Was Jesus a great teacher?

[McCulloch]

Christianity's biggest strength is the teachings of Jesus. They're the very foundation of Christianity. Jesus was a great teacher and being a Christian myself, I see no one who has ever topped Him, nor have I found any of His teachings too difficult to defend.

Questions for debate:
Was Jesus a great teacher? Are all of his teachings easy to defend? Is there anything that he could have made clearer? Did he make mistakes? Did he leave out anything important? How could he have improved as a teacher?

[TheTruth101]

ts pretty obvious that Jesus wasnt the Christ. Its said in the Bible.



"but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from. "


25 Now some of the people of Jerusalem were saying, Is not this the man whom they are trying to kill? 26And here he is, speaking openly, but they say nothing to him! Can it be that the authorities really know that this is the Messiah? 27Yet we know where this man is from; but when the Messiah comes, no one will know where he is from. 28Then Jesus cried out as he was teaching in the temple, You know me, and you know where I am from. I have not come on my own. But the one who sent me is true, and you do not know him. 29I know him, because I am from him, and he sent me. 30Then they tried to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him, because his hour had not yet come. 31Yet many in the crowd believed in him and were saying, When the Messiah comes, will he do more signs than this man has done?

[Student]

[font=Georgia]
Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all? And He answered and said, Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate. They said to Him, Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away? He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

The disciples said to Him, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry. But He said to them, Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mothers womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.

[/font]

What does the word adultery mean? Adultery is when a married person has sex with someone who is not his or her spouse. Thus, the only way that remarriage after divorce could be called adultery would be if one or more of the couple being married were still actually married to their former partner. Here Jesus clearly teaches that unless the divorce was granted for immorality ([font=Times New Roman] [/font]porneia meaning fornication or sexual immorality) then the marriage is still valid and any remarriage is adultery.

As several other posters have already pointed out, it is by no means certain that the canonical gospels contain the actual, verbatim words/teachings of the person [itinerant cynic sage?] known as Jesus.

Take for example your quotation from Matthew. Did Jesus actually say [Mt 19:9 NSRV] A: And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another [strike]woman[/strike] commits adultery?

Or, rather, did Jesus say B: And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, makes her commit adultery, and marries another commits adultery?

Or did he say, C: And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery

All three versions are to be found in extant ancient manuscripts.

Mark includes a similar story [10:11-12] but in his version Jesus says Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Luke also includes a teaching [16:18] Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

All three synoptic gospels therefore include sayings/teachings that have similarities but equally each version contains differences so that no two accounts are identical.

Given the absolute prohibition against adultery, Lukes Jesus comes across as the most strict; He does not permit a divorced man to remarry under any circumstances. Women apparently do not have the right to divorce; a divorced woman cannot remarry.

Marks Jesus envisages women having the same rights to divorce as men. However, just as with Luke, the prohibition against either divorced partner remarrying is absolute.

Matthews Jesus is much more lax regarding men; in opposition to the other two Synoptic gospels, Jesus introduces the unchastity get out clause for men. All three versions of Matthew permit a man to divorce and remarry if his wife has been unfaithful. Version A is silent on the marital prospects for divorced women, however, under Jewish law, if a woman was divorced for adultery the penalty was death. In version B the women is automatically considered to be an adulteress irrespective of the reasons for the divorce [and therefore the death penalty would follow?] and in version C, in common with Lukes Jesus, the prohibition against marrying a divorced woman is absolute.

Which version, if any, therefore should we assume to be the authentic words/teachings of Jesus?

[Zetesis Apistia]

Those who are predisposed to disbelieve would find fault with 2 + 2 = 4 if he would have suggested it.

And if Jesus would have said 2 + 2 = 3 the religious zealots would claim that this was some kind of profound wisdom that we simply can't comprehend with our puny human minds.



In fact, we already have examples that basically amount to this same thing:

Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

This is every bit as stupid as saying 2 + 2 = 3.

No God feeds the birds. That's as false as saying 2 + 2 = 3.

Birds have to go out and find food on their own under dangerous and perilous conditions. Many birds will even prey on other birds. Birds themselves have to prey on other living animals. Often times they themselves are attacked and eaten by other animals as they are hard at work trying to find food for themselves.

Jesus lied. No God feeds the birds.

That as big of a lie as saying that 2 + 2 = 3.

It's really no different at all. It's clearly false. Jesus told a lie.

And if he was truly an all-knowing God he should have known better to make such absurdly false claims.

So there you go. Jesus may as well have said that 2 + 2 = 3, because he clearly was wrong about other facts of life. Evidently Jesus didn't know very much at all about how the bird and bees actually live. If he thought that some Fatherly God feeds the birds. He was living in a delusion.

It appears that you missed Jesus point. The point he was making was this..... People get stressed over money and the fear of the lack of many other necessities. Jesus was basically saying that birds dont have jobs or money yet they eat every day and they have a place to live. If God's system provides so easily for birds then don't you think he will provide for his people since they obviously have more worth than a bird to God?

[Reverend Richard]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

As others have already pointed out, it's difficult to know how good/bad Jesus' teachings were. For example, we don't really know who wrote the Gospels, and what we call Christianity was handed to us (primarily) by St. Paul who never even met Jesus. (And yes I am very familiar with Paul's (AKA Saul's) vision of Jesus when Paul was struck blind).

A few years ago I read a very interesting book called, "Jesus Beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts" by Barker and Gregg. It's a very thorough look at Jesus and his teachings, from the viewpoint of other religions including, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. In this book, it is especially interesting to look at why Jews do not accept Christ as the messiah, and how Christians have twisted Old Testament scripture and "prophecy" to make it appear that he was. It becomes obvious pretty quickly why, at least for Jews, Jesus wasn't what was predicted.

I will totally agree with the viewpoint of the Jews, and also because the concept the Jewish faith has of what the messiah is supposed to be is totally at odds with the Messiah of the Christians.

Another interesting thing to look at is the various Christian writings from the 1st to the 4th century that pop up that are not cannon. A fragment of a 4th century Copic scripture contains has Jesus referring to his wife (which immediately had the Vatican proclaiming it was a forgery.)


All indications is that it was a genuine 4th Century writing though.

Yes, Goat. I suspect if someone could discover/recover/uncover additional manuscripts about Jesus from the 1st or 2nd century, we might be surprised by what we find.

Another thread on the forum recently posed the question about why so much of Jesus' adult life is missing from scripture. I'll be the first to admit I have very little knowledge of Jewish culture, but from what I can learn from my reading and research, as an eligible Jewish male, he probably would have had a wife and a family (and perhaps drove an SUV in the burbs ) Point being: it would be no surprise to learn that Jesus was married. You may already be aware of the speculation that Mary Magdalene was actually Jesus's closest disciple (perhaps even more than just a disciple), but the early church (an early pope) distanced her from Jesus by labeling her a prostitute. However there is little evidence to support that.

It would not be surprising to me if a historical Jesus existed, and there was some kernel of truth in the Gospels, it would be not surprising to have Mary Magdalene as his wife. There is also the possibility that , due to the high level of maternal mortality in that time frame, he could have been a widower.

There is also the possibility of him being a 'mamzer'.. a product of one of the 'illicit' relationships in the bible (i.e.. if Mary had a child by someone other than her husband, Joseph) in which case, he could not marry in the temple or synagogue, but shacking up would quite acceptable. Just because someone could not get married in the temple doesn't mean they can't raise a family and be part of the community.

There are many possibilities.. none of which has any evidence for, one way or another.

True. In fact, your mamzer option might even make sense in terms of the supposed "virgin birth" of Jesus. It would explain away the reason Mary was with child.

[Divine Insight]

It appears that you missed Jesus point. The point he was making was this..... People get stressed over money and the fear of the lack of many other necessities. Jesus was basically saying that birds dont have jobs or money yet they eat every day and they have a place to live. If God's system provides so easily for birds then don't you think he will provide for his people since they obviously have more worth than a bird to God?

And you seem to have missed the utter absurdity of this.

So you are suggesting that Jesus was implying that we shouldn't worry about money or our home because of why? Because we clearly have the option to live like the birds?

Do you realize that birds compete with each other for food? They will even kill and each other, although they usually kill a species of bird different from themselves, and this is usually very large birds killing and eating very small birds.

But still, just look at how the birds get their supposed "God Given Food".

If we were to act like the birds, we'd have to go around stealing food from each other. Chasing other people away from food sources that we do find, and being chased away from food sources that others found before we got there, etc.

In other words, if we were to live like the birds we'd be an extremely barbaric species, that simply preys on anything we can eat, and it would basically be every man for himself, just as it is every bird for itself in the bird kingdom.

So this parable of Jesus is absolutely ignorant and stupid. Even if we take it as a mere parable. Jesus made a huge mistake proclaiming that a Father God "feeds" the birds when his parable is really suggesting that a "dog-eat-dog" world with no laws or civility at all is "God's Way".

Yet this is precisely what his parable suggests.

Jesus was basically rebelling against civilization.

He was nothing more than an uneducated hippy who could not see the value in becoming civilized.

To live like the birds, we'd need to return to being like cavemen in a dog-eat-dog world where it's basically every man for himself.

The birds don't even SHARE. They have no understanding of anything other than to survive and feed their own offspring. No God feeds the birds. It's a really though world the birds live in.

Jesus was simply anti-establishment. And that's really the same as being anti society. Jesus was a rebellious hippy who clearly hated the establishment.

It's easy to understand why he hated the establishment in his day. But still, to teach people that God feeds the birds is just going off the deep end.

If Jesus had truly been some sort of divine being, he would have known better than to use such a weak analogy. The fact that he used this analogy proves that he was nothing more than an disgruntled hippy. He hated civilization, and it's really no wonder that he did consider the time and place where he lived.

I can't say that I blame Jesus for hating civilization, but that doesn't make his parables any better.

[Divine Insight]

It appears that you missed Jesus point. The point he was making was this..... People get stressed over money and the fear of the lack of many other necessities. Jesus was basically saying that birds dont have jobs or money yet they eat every day and they have a place to live. If God's system provides so easily for birds then don't you think he will provide for his people since they obviously have more worth than a bird to God?

Consider the bold blue in your quote above. That's my whole point. God's system doesn't provide so easily for the birds. There's nothing easy about a bird's life. Bird's lives are filled with peril, they die quite often. Many times leaving their baby birds to die of starvation in their nests.

It's a bad analogy.

Edited to add:

I want to add also that Buddha taught this same idea of taking no thought of how things might work out in the end. Buddha taught to just do your best and be unattached to the possible outcome.

So Buddha taught this same principle, but in a far better way without having to resort to absurd analogies like God feeding the birds.

I think the teachings of Buddha are far better teachings. Thus Buddha was a far greater teacher than Jesus.

[A Troubled Man]

It appears that you missed Jesus point. The point he was making was this..... People get stressed over money and the fear of the lack of many other necessities. Jesus was basically saying that birds dont have jobs or money yet they eat every day and they have a place to live. If God's system provides so easily for birds then don't you think he will provide for his people since they obviously have more worth than a bird to God?

We could ask the tens of thousands of children who die of starvation every day, why God's system doesn't work for them? Of course, they're all dead now, so we would have to turn our attention to God for that answer, yes?

And, God's answer to that is what?

[Ooberman]

To the OP.

Jesus was a very poor teacher. In fact, his teaching was so poor that even the people among him, who spent day and night with him, were continually abused by Jesus for not "getting it".

This poor ability to communicate is one argument against the divinity of Jesus as I outlined in this argument:

.....

1. A perfect teacher teaches the lesson plan to all students regardless of their abilities.
2. Jesus/God didn't teach the lesson plan to everyone who heard.
3. Therefore, Jesus/God is not a perfect teacher.

Now, why would a God - the Maximally Perfect Being - be a bad teacher?

It doesn't make sense.

Likewise, why would God reveal himself differently to different people, including people who never understood that revelation while they were living (people who died atheists or not of the "right" religion?).

After all, given enough heat, water WILL boil.

Given enough evidence, people WILL believe.

So, it's not a flaw in the water or people, but a flaw in the heat/evidence.

[Ooberman]

It appears that you missed Jesus point. The point he was making was this..... People get stressed over money and the fear of the lack of many other necessities. Jesus was basically saying that birds dont have jobs or money yet they eat every day and they have a place to live. If God's system provides so easily for birds then don't you think he will provide for his people since they obviously have more worth than a bird to God?

Consider the bold blue in your quote above. That's my whole point. God's system doesn't provide so easily for the birds. There's nothing easy about a bird's life. Bird's lives are filled with peril, they die quite often. Many times leaving their baby birds to die of starvation in their nests.

It's a bad analogy.

Edited to add:

I want to add also that Buddha taught this same idea of taking no thought of how things might work out in the end. Buddha taught to just do your best and be unattached to the possible outcome.

So Buddha taught this same principle, but in a far better way without having to resort to absurd analogies like God feeding the birds.

I think the teachings of Buddha are far better teachings. Thus Buddha was a far greater teacher than Jesus.

Agreed, and the East was considered to be so advanced in woo by Jesus's time that people suspect Jesus travelled to the East to learn the art of Deepity Speak.

As Deepity goes, Buddha was a master.

[Divine Insight]

As Deepity goes, Buddha was a master.

I agree.

And I also agree that just because Buddha as a better teacher doesn't mean that everything he taught was the absolute truth.

I personally feel that most of what Buddha taught (and Jesus incompetently tried to teach) is mostly common sense.

Things like do unto others as you would have them to unto you. That's common sense and doesn't require any Deepity, to understand.

In other words much of what Buddha taught can be understood even as a matter of pure secular common sense.

The same could almost be true of much of what Jesus taught, except that Jesus was constantly trying to use Deepity analogies that often fell flat on their face.

Plus there is also a lot of external rumors concerning the idea that Jesus was supposedly a demigod born of a virgin women and had risen from the grave in a physically battered body like a zombie, etc.

Any teachings that Jesus might have gotten right were totally destroyed by all the Deepity superstitious mumbo jumbo that accompany the rumors about him.

So to best understand what Jesus was trying to teach we're far better off turning to Buddha. That's probably where Jesus got most of his ideas anyway. He clearly didn't get his ideas from the Old Testament or the Old Testament God.