How do you rate Jesus as a philosopher?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Qoeleth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

Qoeleth

Guest
This question hopefull will not be interpreted as sacrilege, and it is somewhat hypothetical. Let’s imagine (hypothetically) you are not Christian, but simply a philosopher, and have no previous beliefs about Jesus. You read the ethical and philosophical statements of Jesus, taking them as philosophy. How would you rate them? Excellent, good, average, banal?

Personally, I think they are pretty profound and radical. I suggest-

“What ever you do to the least of these you do to me”= Levinas’ idea of the alterity of the face of the other being identified with the transcendent Other
“In the Beginning was the Word…and through it all things were made.”= Derrida’s idea that “there is nothing outside the text.”
“Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates His life in this world will inherit eternal life.”= Schopenhauer’s theory of redemption through detachment.
“I am the… Truth”= Kierkeegard’s idea of truth as subjectivity.
 
Hmm … Derrida’s idea of ‘text’ would have to be pretty broad to include a whole person methinks - remember the scriptural Word IS Jesus, a person.

And Jesus, being God, indicates that He, God, is truth - in other words He possesses and defines the fullness of truth. This is different altogether to saying that each individual defines and determines truth for themselves subjectively. Truth is something that is objective for everyone except God.
 
A philosopher searches for the truth.
Jesus was not a philosopher. He was the Truth and knew the Truth.

Call him a teacher.
 
empther said:
A philosopher searches for the truth.
Jesus was not a philosopher. He was the Truth and knew the Truth.

Call him a teacher.
Click to expand...
Exactly-no reason to philosophize when one already knows the truth! 🙂
 
empther said:
A philosopher searches for the truth.
Jesus was not a philosopher. He was the Truth and knew the Truth.

Call him a teacher.
Click to expand...
Of course that’s true- but in order to teach, it was necessary for Jesus to make philosophical statements. Also, there may be non-religious people who study philosophy- I don’t see why a person doing a purely secular course in ancient philosophy would study Plato, Diogenes, and Epictetus, but not study the teachings of Jesus, who was clearly the most influential of all of these ‘thinkers’.

The question is hypothetical- if the teachings of Jesus were interpreted purely as a philosophy (in the same way we appreciated the teachings of Socrates), how would you regard them, and orient them? Was Jesus (the teacher) a Platonist, a Stoic, an existentialist, etc.?
 
LilyM said:
Hmm … Derrida’s idea of ‘text’ would have to be pretty broad to include a whole person methinks - remember the scriptural Word IS Jesus, a person.

And Jesus, being God, indicates that He, God, is truth - in other words He possesses and defines the fullness of truth. This is different altogether to saying that each individual defines and determines truth for themselves subjectively. Truth is something that is objective for everyone except God.
Click to expand...
This was not precisely what Kirkeegard was saying…By subjectivity Kierkeegard means authenticity in relation to the absolute, or to use Heidegerrian terms, the authenticity of Dasein.

And, of course, Derrida does define text broadly- text contains language, which contains metaphysics, which contains being and value.
 
Qoeleth said:
This question hopefull will not be interpreted as sacrilege, and it is somewhat hypothetical. Let’s imagine (hypothetically) you are not Christian, but simply a philosopher, and have no previous beliefs about Jesus. You read the ethical and philosophical statements of Jesus, taking them as philosophy. How would you rate them? Excellent, good, average, banal?

Personally, I think they are pretty profound and radical. I suggest-

“What ever you do to the least of these you do to me”= Levinas’ idea of the alterity of the face of the other being identified with the transcendent Other
“In the Beginning was the Word…and through it all things were made.”= Derrida’s idea that “there is nothing outside the text.”
“Whoever loves his life will lose it, but whoever hates His life in this world will inherit eternal life.”= Schopenhauer’s theory of redemption through detachment.
“I am the… Truth”= Kierkeegard’s idea of truth as subjectivity.
Click to expand...
If I were a non-Christian evaluating Jesus solely on his philosophical orations…

I would not be impressed.

Essentially, Jesus did not say anything new or radical that had not been proclaimed by other philosophers. In fact, every morally sane Jew already knew to “turn the other cheek.”

Jesus did not come to be a philosopher. He did not come to be a healer.
*
He came to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.*

Thus, while discussing Jesus’ “philosophical” teachings is an interesting endeavor, attempting to do this with a non-Christian will most likely result in this: :whistle:
 
I don’t konw enough about formal philosophy to make much of a fist at answering this question.

I do remember my old pastor’s comment though that he thought the closest philosophical concept to Christianity was Existentialism, saying “Most people *exist, *and that’s about it.”
 
C.S. Lewis got it exactly right when he stated there were only 3 possibilities for Jesus’ true role…

He was insane. Some of the things he said were so out of the realm of normal, such as “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life…” etc. No normal person of the time would say such things.

He was a liar. Jesus was making all of that up just for some purpose of his own (that would imply he was evil). So everything that he said was merely lies. But this does not explain the miracles he performed.

He really was the Son of God. Self explanatory. He was who He said He was, and is who He really is.

None of those 3 would include a normal guy, a teacher, just searching for the truth. Teachers don’t claim to BE the Truth. Philosophers don’t claim to BE the Truth.
 
Although Jesus wrote his message on our hearts rather than in a book, I would rate him as the most readable philosopher in the history of the world … certainly more readable than Socrates!
 
TheRealJuliane said:
C.S. Lewis got it exactly right when he stated there were only 3 possibilities for Jesus’ true role…

He was insane. Some of the things he said were so out of the realm of normal, such as “I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life…” etc. No normal person of the time would say such things.

He was a liar. Jesus was making all of that up just for some purpose of his own (that would imply he was evil). So everything that he said was merely lies. But this does not explain the miracles he performed.

He really was the Son of God. Self explanatory. He was who He said He was, and is who He really is.

None of those 3 would include a normal guy, a teacher, just searching for the truth. Teachers don’t claim to BE the Truth. Philosophers don’t claim to BE the Truth.
Click to expand...
An Heideggarian interpretation can be proposed- “I AM” designates authenticity of Dasien, the true self. This authenticty is the supra-epistemic “Truth” to which we, as beings, tend. So, for each of us, our “I AM-ness”, is the “Truth”, that which “set you [the authentic self] free.” Bultmann proposed a similar philosophical reading.

I am not trying to ‘reduce’ it philosophy, but suggesting a philosophical reading is also sustainable.

Don’t get me wrong- I believe Jesus is the Son of God, etc. But I don’t see why his sayings should be excluded from ancient philosophy courses!
 
empther said:
A philosopher searches for the truth.
Jesus was not a philosopher. He was the Truth and knew the Truth.

Call him a teacher.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree. Philosophy is the search for the truth or the investigation into what truth is. Jesus, as a being of truth, and even the whole truth was not investigating, he was disseminating.
This is parsing, but there it is
 
I agree in the regard to the reaction from a non-christian, but I think that comes less from the actual ideas he presented than with the reputation his followers have bequeathed upon ourselves, and the way Jesus is presented as proposing an ancient out-of-touch message (a label not generally applied to any other thinker)

I disagree with your example. We have to remember that the idea of “turn the other cheek”, being a tennent of the old covenant came from Christ as The Word anyway.
So to me he was merely repeating himself.
PRmerger said:
If I were a non-Christian evaluating Jesus solely on his philosophical orations…

I would not be impressed.

Essentially, Jesus did not say anything new or radical that had not been proclaimed by other philosophers. In fact, every morally sane Jew already knew to “turn the other cheek.”

Jesus did not come to be a philosopher. He did not come to be a healer.
*
He came to be the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.*

Thus, while discussing Jesus’ “philosophical” teachings is an interesting endeavor, attempting to do this with a non-Christian will most likely result in this: :whistle:
Click to expand...
 
Jesus put together the most complete, comprehensive, and clear statements of the truth ever made. Any philosopher before or since is merely struggling to grasp pieces of that truth.

Now I do believe that there are philosophical conversations in which Jesus did not engage, but in my mind, any philosphical proposition should be measured against what he did say, or else we are hand paddling a row boat across the ocean looking for tiny islands of knowledge
 
Jesus didn’t think so much as taught. So I don’t know if I would rate him as a philosopher, but I would rate him as a grade A teacher.
 
pigzig said:
Jesus didn’t think so much as taught. So I don’t know if I would rate him as a philosopher, but I would rate him as a grade A teacher.
Click to expand...
I think Jesus thought as well as taught. He had to choose the words and concepts with which to express the Truths he knew. After all, He was fully human as well as fully divine.

I like to think that when Jesus went off to pray alone, He also did a bit of thinking.
 
Jesus didn’t have to sit around and think about things like we do. He knew it all already.

Which is why I shouldn’t have to try and think about whether he said was right or wrong. Its all right. Everything that came out of his mouth is truth.
 
PumpkinSeed said:
Jesus didn’t have to sit around and think about things like we do. He knew it all already.

Which is why I shouldn’t have to try and think about whether he said was right or wrong. Its all right. Everything that came out of his mouth is truth.
Click to expand...
I agree- to accept Scripture as truth unconditionally- and to philosophize around it. But a human being who didn’t think wouldn’t really fully partake in the human condition, if feel.

Do you think Jesus could speak Chinese?😃
 
Qoeleth said:
I agree- to accept Scripture as truth unconditionally- and to philosophize around it. But a human being who didn’t think wouldn’t really fully partake in the human condition, if feel.

Do you think Jesus could speak Chinese?😃
Click to expand...
I think Jesus can do whatever he wants to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top