Why The Sermon on the Mount?

[Apologiaphoenix]

What is the point of this message?

Link

[KingsGambit]

[Apologiaphoenix]

Who is giving the sermon?

Link

[Apologiaphoenix]

Who is blessed in the Kingdom?

Link

[Apologiaphoenix]

What about persecution?

Link

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are we salt and light?

Link

[Apologiaphoenix]

What does it mean to fulfill the Law?

Link

[Starlight]

A decade or so ago when I did a thorough analysis of Jesus's teachings in the gospels, this passage stood out to be as being by far the most inconsistent with the rest. All of the rest of Jesus's teachings in the gospels are consistent with a social reformer who is rejecting the ritual purity requirements of the Law and is focusing on the morality of helping those in need. It actually surprised me how much close to everything was consistent with that one theme, and if I were doing a Jesus Seminar style bible where the passages were colored by how likely Jesus was to have said them I would be fine giving the vast vast majority of the teachings recorded in the gospels pretty high likelihoods of being close to something said by the historical Jesus. This passage though... it's the one really glaring exception that stands in strong opposition to everything else Jesus focuses on, so I really have to regard it as a later addition.

[Apologiaphoenix]

A decade or so ago when I did a thorough analysis of Jesus's teachings in the gospels, this passage stood out to be as being by far the most inconsistent with the rest. All of the rest of Jesus's teachings in the gospels are consistent with a social reformer who is rejecting the ritual purity requirements of the Law and is focusing on the morality of helping those in need. It actually surprised me how much close to everything was consistent with that one theme, and if I were doing a Jesus Seminar style bible where the passages were colored by how likely Jesus was to have said them I would be fine giving the vast vast majority of the teachings recorded in the gospels pretty high likelihoods of being close to something said by the historical Jesus. This passage though... it's the one really glaring exception that stands in strong opposition to everything else Jesus focuses on, so I really have to regard it as a later addition.

What is inconsistent about it?

[jpholding]

A decade or so ago when I did a thorough analysis of Jesus's teachings in the gospels,

You mean that time you breezed through them with a jaundiced fundy atheist eyeball, Donald?

All of the rest of Jesus's teachings in the gospels are consistent with a social reformer who is rejecting the ritual purity requirements of the Law and is focusing on the morality of helping those in need.

Good night you are stupid. Adherence to a contract/covenant was a simple and straightforward matter of honor no matter what new contracts/covenants were in the offing. Can the tiny tendrils of brains you possess wrap themselves around this very simple point? Just because a law against e.g., possession of less than 10 ounces of weed is rescinded effective on June 1, 2020 does not mean that on May 31, 2020, you can walk around with 9 ounces of weed and claim that the law allows it. I use the example as relational because your scholarly competence and reasoning is approximately that of someone high on weed.

It actually surprised me how much close to everything was consistent with that one theme, and if I were doing a Jesus Seminar style bible where the passages were colored

I can well imagine you doing any project that involves coloring. Use the orange one on your face to match your tanned teacher in like-thought.

This passage though... it's the one really glaring exception that stands in strong opposition to everything else Jesus focuses on, so I really have to regard it as a later addition.

Well you know, Starscream, it just MIGHT have been, you know, a response to the same charge leveled later against Paul, and earlier against Jesus, that they were compromising the law by their behavior! Maybe you're too much of a Trump-brain to grasp that. Before you cough up an answer, make sure you take account of the principles of honor associated with obeying a covenant that is still in effect even while the teaching of reform/renewal is in process. Try to resist inhaling hallucinogens before you analyze this time.

[Starlight]

When I saw JPH was the final poster in this thread, I predicted two things... a post choc full of insults and a post providing no useful substance. Unsurprisingly I was right on both. Some people just don't change. I found this behaviour of his pretty embarrassing back when I was a Christian and member of the Cadre, and steered clear of him. It provides a terrible Christian witness.

What is inconsistent about it?

Jesus' teachings throughout the gospels consistently rejects the ritual purity requirements of the law and emphasise helping those in need as being all-important. This passage with its emphasis on adherence to even the smallest parts of the law runs pretty squarely contrary to that theme.

[jpholding]

When I saw JPH was the final poster in this thread, I predicted two things..

1) Starscream running away with his buttocks in flames.

2) Starscream playing the usual Victim Scheme he's had in practice for over 200 million years.

It's a fine excuse to ignore the weaknesses in his pitiable "arguments" he got out of the gumball machine.

econsistently rejects the ritual purity requirements of the law and emphasise helping those in need as being all-important. This passage with its emphasis on adherence to even the smallest parts of the law runs pretty squarely contrary to that theme.

And as shown, Starscream's fanciful notion that some such "theme" exists is a figment of his imagination caused by his profound ignorance of covenantal law and the principles of honor. The Jesus Seminar was slapped hard for being ignorant of such things, and the tradition continues.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Jesus' teachings throughout the gospels consistently rejects the ritual purity requirements of the law and emphasise helping those in need as being all-important. This passage with its emphasis on adherence to even the smallest parts of the law runs pretty squarely contrary to that theme.

No they don't. When he cleanses a leper, He instructs the leper to go show himself to the priests. Jesus doesn't tell others to do things that violate ritual purity, but seeing as He is YHWH in the flesh, He can transfer purity.

[Starlight]

covenantal law and the principles of honor.

You seem to like to use these phrases in a very vague way in your apologetics as if they were some sort of catch-all apologetic excuse that could answer almost any concern. They aren't. Your severe misuse of these makes it pretty clear you don't understand those concepts and haven't put the time you should into studying them that you should. Which is unfortunate because understanding the social-historical context of the bible and the honor-shame society of the time is pretty critical to understanding the biblical texts accurately. And the fact that you apparently think you know what they are, when you clearly don't, is probably impeding your further learning.

If you want to improve your understanding of these ideas, there's a bunch of decent stuff by Malina & Pilch & Rohrbaugh together and separately which can give you a firm grasp of the basics of NT culture, or frankly anything titled The New Testament in it's cultural context or similar. With regard to ideas about covenantal law, there are enough different views among scholars that it's hard to recommend any particular thing, but maybe reading Sanders' Paul and Palestinian Judaism, and VanLandingham's Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul, would together introduce you to a couple of different viewpoints.

[Starlight]

but seeing as He is YHWH in the flesh

I find it interesting that the gospels are very consistent with regard to their reports of how the general public of the time saw Jesus:

prophetthey regarded him as a prophetJohnElijaha prophetprophetJohn the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophetsprophetprophetpropheta prophet

There are plenty more passages to the same effect. The gospels are clear that the way the general public understood Jesus, including many he interacted with directly (e.g. healed), was in the traditional Jewish category of "prophet". Possibly a resurrection/reincarnation of a previous specific prophet.

Jesus own public statements don't seem to reject this public understanding of himself as a prophet, and at times he reaffirms it pretty explicitly:



I think it's fair to say that if the gospel writers were wanting to project their own theology back onto Jesus, the easiest way for them to do that would be in their narration sections where they are outright giving their own theology (e.g. John 1:1), and the second-easiest would be to record Jesus saying things in private to the disciples (e.g. Matt 16:16,20) because nobody could fact-check secret/private teachings (and indeed, a number of writings about private/secret teachings of Jesus seem to have appeared in the 2nd century). Whereas, insofar as there were people around who had heard Jesus themselves or knew the stories about Jesus' preaching, it would be harder for the gospel writers to take liberties with misrepresenting the public's understanding of Jesus and with the public teachings of Jesus. It seems pretty clear that in his lifetime Jesus was understood by the public to be a prophet - all the gospels attest to this, and that later some of his followers would convince themselves that he was something more than a prophet, and that perhaps (or perhaps not) he had given hints of this to a chosen few in some private teachings not known to the general populace (and I would say we can see a bit of a progression over time with regard to exactly what 'more than' a prophet actually entailed).

But the gospels attest that the public's understanding of Jesus was as a prophet. So I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the text in this thread when you try and reinterpret the Sermon on the Mount through your own God-Incarnate theology and point to things like speaking with authority as proof of that God-Incarnate theology. The gospels are clear that those who heard him immediately thought "prophet". And I'll grant you your point that this was probably because he taught with authority unlike the standard teachers of the law, who didn't purport to be prophets or to be giving new teachings from God like prophets were understood to do.