Was Jesus relatively ignorant?

[marco]

Jesus had a lot to say on rules and behaviour but never made any useful comment on the state of knowledge around him. There is never a whisper of philosophy nor history nor suggested assistance with medicine. He showed no interest in the animal kingdom and displayed ignorance of botany. But he had read about Abraham and other Jewish heroes, and this seemed to be the full extent of his education.


Of course if he was no more than a rabbi, wide knowledge, while obviously useful, was not a necessity but would we regard as god-like somebody who was incapable of explaining some geometry or knew nothing of the rise of Rome? He seems to have used an unusual type of medicine to cure blindness, yet never thought of saying what it was. If the cure was miraculous, what was the purpose of the showmanship? It may have impressed the rabble then, but looks like trickery today.


So does Christ's apparent general ignorance reduce him to a mere preacher, very good with words?


Or do we simply say he was on a moral mission and all other things were irrelevant, despite the fact that here we are forced to involve ourselves in a variety of fields to get at truth?

[marco]

By "ignorance" do you mean Jesus made statements that indicated he had absolutely no knowledge of plants particular to his region or "geological period"? If so could you provide some supporting evidence. If not could you please clarify your meaning.

.... I am not claiming to be a botanist. I do not speak Latin.[/i]

I'm not sure that familiarity with the conjugation of amare or the declension of mensa doth a botanist make.


And Jesus seeing that the fig tree had no fruit cursed it, though it was not the season for the poor tree to bear fruit. And Jesus likened the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed, a bold piece of poetry, adding it was smaller than all other seeds, a bold mistake in botany. Yes, yes we can as usual redeem the Redeemer by saying that metaphors are funny things, not meant to be of a strict exactness.

Anyway, it would seem the Lord wasn't lord of all areas. But then does that matter too much? Dawkins wasn't around to contradict him.

[marco]

This has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in a long time.

Or a simple misunderstanding of what was being said.

While it is true there is no suggestion Jesus had studied in any academic institution and he did seem to deliberately communicate in language that was easily understood with a minimum of specialized jargon .....

And yet when we come to a difficulty we assign complexity to his language.

to suggest that Jesus did not speak on the attitudes that "act as a guiding principle for behaviour" is I think utterly absurd.

You may think it but it is not so. Some uncultured preacher may stand up in a market place and shout about morality. He is not expounding philosophy; he is simply preaching, as was Christ. Christ wasn't interested in the nuances of meaning in "love"; he was offering instruction, as he aw it, not debate.

One does not have to spend much time reading the gospels to see Jesus spoke expensively about the source and nature of truth, existence and the influence these should have on morals and behaviour.

By that definition Jesus did more than have a whisper of philosophy, he had a clear and impressive call that is still being heard 2000 years after his death.

He may have spoken expansively about how he was older than Abraham, which isn't philosophy; or about himself being a variety of things like shepherd, teacher, vine, bread of life and this is not philosophy. He was telling people what to do: leave their kids, hate their dads, follow him.... and this is not philosophy. There is no give and take in his sermonising; just cold instruction. I agree that philosophy can cover a multitude of things but something else is needed to convert granny's talk about her grandchildren or her knitting into philosophy, as we understand the word. Jesus was, to use synecdoche, a mouth that uttered rules.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

Perhaps if you could give me a definition of what Philosophy is (I modelled my answer on a definition I found on the internet but I claim no expertese on the matter) I can reconsider my answer.


JW

[marco]

Not Peace but Division
49 I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!

Some read this, erroneously, as meaning that as a result of Christ's teaching the good will be ostracized; people will be killed because they try to do good and so on. However, the words say that the PURPOSE of his coming is to cause division, strife, hatred.


Perhaps this was just a poor piece of advertising. Later groups softened the words so that Jesus became meek and mild, his heart hurting for those who remain in sin. The Christ of later centuries is a pale shadow of the one shown here.

[JehovahsWitness]

Why are you refering to "an expert zoologist" ? My understanding of the OP is that you claim there is no indicationJsesus had any interest in the animal kingdom, not a request for proof he demonstrated expertese in the field of zoology.

He showed no interest in the animal kingdom ...

... Jesus mentioning "camel" going through the eye of a needle indicates only that he knows the word.

Are you suggesting that Jesus showed no evidence he knew anything about the habitat and behaviours of any animals but rather he only knew how to reproduce the sounds of the names of animals like a parrot in a cage?




JW

[marco]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

Perhaps if you could give me a definition of what Philosophy is (I modelled my answer on a definition I found on the internet but I claim no expertese on the matter) I can reconsider my answer.

I'm not interested in offering people definitions of ordinary words for then we might start to discuss the aberrations of English rather than the shortcomings of Jesus, which is what the OP is about. Imagine the course that students would follow were they to take philosophy at university: how much of it would involve seeing Yahweh as ruling a Kingdom? Jesus assumed the existence of God; he didn't discuss it as a proposition. As I said Jesus preached what he thought was right rather than offering it, like Plato, for discussion.

[bjs]

JW seems to be correct that there is considerable distance between display[ing] ignorance of botany and displaying the knowledge of a professional botanist. The knowledge Jesus displayed seems to fall somewhere in between the two.

However, the more significant issue to me is that the disciples did not consider Jesus knowledge of botany or geometry or the rise of the Roman Empire to be important enough to record.

The disciples had a limited about of space to record information about Jesus. They could spend it on the time he spent several minutes discussing the Pythagorean Theorem, or they could record the Parable of the Lost Son. It seems that if Jesus knew about the former or not, either way the disciples would choose to record the latter.

How much knowledge Jesus had concerning the liberal arts shall remain unknown in this world.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]



I wrote an answer based on what is commonly understood to be what Philosophy is, tying each element of my response back to the definition. If you want to counterargue that these elements cannot be considered philosophical then the encumbrance reasonably falls back on you to demonstrate this.

I agree that philosophy can cover a multitude of things but something else is needed to convert granny's talk about her grandchildren or her knitting into philosophy, as we understand the word. .

And if I understand your answer correctly, you refuse to state what the missing element is or present any evidence to support your arguement that Jesus' discourse was thus lacking.



Fair enough,


JW

[marco]

However, the more significant issue to me is that the disciples did not consider Jesus knowledge of botany or geometry or the rise of the Roman Empire to be important enough to record.

I would not have expected them to comment on Christ's ignorance in any area. In any event they were generally silent; others later recorded Christ's supposed words. Since Christ chose to associate with simple fishermen it would seem to suggest that he had no use for philosophers. Simple folk were readily accepting of tall tales and could presumably be more easily persuaded. His question: "Who do men say that I am" and their attempts at answering suggest a cat among pigeons.

How much knowledge Jesus had concerning the liberal arts shall remain unknown in this world.

Then perhaps the lucky ones among us will be entertaind to a head to head between Jesus and Socrates.

[marco]

I wrote an answer based on what is commonly understood to be what Philosophy is, tying each element of my response back to the definition. If you want to counterargue that these elements cannot be considered philosophical then the encumbrance reasonably falls back on you to demonstrate this.

And I respect the answer you wrote.
The poet Richard Lovelace wrote: "Stone walls do not a prison make, Nor iron bars a cage." Of course there is a match between topics in philosophy and topics in the sermons of Christ. That does not mean Jesus spoke on philosophy as I unsuccessfully tried to show.

The missing element is the philosopher, perhaps. Christ preached. Philosophers could take his subject matter and use it philosophically: discussing, dissecting, using semantics; examining meaning; considering what justice might mean rather than simply saying: "be just, like God."