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

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You - "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 wildriding experience."
-------

Would that life were as simple as you portray it, T. If I oogle or covet, that is an issue for me. The girl is entitled to look good and not have an old fart fantizising about her. Every beautiful woman is somebody's daughter. Many encounters start with a look. It is a matter of attitude and ethics, same with the neighbours Lambogini, but much less so. If I think I want it, I might steal it, he might think that I want it, I might kill him

Should you eulogize and drool over a drug dealer's Christmas present,T?

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You - "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 wildriding experience."
-------

Would that life were as simple as you portray it, T. If I oogle or covet, that is an issue for me. The girl is entitled to look good and not have an old fart fantizising about her. Every beautiful woman is somebody's daughter. Many encounters start with a look. It is a matter of attitude and ethics, same with the neighbours Lambogini, but much less so. If I think I want it, I might steal it, he might think that I want it, I might kill him

Should you eulogize and drool over a drug dealer's Christmas present,T?

Thanks

We have a social problem. Why is a presentable fellowsomehow mentally ravished because some older ladies drool over him (I have seen a few of those) and why are they sinning to have fantasies over this ot that hunk on screen, poster or in the workplace? Why is that a thought crime?

So why is it a crime when men admire a lady in a shiny red cocktail dress that was clearly designed by Ferrari? It's complicated, and made worse by the recent confused manhate cult and will only be resolved when people are more accepting of others (which is NOT what we got right now). But the bottom line is the problem will not be resolves or even assisted by the daft and reactionary strictures of the Bible, Christianity and a confused if not hypocritical bunch of religious pundits, preaching Decency and Family Values with itchy fingers.

Oh.p.s should you salivate and drool over a present of Jack Daniels? Booze was treated like drugs once. Morals and even social problems aside, prohibition (with or without the religious aspect) was not the answer. Reason rather than legislation from the top, let alone the pulpit - pounding of the religions, is the way to deal with it. Religion and its' moralising finger wagging has always been found to fail if not a cure worse than the disease.

Oh yes - a p.p.s didn't we see a nice little trick pulled above.It's the 'price yourself out of the market' ploy. The trick is done by making a demand you can bet can't be met, and then the apologists makes this the pivotal point of the argument. In fact this was the first failed apologetic back in my teens 'All the atheists have to do is go and rebuild Tyre and disprove the Bible.They cannot do it" (BCM ambassador) But then i found out Tyre had been rebuilt, so he was debunked. More recently, it has been 'Mammoths from butterflies' (in the laboratory.before our werry eyes). This means that the actual evidence can be ignored and the Theist belief remains the default theory until science achieves an impossible (as well as irrelevant) task. And I repeat that a poster thought (mistakenly) this extreme demand had been met - so he shifted the goalposts.

Atheists also have one of these. My own in 'turn a bottle of water on my desk into wine'.This should be easy if the guarantee to answer prayer is true. But of course they never even try, but start of excuses as to why - not only it won't work - but why they shouldn't even try.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - " But the bottom line is the problem will not be resolves or even assisted by the daft and reactionary strictures of the Bible, Christianity and a confused if not hypocritical bunch of religious pundits, preaching Decency and Family Values with itchy fingers."

‐----

Can you take advice, T.?
Can you critically evaluate your own work, here?
Look at this, above snippet.

The itchy fingers insult at the end is needless, ineffective and childish.
The whole thing is a crescendo to a 'you too'
This for you is a broken record, at this stage.

We all get that you have real issues with theism
Please, reasonably articulate them. Do not generalize, that would be a start. Everything is a dramatic, blanket sweep in this snippet. This modus of over assertion is endemic to your contributions. It just stops me from reading further.
Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #22]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - " But the bottom line is the problem will not be resolves or even assisted by the daft and reactionary strictures of the Bible, Christianity and a confused if not hypocritical bunch of religious pundits, preaching Decency and Family Values with itchy fingers."

‐----

Can you take advice, T.?
Can you critically evaluate your own work, here?
Look at this, above snippet.

The itchy fingers insult at the end is needless, ineffective and childish.
The whole thing is a crescendo to a 'you too'
This for you is a broken record, at this stage.

We all get that you have real issues with theism
Please, reasonably articulate them. Do not generalize, that would be a start. Everything is a dramatic, blanket sweep in this snippet. This modus of over assertion is endemic to your contributions. It just stops me from reading further.
Thanks

Can you critically evaluate your own failings? Instead of making a case and answering points, you become terribly offended at they I put my points as though the litany of failing of the religious mentors of decency and morals have not been caught where they should not be.



(cue -of course - "Oh..those aren't Real Christians")

Apart from your efforts to manipulate the discussion (which is water off this duck's back) why not address the points instead of pretending to be offended on behalf of the Christian community?

You may use that as an excuse no not read what i post so as to excuse yourself from answering or even thinking about it. We all know you have issues with unbelievers and atheism.

I don't mind the failure to respond hurts your case, not mine, and I'm writing with the general reader in mind, not trying to persuade those who are determined on some pretext or another, to not listen to arguments. Notably you don't listen to the one where I said a 'you too' was legitimate where one side is trying to claim the high moral ground. Consideration of any scenario of hypocrisy would show that has to be a legitimate exposure of fallacy. Playing the 'you too' card, is either misunderstanding or a grubby ploy on your part. It is wrong, in either case.

[TRANSPONDER]

Finger - pointing and irrelevancies aside, my argument (on internal textual evidence) is that Matthew 5 is not only not Pure Jesus but it isn't Jesus at all.Perhaps someone more interested in discussion than mud slinging to make an argument would case to dispute that.