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?

[McCulloch]

Questions for debate:

Was Jesus a great teacher?

Yes

Thank you for that insightful and illuminating answer. We can all go home now. Oh, wait, is it possible that you might provide a bit of support for this? Please.

Are all of his teachings easy to defend?

Probably

It is truly amazing the way that answers like this cut through all the rhetoric and hit home to the answers we are all looking for.

Is there anything that he could have made clearer?

Jesus didn't speak english. (You know that right?)

Jesus is God. God is omniscient. All omniscient beings know English. You know that, right? Don't you think that it might have saved the world a whole lot of turmoil if he had inserted a few words at the last supper clarifying the issue of transubstantiation? It is almost like he did not know at the time the fuss and misunderstandings his words would generate.

Did he make mistakes?

No

He was wrong about birds (God does not feed nor tend to them, they die when food is not available) and mustard seeds (there are many seeds smaller than mustard).

How could he have improved as a teacher?

Spoke in English?

That would be something, wouldn't it. A record left in a language that would not be spoken for over a thousand years in the future. Which English would you suppose that Jesus should have used? Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, Modern English, World English, Caribbean, Broad Scots, Indian, American or some future version?

[OnceConvinced]

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".

EXACTLY! This is what I thought when I first read the OP for this thread. And one of the things people had problem understanding was parables. Jesus had a habit of talking in riddles and parables in particular were often very confusing to those he was teaching and he always had to interpret them himself.

I have been a teacher myself and one of the rules we were taught to follow is KISS. Keep it Simple Stupid. You don't expect people to rise to your level, you get down to their's.

One thing you definitely don't do is berate a student if they don't get it. No matter how many times they try, you simply try to explain it a different way. Sure, Jesus did explain himself but the fact he needed to explain himself shows he wasn't all that an effective teacher.

[Stan]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Yep....John 3:1-2

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Yep....John 3:1-2

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.

There's a problem with using scriptures as any kind of evidence for anything because it's clearly that the authors of these fables will say anything.

For example, if you're going to demand that the verse from the Bible are worth believing then you need one verse:

Matthew 17:5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

There you go. God himself confirmed from a cloud that Jesus is his son and that we should hear what he has to say.

The real question is whether any of these hearsay gossip rumors are worth accepting at face value.

Clearly upon further examination they are not. As others have pointed out, Jesus was obviously a very poor teacher since he couldn't even teach his own disciples without having them misunderstand him.

Also, the fact that no two Christians can even agree on what he taught if further proof that he was a horrible teacher. Christianity has more disagreeing denominations and sects than any other religion in the entire world. Thus proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus was an extremely poor teacher. Even the people who strongly desire to believe in him can't agree on what he taught.

So there can be no question that he was indeed a horrible teacher. And if you can find a verse in these hearsay gossips (as you believe you have) that suggests that Jesus was a great teacher, that only shows how false these rumors truly are. Because other verses, as well as history itself proves otherwise.

If there was any clarity in the teachings of Jesus at all, then there would be only one "Christianity" instead of tens of thousands of them.

Even the Catholics and Protestants exhibit a huge divide in terms of what Jesus taught and stood for. It just goes down hill from there.

[Stan]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

The accuracy of the Bible is NOT the topic in here.

Your bias aside, Josephus ben Matthias wrote about Jesus as well.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

So now we have an internal and external evidence as to Jesus being a great teacher.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

The accuracy of the Bible is NOT the topic in here.

Your bias aside, Josephus ben Matthias wrote about Jesus as well.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

So now we have an internal and external evidence as to Jesus being a great teacher.

But you've got extremely conflicting reports here. In fact you seem to have a biased report from Josephus .

For one thing you have Josephus proclaiming "He was the Christ".

That's a biased opinion from Josephus right there.

Also, if Josephus wrote what you posted above then he is in dire disagreement with the New Testament scriptures.

You have Josephus stating: "when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross"

According to the New Testament scriptures Pilate didn't condemn Jesus. On the contrary Pilate exonerated Jesus and washed his hands of the whole affair.



Luke.23

[4] Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
[14] Said unto them, Ye have brought this man unto me, as one that perverteth the people: and, behold, I, having examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him:

John.18

[38] Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

John.19

[4] Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.

[6] When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

Pilate didn't condemn Jesus. On the contrary he totally exonerated Jesus of all charges.

So the report by Josephus is in total disagreement with the New Testament gospels. Pilate didn't condemn Jesus according to the New Testament.

Matt.27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

Pilate washed his hands of the whole affair and would have nothing to do with the condemnation of Jesus.


You have Josephus saying, "when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross"

That is in total disagreement with the New Testament Gospels.

So there's no way that you can claim that Josephus supports the Gospel rumors of Jesus. He has a totally different account of what happened. He has Pilate condemning Jesus where the New Testament Gospels make it crystal clear that Pilate had totally exonerated Jesus and washed his hands of the whole affair.

So you'll have to pick one or the other. Either reject the reports of Josephus or reject the New Testament Gospels. They can't both be true because they conflict in what they claim happened.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

Yep....John 3:1-2

Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2 He came to Jesus at night and said, Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.

This does not show that Jesus was a great teacher. This shows that the writer of John's Gospel believed that the Pharisee Nicodemus said to Jesus that He was a good teacher. Not the same thing at all.

How about looking at the recorded teachings of Jesus? Are they all uniformly great? Or are some of them flawed?

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

The accuracy of the Bible is NOT the topic in here.

Your bias aside, Josephus ben Matthias wrote about Jesus as well.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

So now we have an internal and external evidence as to Jesus being a great teacher.

Let's set aside the serious questions of the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum [read more]. Again, all this shows is that whoever wrote this passage thought that Jesus was a great teacher. Josephus was not even born when Jesus died. Why should we take this second (of third) hand opinion of Jesus' teaching ability when we have recorded copies of what Jesus actually taught, so that we can directly assess his teaching ability?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 44 by Divine Insight]

The accuracy of the Bible is NOT the topic in here.

Your bias aside, Josephus ben Matthias wrote about Jesus as well.

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

So now we have an internal and external evidence as to Jesus being a great teacher.

There is very good evidence that 18.3.3 is a latter addition, not written by Josephus at all. Most biblical scholars think it was at least modified, and a great number of them think it was a total forgery. For those people who think it was modified, I would love to see evidence to see it existed before the 4th century.

[Angel]

[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.

I know your view is common among Christians but no where in the NT does Jesus define adultery in the way that you did, and I should really say that he did not define adultery at all. At best, your definition stems from inference or from an implication of what Jesus said. I believe that what Jesus explained, like in Matthew 19:9, stood by itself (without implication) to explain what adultery was (i.e. unjustified divorce + remarriage = adultery).

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.

Jesus did not explain why he labelled remarriage after an unjustified divorce as being adultery- or at least he didn't mention your explanation. I believe that what he explained was all that he meant in terms of what he was calling adultery (an unjustified divorce + remarriage = adultery). So in my view, what the adultery involved was not simply about the old marriage still being in place, but it also involves the divorce and the remarriage. In a sense, I see Jesus trying to restrict serial monogamy (instead of polygamy) so that people won't think that it would be easy or inconsequential to end a marriage (which were supposed to be LIFELONG) and jump into another marriage. I find that to fit the context since Jesus was asked about divorce and responded by making points about how marriages were supposed to be lifelong. I'll address some problems with your explanation.

First, how do you know that there aren't any more exceptions to where a remarriage won't be adultery just as there is one if the divorce was justified? I'm referring to polygamy (w/ NO divorcing of first wife) being another exception. Last I checked in the LAW, which is the reference to know right and wrong (Romans 3:20 and Romans 7:7), polygamy was okay. So wouldn't it be safe to assume that polygamy was an exception or at least that we can look for relevant rules in the Law to see if there are exceptions to Jesus' teaching in Matthew 19:9? Secondly, I don't see where Jesus established that monogamy was the only form of marriage so to presume that he was implying that a man is committing adultery simply because he's sleeping with a second woman is nothing but baseless assumption vs. a long standing history and practice of polygamy. Lastly, your explanation contradicts the Law which again according to the NT passages Romans 7:7 and 3:20 is still in place. It's one thing for Christians to say that only the moral laws are in place, but once they start chipping away at the moral laws not being relevant or being subject to change, like adultery (which under the OT law, and in the TEN commandments allowed for and accomodated polyGYNY) then it starts to become selective or arbitrary as to what still applies. Paul said that the law still applied for the purposes of knowing what a sin was so if Jesus is changing these moral laws then whatever he says that's different than those laws amounts to a contradiction.

[Stan]

[Replying to post 46 by Divine Insight]


If you have a problem with what a Jewish historian wrote about Jesus then deal with IT. Find something that is contemporary with Josephus that refutes this. I'm not trying to appease anyone's bias here.

BTW, Pilate may have washed his hands, but you don't quote the full verse for obvious reasons.
Matthew 27:24
When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. I am innocent of this mans blood, he said. It is your responsibility!
Then Matthew 27:26 shows;
Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.