Jesus did not teach, he made speeches!

[oldbadger]

The gospels repeat, again and again, that Jesus taught the people.
I don't think that he did, I think that he made political speeches.
His whole campaign was about a return to the old laws and an end to the corruption of the leadership.
His campaign was temporal, not spiritual, and he was a very poor teacher, more of a speechmaker.
If you have any doubts about this, you can read in the gospels about how so few people actually understood what he was saying.

So what's all this about 'teaching' and 'taught'?
Over to you all..........

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #20

Are you as an "athetotheist", asking for the law given by Moses to be enforced over the more strict law of righteousness?

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #20

Are you as an "athetotheist", asking for the law given by Moses to be enforced over the more strict law of righteousness?

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Yeah, "fear God and keep His commandments because this applies to every person" (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Which is to say, "ever person should fear God, and keep His commandments". One of his commandments was to listen to the prophet whom I will send (Dt 18:15-19), "And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him". This was with respect to Yeshua. You are also to listen to the prophets God sends (Jer 26:5). The Law of God says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". So says Yeshua, only Yeshua defines adultery. As for the law of Moses, he said you are to listen to "the prophet I will send" (Dt 18:15-19), which is Yeshua, who you seem to scoff at/mock. I kind of think the Word of God speaks about scoffers and mockers (Proverbs 19:29). You may think you ae wiser and more moral than God or his prophets, but is the rode to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13), the path the followers of the false prophets, those who "practice lawlessness" follow (Matthew 7:23). Their end is the "furnace of fire" (Matthew 7:39-42).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #20

Are you as an "athetotheist", asking for the law given by Moses to be enforced over the more strict law of righteousness?

"You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Yeah, "fear God and keep His commandments because this applies to every person" (Ecclesiastes 12:13). Which is to say, "ever person should fear God, and keep His commandments". One of his commandments was to listen to the prophet whom I will send (Dt 18:15-19), "And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him". This was with respect to Yeshua. You are also to listen to the prophets God sends (Jer 26:5). The Law of God says "Thou shalt not commit adultery". So says Yeshua, only Yeshua defines adultery. As for the law of Moses, he said you are to listen to "the prophet I will send" (Dt 18:15-19), which is Yeshua, who you seem to scoff at/mock. I kind of think the Word of God speaks about scoffers and mockers (Proverbs 19:29). You may think you ae wiser and more moral than God or his prophets, but is the rode to "destruction" (Matthew 7:13), the path the followers of the false prophets, those who "practice lawlessness" follow (Matthew 7:23). Their end is the "furnace of fire" (Matthew 7:39-42).

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/vi ... he-prophet

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(Matthew 5:18-19)

When Jesus said this, what did the law say?

You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Jesus defines adultery [Matthew 19:8-9] in a way which the law says isn't adultery [Deut. 24:1-4].

Matthew 5:33-37 =/= Numbers 30:1-2.

So adding to the law is a violation of the law. What does the law say about those who violate it?

Cursed is anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by carrying them out.
(Deut. 27:26)

[oldbadger]

The passage you are referring to is a later addition, not part of the original text. Beyond that, Jesus doesn't change anything. The law states the adulterers (plural) should be stoned. This later addition story presents only the woman to be stoned. That is not following the law. Therefore, the story has the Jesus character not casting the first stone as he is following the law.
Tcg

Yep....... Also, during the Roman occupation the law demanded that only the Roman Prefect could condemn convicts, nobody else, not even the Sanhedrin. (I think that intruders in to the Great Temple could be killed, though).

Jesus didn't bust any laws at all, apart from in that final week when he ransacked Anna's bazaar and picketed the Temple courts.

[oldbadger]

Yeshua was just fulfilling the Law and the prophets, such as in Matthew 13:13, when he quoted Isaiah, "you will keep on hearing but will not understand", which is mirrored in Daniel 7, in which it is stated that the "wicked"/lawless, will not understand.

ok..... Jesus was certainly campaigning against Temple and Priesthood corruption, greed and hypocrisy....quite lawless.

As most have adopted the false prophet Paul's gospel of lawlessness,

Maybe now, but not then..... Paul wasn't around when Jesus was campaigning.

[oldbadger]

There is still a lot of debate (as there should be) but I think I can prove that Mark is Not the original but itself has a lot of editorial additions (as well as common material with Matthew not found in Luke - a sort of Matthew/Mark "Q" document) even though it reflects the original synoptic gospels, though Luke (heavily edited and amended though it is) still shows some features of the original gospel.

That would be an interesting discussion.

As relates to topic, I am inclined to thinking that Jesus existed, he had followers and Paul got his messianism from these followers. But I also think that Paul adapted the Apostolic teachings to suit Gentile Romans and the Greek Christian Gospel -writers went even further than Paul, in making Jesus God, targeting Jews and Judaism and getting Rome off the hook for executing Jesus.

I think that Jesus existed, but as a Jew campaigning against Temple corruption, and for the poor.
Any later stuff about him is junk imo.

Anyhow, I get it that fulfilling the law in the spirit by playing nice (including freeing slaves) would make perfect sense. Which only makes one wonder why God, giving Jesus his teleprompt material, didn't have him say 'Ye have read that ye may take slaves for life from the nations around ye; but I say that thou shouldn't notst own another person as property; and I say unto you that in the days to come, it will be seen as an evil thing,'.
But maybe God decided not to do that as it really gives the game away doesn't it? It's such a good prophecy that it proves that God must be real and He can't provide convincing evidence like that, or it would abrogate Faith.

I think that Jesus wanted all the old laws to be upheld, and especially the poor laws of Moses.
His actions and words supported a return of the old laws because these demanded that all people should be looked after..... an easy one for me to debate, really.,

[TRANSPONDER]

It is an interesting subject indeed and If Jesus existed, rather than being a reformers wagging a finger at the Pharisees (which reflects a Greek Christian polemic against Judaism) I think he was more of a zealot. This hidden undercurrent of rebellion is always there, heavily overpainted by the Christian - written gospels, which I argue have Nothing that Jesus actually said but (perhaps) a surprising amount of what he did.

However, this point about the Law and the prophets

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
(Matthew 5:18-19)

It is Matthew's own idea, so far as I know, since I can't find it just at the moment. Though it may derive from the passage about leading the little ones astray. There's clearly a link with Luke's "Q" passage about it being hard for the Law to pass away, but Luke (16.16) says that the Law and prophets were until John. This is a signal that the Law has passed away when John the baptist appeared. And note that Matthew doesn't say that those who change the Law won't be in the Kingdom of heaven, but will be least in it. Matthew seems to add (on his own account since Luke doesn't have it) to the law not to be altered that it is superseded, just as Luke has it, when John (which is to say Jesus) appeared. That's why I think 'Fulfilled' really means superseded. Which is of course what Christians say. The OT still stands unchanged, (not least because it prophecies Jesus) but it does not (necessarily) count as Life -laws unless Jesus specifically endorses it. More often, he supplants it with a 'play nice' exhortation which fulfils the Spirit of the Law, but actually means nobody follows the letter of it.

That said, though Bible critics and atheist apologists use that passage to argue that Jesus was observant - Jewish, I don't think that is what it means. Aside that none of it is what Jesus said, and that it is an imported text also used by Luke (but not by Mark, and never mind John) AND that Matthew or Luke (probably both) amended the original passage, the sense can be felt that the Law is God's word, and can't be disrespected or changed, but Jesus (when John appeared) made a whole new teaching, going beyond that Law.

Which is, of course, what Paul had been teaching.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27

Jesus (when John appeared) made a whole new teaching, going beyond that Law.

Yet, muddying the waters further, there's Jesus in Matthew 5 [after John] stating that every bit of the law----including the command not to add to the law----was still in effect.

It's easy to see why Jews don't regard Jesus as their Messiah.

[2ndpillar2]

Yeshua was just fulfilling the Law and the prophets, such as in Matthew 13:13, when he quoted Isaiah, "you will keep on hearing but will not understand", which is mirrored in Daniel 7, in which it is stated that the "wicked"/lawless, will not understand.

ok..... Jesus was certainly campaigning against Temple and Priesthood corruption, greed and hypocrisy....quite lawless.

As most have adopted the false prophet Paul's gospel of lawlessness,

Maybe now, but not then..... Paul wasn't around when Jesus was campaigning.

Yeshua's message of the kingdom, was pointedly inclusive of the hypocrisy/leaven of the Pharisees, of whom Paul stated he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, and as the message of the kingdom of heaven was related to the end of the age (Matthew 13), where as the tares, those who commit lawlessness, would be given protection until the "end of the age", at which time they would be gathered and thrown into the fire (Mt 13:30-42), and Paul's false gospel of grace was the epitome of lawlessness, and the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:13-23 would include Paul. Yeshua taught that one was to do what the scribes say, not what they do. Yeshua's problem was that the Pharisees put tithes of herbs before honoring parents. Not that you can't do both, but you do one before the other.

[theophile]

Anyhow, I get it that fulfilling the law in the spirit by playing nice (including freeing slaves) would make perfect sense. Which only makes one wonder why God, giving Jesus his teleprompt material, didn't have him say 'Ye have read that ye may take slaves for life from the nations around ye; but I say that thou shouldn't notst own another person as property; and I say unto you that in the days to come, it will be seen as an evil thing,'.

But maybe God decided not to do that as it really gives the game away doesn't it? It's such a good prophecy that it proves that God must be real and He can't provide convincing evidence like that, or it would abrogate Faith.

Yup, it would totally give the game away

Per our other conversation, slavery is both abolished and it is transformed into servanthood (just as the law is abolished and yet still fulfilled in its intent). I think this is arguably one of, if not the main message of Jesus. i.e., I think we should (or at least could) read the gospels / Jesus' ministry as specifically designed and directed towards the slaves / servants of the world (to the poorest and lowest among us whom Jesus identified with and served).

I feel like the whole thing is a call to revolution if we follow it through . It lays the groundworks for a transformation that as Paul says will see the nothings and nobodies of the world overturn the strong. (That's why the whole religion took off in the first place, right? because of how it spoke to the lowest rungs of society? To slaves, servants, and other outcasts?)

We shouldn't need Jesus to say the words.