Thanks for the response.
Perhaps you might consider these questions? If you do then you might find your answer.
Why would you assume that we’d be any more interested in Jesus than, say, the Buddha or Mohamed?
For somewhat obvious reasons; neither Buddha nor Mohammed claimed to be the Jewish Messiah, and the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets.
Why would you assume that we’d be interested enough in ‘Jesus and His teachings’ to bother to interpret them at all?
Because Judiasm and Christianity share a common moral and spiritual foundation in the Hebrew scriptures, and Jesus expounds upon that foundation in teachings that can be accepted without accepting that he was divine. For example, in the Sermon on the Mount.
He also addressed hypocrisy. Surely, even if his claims for being divine were not accepted, and his followers claims of his resurrection were discounted, there is a common sense of right and wrong and a deeper good that flows from the correcting of hypocrisy. As an analogy, as Catholics, we humbly accept the correction of abuse in the Church that Martin Luther addressed, and that may be done without agreeing a break from the Church was needed.
I have come across several essays from rabbis that I have really enjoyed and felt spiritual benefit from. I feel those rabbis and I have places of common agreement, and I enjoy hearing their wisdom. Their wisdom is especially meaningful to me because it comes from the Hebrew scriptures. I wondered if there were many Jewish rabbis who had this sort of appreciation for Jesus’ teachings even though they did not accept his claims of divinity. Or- alternatively- if he were regarded as the first poster described, as a “liar”. A liar probably would not be seen as having much to contribute to ecumenical dialouge.
Why would you assume we’d think of the ‘New Testament’ as anything other than a pious fiction?
Well, first because Jesus was not at all pious. “Pious” is an adjective that I assoicate with a person making a great effort to be externally righteous. “Pious” would describe a person who sought to be without blame and fault; not simply to himself or to God, but to the world. Jesus ate with prostitutes, so he certainly didn’t consider himself a pious person. He considered himself to be righteous- in fact, the epitome and embodiment of all that is internally and externally righteous, but not pious.
In fact, if anything, Jesus was ironic, not pious. When Christians look at a cross, they see a religous symbol. I don’t know what other religions see when they look at a cross.But when the 1st century Romans and Jewish people looked at a cross, they saw shame. They saw the embodiment of what the world despised. They saw weakness. They saw defeat. They saw ridicule. They saw insanity. They saw physical torture. They saw a person who had been ostracized by his own disciples, and abandoned by everyone except his mother, some women, and a young man.
So, how could such shame be transformed into the King of Kings? It is intriguing, if nothing else, and certainly not another pious testament by an insignificant person.
