren't always taken in context.

Living in a traditionally Christian country I have noticed that a lot of the teachings are ingrained within a lot of people regardless of their beliefs and why is this still so when the majority of the population are arguable secular, its worth questioning not just the god aspect but the philosophies that are being passed on. A lot of western atheists have a worldview (in terms of philosophy) that is aligned with those of Christianity due to its deep routed nature even if they dislike or even despise Christianity, rather adapting a humanist form of the philosophies. It doesn't matter to me if people still think this is the best option out of the many we have but is certainly what we should be questioning. On the flip side there are elements that I do consider to be good but that is cherry picking a small few out of a slew of concepts. My own worldview has always been more inline with that of Taoism, maybe that's why I think it is an important question because my own view is so at odds with Christianity.

[Attila]

We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.

Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your  patience.

[McQ]

We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.

Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your  patience.

Why does stipulation (b) have to be fulfilled? That adds something not included in the original point of the thread. All that (b) demonstrates is that the teachings may not be original. Has no bearing on whether or not the teachings were all that great.

As to (a), there have already been some answers given. And for a quick sampling, try these, directly attributed to Jesus (keep in mind that I'm a non-believer, and in my opinion, these were words written by not just whoever decided to put them in the bible, but also by many other people over human history):

From the gospel of John, chapter four:

Feed the hungry. Give drink to the thirsty. Clothe the naked. Shelter the homeless. Visit the sick. Visit the imprisoned. Bury the dead (this was a very important thing in that time period, as it was an important spiritual ritual and not being buried was an insult to the dead).

Counsel the doubtful. Instruct the ignorant. Admonish the sinner (can be interpreted as "correct misdeeds"). Forgive injuries. Bear wrong patiently. Pray for the living (meaningless to me). Pray for the dead (same).

Love your enemies....


Ok, the point here is you asked for one. I've provided many, and this is the halfway point of Jesus' speech. If you can't find one useful or pretty good teaching here, I suggest that you will never find a useful teaching anywhere.

So my answer to the original question is that yes, the TEACHINGS of Jesus (or again, as I believe, the teachings that are attributed to a maybe real, maybe not real person who that we call Jesus, are useful, good, and remain relevant today.

[Attila]

We're finishing up page 3 of this thread. May I ask a very simple question? Can anyone give me just one (as in 1, uno, ein, ichi) example of something Jesus taught that is (a) good (never mind great) and (b) not something that anyone who wasn't a moral monster wouldn't have already known long before JC appeared on the scene? It may be a useful way of resolving the question. If no one can give even one example of the above sort, would we not be justified with the conclusion that JC's teaching were not great and, in fact, not even very good.

Apologies if one has already been given. Perhaps in got lost in the sea of verbiage (especially mine) that is featured above. Thanks to all for your  patience.

Why does stipulation (b) have to be fulfilled? That adds something not included in the original point of the thread. All that (b) demonstrates is that the teachings may not be original. Has no bearing on whether or not the teachings were all that great.

I beg to disagree, McQ. I'm a teacher and have been all my working life. I do no service to my students teaching them something that's already known. They can find that out for themselves. If I'm doing my job, then I giving them something they can only get from me. It may be crap or it may not but it is original. Again I'm sorry to say it but "feed the hungry" is not rocket science. Was JC only preaching to the choir? or was he dealing with a set of moral degenerates? My comments apply to the other examples as well. C'mon let's get serious here.

Ok, the point here is you asked for one. I've provided many, and this is the halfway point of Jesus' speech. If you can't find one useful or pretty good teaching here, I suggest that you will never find a useful teaching anywhere.

No sorry. You haven't proved anything. The list of slogans you give hardly constitutes "teaching" in any meaningful sense of the term. "Be a good person" sums it up and is hardly a contribution of JC. So again, nothing really impressive here.

So my answer to the original question is that yes, the TEACHINGS of Jesus (or again, as I believe, the teachings that are attributed to a maybe real, maybe not real person who that we call Jesus, are useful, good, and remain relevant today.

I guess we live in two very different worlds, McQ. Everything you cited above doesn't really amount to much. I have no experience with christianity or any other religion for that matter but if that's all it is, I don't see what the big deal is. I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.

[bandit4god]

I guess I just can't see why anyone would think the examples you gave characterise a great teacher. It doesn't make any sense; there so banal and so obvious.

We may be overlooking that the message itself is only one facet of teaching... one could argue that the other two legs of the stool are the trustworthiness of the teacher and the way he/she delivers the message.

I had a physics teacher in high school who made it a point, wherever possible, to help us learn by doing/seeing for ourselves.  We would spend 5 minutes in class discussing how the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, then go outside and drop tennis balls for an hour and discover for ourselves that he was right.  His teachings were great, not because they were novel, but because he taught them in a way that made us learn.

So while you may question the novelty/value of the message (which McQ rightly refutes), I'd say you'd also have to address Jesus's trustworthiness (in the eyes of a first century AD person) and the way he delivered the messages.