Did Jesus teach anything unique, original, or profound?

[Zzyzx]

.
Did Jesus teach anything unique, original, or profound?

If so, kindly present a list with citations.

If not, why regard him as anything special?

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

A GREAT historical question!

Profound: well, I consider that a subjective question. I just listened to someone tell me she saw a movie in which a character said, "Life goes on," and, in light of her recent experiences, she acted as if this was profound, while I regarded it as a cliche.

Original/Unique: here we have a good historical question.

I think it an accident of history that Jesus became most identified as a teacher. Matthew has the most "moral" content; Matthew was put as the first gospel.

I do not (and most modern historians) think Jesus' popularity consisted in his being a teacher. I accept that he did teach. But most was probably not original (after all, as Johnson said, most people do not need to be taught but reminded).

Here is what might be original, according to scholars; I am skeptical of 1 and 2

1) Jesus combined the love of God with the love of neighbor. Many Jewish writings emphasized one or the other, but they did not combine the two as if they went hand and hand.

2) Jesus "internalized" the law: thus he went beyond observable offenses like outright adultery and looked at internal sources like lust. I am very skeptical that this is an evangelical maneuver, springing from the need to make Jesus somehow a better teacher than his Jewish contemporaries (and thus, is this not an antisemitic maneuver?).

3) Here I am quite sure on historical grounds: Jesus went about preaching that Israel's longings were finally being met. Even if we dismiss this random Jesus as a slightly delusional Jew, it remains historically certain that he went about Palestine acting as if certain Jewish longings were finally being accomplished in his very own ministry. This was pretty novel.

[1213]

.
Did Jesus teach anything unique, original, or profound?

If so, kindly present a list with citations.

If not, why regard him as anything special?

Even if we could demonstrate he did so, I don’t think it would make any meaningful difference. Some people wouldn’t think he is special even if he would have said something unique, original, or profound. Interesting question is also, if he didn’t say anything profound, why people still follow him?

Interesting thing is also, Jesus told he speaks what God had commanded him to speak. So, his teachings are actually God’s teachings.

For I spoke not from myself, but the Father who sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. I know that his commandment is eternal life. The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak."
John 12:49-50

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

I think that is quite profound to give credit of vice words to God and not take the credit to oneself. Many things that Jesus says are already in the OT. And I think it is no single line that is very profound, but the whole teachings in the Gospels. There is very impressive total “concept� of the four Gospels that I don’t think exists in anywhere else.

One of the teachings I think are profound are these:

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don't even the tax collectors do the same? Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.
Matt. 5:44-48

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

But even greater than that I think is that trough Jesus it is possible to get the power to actually live according to his teachings.

[Menotu]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Maybe for his time and location it was, but overall, it seems very 'mainline' But I have the assistance of thousands of year's worth of reference to draw upon
What I find more interesting, is that even though what he taught (love, acceptance, etc) which many would find very 'normal' and 'nothing special', it's not as widely practiced today is one would think.
We had 2000-ish years of which to put what he (and others said) in to practice and we're still killing each other, hating each other....
To me, that's more telling

[Willum]

[Replying to post 4 by Menotu]

But we are stilling killing each other in ways he'd approve of.
And we aren't enslaving each other... well not where I am, in ways he'd approve of.
We are still abusing and molesting children, in ways he does not object to.
We still rape in ways he'd approve of...

Hallelujah!

[Mithrae]

We are still abusing and molesting children, in ways he does not object to.
We still rape in ways he'd approve of...

You believe that abusing and molesting children falls under the heading of "do to others as you'd want done to you" and "love your neighbour as you love yourself"? Perhaps that says a lot more about you than it does about Jesus

[Willum]

We are still abusing and molesting children, in ways he does not object to.
We still rape in ways he'd approve of...

You believe that abusing and molesting children falls under the heading of "do to others as you'd want done to you" and "love your neighbour as you love yourself"? Perhaps that says more about you than it does about Jesus

Yeah, you usually say things like that.
But children have no rights in the OT, and the NT say not to waiver a jot...

There are over 600 laws and Ten Commandments, having to do with starting prayers and mixing fabrics, laws for rape, laws for how to fight, but nothing about the punishment for abusing children.
Perhaps you are unaware of Deuteronomy, where instructions for rape are given?

You would think an all-knowing God, knowing how that loophole would be exploited by priests, rabbi and others, would have been more explicit.
What is the punishment for not doing unto others? I don't see any.
In fact, his Golden Rule and "loving thy neighbors..." basically allows a child molester to excuse themselves as their own beacons of morality, doesn't it?

Wouldn't a better rule be to treat others as they wish to be treated?
You do know that many abused as children, abuse others as adults, an excellent example of the enervative powers of your Jesus?

Defending a book of monstrosity says more about its followers, than it does me, an impartial and nauseated observer.

[ttruscott]

Teaching Jews that their political Messiah was divine and was to have a spiritual kingdom not a worldly one and that faith in Him was the only way to YHWH is pretty profound and rather unique and original…

I suppose profoundness is subjective but His claims TO THE JEWS were certainly unique and original with Him even if some comparison could be made to other cultures.

[Willum]

Teaching Jews that their political Messiah was divine and was to have a spiritual kingdom not a worldly one and that faith in Him was the only way to YHWH is pretty profound and rather unique and original…

I suppose profoundness is subjective but His claims TO THE JEWS were certainly unique and original with Him even if some comparison could be made to other cultures.

And also rather defeatest.
The loser of a schoolyard brawl defiantly saying 'my dad is better than your dad."

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 7 by Willum]

People whose brains are underdeveloped due to age, illness or the like may well need an exhaustive list of rules and regulations and specific punishments to get them through the day; but for people with normal adult mental faculties, I suspect that general guiding principles tend to be a simpler and more effective heuristic in all but the most grey, nuanced areas. A person who sees a list of rules dealing with nuances such as clothing, worship and warfare but nothing explicit about molesting children can therefore either conclude that since it's not explicitly prohibited then molesting children must be okay under that law; or they can conclude that molesting children obviously goes against guiding principles such as loving all those born among the people and all resident aliens (Lev. 19:18, 19:34, Deut. 10:19), not to mention a particular concern shown for the most vulnerable members of society such as orphans, widows, resident aliens and the poor (Ex. 22:22, Deut. 10:18, 14:29, 16:14, 24:17-21, 26:12, 27:19)!

In my view - and apparently in the view of the Torah's authors - molesting children is not a grey area at all, but I'll grant that not everyone shares that perspective: Tragically, history has shown that much more specific laws and protections are in practice needed to restrain those who require an unequivocal written ruling on the matter and deal with those who'll break even the law itself. For example "Child sexual abuse has been recognized specifically as a type of child maltreatment in U.S. federal law since the initial Congressional hearings on child abuse in 1973." According to the logic of people who need every imaginable wrongdoing specifically itemized, therefore, presumably it must have been okay to molest children in the USA right up to the early 1970s. If it was wrong, then surely it would've been explicitly prohibited, right? It's quite a worrying kind of 'logic,' to my mind, but I guess it takes all sorts to make a world.