Were the teachings of Jesus really that great?

[McQ]

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.

First, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.

Add to this the mistaken assumption you have made that all of the people jesus spoke to had heard it all before. You are looking at them from the perspective of 2000  years of continued learning, and the repetition of these same things over and over since his life. Of course we've heard it all ad nauseam! To the people he was addressing this may never have been heard before. If history of the time is even remotely accurate, this is probably true, since people didn't travel outside of their own immediate areas, had no access to books, no contact with other cultures, even with the Roman Empire governing them, and only their direct ancestors' knowledge and learning passed down to them.
And even IF they had heard much of what jesus purportedly taught already, you are once again dismissing the teachings as irrelevant because someone else may have also taught them. This is simply not true.

(again, try to understand that I am NOT a believer in any god, including jesus - I am addressing this whole issue from the perspective of devil's advocate regarding the teachings themselves, wherever they may have come from)

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.

I simply disagree with you. I don't know why you dismiss these acts as not teaching. I also don't know why you consider them meaningless. Is the didactic method not teaching? Are those concepts that I took the time to type out not concepts that people can utilize to better themselves and others around them? I would have to say that my being taught to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe and shelter those without (I currently work with local shelters to do all of these and I go into schools and teach these things to children) have been extremely meaningful. I'm sorry you don't find them so.

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.

Perhaps we do. I live in the eastern United States. The people whom I deal with every week in the shelters seem to believe these things amount to a great deal. I had to be taught these things. I didn't learn them automatically. My fist teacher of these concepts was my mother. She was repeating what someone had taught her, who was repeating what someone had taught him, etc.

I then also had those concepts reinforced by learning the gospels. I then had the concepts taught again and reinforced from the Red Cross, my anthropology professor in college, my step father, our local shelter, and others. I consider all of them great sources which cemented the concepts into my consciousness.

Again, by stating that these are banal and obvious, you are throwing a filter over the original concepts. You impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious. But you've been taught them already. When you first learned any concept or teaching, including these, they were new to you. They were not obvious. As most people in society, you learned many things without realizing that you were learning at the time. Afterwards, they do become "obvious".

To me, it's obvious that the universe is 13.5 billion years old. But I was taught that. To many other, it is not obvious, and to others, it is "obvious" that the universe and earth are only 6000 years old (they're incorrect, but to them it's "obvious").

All said, my point, in short, is in answering the original question. The question is, "Are the teachings of jesus all that great?"

My answer is that yes, some of them are pretty good, and worthwhile. I never said they were original, just that they are worth learning, worth repeating, and worth practicing. I personally know lots of formerly hungry, homeless, and otherwise unloved people who agree with me.

I hope you don't dismiss this out of hand as you did my last response, as I assure you, I am quite serious about it.

[xSilverPhinx]

If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.

 

[Attila]

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.

First, apologies for the misspelling in my message ("there" for "they're"). Just another sign of senility I guess. But straight to you comments... You are speaking of method, not content. You are speaking of teenagers not adults. You also make a semantic error in confusing "his teachings were great" with "he was a great teacher" (your example refers to the latter in case you hadn't figured that out.) I don't think there is any question at all whether "feed the hungry" originated with JC. Obviously not. Your notion of "value" is so murky that I won't go near it. In any event the question was "Were the teachings of Jesus that really great?" No mention of value there. How do we test this? Apply his exact words as quoted by McQ to the context of a task force charged with improving the life of all citizens within their purview. It's a nice, if banal, sentiment. Who could be against it? But great, what planet are you living on? "Why are there poor at all and what can we do to eliminate the necessity of being poor?" That would have been an intelligent thing to see (IMO obviously) I don't see any action plan emerging from JC's contribution. And what about overweight people? They're (see I've spelled it right this time) hungry all the time. Feeding them would be a full-time job. You must admit it's rather simplistic advice to put it mildly and definitely nothing great about it. As to his teaching methods, I didn't know videotapes existed back then. Did he have a voice like Mick Jagger? Did he crack jokes? I'd think he was rather boring, no? But we don't know, do we? Finally McQ (all power to him) didn't refute anything. He disagrees with me, which is fine. But if he came up with any refutations I failed to see them. But enough. I've had my say. now do your worst.  
edited for grammatical mistakes

[Crow]

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.

For one who believes in a god/afterlife then yes, however if you remove that angle the teachings lose any of there impact. The example you used of your physics teacher is a good example of a teacher due to the way he is able to teach something regardless of belief or knowledge through experience and evidence. For those who want to believe in the idea of a god, or those that do already then the methods presented in the bible of Jesus' teachings are a good example of a teacher for those people, but far from good for those that do not. Jesus is heralded as a great teacher but in my opinion is far from so, and is only considered to be one due to the god aspect, the teachings may have spread across the western world but with the rise of educational standards more and more people are branching away from it in far higher numbers. Also take the the Middle East, South Asia and Asia Pacific the teachings have never taken off in those countries, who have had no shortage of Jesuits and other missionary's trying to convert the various nations, these countries have all had deep routed philosophies built into their societies and has usually been seen as inadequate to what was already in place, or in the case of India just another god into a see of hundreds where all the teachings in Christianity already existed.

[Attila]

If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.

 

I'm not sure of that. I don't believe that "feed the poor" is inherently good. Could it not be construed as accepting a society that is inegalitarian? Wouldn't "change the system so there are no poor" be inherently better? And "love thy neighbour" and what about the non-neighbour, do we hate them? Wouldn't love everyone (neighbour or not) be inherently better as well. Maybe we give JC a C- and suggest he try a bit harder.
edit: typos fixed

[xSilverPhinx]

If I may take and summerize a slightly different approach from both Attila and McQ, some of Jesus' teachings, such as feed the poor, love thy neighbour, etc are inherently good, but I do see the value in having people as continued examples to others, even if just to teach or show them what they know intuitively should be done to make the world a better place.

 

I'm not sure of that. I don't believe that "feed the poor" is inherently good. Could it not be construed as accepting a society that is inegalitarian? Wouldn't "change the system so there are no poor" but inherently better? And "love thy neighbour" and what about the non-neighbour, do we hate them? Wouldn't love everyone (neighbour or not) be inherently better as well. Maybe we give JC a C- and suggest he try a bit harder.

Well, I've watched interviews of people with Communist inclinations quote Jesus to validate their worldview, cherry-picking and choosing the context, as people do with the bible, is a possibility, but then again I wouldn't attribute any attempt at changing the system to him. So in that case, I see him as more of a provider of comfort blankets to those least able to change their situation than a revolutionary in the modern sense.

He's a good propagator of some good memes, though not necessarily a teacher.

[bandit4god]

You are speaking of method, not content.

If this thread were titled "Were the words of Jesus really that great?", we would rightfully restrict our discussion to the content of his spoken words.  In that this thread is considering teachings, should we not consider all that goes into teaching?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method

In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions.  He taught a great deal without saying a word.  Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?

[Attila]

First, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.

"c'mon let's get serious" is a figure of speech. You are making the (I will refrain from saying "absurd") claim that I don't or haven't taught divergent points of view in my lectures. But I have to deliver the goods sooner or later. I can bad-mouth certain theories to my heart's content but my students are sitting there thinking "ok, so what do you have to offer that's better?" I hope that's clear. On the other hand, please tell me if JC did the same. Your knowledge is greater than mine so how many alternative views did JC present in his "feed the poor"/"love thy neighbour" speeches? As to your assessment of JC's teachings, I have argued in another posting on this thread how they might be improved. C- is what I'd give them.

You impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious.

In fact I don't but in fairness, you have no way of knowing that. I have lived in villages which had little or no contact with christians and their behaviour, unshackled by any form of christian civilisation[sic], could only be described as ....divine. All the virtues were present. JC had absolutely nothing to teach them.

[Attila]

You are speaking of method, not content.

If this thread were titled "Were the words of Jesus really that great?", we would rightfully restrict our discussion to the content of his spoken words.  In that this thread is considering teachings, should we not consider all that goes into teaching?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method

In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions.  He taught a great deal without saying a word.  Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?

In the absence of Jesus videos, we're stuck with the words. There is Life of Brian but I have doubts about its historical accuracy. But, hey, if it works for you...

[bandit4god]

You are speaking of method, not content.

If this thread were titled "Were the words of Jesus really that great?", we would rightfully restrict our discussion to the content of his spoken words.  In that this thread is considering teachings, should we not consider all that goes into teaching?
- the message
- the trustworthiness of the teacher
- the delivery method

In Jesus' case, the delivery method was words AND actions.  He taught a great deal without saying a word.  Do these not qualify under the heading "teachings"?

In the absence of Jesus videos, we're stuck with the words. There is Life of Brian but I have doubts about its historical accuracy. But, hey, if it works for you...

The same sources that report His words also report many actions, including:
- washing the feet of his followers (Last Supper)
- calm in times of crisis (sea voyage)
- compassion for enemies (healing the soldier Peter struck)
- kindness to His betrayer (Judas)
- kindness to children (called them to Himself)
- non-violence against His oppressor (trial and crucifixion)
- friendship with the outcasts of society (dining with tax collectors, rescuing an adulteress)
- appreciation for diversity (conversing with a Samaritan woman, commending a Roman centurion)
- responsibility for the basic needs of his followers (feeding his audience)

Of course we can question the historicity of His actions, but then we could also question the historicity of His words as well.  In that you have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written in the gospels for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions in addition to what is written there?

[Ildiko]

Of course we can question the historicity of His actions, but then we could also question the historicity of His words as well.  In that you have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions?

Perhaps because you yourself brought the subject up?

If this thread were titled "Were the words of Jesus really that great?", we would rightfully restrict our discussion to the content of his spoken words.  In that this thread is considering teachings, should we not consider all that goes into teaching?

[bandit4god]

Perhaps I was unclear... Ildiko's post makes me think I probably was, so my apologies.

I meant to close my comments in my last post with, "In that you (Attila) have demonstrated you are willing to take His words as written in the gospels for the sake of this discussion, why do you demand "Jesus videos" for His actions in addition to what is written there?"

[McQ]

First, I don't know why you would disparage me by accusing me of not being serious in my responses. Uncalled for and incorrect. Second, congratulations on being a teacher. Being a teacher, then you know the value of having multiple examples of similar teachings. I may understand a concept coming from one person by being taught it in a certain way, yet not from a different person, who teaches the same concept in a slightly different way. It is hubris to think that every single teacher in existence must be the only one to teach certain concepts. In my lifetime, I have also had to re-learn things many times to reinforce the knowledge I already possessed too. So hearing the "same old thing" has been beneficial to me.

"c'mon let's get serious" is a figure of speech. You are making the (I will refrain from saying "absurd") claim that I don't or haven't taught divergent points of view in my lectures. But I have to deliver the goods sooner or later. I can bad-mouth certain theories to my heart's content but my students are sitting there thinking "ok, so what do you have to offer that's better?" I hope that's clear. On the other hand, please tell me if JC did the same. Your knowledge is greater than mine so how many alternative views did JC present in his "feed the poor"/"love thy neighbour" speeches? As to your assessment of JC's teachings, I have argued in another posting on this thread how they might be improved. C- is what I'd give them.

You impose 2000 years of continued learning on them in order to justify saying they are obvious.

In fact I don't but in fairness, you have no way of knowing that. I have lived in villages which had little or no contact with christians and their behaviour, unshackled by any form of christian civilisation[sic], could only be described as ....divine. All the virtues were present. JC had absolutely nothing to teach them.

This is simply a discussion about the OP, which I've addressed. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on that. So I've kept to the point and made sure not to assume anything of you, and neither have I made unnecessary personal comments. You've done it again, by using a straw man to say that I made the absurd claim that you don't or haven't taught divergent views. I never said it, wrote it, or thought it.

And what does JC teaching or not teaching divergent views have to do with anything? That's moving the goal posts. The question was whether or not the teachings, as they are, are all that great. I say that for the most part, they are pretty good, useful, and still valuable. You keep moving away from that and throwing in non-essential points, like did he or did he not teach divergent views. Who cares? If he had, great. If not, so what? The teachings stand on their own. And again, who cares if they've been taught by other people in other places? That doesn't mean that in JC's time and location that they weren't ALSO good.

Don't know how to make my point any clearer.

And of course you have used the filter of 2000 years of learning to look at this issue, and so have I. How can you not, unless you've had zero contact with all of humanity during your entire lifetime? It's simply information we have learned one way or another in the time we've been alive. Doesn't matter where we learned it or from whom. We have, and that's our filter.

As for living in other places, I would fully expect you to have witnessed what you did in those villages. Of course. Who said the only place people could have learned those virtues was from JC? But again, my point there is that the source for them wouldn't matter, as long as they learned them. And if the lessons were reinforced by them hearing it from JC, what's the problem? None. It's just reinforcement of the same ideas.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this, but I've spent more time on the subject than I wanted to already. You can say I'm wrong, disagree, whatever you like. It's fine, then we just disagree. World still turns. I never claimed I was going to refute anything, either. Don't know why you tasked me with that. I'm not even trying to refute whatever it is you think I am (that was very confusing!) Not trying to win any contest, just trying to give my opinion to the OP.

[Siz]

I'm with you McQ throughout this topic. I'm not personally clever enough or a sufficiently deft communicator to parry Attilas obtuse and slippery verbal jousting, but I want to register my support in your attempts to do so in this thread.

[McQ]

.....I'm not personally clever enough or a sufficiently deft communicator to parry Attilas obtuse and slippery verbal jousting, but I want to register my support in your attempts to do so in this thread.

Haha! Thanks. I'm not either.