Jesus' teachings. Profound?

[McCulloch]

Perhaps, but for me the miracle things are secondary, in comparison to what Jesus taught. The teachings of Jesus are for me the greatest thing, not the miracles.

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?

[JewishVolcano]

I get it now. True sense is a relative sense.

No, relative sense is relative sense. Absolute sense is absolute sense. context, general knowledge and common sense dictates what is "true" or let us say an accurate understanding for any given text or situation. Those that are incapable judging the difference may well finding themselves spending some time in jail sooner or later.

Enjoy your shop,

JW

I did.

No it's those which are incapable of judging the legal situation that may find themselves in jail. Since you believe 'do not resist' in Gospel means 'resistance is permissible' or 'you may resist', then virtually any legal ban you can 'interpret' as allowing you to do that which is banned.

In fact why did you even bother to write so many things when from the very beginning you could have just said

Gospel says 'Do not resist an evil person. When somebody slaps you on the cheek, turn the other cheek'.

Which really means 'Resisting an evil person is permissible. But as an exception when somebody slaps you on the cheek, do not slap back. But you totally don't have to turn the other cheek'.

Nice and smooth.

[JP Cusick]

.

We live in an evil society with evil laws and violent government - so no - the principle can not be applied to a barbarian or to secular government.

Is this to say 'Turn the other cheek IF (and only IF) an aggressor keeps the commandments?'

Surely you jest.

Of course not - and I do not see how you or anyone could see it that way backwards.

The person who keeps the commandments and who truly seeks God and righteousness are the ones who would understand the principle of "turn the other cheek" and who would do it.

Of course it is NOT (not) referring to the aggressor.

A righteous person would never slap anyone.

[alwayson]

Why isn't "Turn the Other Cheek" in Mark, the earliest Gospel?

[JP Cusick]

Why isn't "Turn the Other Cheek" in Mark, the earliest Gospel?

I do not know why.

It came from the Q source which is not included in the Gospel of Mark.

There are lots of guesses and speculations about the synoptic Gospels.

The doctrine or principle of "turning the other cheek" is worded differently in the other three (3) Gospels.

1) Matthew 5:38-39

2) Luke 6:29

3) John 18:19-24

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Why isn't "Turn the Other Cheek" in Mark, the earliest Gospel?

I do not know why.

It came from the Q source which is not included in the Gospel of Mark.

There are lots of guesses and speculations about the synoptic Gospels.

The doctrine or principle of "turning the other cheek" is worded differently in the other three (3) Gospels.

1) Matthew 5:38-39

2) Luke 6:29

3) John 18:19-24

I would be willing to accept this argument as valid IF you could only provide a copy of the Q source. And if you cannot, then it is essentially an argument based on nothing more than imagination and baseless assumption.

[alwayson]

Why isn't "Turn the Other Cheek" in Mark, the earliest Gospel?

I do not know why.

It came from the Q source which is not included in the Gospel of Mark.

There are lots of guesses and speculations about the synoptic Gospels.

The doctrine or principle of "turning the other cheek" is worded differently in the other three (3) Gospels.

1) Matthew 5:38-39

2) Luke 6:29

3) John 18:19-24

See Mark Goodacre's The Case against Q.

Luke is simply responding to Matthew.

No Q.

[theophile]

[Replying to DanieltheDragon]

Quote:
I would say to 2. that the utility of the results is to reorient a people who took the law too literally and extreme back to the truth. To reopen their hearts to life, and to the law's purpose to create the conditions for life on earth. It is to create more servants of life on earth, and through this, more life in general.

Lets examine each of these claims:

1. Reorient people back to truth

A. Your using truth loosely here, where you are making a subjective truth claim and giving what you think your opinion of truth whatever that is. Aside from that there is no proof that Jesus's linguistic style is capable of doing what you intend it to do.

I am working within a biblical mode here where the 'truth' is associated with a way, a life, a person. Jesus says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

So Jesus, in reorienting people back to the truth, reorients them back to the way of life that he himself lives and exhibits. The way of life that is the 'true vine'...

But you're right: it's subjective. You probably mean something completely different by truth. To me, a true life (one rooted in the ground that gives life) is way more important than the kind of true claims that Socrates seeks.

2. Reopen hearts to life.

A. The heart pumps blood so I take it you mean the emotional state of ones mind with regard to the value of life. How does Jesus's linguistic approach change someone's mind?

It changes someone's mind by pointing out the true path that they claim to be on but aren't. By reminding people what the true life is: one that gives life. By breaking their obsession and narrow view of the law, which removes from the law this original purpose (i.e., the law was always meant to keep us oriented to the way / life that Jesus fulfills).

People who have fallen from the true vine but think they are on it say: "Stone the adulteress!"
Jesus says: "Who here is without sin? Should we not show her mercy as you have received mercy? Is that not the way that truly brings life?"
Result: Hearts are reopened to life. The people show her mercy, and are reoriented to the truth.

People who have fallen from the true vine but think they are on it say: "Don't work on the Sabbath!"
Jesus says: "Do the needs of life stop because it is a certain day?"
Result: Hearts are reopened to life. The work of healing the sick continues. The work of harvesting food for the hungry continues.

(Or in the case of the Pharisees, hearts are further hardened... But that's to be expected: just as Socrates faced the same as he pointed out the lack of knowledge of his interlocutors.)

People who have fallen from the true vine but think they are on it say: "Are we not allowed to divorce our wives? Moses says we can."
Jesus says: "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed divorce. Those who God brings together should never be separated."
Result: Hearts are reopened to life. Especially if we recognize the deeper truth that our God-established 'troth' is not with any one person in particular, as Jesus goes on to teach, but the whole of creation. We cannot 'divorce' ourselves from our life-giving responsibilities to the world out of convenience. Or if we do, to Jesus' point, we have fallen from the true vine...

the final two points about conditions for life and creating servants for life seem to be Christian platitudes involving goals but no utility.

What do you mean by utility? I really don't get it. How is there not utility in the good Samaritan helping a man dying by the side of the road? How is there not utility in working to heal the blind or feed the hungry? What does 'utility' mean to you? I really don't get it.

From reading your posts on the subject, you seem to be deriving grandiose claims about Jesus. Your belief system centers around Jesus so this is natural. First you start out saying that the Jesus method is a method that is better than the Socratic method. Which is a fine claim. Then we delve a little further and find out it's not really a philosophical method at all but really just the belief that if you give a pointed one liner that you will magically convert people to suddenly reopen their hearts to life and the truth of law and create more life on earth.

That is what I said from the beginning. Socrates works through long chains of arguments. Jesus works through parables and one-liners. That's why, yes, it is hard to articulate a 'philosophical method' in Jesus. Not only that, but as I've been clear on from the beginning as well, Jesus is less concerned with knowledge in the sense of true claims about the world or various concepts. His 'method' is superior because his concern is actually giving life to the world, and making the world a place that can support life. Again, that is way more important than having a logically consistent concept of 'piety' or 'justice,' or arriving at the true claims that Socrates seeks. And it is something that can't be arrived at through long chains of arguments, but is better achieved through the pithy impact (or shock) of a parable... Easy to follow, but tough to process for how it shatters our views (again, just think the good Samaritan...) Super effective.

People remember and continue to cite Jesus' parables for a reason. People don't remember Socrates' long chains of argument for a reason.

So if you want to talk utility...

In conclusion, the Socratic method and the Jesus method are not comparable. The Jesus method isn't even a method and there is no evidence it actually even works.

I said from the beginning that Jesus' 'method', if he has one, is more of a consistent approach that he employs with his interlocutors. So maybe 'method' is the wrong word, but that doesn't change the fact that there is something extremely comparable going on here:

Socrates: Exposes interlocutors lack of knowledge by leading them to contradictory positions through two series of logical assertion that arrive at opposed results.

Jesus: Exposes interlocutors lack of lack of love by leading them to contradictory positions through stark comparison of their narrow view of the law and the way that truly gives life.

Pretend for a minute that your not a Christian and that Jesus is just another character in some book. Would you honestly believe, that you could just take one liners and get hard fast believers of something to change their minds?

Well, I do think Jesus is just a character in a book, so obviously yes.
Look, it's a book. These are stories. Just like we have of Socrates.

That doesn't change the fact that Jesus' parables and one-liners are pithy statements. That there is much wisdom and truth in them to unpack and think through. That they are designed to shock us. And that if we take them seriously, and really hear the shock of what they are saying, our minds should be changed by their impact.

Again, take the childish simplicity but deep and shocking wisdom of the good Samaritan. Is that not a pithy, highly relatable message for us today that should knock us of our horses?

i.e., if you're American, or especially a so-called 'Christian' American, this should be a huge slap in the face, especially if you're in the 'repeal' Obamacare camp.

Think about it. What America needs is a Jesus slap right now. How would Socrates help? ...

Look simply at our politics with pot. Now I will agree it was a bit extreme to say execute them. However valid your points are on the topic it won't actually do anything to influence the hardliners. Who have heard your statements before and were indifferent.

Yes, look at our politics. And tell me whose 'method', Jesus' or Socrates', has greater utility there.

The answer couldn't be clearer to me!

[JP Cusick]

I would be willing to accept this argument as valid IF you could only provide a copy of the Q source. And if you cannot, then it is essentially an argument based on nothing more than imagination and baseless assumption.

We do have a copy of the Q source found in the text of Matthew and Luke.

The Q source only means an unknown source - but we do still have the text of Q in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

This website shows the text as deciphered in 1910 = HERE.

So we do have Matthew and Luke as the source, along with that example in John.

My own view is that the principle of "turn the other cheek" is so profound that it would not matter to me if it came from an ancient talking donkey who was a slave in old Babylon, because the principle is profound regardless of its source.

Why is it not included in the Gospel of Mark? we can only speculate.

I find that Mark is written simply as an accounting of the life, and it was not intended to be about doctrine.

[JewishVolcano]

[Replying to post 108 by JP Cusick]

My own view is that the principle of "turn the other cheek" is so profound that it would not matter to me if it came from an ancient talking donkey who was a slave in old Babylon, because the principle is profound regardless of its source.

Earlier you said that while this principle is a huge blessing you have trouble implementing it as often as you could for some reason. I wonder though what's your personal record. Have anyone ever slapped you or shoved you? In such a circumstances have you defiantly invited them to continue? Did they? How much abuse did you take before making them stop?

[JP Cusick]

Earlier you said that while this principle is a huge blessing you have trouble implementing it as often as you could for some reason. I wonder though what's your personal record. Have anyone ever slapped you or shoved you? In such a circumstances have you defiantly invited them to continue? Did they? How much abuse did you take before making them stop?

I am comfortable that only God gets to judge my life in that way.

We need to stick to this thread topic, see it below:

In what way are Jesus' teachings extraordinary? Can it be demonstrated that Jesus had great insight? What profound wisdom is there in Jesus' teachings?