Sermon on the Mount - never happened

[buffalo]

The Sermon on the Mount probably didn’t happen as it is described in Matthew. In Luke’s Gospel many of the same sayings occur in what has been dubbed “Sermon in the Plain”. That doesn’t mean that the recorded sayings of Jesus aren’t authentic, it just means that they probably didn’t all occur in the same place and at the same time. All of the Gospel writers were more interested in presenting Jesus’s teachings, and recording the theologically important events in his life, than they were in writing his biography.

Post #40 dealt with this:

The possibility is the mountain had a plateau.

Mount of Beatitudes

 

[anthony022071]

The OP’s words as answered in the post are not applicable to Sumer - there is plenty of evidence for it.​

Of course there is plenty of evidence for Sumer,but I was saying that historians can’t resist filling in the large gaps of information as to what happened and when. The Sumerians were not concerned to document everything of importance,and they did not write their own history in the manner in which modern historians are supposed to write history. They did not write history with a mind toward methodological naturalism and “objectivity”.

What supernatural explanation is required for the defeat of the Spanish Armada ? None.

None is required because none is necessarily called for by the subject matter. It does not pertain directly to God. The Son of God was not seen there and there were no saints working miracles there. Maybe there is a supernatural explanation,but there’s no need to insist upon one.

Or for any other event in Christian history ? Again, none.

Is the defeat of the Spanish Armada really Christian history? Just because believers in Christ were involved?

The Greeks & Romans had their supernatural events that were apologetically valuable - which is one of the reasons why claims of supernaturality are historically interesting, while the Resurrection (say) is not: because all sorts of groups can make such claims: so there is no reason to admit the Resurrection as historical, & not the mighty deeds of the gods who protected Rome. Apart from religious partsanship. If the Jewish God’s acts are proprerly historical - then so are the acts of all other gods.

What makes the supernatural events of pagan religion “historically interesting” but the Resurrection is not?

Some of the acts of the pagan gods may well be historical events. But the pagan gods were actually demons,or spirits of the world.

Yet no historian treats the protection of Rome from Hannibal as the act of Cybele, who was brought to Rome for that purpose.

You mean “no modern historian”.

If the supernaturality of Cybele & her acts can be ignored by historians, then the same historians have every right to ignore the Resurrection.

That is assuming that all supernatural acts are all without credibility. That is a naturalistic way of thinking,which is itself without justification.

Keeping history & religion strictly apart is the only way to avoid the perversion of history by religion.

Religion is embedded in human history.

Rudolph Bultmann. It is because the supernatural is impossible, & cannot be accounted for within historical categories, that supernatural occurrences are credible & significant. If they were no more unusual than an everyday activity such as writing a letter, they would be nothing.

Who says that the supernatural is impossible? People who have bought into naturalism?
Has anyone shown that naturalism is possible?

Are unusual occurances in history to be disregarded?

The Resurrection is a fact - & it is more factual than history can contain. So it cannot be treated as history - it is far too real for that.

No,it would be a factual event in history. The Catholic Church treats it as a historical event.

To call it historical is to say it is comparable to historical events, when in fact it is unique, unrepeatable, withut analogies, so not incomparable.

No historical event can be repeated.
Whether or not the Ressurection is comparable with other historical events has nothing to do with whether it happened.
But if,as you say,it is factual,then it did happen,and it should be treated as a historical event.

As for belief in the status of Jesus: books can’t prove it - not even inspired books, not even Apostolic books; only the Spirit of God is adequate for such a work as that.

There’s no better proof than that. Better for the Spirit to show who Jeus was than than the spirit of naturalism. If the scriptures are inspired by the Spirit,then they are indeed adequate to prove the status of Jesus.

Miracles are impossible within the “modern worldview” - & so they should be; if they were not, if they were ten a penny, they would be of no significance.

The qustion that should be asked is whether the modern worldview is justifiable.

Bultmann’s theology is far more Christian & far more supernatural-minded than the rationalism of his more ignorant critics. To treat miracles as mere historical events is downright atheism.

No,it is to say that miracles really happened,and therefore God is real.

To do so makes the Transcendent Holy God into a filthy little idol; it makes Him unholy, one god among others - as in Mormonism, or other polytheisms.

No,it doesn’t make God into an idol.
It means that God exists,and has power over the natural world,and interferes with history,unlike the abstraction that Aristotle called “God”.

It has nothing to do with Christian faith.

Are you going to tell Christians who believe in the miracles of Jesus what Christian faith is?

To make supernatural deeds of God into mere history, is to demean them. It’s as bad as trying to write God’s biography would be.

God is not demeaned if he interferes with history. He remains the transcendent Creator. Catholic theology has little problem reconciling God’s transcendence with God’s interference in history. God created the world and sustains it,and the world is subject to God’s power.