Sermon on the Mount - never happened

[po18guy]

It is ludicrous that the “interpretation” (an awful one at that) was brought up in a homily during the most holy and precious mass. A homily is to teach the true tenets of the Catholic faith - not to throw crazy theory nuggets as to cloud what the Gospel is actually teaching.
.
I believe that Jesus did repeat this sermon several times throughout his ministry. And, historically, I believe Jesus taught all of the beautiful beatitudes as one sermon with continuity, as the Sacred Scripture states.

If we start believing this is symbolic, why not state that the rock Jesus was talking about building the church upon was really a symbolic rock…or that the Bread of Life discourse was several teachings put together into one story and that Jesus was speaking symbolically…

Please pray for our priests who are misinformed…

St. Michael, pray for us and protect us from the evil that attacks our beloved Church.

Amen! Just how are we supposed to keep Christ’s “symbolic” commands? In how many different and dissonant directions would that lead us?

Christ’s peace.

 

[catechizeme]

If we start believing this is symbolic, why not state that the rock Jesus was talking about building the church upon was really a symbolic rock…or that the Bread of Life discourse was several teachings put together into one story and that Jesus was speaking symbolically…

…or that the slaughter of the Holy Innocents never happened…

 

[Joe_Kelley]

This seems in line with yesterday’s news report that 25% of the people think that Winston Churchill is a myth and never happened.

 

[buffalo]

What some fail to see is how well grounded Jesus’ life and teachings are in historical events. If the actual events were made up the faith would cease to be.

 

[po18guy]

What some fail to see is how well grounded Jesus’ life and teachings are in historical events. If the actual events were made up the faith would cease to be.

Notice how those who wrote scripture, and those who are named in scripture as holy ones of God, are always the ones who are either martyred or otherwise at risk for their beliefs? One man might behave thusly for a lie. But all of them so consistently? That is evidence of the truth.

Christ’s peace.

 

[patg]

What some fail to see is how well grounded Jesus’ life and teachings are in historical events. If the actual events were made up the faith would cease to be.

You are operating under a very loose assumption concerning what any historian would consider to be “historical events”.

 

[anthony022071]

You are operating under a very loose assumption concerning what any historian would consider to be “historical events”.

That’s because most historians today are skeptical of Christianity and they discount supernatural events,or the intrusion of the supernatural into the natural world. They analyze and write history as if God doesn’t exist.

 

[patg]

That’s because most historians today are skeptical of Christianity and they discount supernatural events,or the intrusion of the supernatural into the natural world.

Yes, that is what all historians do. If you want to consider God’s relationship to the world you become a theologian. (I assume by “of today” you mean the of past 2000 years, since the historical method hasn’t changed all that much).

They analyze and write history as if God doesn’t exist.

Well the study of history would certainly be more entertaining if we threw out the scientific principles of historical research, ignored all requirements of evidence, didn’t require any corroborating outside testimony, and forgot about natural explanations. The tools of rigorous historical research do not cross the boundary to the supernatural - I wish they did. The historical record tells us that Jesus was born, did some preaching, made certain people really upset, and was crucified. There is nothing else that can be taught with any certainty. That is why there are no history texts which state that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago and why this is a religion of faith.

 

[anthony022071]

Yes, that is what all historians do. If you want to consider God’s relationship to the world you become a theologian. (I assume by “of today” you mean the of past 2000 years, since the historical method hasn’t changed all that much).

No,the modern agnostic historical “method” only goes back to the 1700’s. It is the application of the positivism and normativism of the natural sciences to history.

Well the study of history would certainly be more entertaining if we threw out the scientific principles of historical research,

That’s one of the stupidities of modern historians – the idea that the study of history could ever be a real science. History can’t be tested in a controlled environment.

ignored all requirements of evidence,
didn’t require any corroborating outside testimony,

Historians do just that when they try to fill in the large gaps of historical information from pre-historic cultures,or early civilizations like Sumer.

and forgot about natural explanations.

Natural explanations don’t explain the course of events in Christian history.

The tools of rigorous historical research do not cross the boundary to the supernatural - I wish they did. The historical record tells us that Jesus was born, did some preaching, made certain people really upset, and was crucified. There is nothing else that can be taught with any certainty.

If the virgin birth,the miracles,and the Resurrection are uncertain,then what is the point in thinking that anything about Jesus is certain? The world only knows about Jesus at all because of the preaching of the apostles and from the books of the New Testament – and both sources say that Jesus was the Son of God.

If the supernatural elements are left out of the picture,then that is on account of the historian’s assumption that nothing supernatural happens in the world. And that is not a matter of historical fact,but part of the “modern worldview” that Robert Bultmann believed in.

That is why there are no history texts which state that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago and why this is a religion of faith.

The gospels are the history texts. Jewish and Christian faith is grounded upon things that were recorded as historical events involving human beings.

 

[catharina]

anthony022071;3339805:

The gospels are the history texts. Jewish and Christian faith is grounded upon things that were recorded as historical events involving human beings.

doooh. Yep.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I heard an explanation today of the Sermon on the Mount I’ve never heard before. Can anyone let me know if there is any validity to this interpretation:

This particular event probably never happened. The words in Matthew 5 explaining this event (“went up the mountain”) are symbolic for “something important”, not to be taken that Jesus literally went up a mountain/hillside to preach to his disciples. Jesus also more than likely never recited the Beatitudes as they appear in Matthew, but instead, Matthew took sayings of Jesus throughout his ministry and wove them into the story of the “Sermon on the Mount” as away to convey Jesus’ teachings.

Anyone ever heard of this??? If so, from where??

Given that Matthew is fond of presenting Jesus as better or greater Solomon & David, it’s not unlikely (to say the least) that He thought of Him as a greater Moses.​

This quotation is not something to worry about - it is not wrong or unorthodox to make these suggestions. Equally, those who make them have to do what they can to avoid unsettling people: & it is all too easy to unsettle people without meaning to, what with the Net being so widely used. This particular suggestion can be upsetting if this kind of thing is new to one - but it’s not particularly shocking otherwise. I’m sorry if you found it upsetting. As to validity - it has plenty

One of Matthew’s characteristics is his habit of joining teaching which is scattered throughout other gospels in to blocs of teaching. The Sermon on the Mount is one example, taking up chapters 5 to 7; another is the chapter of parables in 13; another is the attack on the Pharisees in 23 followed by the apocalyptic discourse of 24 followed by the description of the Judgement in 25. It’s very interesting to compare Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount”, with Luke’s much shorter “Sermon on the Plain”; & other incidents & sayings in the Evangelists. The contexts often vary widely.

Differences like this can often be explained as being dictated by the plan of the Evangelist involved; by different needs in the churches the gospels came from; by the presence in the different churches of different types of Christian - Matthew is for Jews, to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. Gentiles don’t need that demonstrated to them, so Luke & Mark don’t emphasise the same things as Matthew.
The gospels are not biographies - they are selections of incidents chosen for the sake of showing Who Jesus is, & why it matters Who He is. So there is no need to be disturbed by the way in which one incident will sometimes turn up in different forms in different gospels, or be told of in different ways.

It could be that Jesus delivered some of His teaching on a mountain, & that other items of teaching were drawn to that part of the Gospel-tradition by those already there; or, that Matthew, as the artist he is, thought those items belonged most naturally at that point. There is no way of knowing what traditions about the Lord were available to him. I don’t see why one need assert outright that none of it was delivered from a mountain. Equally, there is no compelling reason to suppose that it had to be delivered all at one time; or even that Jesus said nothing else on the same occasion. There is no way of knowing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, that is what all historians do. If you want to consider God’s relationship to the world you become a theologian. (I assume by “of today” you mean the of past 2000 years, since the historical method hasn’t changed all that much).

Well the study of history would certainly be more entertaining if we threw out the scientific principles of historical research, ignored all requirements of evidence, didn’t require any corroborating outside testimony, and forgot about natural explanations. The tools of rigorous historical research do not cross the boundary to the supernatural - I wish they did. The historical record tells us that Jesus was born, did some preaching, made certain people really upset, and was crucified. There is nothing else that can be taught with any certainty. That is why there are no history texts which state that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago and why this is a religion of faith.

Well said ​

Miracles & histories may both be real - but they require different methods, because they are totally different kinds of thing.

History cannot concern itself with the Resurrection, or with miracles, because history is not equipped to account for realities that “exceed” history. Which is why history can record the Crucifixion, but not the Resurrection. Historical study works with parallels, analogies, causes of things that men can trace. The Resurrection is a Unique Divine Act, so it can have no parallels or analogies, nor can its origin be traced. For that to be possible, one needs an alternative Resurrection in an alternative universe of an alternative Christ raised by an alternative Father - that way, & only so, one has an working model for one’s “History of the Resurrection”.

 

[anthony022071]

Miracles & histories may both be real - but they require different methods, because they are totally different kinds of thing.

There’s no method at all that can deal with miracles.

History cannot concern itself with the Resurrection, or with miracles, because history is not equipped to account for realities that “exceed” history.

The miracles and the Resurrection are recorded as events that took place in history in the gospels,which were written as histories of Christ,so they don’t exceed history.

Which is why history can record the Crucifixion, but not the Resurrection.

We know about the crucifixion and the resurrection from the same sources – the preaching of the apostles,and the written gospels.

Historical study works with parallels, analogies, causes of things that men can trace. The Resurrection is a Unique Divine Act, so it can have no parallels or analogies, nor can its origin be traced.

If it was a divine act,then obviously its origin was God.

For that to be possible, one needs an alternative Resurrection in an alternative universe of an alternative Christ raised by an alternative Father -

Historians don’t deal with alternate universes.

that way, & only so, one has an working model for one’s “History of the Resurrection”.

the resurrection of Christ was an event in history,not a historical process that can be traced out.

 

[TMC]

Given that Matthew is fond of presenting Jesus as better or greater Solomon & David, it’s not unlikely (to say the least) that He thought of Him as a greater Moses.​

This quotation is not something to worry about - it is not wrong or unorthodox to make these suggestions. Equally, those who make them have to do what they can to avoid unsettling people: & it is all too easy to unsettle people without meaning to, what with the Net being so widely used. This particular suggestion can be upsetting if this kind of thing is new to one - but it’s not particularly shocking otherwise. I’m sorry if you found it upsetting. As to validity - it has plenty

One of Matthew’s characteristics is his habit of joining teaching which is scattered throughout other gospels in to blocs of teaching. The Sermon on the Mount is one example, taking up chapters 5 to 7; another is the chapter of parables in 13; another is the attack on the Pharisees in 23 followed by the apocalyptic discourse of 24 followed by the description of the Judgement in 25. It’s very interesting to compare Matthew’s “Sermon on the Mount”, with Luke’s much shorter “Sermon on the Plain”; & other incidents & sayings in the Evangelists. The contexts often vary widely.

Differences like this can often be explained as being dictated by the plan of the Evangelist involved; by different needs in the churches the gospels came from; by the presence in the different churches of different types of Christian - Matthew is for Jews, to demonstrate that Jesus is the Messiah. Gentiles don’t need that demonstrated to them, so Luke & Mark don’t emphasise the same things as Matthew.
The gospels are not biographies - they are selections of incidents chosen for the sake of showing Who Jesus is, & why it matters Who He is. So there is no need to be disturbed by the way in which one incident will sometimes turn up in different forms in different gospels, or be told of in different ways.

It could be that Jesus delivered some of His teaching on a mountain, & that other items of teaching were drawn to that part of the Gospel-tradition by those already there; or, that Matthew, as the artist he is, thought those items belonged most naturally at that point. There is no way of knowing what traditions about the Lord were available to him. I don’t see why one need assert outright that none of it was delivered from a mountain. Equally, there is no compelling reason to suppose that it had to be delivered all at one time; or even that Jesus said nothing else on the same occasion. There is no way of knowing.

I agree. Christians today are sometimes amazed to realize that the Gospels, although divinely inspired, were still written by humans for other humans. The early father Papias described Mark’s methodology like this:

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took special care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

Of course Mark is now chronological, so Mark or someone else obviously eventually arranged it that way. But Papias tells us the key point, which is that Mark endeavored to accurately record Christ’s teachings as relayed by Peter. Mark did not set out to record a history. He was careful to get the teachings right, and aided by divine inspiration in doing so, and that is what is important.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t see any contradiction between Matthew and Luke on where the sermon on the mount occurred. Matthew simply says on a mountain (or mount). Luke gives more details. Jesus went up the mountain to pray, then he called his disciples to him (i.e. on the mountain), then he descended to a level place to teach from, i.e. a level place lower on the same mountain.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg;3339092:

Yes, that is what all historians do. If you want to consider God’s relationship to the world you become a theologian. (I assume by “of today” you mean the of past 2000 years, since the historical method hasn’t changed all that much).

No,the modern agnostic historical “method” only goes back to the 1700’s. It is the application of the positivism and normativism of the natural sciences to history.

Well the study of history would certainly be more entertaining if we threw out the scientific principles of historical research,

That’s one of the stupidities of modern historians – the idea that the study of history could ever be a real science. History can’t be tested in a controlled environment.

ignored all requirements of evidence,
didn’t require any corroborating outside testimony,

Historians do just that when they try to fill in the large gaps of historical information from pre-historic cultures,or early civilizations like Sumer.

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

and forgot about natural explanations.

Natural explanations don’t explain the course of events in Christian history.

What supernatural explanation is required for the defeat of the Spanish Armada ? None. Or for any other event in Christian history ? Again, none. 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.​

Yet no historian treats the protection of Rome from Hannibal as the act of Cybele, who was brought to Rome for that purpose. It is sheer hypocrisy for Fundamentalists to direct volleys of hate at the Biblical critics for not relying on faith for historical study, when the Fundamentalists do not criticise the anti-supernatural writers who deny the deeds of other gods than than the god of the Christians. If the supernaturality of Cybele & her acts can be ignored by historians, then the same historians have every right to ignore the Resurrection.

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

The tools of rigorous historical research do not cross the boundary to the supernatural - I wish they did. The historical record tells us that Jesus was born, did some preaching, made certain people really upset, and was crucified. There is nothing else that can be taught with any certainty.

If the virgin birth,the miracles,and the Resurrection are uncertain,then what is the point in thinking that anything about Jesus is certain? The world only knows about Jesus at all because of the preaching of the apostles and from the books of the New Testament – and both sources say that Jesus was the Son of God.

If the supernatural elements are left out of the picture,then that is on account of the historian’s assumption that nothing supernatural happens in the world. And that is not a matter of historical fact,but part of the “modern worldview” that Robert Bultmann believed in.

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.​

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. It has nothing to do with Christian faith. 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.

That is why there are no history texts which state that a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago and why this is a religion of faith.

The gospels are the history texts. Jewish and Christian faith is grounded upon things that were recorded as historical events involving human beings.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Miracles & histories may both be real - but they require different methods, because they are totally different kinds of thing.

There’s no method at all that can deal with miracles.

Apart from theology - & not history: so thanks for the support.​

History cannot concern itself with the Resurrection, or with miracles, because history is not equipped to account for realities that “exceed” history.

The miracles and the Resurrection are recorded as events that took place in history in the gospels,which were written as histories of Christ,so they don’t exceed history.

That contradicts your (very sensible) comment just above. ​

The gospels are not histories - they are written by people of faith. Therefore they include realities - such as the Resurrection - which are perceptible only through faith. So I stand by what I said.

Which is why history can record the Crucifixion, but not the Resurrection.

We know about the crucifixion and the resurrection from the same sources – the preaching of the apostles,and the written gospels.

But only the Apostles accord the Resurrection the status of a fact, for the reason just given: they had faith. Unlike non-Christians who assert or mention the Crucifixion - they do not profess to believe in the Resurrection.​

Historical study works with parallels, analogies, causes of things that men can trace. The Resurrection is a Unique Divine Act, so it can have no parallels or analogies, nor can its origin be traced.

If it was a divine act,then obviously its origin was God.

Or a god - Divine =/= divine. But what of it ? That doesn’t make it historical. Unless God is within time as men are.​

For that to be possible, one needs an alternative Resurrection in an alternative universe of an alternative Christ raised by an alternative Father -

Historians don’t deal with alternate universes.

Exactly. Which supports the point that the reality of the Resurrection is not an historical reality​

that way, & only so, one has an working model for one’s “History of the Resurrection”.

the resurrection of Christ was an event in history,not a historical process that can be traced out.

It was nothing of the sort. The reality of the Resurrection is not an historical reality; for reasons including this: it is not an “historical process that can be traced out” - because there is nothing in history to compare it with.​

Why say “There’s no method at all that can deal with miracles” - while saying the Resurrection is historical ? That is either to deny the miraculous character of the Resurrection; or, to say that historical method can deal with this miracle. But if with this - why not with others ? Why bother with God at all, if His acts can be treated as no different from events that are historical ? How can the two be distinguished ?

 

[RobbyS]

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

What supernatural explanation is required for the defeat of the Spanish Armada ? None. Or for any other event in Christian history ? Again, none. 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.​

Yet no historian treats the protection of Rome from Hannibal as the act of Cybele, who was brought to Rome for that purpose. It is sheer hypocrisy for Fundamentalists to direct volleys of hate at the Biblical critics for not relying on faith for historical study, when the Fundamentalists do not criticise the anti-supernatural writers who deny the deeds of other gods than than the god of the Christians. If the supernaturality of Cybele & her acts can be ignored by historians, then the same historians have every right to ignore the Resurrection.

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

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.​

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. It has nothing to do with Christian faith. 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.

History is simply a discussion of things that have happened or might have happened. Bultmann, unfortunately, presents things that did happen as if they did not happen. The Jewish nation did happen. The beginning of Christianity is easier to p(name removed by moderator)oint in time and space than the beginnings of Israel, but one ought to be leery of any attempt to deny that it describes actual events. Bultmann simply follows a longtrain of philosophic speculation going back to the 18th Century that is based on the assumption that none of it happened as described.

Like so many Germans, Bultmann has an antipathy to the concrete. I was once reading something by Kueng about the Resurrection, where he says something like “if a TV camera had been at ther tomb, it would have recorded nothing.” Absurd. First of all, why posit an impossible situation like that? The point is, I guess, that it was a “spiritual” event. But that is not how the event is described by our four witnesses. We do have an empty tomb; we have a number of appeances to the disciples by someone who very definitely was not a spirit. The Gospel writers go to lengths to assure us that the Risen Christ was not a ghost. They knew about ghosts; what they encountered was not a ghost.

 

[buffalo]

Apart from theology - & not history: so thanks for the support. ## That contradicts your (very sensible) comment just above. ​

The gospels are not histories - they are written by people of faith. Therefore they include realities - such as the Resurrection - which are perceptible only through faith. So I stand by what I said. ## But only the Apostles accord the Resurrection the status of a fact, for the reason just given: they had faith. Unlike non-Christians who assert or mention the Crucifixion - they do not profess to believe in the Resurrection.## Or a god - Divine =/= divine. But what of it ? That doesn’t make it historical. Unless God is within time as men are.

For that to be possible, one needs an alternative Resurrection in an alternative universe of an alternative Christ raised by an alternative Father -

Historians don’t deal with alternate universes.

Exactly. Which supports the point that the reality of the Resurrection is not an historical reality## It was nothing of the sort. The reality of the Resurrection is not an historical reality; for reasons including this: it is not an “historical process that can be traced out”​

 

[mathematician]

I heard an explanation today of the Sermon on the Mount I’ve never heard before. Can anyone let me know if there is any validity to this interpretation:

This particular event probably never happened. The words in Matthew 5 explaining this event (“went up the mountain”) are symbolic for “something important”, not to be taken that Jesus literally went up a mountain/hillside to preach to his disciples. Jesus also more than likely never recited the Beatitudes as they appear in Matthew, but instead, Matthew took sayings of Jesus throughout his ministry and wove them into the story of the “Sermon on the Mount” as away to convey Jesus’ teachings.

Anyone ever heard of this??? If so, from where??

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.