Jesus a "great teacher"

[belorg]

No one ought to define love as a way “that entails brutal violence against someone who is just doing his job.” Who has done that?

Apparently you do.

However, if someone is doing something immoral, sometimes an act of “violence” is, indeed, “necessary.”

The act of violence against the money changers was not necessary. It was even illegal.

Well, I suppose you *could *“define violence the way” you want to, and you could say, "I believe it’s violence to chop turnips into teeny tiny pieces. So there!’

If I took an example of how ‘love’ is redefined to get Jesus of the hook, that definition would actually make sense.

But create new definitions as you like. That will be fun to watch!

Are Christians the only people who are allowed to create new definitions?

 

[belorg]

The money changers were not “just doing their job.” The house they were plying their trade was “God’s house” and not a place of business. Which is precisely why they were chased out. This was Jesus’ own house and they were trespassing to carry on illicit business.

This was a perfectly legal business. They were not trespassing any law.

As to whether Jesus used ‘brutal violence!’ that is your interpretation. Turning over a few tables and waving cords in the air is not exactly brutal unless you stretch your imagination beyond reasonable bounds to make a rather feeble point.

That’s brutal violence, yes.

 

[tonyrey]

The desperate lengths to which some individuals will go to in their attempts to destroy the belief that Jesus wasn’t a great teacher reveal their lack of real ammunition! The supposed display of unjustified anger is totally irrelevant to the wisdom of his moral teaching - which is the only rational basis of personal and social development and fulfilment.

 

[belorg]

The desperate lengths to which some individuals will go to in their attempts to destroy the belief that Jesus wasn’t a great teacher reveal their lack of real ammunition! The supposed display of unjustified anger is totally irrelevant to the wisdom of his moral teaching - which is the only rational basis of personal and social development and fulfilment.

It’s very easy (and not original at all) to shout ‘Love your enemy’. Everybody can do that. A great moral teacher, however, lives up to his teachings. A not so great moral teacher on some occasions lets his temper get in the way of his teachings. A not so great moral teacher looks for easy targets and forgets about one of the biggest evils of all times: slavery.
Now we all know that no human being is perfect. The claim, however is that Jesus was not merely human and that he was perfect. And the gospels clearly show that he wasn’t.

 

[tonyrey]

The desperate lengths to which some individuals will go to in their attempts to destroy the belief that Jesus wasn’t a great teacher reveal their lack of real ammunition! The supposed display of unjustified anger is totally irrelevant to the wisdom of his moral teaching - which is the only rational basis of personal and social development and fulfilment.

No evidence provided.

Everybody can do that.

Gross exaggeration.

A great moral teacher, however, lives up to his teachings. A not so great moral teacher on some occasions lets his temper get in the way of his teachings.

Righteous anger on behalf on the exploited poor and at the desecration of the Temple has been overlooked.

A not so great moral teacher looks for easy targets and forgets about one of the biggest evils of all times: slavery.

A direct confrontation with Rome would have been suicidal and fruitless whereas a more enduring and liberating factor has been the message of universal love, forgiveness and reconciliation.

Now we all know that no human being is perfect. The claim, however is that Jesus was not merely human and that he was perfect.

Irrelevant to the topic.

And the gospels clearly show that he wasn’t.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

NB No response has been made to the question as to the basis of** your **moral values…

 

[tonyrey]

Where is the source and text?

You should be able to cite the exact words if you are producing valid evidence…

 

[Portofino]

You should be able to cite the exact words if you are producing valid evidence…

Christ’s greatest rival for perfection of moral character is – not surprisingly – Gautama Buddha. Here is an excerpt from an early Buddhist text, the Dhammapada.

Christ would have loved Buddha, that is for sure

"One should give up anger,
renounce pride,
and overcome all fetters.
Suffering never befalls him
who clings not to mind and body
and is detached.
He who checks rising anger
as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot,
him I call a true charioteer.
Others only hold the reins.
Overcome the angry by non-anger;
overcome the wicked by goodness;
overcome the miser by generosity;
overcome the liar by truth.
Speak the truth;
yield not to anger;
when asked, give even if you only have a little.
By these three means
can one reach the presence of the gods.

Let a man guard himself
against irritability in bodily action;
let him be controlled in deed.
Abandoning bodily misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in deed.
Let a man guard himself
against irritability in speech;
let him be controlled in speech.
Abandoning verbal misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in speech.
Let a man guard himself
against irritability in thought;
let him be controlled in mind.
Abandoning mental misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in thought.
The wise are controlled in bodily action,
controlled in speech and controlled in thought.
They are truly well-controlled."

“For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an eternal rule.”

“Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are spoken to will answer thee in the same way. Angry speech is painful, blows for blows will touch thee.”

I do not know when the above – the Dhammapada–was written, but Buddha lived and taught half a millenium before Christ.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s what consistency means, Peter.
I do not know exactly about your country, but in mine, police officers just starting to beat people even if they offend the law would be considered a crime

Are you suggesting that Jesus beat the moneychangers in the temple?

“Beat” is a very provocative word, belorg.

So be very, very careful with how you proceed.

If that’s what you are implying–that Jesus beat the moneychangers in the same way that you are suggesting that some police offers are beating people in your country–then please provide your evidence.

It would look something like this, what you’re suggesting Jesus did:



Is this what you are saying is the equivalent of what Jesus did in the temple?

For that, belorg, is a beating, portrayed in the photo.

Are you really wanting to draw a parallel between police officers such as these and Jesus in the temple?

If you are willing to retract and realize that you have gone a bit astray in your zeal to defend your position, I won’t belabor that at all.

 

[belorg]

Are you suggesting that Jesus beat the moneychangers in the temple?“Beat” is a very provocative word, belorg.

So be very, very careful with how you proceed.

I think the evidence suggests this, yes. It’s not entrirely clear whether he actually beat them or not.

If that’s what you are implying–that Jesus beat the moneychangers in the same way that you are suggesting that some police offers are beating people in your country–then please provide your evidence.

For that, belorg, is a beating, portrayed in the photo.

Are you really wanting to draw a parallel between police officers such as these and Jesus in the temple?

Jesus used illegitimate force against the money changers, and he used a whip made of cords if I am not mistaken, he did not use sticks.

If you are willing to retract and realize that you have gone a bit astray in your zeal to defend your position, I won’t belabor that at all.

I said that if police officers started to beat people it would be considered a crime. I did not say that Jesus beat people in the same way. So yes, of course I exaggerate a bit to make my point, just as Jesus apparently did. His reaction was also out of proportion.
Anyway, even if Jesus did not actually hit the people (they may have gotten out of the way just in time), throwing over tables and tossing around money like he did would still be considered an offnse in a democrazic country, even if done by the police.

 

[belorg]

No evidence provided.

I know the evidence and you can find it if you want. I am not going to do a search for you.

Gross exaggeration.

OK. A two-month-old baby can’t. So, you are correct. Not ‘everybody’.

Righteous anger on behalf on the exploited poor and at the desecration of the Temple has been overlooked.

Anger accompanied by violence is not righteous according to Jesus’ own teachings.
According to Jesus’ own teachings, war is never righteous either. Yet, virtually every nation, Christian or not, has engaged in wars throughout history.
Some of these wars have even been been called ‘righteous’ referring to Christianity and God.

A direct confrontation with Rome would have been suicidal and fruitless whereas a more enduring and liberating factor has been the message of universal love, forgiveness and reconciliation.

His anger in the temple was also fruitless, and , at least in some of the Gospels, were one of the things brought up against Him at his trial.

NB No response has been made to the question as to the basis of** your **moral values…

Ow, that’s what you were asking. I didn’t understand your question. That’s a big question deserving its own thread, because the answer is rather complex .

 

[Peter_Plato]

Anger accompanied by violence is not righteous according to Jesus’ own teachings.
According to Jesus’ own teachings, war is never righteous either.

Where do you see these two teachings?

“…all who draw the sword die by the sword.” That is a statement of fact, not a teaching.

How about:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)

 

[tonyrey]

Christ’s greatest rival for perfection of moral character is – not surprisingly – Gautama Buddha. Here is an excerpt from an early Buddhist text, the Dhammapada.

Christ would have loved Buddha, that is for sure

"One should give up anger,
renounce pride,
and overcome all fetters.
Suffering never befalls him
who clings not to mind and body
and is detached.
He who checks rising anger
as a charioteer checks a rolling chariot,
him I call a true charioteer.
Others only hold the reins.
Overcome the angry by non-anger;
overcome the wicked by goodness;
overcome the miser by generosity;
overcome the liar by truth.
Speak the truth;
yield not to anger;
when asked, give even if you only have a little.
By these three means
can one reach the presence of the gods.

Let a man guard himself
against irritability in bodily action;
let him be controlled in deed.
Abandoning bodily misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in deed.
Let a man guard himself
against irritability in speech;
let him be controlled in speech.
Abandoning verbal misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in speech.
Let a man guard himself
against irritability in thought;
let him be controlled in mind.
Abandoning mental misconduct,
let him practice good conduct in thought.
The wise are controlled in bodily action,
controlled in speech and controlled in thought.
They are truly well-controlled."

“For hatred does not cease by hatred at any time: hatred ceases by love, this is an eternal rule.”

“Do not speak harshly to anybody; those who are spoken to will answer thee in the same way. Angry speech is painful, blows for blows will touch thee.”

I do not know when the above – the Dhammapada–was written, but Buddha lived and taught half a millenium before Christ.

Buddha’s teaching is admirable but it does not advocate loving one’s enemies to the extent of suffering and dying for them as Christ did. Gautama’s teaching that life is suffering is negative whereas Jesus is positive in affirming the goodness and beauty of life in this world. Christian love is a far more powerful force than Buddhist compassion and the joy of life in heaven is a far richer destiny than the selfless state of nirvana.

 

[tonyrey]

I know the evidence and you can find it if you want.

I have searched and cannot find any evidence whatsoever that people were instructed to love their enemies . Until that evidence is forthcoming your assertion is worthless.

I am not going to do a search for you.

The “not” sums up your negativity.

OK. A two-month-old baby can’t. So, you are correct. Not ‘everybody’.

Another “not” - and another weak argument.

Anger accompanied by violence is not righteous according to Jesus’ own teachings.
According to Jesus’ own teachings, war is never righteous either. Yet, virtually every nation, Christian or not, has engaged in wars throughout history.Some of these wars have even been been called ‘righteous’ referring to Christianity and God.

What individual Christians do has no bearing on the truth of Christianity.

His anger in the temple was also fruitless, and , at least in some of the Gospels, were one of the things brought up against Him at his trial.

False accusations signify nothing.

Ow, that’s what you were asking. I didn’t understand your question. That’s a big question deserving its own thread, because the answer is rather complex .

Another evasion which sums up the intrinsic weakness of your arguments. You criticise Christianity but your position is entirely negative. It is the easiest thing in the world to attack but to defend is more far difficult. The sceptic makes himself invulnerable because he offers precisely nothing - but his invulnerability comes at a price: his lack of beliefs and values undermines his credibility. As King Lear said,

“Nothing shall come from nothing.”

 

[belorg]

I have searched and cannot find any evidence whatsoever that people were instructed to love their enemies . Until that evidence is forthcoming your assertion is worthless.

Portofino gave you a quote, but you reject it because “Buddha’s teaching is admirable but it does not advocate loving one’s enemies to the extent of suffering and dying for them as Christ did.” But Christ’s teaching did not include loving one’s enemies to the extnent of suffering and dying for them either.

The “not” sums up your negativity.

Well, I am not here to deconvert you, so I am not going to all the trouble quating texts that, no doubt, you will find reasons to dismiss anyway.

Another “not” - and another weak argument.

What is there to argue about. Just saying ‘Love your enemy’ is an easy thing to do.I just wrote it down, so it’s really not hard. The hard part is living up to it.

What individual Christians do has no bearing on the truth of Christianity.

They use this ‘truth’ and can “justify” their actions just as wel as you can “justify” Jeus’ use of violence.

False accusations signify nothing.

It was not a false accusation. he really did those things (if we are to belive the gospels, that is) and those things were considerd criminal offenses. It does not matter if he had good reasons or not. There are very good reasons to oppose slavery, but preaching against it would have been considered a criminal offense. If Jeus had preached against slavery and that was briught up during his trial, would you also say these were false accusations?

Another evasion which sums up the intrinsic weakness of your arguments. You criticise Christianity but your position is entirely negative. It is the easiest thing in the world to attack but to defend is more far difficult. The sceptic makes himself invulnerable because he offers precisely nothing - but his invulnerability comes at a price: his lack of beliefs and values undermines his credibility. As King Lear said,

This thread is about whether Jesus was a great moral teacher, it is not about my morals. If I say there is something wrong with your car, would the condition of my car be relevant in any way?

 

[belorg]

Where do you see these two teachings?

“…all who draw the sword die by the sword.” That is a statement of fact, not a teaching.

How about:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on Earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34–39 NASB)

They are a direct consequence of loving your enemy.
Truly loving your enemy, that is.

And you are quite correct in quoting another passage that proves Jesus was not so great a moral teacher. Your quote here makes sense for a cult leader, but is , in fact completelu immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

I think the evidence suggests this, yes.

Please provide the evidence, then.

It’s not entrirely clear whether he actually beat them or not.

Um, belorg? Please make up your mind.

What is it: the evidence suggests that he beat people or that it’s not “entirely clear”.

You’re like a witness on the street who says, “Yeah, I think I saw the guy steal the apple!” and then says, “Yeah, it’s not entirely clear that he actually stole it.”

So what is your position?

And please provide evidence that to support your position.

 

[stevekehl]

I kind of got behind on this post and have been catching up today, so I haven’t read all the posts. However, from what has been said and my readings of Scripture I have to say that Jesus is not a great moral teacher, he is a divine moral teacher. Saying that others taught the same thing as Jesus just supports what Paul said, God has written His law on the hearts of all men (Romans 2:15). Sure, one person taught some of Jesus message at this place and this time, another taught parts at a different place and different time, etc… But the truth of God’s message of love and forgiveness came to completion in the person of Jesus Christ. There has been much discussion about the merchants in the Temple. They weren’t just doing there job. When someone brought there own lamb to sacrifice the priests would find a “flaw” in the animal and send them to the merchants, who charged inflated prices. The priests would then get a cut of the merchants profits. Same thing for money changers, animals had to be bought with Temple currency, which had to be exchanged and the poor are gouged again. Honest merchants wouldn’t be called thieves. While some may see this as violence and Jesus acting against His own teachings it can also be interpreted as foreshadowing God’s final judgment. For God to be a God of justice there must be judgment. Not based on our fickle definitions, which on His divine standards. Consider the often mentioned slavery. Slavery still exists in the world today, so some must consider it morally acceptable. Some would consider it wrong to judge slave owners based on our cultural definitions of morality (who are we to judge others). But God’s standard does not change. Jesus came to teach us that standard of love, compassion, patience, faithfulness, and forgiveness; and then to offer Himself as the final sacrifice for forgiveness so that we may confidently face God’s judgment. That makes Jesus a divine moral teacher. :bowdown2:

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus used illegitimate force against the money changers,

Well, that’s just begging the question, isn’t it.

and he used a whip made of cords if I am not mistaken, he did not use sticks.

Oh dear. Please tell me that you really do have the ability to think in the abstract, belorg.

I was once in a conversation with an atheist in which I referenced the Prodigal Son parable (I hope you are familiar with this story, belorg) and this atheist, also, seemed to have an inability to thnk in the abstract. He told me that he could dismiss the story because he “had never wanted to eat the food given to pigs.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Portofino gave you a quote, but you reject it because “Buddha’s teaching is admirable but it does not advocate loving one’s enemies to the extent of suffering and dying for them as Christ did.” But Christ’s teaching did not include loving one’s enemies to the extnent of suffering and dying for them either.

Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

By implication that “no greater love” would mean laying down your life for your friends, then loving your enemies could indeed include laying down one’s life for them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

They are a direct consequence of loving your enemy.
Truly loving your enemy, that is.

And you are quite correct in quoting another passage that proves Jesus was not so great a moral teacher. Your quote here makes sense for a cult leader, but is , in fact completelu immoral.

The point of this thread is that if Jeus is not God then He would not have been a great moral teacher. Your point is that His teaching makes sense if he were a cult leader but not for a moral teacher. Fine.

His teaching also makes sense if He were indeed God because only God could demand complete obedience to him directly even if that obedience caused rifts between ourselves and those around us who oppose God’s will. A moral system takes everyone’s rights into account equally, so for the sake of maintaining ‘peace’ compromise is the rule of thumb.

However, God’s authorship rights on all creation means that His rights do not count equally with those of His creatures. His rights supercede those of all His creatures so compromise with parents, wife, brother, etc., when this means going against God’s rights, is not prescribed. The fact that Jesus demanded a no compromise adherence to His teachings means that He either was God or insane, morally wicked, etc.

Your argument does not go against His divine claims but actually supports them because a merely human moral teacher would not make the demands and claims that Jesus does. Good! Point taken. Jesus does make claims that a human moral teacher would not make, but as God these are completely within His ‘authorship’ rights and purview as the Creator of the universe.