Jesus a "great teacher"

[jwinch2]

I’m with Fr. Barron on this.

Jesus claimed to be God, told people he had the knowledge to get them to eternal life, and asked people to eat his flesh and blood. Yes, he said many other things, but he definitely said those.

There is just no logical way to go half-way with Jesus. Either he is God as he claimed to be, in which case we are bound to follow everything he said; or he is not God, in which case he is completely insane to the point of being dangerous, and everything he said should be discounted.

People who think of Jesus as just a great teacher have either not read the Gospel, or they are not being intellectually honest.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus knew it would be futile to preach against slavery. He would have come into direct conflict with Roman authority and been executed before He had time to fulfil His mission. He knew the most effective means of liberation is by explaining and demonstrating the power of love which transforms men’s attitude to God and to one another. Where so many others failed His revolution has succeeded in establishing the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity throughout the world. These principles are empty abstractions unless we are all brothers and sisters who have the same Father in heaven - rather than strangers related merely by an accident of birth.

 

[LynJohn1023]

There is nothing that prevents somebody who has a few crazy ideas about himself to be a great moral teacher in other respects. The one simply hasn’t got anything to do with the other.
Besides, Jesus was not a ‘great’ moral teacher. He was not an utterly bad moral teacher either, but his morality was lacking too much to be called ‘great’.
I certainly don’t think somebody who didn’t consider slavery wrong to be a great moral teacher. As a human being living in the first century his moral stance of slavery may be somewhat excusable, as the Son of God, it imost certainly isn’t. And that’s just one example. His completely unjustified rage at people doing their jobs in the temple is another one.

You appear to have misunderstood the simple logic of Lewis’s statement. Crazy is only crazy. Just because crazy happens to speak some universally true thing does not make him less crazy. In fact, because so many, “Great,” men (and women) in history have stated nearly exactly the same basic moral teachings as Christ did, AND WERE SANE, one might just as well discard him entirely and simply follow them. The Christian does not try to follow Jesus’s path because he said some really great things. As I said, many have said great, true things. We follow him because he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is God. You don’t have to believe that. But, please, don’t condense what we believe into something contrary to what he said (like condoning slavery? Wher’d you pull that from Sacred Scripture?). I promise not to condense your god, which for an atheist must necessarily be himself, into anything you aren’t teaching. One last thing, if I’m right about who Jesus is (not was), your statement about his chastising, “People doing their jobs in the temple,” is ludicrous. What he did is the same thing as you tossing people out of your house for defacing it. He is God, in that tract from Matthew. Therefore, we see the temple as his. You’re still picturing him as merely a teacher. We don’t see him as such. Therefore your use of that, “Example,” won’t work on a believer BECAUSE we see it as his house.

Look brother (sister?), you can be an atheist if you want to be. That’s your free choice by the grace of God. But, if that’s your decision, you might want to consider why you are here on this forum (also your free choice). I mean, if you’re so committed to atheism, why are you trying to evangelize here?

If you want to learn about we Christians, and Christian Catholics in particular, I humbly suggest you open your mind to the possibility we are right (I investigated your creed for most of my life). At the very least, learn what we believe and accept the very real truth of it. We don’t just believe it. We know God is. We know Christ is God and the consubstantial, co-eternal, only Son of the Father. Again, you don’t have to believe it. I pray that you do one day, but, your choice. However, if you wish to engage us in clean conversation and discussion, you should try to know what we, “Know.”

 

[LynJohn1023]

Didn’t CS Lewis kill himself? I have been taught that is the surest way to get to hell, because it shows you have no faith in God, and you take His plan into your hands. If so, (maybe I’m thinking of someone else!), he obviously isn’t a great “quote” for Catholicism.

You can’t be serious!

 

[belorg]

Yes there is–if someone is claiming to be the source of all being and by that authority, being the standard of all right and wrong, then if his claim of deity is bogus we might as well disreguard everything else he has to say at best of being parroting of already accepted morality and ethics.

Jesus was parrotting morality that already existed prior to him. And, as I said he was not terribly bad at it,.

If you follow what Jesus taught ("as you do unto the least of my brothers…) then slavery is utterly incompatible. He was to give his life utterly innocent of any moral or civil crime–to explicitly condemn slavery would have been de facto guilty of inciting a slave revolt, a crime.

He was crucified because he was considered guilty of a civil crime: Claiming to be a higher authority than the Roman Government was considered a civil crime.
And it’s not just that Jesus did not explicitly condemn slavery, it is that he (name removed by moderator)licitly condoned slavery.

 

[belorg]

You appear to have misunderstood the simple logic of Lewis’s statement. Crazy is only crazy. Just because crazy happens to speak some universally true thing does not make him less crazy. In fact, because so many, “Great,” men (and women) in history have stated nearly exactly the same basic moral teachings as Christ did, AND WERE SANE, one might just as well discard him entirely and simply follow them. The Christian does not try to follow Jesus’s path because he said some really great things. As I said, many have said great, true things. We follow him because he is the Christ, the Son of the living God. He is God. You don’t have to believe that. But, please, don’t condense what we believe into something contrary to what he said (like condoning slavery? Wher’d you pull that from Sacred Scripture?). I promise not to condense your god, which for an atheist must necessarily be himself, into anything you aren’t teaching. One last thing, if I’m right about who Jesus is (not was), your statement about his chastising, “People doing their jobs in the temple,” is ludicrous. What he did is the same thing as you tossing people out of your house for defacing it. He is God, in that tract from Matthew. Therefore, we see the temple as his. You’re still picturing him as merely a teacher. We don’t see him as such. Therefore your use of that, “Example,” won’t work on a believer BECAUSE we see it as his house.

All I am saying is that if he was a teacher, he wasn’t great. If he was(is) God , then he had the right to aks people to leave his house, and if they refused, to toss them out. To just toss them out of your house without warning is never justified.

Look brother (sister?), you can be an atheist if you want to be. That’s your free choice by the grace of God. But, if that’s your decision, you might want to consider why you are here on this forum (also your free choice). I mean, if you’re so committed to atheism, why are you trying to evangelize here?

I am not trying to evangelize here. But that does not mean I just have to accept everything that is claimed here as true.

If you want to learn about we Christians, and Christian Catholics in particular, I humbly suggest you open your mind to the possibility we are right (I investigated your creed for most of my life). At the very least, learn what we believe and accept the very real truth of it. We don’t just believe it. We know God is. We know Christ is God and the consubstantial, co-eternal, only Son of the Father. Again, you don’t have to believe it. I pray that you do one day, but, your choice. However, if you wish to engage us in clean conversation and discussion, you should try to know what we, “Know.”

I knwo what you “know” And I know you "know "Jesus is not merely a great moral teacher, but that’s not the point. The point is that if other people merely regard Jesus as a moral teacher there is no real argument against it, and the trilemma most certainly isn’t.

 

[belorg]

Jesus knew it would be futile to preach against slavery. He would have come into direct conflict with Roman authority and been executed before He had time to fulfil His mission. He knew the most effective means of liberation is by explaining and demonstrating the power of love which transforms men’s attitude to God and to one another. Where so many others failed His revolution has succeeded in establishing the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity throughout the world. These principles are empty abstractions unless we are all brothers and sisters who have the same Father in heaven - rather than strangers related merely by an accident of birth.

Do you actually think that anything Jesus preached would be futile? If he were the Son of God, nothing waht he preached would be futile. And he couild have preached against slavery after his mission was fulfilled, or even after he had resurrected. Point is: he didn’t do any of those things, and the lack of clarity on the issue of slavery allowed lots of Christians, including popes, to own slaves. Jesu’ revolution took 2000 years to succeed and even now it hans’t quite succeeded, because there is still slavery in the world,and there is still inequality, also in predominantly catholic countries.

 

[stevekehl]

Peter testified that Jesus was not a mere philosopher (2Peter 1:16) As well as John (1 John 1:1-3) , and Paul (pick an Epistle), and the Gospels. Call me crazy, but I’m not prepared to call these men liars.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus knew it would be futile to preach against slavery. He would have come into direct conflict with Roman authority and been executed before He had time to fulfil His mission. He knew the most effective means of liberation is by explaining and demonstrating the power of love which transforms men’s attitude to God and to one another. Where so many others failed His revolution has succeeded in establishing the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity throughout the world. These principles are empty abstractions unless we are all brothers and sisters who have the same Father in heaven - rather than strangers related merely by an accident of birth.

The folly of your argument is demonstrated by historical events. Three wars against the Romans by the Jews (as well as numerous revolts) culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem, the loss of their homeland and their dispersion throughout the world. Jesus knew very well the fanatical hatred of His countrymen would be further inflamed by inciting them to struggle for social and political emancipation. His message of love and reconciliation has achieved far more than any bloody revolution inspired by the desire for revenge.

Point is: he didn’t do any of those things, and the lack of clarity on the issue of slavery allowed lots of Christians, including popes, to own slaves.

There is no lack of clarity in the precept of Jesus to love everyone - including our enemies - which inspired many Christians to liberate their slaves and has led to emancipation throughout the world. The moral corruption of His followers does not detract from the truth and beauty of His message. Corruptio optima pessima…

Jesu’ revolution took 2000 years to succeed and even now it hans’t quite succeeded, because there is still slavery in the world,and there is still inequality, also in predominantly catholic countries.

To expect the teaching of Jesus to compel universal obedience is absurd.

 

[tonyrey]

Jesus was parrotting morality that already existed prior to him. And, as I said he was not terribly bad at it,.

It is far more likely that you are “parrotting” something you have read, considering that no one had taught people to love and forgive their enemies - and pray for those who persecute them… The difference is that you are not terribly good at it!

 

[tonyrey]

Peter testified that Jesus was not a mere philosopher (2Peter 1:16) As well as John (1 John 1:1-3) , and Paul (pick an Epistle), and the Gospels. Call me crazy, but I’m not prepared to call these men liars.

The cynics are prepared to go to any lengths to justify their irrational hatred of Christianity…

 

[tonyrey]

His completely unjustified rage at people doing their jobs in the temple is another one.

Unjustified? They were exploiting the poor and defiling the House of God!

 

[tonyrey]

There is nothing that prevents somebody who has a few crazy ideas about himself to be a great moral teacher in other respects. The one simply hasn’t got anything to do with the other.

Can you cite an example?

 

[belorg]

Unjustified? They were exploiting the poor and defiling the House of God!

Any source to back this up? The merchants in the temple were there because it was easier for people coming from far away to buy wjatever they wanted to sacrifice in or near the temple itself instead of dragging it along withy them the whole journey. That does not seem to be any more defiling than the practice in Catholic churches to sell candles. You can bring your own if you want, but you can also buy them in the church.
Besides, the point is not that Jesus did not have any good reason not to want those people in the temple, the point is that he used violence to toss them out. And that is inconsistent with his message of peace etc.

 

[belorg]

It is far more likely that you are “parrotting” something you have read, considering that no one had taught people to love and forgive their enemies - and pray for those who persecute them… The difference is that you are not terribly good at it!

Love your enemies was already in the Egyptian book of death, centuries before Jesus. So, please check your sources before you start throwing around accusations.
Besides, Jesus using violence to toss people out of the temple is not such a good example of loving his enemies.

 

[belorg]

Can you cite an example?

Fidel Castro.

 

[belorg]

Peter testified that Jesus was not a mere philosopher (2Peter 1:16) As well as John (1 John 1:1-3) , and Paul (pick an Epistle), and the Gospels. Call me crazy, but I’m not prepared to call these men liars.

Since hardly anyone thinks the letters of Peter were written by Peter and the lettzrs of John were written by John, there is simply no way of knowing whether the people who actually wrote these letters were liars or not

 

[lao_tzu]

The cynics are prepared to go to any lengths to justify their irrational hatred of Christianity…

Passing by the obvious question, there are varieties of Christianity despised by nearly all Christians, and varieties of Christianity that have gone to war against each other yet have since found their way to detente. I would argue that the seeds of hatred are generally rational, but become irrational as we lose the compassion needed to see our opponents within the scope of our shared humanity.

In response to the OP, I agree that Jesus was not a great moral teacher, if the measure is how well his teaching has successfully changed our morality. That is, how should we answer the question, “Did his students learn?” If instead, the measure is how well his teachings conform to a morality on which we can all agree, independent of our belief in his divinity, a better case can be made for his success.

As ever, Jesse

 

[Peter_Plato]

Jesus was parrotting morality that already existed prior to him. And, as I said he was not terribly bad at it,.

That is only the case if Jesus was merely human. However, he claimed to be God. “I tell you truly, before Abraham ever was I Am.” He is the Word that exists eternally, so human morality could not have existed before Him.

He was crucified because he was considered guilty of a civil crime: Claiming to be a higher authority than the Roman Government was considered a civil crime.
And it’s not just that Jesus did not explicitly condemn slavery, it is that he (name removed by moderator)licitly condoned slavery.

Perhaps Jesus did not explicitly condemn slavery and implicitly condoned it is because there is nothing implicitly wrong with absolute obedience to another’s will. In a sense, he was absolutely obedient (a slave) to his Father’s will, the absolute truth. By being self-absorbed in self-will, you become a slave to yourself and your desires and appetites. Perhaps Jesus saw slavery as inescapable in the human condition with only one escape - doing God’s will. Sin is slavery to anything but God’s will. The antidote is slavery to absolute Truth, to God’s will. “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

 

[belorg]

That is only the case if Jesus was merely human. However, he claimed to be God. “I tell you truly, before Abraham ever was I Am.” He is the Word that exists eternally, so human morality could not have existed before Him.

If it’s true that He is God, then there is no such thing as human morality. But the claim that Jesus taught anything that was not known before he taught it, is demonstrably false.

Perhaps Jesus did not explicitly condemn slavery and implicitly condoned it is because there is nothing implicitly wrong with absolute obedience to another’s will.

That’s one of the things in Jesus’ morality that shows he was not a really great moral teacher. Absolute obience is implicitly wrong if there is no other choice. If I choose to be obedient, then there is nothijng wrong with it. But if I do not choose it, and somebody forces obedience on me, everything is wrong with it.

In a sense, he was absolutely obedient (a slave) to his Father’s will, the absolute truth.

If He really chose this, it’s OK, but I somehow doubt that he had the ability to disobey Himself.

By being self-absorbed in self-will, you become a slave to yourself and your desires and appetites.

If Jesus is God, then being self-absorbed seems to be a huge problem for him.

Perhaps Jesus saw slavery as inescapable in the human condition with only one escape - doing God’s will. Sin is slavery to anything but God’s will. The antidote is slavery to absolute Truth, to God’s will. “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.”

Slavery to anything is inherently wrong unless it is a choice. If you want to be a slave to the Catholic Church, then I have nothing against it. But if you force me to be a slave, that’s a totally differnt matter.