Matthew 5: Is this 'pure' Jesus?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Matthew 5
"And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. 10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven

The whole chapter fills me with awe.
It is way ahead of it's time, in my opinion.

Most skeptics and scholars can locate the source material for Gospel Scripture. This can be done with some of Matthew 5 but it will require work. If you find an equivalency in the OT to anything in Matthew 5 I will conceded that it is 'old news'

If you want to chip away at this ,what remains unsourced, can be considered pure Jesus.

Whittle the Chapter (it is not too long),down to nothing if you are up to it.
This will be easy ,at the start.
Hone your skills of enquiry, and take your time.

Side dish for skeptics.
Is Matthew 5 ,unrealistic, theological/philosophical, nonsense.
Why?
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Deny as you like (Bible apologists do) but on all evidence and reason, this is added in non -original material and (because mark doesn't hint at it) cannot be claimed as Jesus original "

You make a logical and persuasive argument here, T.
I have no ' but'. It felt like a retrofit, copy and paste to me too. It just raises the bar on Mark material. This is where we are now at. We need to find the source of this content and eliminate it as late 1st Century extrapolation from a ' whatever'. There is a theological and philosophical genius out there somewhere. I still think it is the words of the Jesus figure. I cannot explain why Marks emphasis is so different. Is he too dumb to articulate deep philosophy, or... I do not know.

My instinct is that this stuff was heard and that it was originally, concise and memorable and from a very special person. Mark's Gospel has a rural primitiveness about it that doesn't even touch this thing's cloak.
Do some digging and eliminating. I'm off to do the same!
Thanks!

I don't know how you are going to find the original content to come to any conclusion. But I'll tell you how I did it - and others can decide whether it is valid or not.

Contradictions was the start. Right from the start of online apologetics in the 80's, it was clear that 'one angel or two' was minor stuff and what was needed were biggies that could not be waved away as excusable misrememberings. Right away, Mark left out the sermon material - all of it. No sermon at all. No Lord's Prayer. How is that possible? The stock 'Oh it wasn't important' excuse is insufferable, frankly.

So obviously we start by excluding serious contradictions and seeing first what the synoptics all agree on (reconstructing the synoptic original) and then what that and John agrees, which gives the original (but still Christian) story.

We actually have two extra - additional sources for the synoptics - Matthew /Luke (sermon) and Matthew Mark (2nd feeding/Decapolis material). That latter is recognised by the church with the footling trick of calling it 'the great omission' (Luke doesn't have it) as though that excused it. The hypothesis that doesn't drag in footling excuses is, Mark and Matthew used material Luke didn't have, e.g the syrio -phoenecian woman, the centurion's servant and (oh yes ) the cursing of the fig tree. Though Luke does share the fig tree symbolism of the time ripe for God's plan of the end of the world (talk on the mount of olives).

Incidentally, since this material is broadly in the same place I suggest Mark and Matthew used a common amended gospel.

But the way Luke and Matthew use the common material differently bespeaks a common document they used in different ways. This I fondly call it "Q" though some Authorities use the term to refer to original Gospel material.

There is fascinating study, not only of realising that John has no transfiguration and many many other 'biggies' of contradiction, but of why nobody has noticed this, as it is hardly rocket science. If I can do this, anyone able to unwrap a hershey bar without assistance should be able to. I can only suppose that nobody has bothered, as they have all been sold the Big Lie: 'The Gospels are broadly reliable, give or take a few excusable differences'. You and we -all owe it to ourselves to ask the questions and have the doubts and not be bamboozled by the Bible apologissts.

I could be dead wrong, but nobody so far has shown where or how, if they have even bothered. I must conclude that even the skeptics (including e.g Sam Harris and Ehrman) have started by assuming the Gospels are a broadly reliable record which they demonstrably aren't. Why they apparently bought into the Big Lie when they are brilliant scholars, I don't get. I might be talking cobblers, but at least I want the theory out there to be at least debated, and not ignored.

Jesus was a Jewish person (I do believe) but not the proto - Christian of the gospels. A Pharisee Rabbi (see, right away the hostility towards Phariseeism is borrowed from Paul and is not what Real Jesus would have done (1) if not a failed messiah (so much hidden evidence for that) and the Gospel Original which overpaints the real Jesus with Paulinist Christianity - but even then it has Jesus as a Messiah propelled about the landscape by the spirit and only later on made a god from conception. Then the post war gospels (because even John knows about the Jewish war.

So the split between John's gospel and the synoptic original, and the raising of Lazarus convinces me that he invented this stuff, even though it reads like screenplay. But after all, Chum Blaster and all you folks who but 2000 years of Bible experts could read the story of the Blind man (in Jerusalem not Jericho ) transformed from an uneducated beggar to a Christian rhetorician disputing with the Jews just like Jesus, and not realise we are hearing the authentic voice of John and nobody else?

I have mentioned *'No transfiguration' as a biggie, and it is. It proves that the transfiguration never happened, but (if there is a basic true story at all) Something apparently did, involving a messianic Coming Out as a kingship pretender, which is just one concealed clue that was who Jesus really was, not this preacher of Paulinist flapdoodle, like 'Who is David's son?' which the synoptics plainly don't understand the meaning of (2).

So with the really pared down Synoptic original, we get Mark using the original with added 'M' (Mark/Matthew) material plus his own additions. At the other end of the time - scale, we get Luke (and i can't help wondering whether he is Eusebius, fiddling the Bible to suit Constantine) using the original (without M material so the 'great omission') and no walking on water... nobody ever noticed that? (3) Who are these supposed experts? and Matthew, who used both - the M material and the "Q" material shared with Luke. But not of course the nativities or the resurrections as they are utterly contradictory and so are demonstrably separate inventions.

So there we are, and I leave it to you to consider or ignore, and I just hope the hypothesis will get out there so the experts and authorities can discuss it, as for all I have seen hardly any of them have even thought of it.

(1) David and the shewbread is proof that this cannot be an argument that anyone but a Paulinist Christian could make. And yes the only objection I have seen is Abiamelech or Abiathar (one was High priest and the other was priest on bread - duty) which I can easily explain, though Bible apolopgists prefer to ignore it.

(2) so you won't be kept awake, it means that David is singing to his Lord who is subject to His Lord. Thus there is a Lord in heaven between king David and YHWH, and this is the spirit of the Messiah that Paul talks of (virtually ignored by the Experts) and this is not only the spirit of David come to earth as Messiah but likely the spirit of Adam come to put right his sin that brought sin - death (Romans 5.12). Thus, David is singing to his own messianic spirit who existed before he did himself, and Jesus is of course the new messiah containing the 'son of David' messianic spirit, and also the spirit of Adam (son of man). It's all there. Even C S Lewis knew that 'son of man' means 'son of Adam', though he couldn't or wouldn't put it together. But then, neither do the gospel - writers.

(3) but here is a curious story that slipped past the censors...Bible students go into the seminary as Believers and come out non - believers' is roughly how that went. They first did what i did - redaction criticism, and realised it couldn't be true as claimed. But then 'we are trapped. Preaching was the only job we knew so we had to preach what we knew wasn't true'. Cue the clergy project for those who can no longer preach the Big Lie and need help to escape and live, because the Christian Church Big Lie System is designed to keep people trapped and silent. And you may reject my Theory, but this is true.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You have a lot of time and skill put into this work and I commend you for it. I was getting a picture of someone doing a jigsaw. They are looking for pieces with blue in them to make the sky. A lot of Gospel scholarship follows this modus.

My methods,( if that is what they are), are more like literal intuition. You are probably aware that my hobbyhorse insinuates that there is a genius kernel to this. I have been considering how ' brilliancies', work in chess and in philosophical/ theological thought. Special people get into the areas that no one else can reach and they illuminate these spaces forever, for us all.

I was thinking of Buddha, under the tree. He comes up with Dukkha ( suffering), it leads to impermanence, which creates the Path of Enlightenment. Is this a case of someone 'getting lucky'? I think not!

Real Genius and brilliancy is to see the second step.i think Matthew 5 is this. Genius is immersing itself in Judaism and it's Law. Jesus discovers the concept of perfection within the statutes.

He deepdives into their essences and with the concept of ultimate and obvious extension(perfection)....he just knocks the laws out of the park, one after the other.

Brilliancy ,in chess,music, wherever, can be admired, considered, cloned stolen, replicated , copied, modified, misused, sold ,whatever. ...but it cannot be made. That requires the special one. IMHO

I am 60+, and if a real good looking woman walks past me, ...I sometimes slip away into another place in my head. I am born again!. Have i infringed on this persons identity? In the Perfect Continuum of Matthew 5,, I probably have. It is my problem, not hers. I think?
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
I was hoping that no one would notice.
Keep up the good work, T
Explain the apparent brilliancy and you get my vote.
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Right away, Mark left out the sermon material - all of it. No sermon at all..."

Matthew 5:13
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Mark 9:50
50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Again very similar!

Matthew 5
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mark 9

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

You could basically say that Mark 9 is the Sermon on the Mount.

Mark 9
49 For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt....50...Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”
Matthew 5
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

The truth is with the scholars in all this. The Sermon is an expansion of the OT Laws. In that sense ,none of this is new. Where it is taken is what is new and ethically wonderful. 'Pure Jesus'

Just consider the starting point of the salt, as an example...from wiki

"Leviticus 2:13 and Ezekiel 43:24 illustrate the requirement of salt as part of ancient Hebrew religious sacrifices. Leviticus 2:13 reads: "And every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering."

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "Right away, Mark left out the sermon material - all of it. No sermon at all..."

Matthew 5:13
13 “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

Mark 9:50
50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Well spotted. I looked into that. It is Synoptic original material. As I recall, it is also found in Luke. In roughly the same place as Mark has it. Only Matthew has it as part of the sermon. So it is not Q material but original material used by Matthew as part of the sermon.

Luke 1431 “Or suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? 32 If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace. 33 In the same way, those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.

34 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? 35 It is fit neither for the soil nor for the manure pile; it is thrown out.

“Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.”

This is a parable following the dinner in a Pharisee's house where Jesus blasts the host with the 'uncleanliness' rant that Mark and Matthew also use in a different context (Luke was a prolific editor of his material). It would have looked like Sermon material if it was just Matthew and Luke, but since mark has it, that makes it original, used (as I say) by Matthew in his sermon.

Hello

Again very similar!

Matthew 5
29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mark 9

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: 46 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. 47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Well done again. But this is not at the sermon, but after the transfiguration and just when they are all about to set off for Jerusalem. What's more I don'#t believe it is in Luke, let alone in his sermon. I'll check but I think we have here proof that this is material common to Mark and Matthew (The "M" Gospel and Matthew again transported it to the sermon, where he wanted to rewrite the Commandments in Christian terms.

I searched, but I did not find. in Luke, but I did find .Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

We find that in Mark 9.42. And if was common material that is where Luke would have put it. But I can't find it. So it is NOT 'sermon material, nor Q material, but is M material which Matthew couldn't resist putting in his sermon. Or that's my hypothesis.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #11]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You have a lot of time and skill put into this work and I commend you for it. I was getting a picture of someone doing a jigsaw. They are looking for pieces with blue in them to make the sky. A lot of Gospel scholarship follows this modus.

My methods,( if that is what they are), are more like literal intuition. You are probably aware that my hobbyhorse insinuates that there is a genius kernel to this. I have been considering how ' brilliancies', work in chess and in philosophical/ theological thought. Special people get into the areas that no one else can reach and they illuminate these spaces forever, for us all.

I was thinking of Buddha, under the tree. He comes up with Dukkha ( suffering), it leads to impermanence, which creates the Path of Enlightenment. Is this a case of someone 'getting lucky'? I think not!

Real Genius and brilliancy is to see the second step.i think Matthew 5 is this. Genius is immersing itself in Judaism and it's Law. Jesus discovers the concept of perfection within the statutes.

He deepdives into their essences and with the concept of ultimate and obvious extension(perfection)....he just knocks the laws out of the park, one after the other.

Brilliancy ,in chess,music, wherever, can be admired, considered, cloned stolen, replicated , copied, modified, misused, sold ,whatever. ...but it cannot be made. That requires the special one. IMHO

I am 60+, and if a real good looking woman walks past me, ...I sometimes slip away into another place in my head. I am born again!. Have i infringed on this persons identity? In the Perfect Continuum of Matthew 5,, I probably have. It is my problem, not hers. I think?
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart
I was hoping that no one would notice.
Keep up the good work, T
Explain the apparent brilliancy and you get my vote.
Thanks

I'm not sure this is the forum for it. But as regards 'Thought Crime' in the Bible, that has long been identified as what's wrong with the Bible its' morals and its' teachings.

I prefer the 'brilliance' of Startrek "We are violent, and we will kill...but not today". It recognises and accepts our (inherited) flaws and does not try to make them a crime let alone a sickness in the head imposed by God just so the religion can sell its' dupes a fake cure.

You drool over a Lamboghini but only a Jealous not to say narcissist and selfish God will make it a crime to admire its'curves and the dint of a wildridingn experience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

The truth is with the scholars in all this. The Sermon is an expansion of the OT Laws. In that sense ,none of this is new. Where it is taken is what is new and ethically wonderful. 'Pure Jesus'

Just consider the starting point of the salt, as an example...from wiki

"Leviticus 2:13 and Ezekiel 43:24 illustrate the requirement of salt as part of ancient Hebrew religious sacrifices. Leviticus 2:13 reads: "And every offering of your grain offering you shall season with salt; you shall not allow the salt of the covenant of your God to be lacking from your grain offering."

Sorry. I reject this argument other than as study material) as inadequate in the OT though much in line with Mesopotamian law codes) but really not very good as reinvented by Matthew as a Law given by the New Noses. The Law shall not pass away, but it is will be fulfilled, which is rewritten to suit the doctrines of Paulinist Christians and not a word of it, IO deem is the actual sayings of Jesus nor all that brilliant, in fact. I recall a video exposing Bad Ideas in much of the sermon. As well as one on thought - crime. I might look them up. Entertaining and thought - provoking, to any who are able to listen.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER


You say - "Right away, Mark left out the sermon material - all of it. No sermon at all..."

I get no satisfaction in rubbing salt into your open wounds, (that's a lie),but at the moment your argument resembles an Abraham Altar. Just lick your wounds with dignity and come back with some new hypothesis. You show all the craft of a drowning man and use denial, evasion, amnesia, deflection, projection, ..you even bite your lip. Back to the drawing board for you, chum! Follow the snake downwards.