Total Posts:79|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problems with the Sermon on the Mount

Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 9:22:32 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

I haven't read you post bast this point. I'm not going to try to respond to a bunch of different things at once.

A tooth for a tooth and and eye for an eye was the biblical law of the nation, and I don't think Jesus had any intent to overturn biblical law. I think Jesus was teaching against vigilantism. Also, Jesus referred to minor things, walking an extra mile, giving up a cloak, or turning the other cheek -- these can be means to avoid escalating a situation.

If you punch me, I could punch you back and then we'd be in a fight with lots of punches going both ways. Or, I could "turn the other cheek"... at which point you'd get to choose to walk away, having had the last punch, or you can punch me again, at which point I've already turned the other cheek and now I get to beat you into the ground in clear case of self-defense, and then you go to jail for assault. Just sayin'.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 10:59:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

According to your thinking, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and any philanthropist that has ever lived is insane including Bill Gates. The only ones not insane are violent self absorbed people. You must love Muhammed.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:01:26 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

If you are actually bothered by the Sermon on the Mount, it's more telling of you than Him
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:13:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 9:22:32 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

I haven't read you post bast this point. I'm not going to try to respond to a bunch of different things at once.

A tooth for a tooth and and eye for an eye was the biblical law of the nation, and I don't think Jesus had any intent to overturn biblical law. I think Jesus was teaching against vigilantism. Also, Jesus referred to minor things, walking an extra mile, giving up a cloak, or turning the other cheek -- these can be means to avoid escalating a situation.

If you punch me, I could punch you back and then we'd be in a fight with lots of punches going both ways. Or, I could "turn the other cheek"... at which point you'd get to choose to walk away, having had the last punch, or you can punch me again, at which point I've already turned the other cheek and now I get to beat you into the ground in clear case of self-defense, and then you go to jail for assault. Just sayin'.

Defending yourself against an unjustified attack is logical. In ancient Israel people could not rely on police or the criminal justice system. If someone attacked you or tried to steal from you it was essential to stand up for yourself. The advice Jesus preached likely led to many people dying as a result of assault when in normal circumstances they could have fought off the attacker. Giving thieves additional items is simply idiotic. It rewards crime.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

"Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, "Behold, He is in the wilderness," do not go out, or, "Behold, He is in the inner rooms," do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (Matthew 24: 25-34)

"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then He will send forth the angels, and will gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven. Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place"" (Mark 13:26-30)

"Then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near. Then He told them a parable: Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place." (Luke 21:27-32)

In these passages Jesus is explicit about his return. He said that he would return riding the clouds with angels to judge the world and that with the sound of a trumpet he would send his angels to gather his chosen ones from the Earth. This would be no secret, invisible or "spiritual" event. Instead, the whole world would see him in the sky just the whole world sees the light of the sun. This was to happen some time during the generation of those to whom he was speaking. To make it clear to his listeners that this event would not be in the distant future, he told them that some of them who were there listening to him would still be alive to see it.

"But Jesus kept silent and the high priest said to Him, "I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us whether you are the Christ, the Son of God." Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."" (Matthew 26: 63, 64)

This passage is from the story of Jesus" trial. Jesus tells the high priest that he would see him return riding on the clouds.

These people all died around 1, 900 years ago. Jesus has not returned. His prediction was obviously incorrect meaning he was not God, the son of god or a messiah. He was just another false prophet / messiah like all the others.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:30:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 10:59:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

According to your thinking, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and any philanthropist that has ever lived is insane including Bill Gates. The only ones not insane are violent self absorbed people. You must love Muhammed.

I think if someone attacks you then you should stand up for yourself. It's ironic the other day you were accusing atheists of being too passive against perceived threats, claiming that only Christians stand up against them. Now your claiming a submissive passive approach is best?

You don't like women in the military but according to your logic it would be inappropriate for a Christian to be in the military? According to your logic should you merely roll over and let aggressors commit crimes? turn the other cheek against Russian and Chinese aggression? Allow a communist takeover?
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:30:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:
Please quote in context!
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.


Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once
This is actually an effective method of self defense. He doesn't say specifically to let someone hit you on the other cheek, he actually says turn the other cheek. Assuming this is a conflict between two individuals who know each other wee, as he was most likely referring to, most likely they would hesitate striking again since they weren't retaliated against. Also it shows composure and standing ones ground. If you are struck in the face and stand regardless without striking, you can be aware of a second blow and simply duck and throw your opponent off balance without ever striking them. It's about self control.

giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
No this is also a loving response to theft, because when an individual gives freely without resentment, he/she will be recompensed for compassion.,

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Applying the sermon on the mount to life is actually what has validated Christianity being real to me. There is a freedom that comes with being unafraid of thieves or violence. It has caused me to live a life where I am satisfied with having enough for the day I'm living in, to the point that no one wants to steal from me. I also have let people hit me - without striking back and they didn't even attempt to strike again.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:35:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:01:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

If you are actually bothered by the Sermon on the Mount, it's more telling of you than Him

How? I'm just showing how early Christians made up the myth of the sermon on the mount to help preserve their cult that was threatened by powerful enemies of the time.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:52:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:30:18 PM, Emmarie wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:
Please quote in context!
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.


Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once
This is actually an effective method of self defense. He doesn't say specifically to let someone hit you on the other cheek, he actually says turn the other cheek. Assuming this is a conflict between two individuals who know each other wee, as he was most likely referring to, most likely they would hesitate striking again since they weren't retaliated against. Also it shows composure and standing ones ground. If you are struck in the face and stand regardless without striking, you can be aware of a second blow and simply duck and throw your opponent off balance without ever striking them. It's about self control.

In my opinion standing still and letting an attacker beat you up is a terrible idea. Either you fight back or try to run away. It's common sense. Standing still and doing nothing puts you completely in the hands of the evil person attacking you.

giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
No this is also a loving response to theft, because when an individual gives freely without resentment, he/she will be recompensed for compassion.,

Someone stealing from you does not deserve charitable donations. Why donate to a thief when their are plenty of good law abiding citizens in greater need of help? It's simply illogical. Thieves do not in any circumstances deserve a reward for their crimes.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Applying the sermon on the mount to life is actually what has validated Christianity being real to me. There is a freedom that comes with being unafraid of thieves or violence. It has caused me to live a life where I am satisfied with having enough for the day I'm living in, to the point that no one wants to steal from me. I also have let people hit me - without striking back and they didn't even attempt to strike again.

If it makes you feel safe and secure then good for you. Unfortunately following the sermon on the mount could lead to you not taking action to escape dangerous situations such as being attacked. This is a risky approach to danger but it's obviously your life and your decision.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2016 11:57:03 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
There is nothing insane about what he was saying. Can you explain to me why you find it so strange?

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.
I do not believe that Jesus was God, however, Jesus did not know when the end of times would be. Only the Father knows (Mark 13:32).

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.
I am not sure how this is a problem. Why does it matter if it was in the first written gospel or not? Christians do not believe that there are corruptions in the Gospels, so we have to look at it from a secular position. What evidence do you have to suggest that The Sermon on the Mount was a later addition?

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.
That is a poor hypothesis given that it was still adhered to by Christians after John's gospel was written. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Sermon was rejected at a later date?

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.
Jesus simply found a level place on the mount.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:
If it is "very likely," then you should have no issue providing actual evidence. You should be able to provide early Christian writings that support your position. Otherwise, you are just making blind speculations.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:23:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

I'd say that some of those standing right there with him indeed saw Him coming in His kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time of the statement in Mark 9, but came soon thereafter. As to whether the passage in Mark 9 and Matt 16 refers to the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost or a coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, I do not know for sure, but I lean toward the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Emmarie
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:28:48 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:52:34 PM, Chloe8 wrote:


In my opinion standing still and letting an attacker beat you up is a terrible idea. Either you fight back or try to run away. It's common sense. Standing still and doing nothing puts you completely in the hands of the evil person attacking you.
Who said anything about standing still? You can turn the other cheek and duck and dodge. Swinging and missing is bound to throw an opponent off balance. Eventually they will tire of swinging at air.

giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
No this is also a loving response to theft, because when an individual gives freely without resentment, he/she will be recompensed for compassion.,

Someone stealing from you does not deserve charitable donations. Why donate to a thief when their are plenty of good law abiding citizens in greater need of help? It's simply illogical. Thieves do not in any circumstances deserve a reward for their crimes.
Who am I to judge another's needs or sins? A thief is showing his sinfulness in stealing, but may be stealing to provide for someone they love.. Law abiding citizens could be cold hearted self serving control freaks who hide their sins. I'd rather give to the thief who knows their character defects.

Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Applying the sermon on the mount to life is actually what has validated Christianity being real to me. There is a freedom that comes with being unafraid of thieves or violence. It has caused me to live a life where I am satisfied with having enough for the day I'm living in, to the point that no one wants to steal from me. I also have let people hit me - without striking back and they didn't even attempt to strike again.

If it makes you feel safe and secure then good for you. Unfortunately following the sermon on the mount could lead to you not taking action to escape dangerous situations such as being attacked. This is a risky approach to danger but it's obviously your life and your decision.
There is risk in being alive. Riding or driving automobiles is as dangerous as almost anything.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:32:01 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:57:03 PM, tstor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
There is nothing insane about what he was saying. Can you explain to me why you find it so strange?

If he thought he knew Armageddon was imminent he was obviously insane. It didn't happen. Giving away possessions to theives and letting thugs beat you up without resistance is simply illogical behaviour. Criminals should not be rewarded for their crimes.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.
I do not believe that Jesus was God, however, Jesus did not know when the end of times would be. Only the Father knows (Mark 13:32).

The reality is no one knows what the future holds for humanity. It's true Jesus was not the son of god, although Christianity has taught that myth for the last 2,000 years.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.
I am not sure how this is a problem. Why does it matter if it was in the first written gospel or not? Christians do not believe that there are corruptions in the Gospels, so we have to look at it from a secular position. What evidence do you have to suggest that The Sermon on the Mount was a later addition?

Because you don't realize the bible is full of forgeries or fabrications you are simply blind to the truth. I wasn't around 1, 900 years ago so I can't prove my claims. However my op shows why I came to such a view.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.
That is a poor hypothesis given that it was still adhered to by Christians after John's gospel was written. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Sermon was rejected at a later date?

Most Christians throughout history have rejected his teaching. They engage in violence, wars, fights and don't give away possessions to thieves. They also build up possessions and assets and often become very rich.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.
Jesus simply found a level place on the mount.

I wonder why both gospel writers didn't just write that instead of their contradictory accounts?

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:
If it is "very likely," then you should have no issue providing actual evidence. You should be able to provide early Christian writings that support your position. Otherwise, you are just making blind speculations.

Remember it was not until the 4th century the council of nicaea convened to decide which gospels to include in the bible. When writing their gospels the authors had no idea that their gospels would need to match other accounts. Each author merely wrote their own interpretation of Christianity. The author's were likely to have been Christians themselves and obviously wanted to make the religion appear as credible as possible. What is included in each gospel is what each author thinks represents Christianity in the best light.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:44:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 12:28:48 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:52:34 PM, Chloe8 wrote:


In my opinion standing still and letting an attacker beat you up is a terrible idea. Either you fight back or try to run away. It's common sense. Standing still and doing nothing puts you completely in the hands of the evil person attacking you.
Who said anything about standing still? You can turn the other cheek and duck and dodge. Swinging and missing is bound to throw an opponent off balance. Eventually they will tire of swinging at air.

Unless you run away they would soon inflict injuries. That just never happens in reality. Maybe If your Floyd mayweather and your trying to evade the punches of a pensioner it might work. However in the real world you can only duck so many punches before getting hit unless you run away or fight back.

giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.
No this is also a loving response to theft, because when an individual gives freely without resentment, he/she will be recompensed for compassion.,

Someone stealing from you does not deserve charitable donations. Why donate to a thief when their are plenty of good law abiding citizens in greater need of help? It's simply illogical. Thieves do not in any circumstances deserve a reward for their crimes.
Who am I to judge another's needs or sins? A thief is showing his sinfulness in stealing, but may be stealing to provide for someone they love.. Law abiding citizens could be cold hearted self serving control freaks who hide their sins. I'd rather give to the thief who knows their character defects.

All I can say is wow. I'd defend my possessions against thieves by whatever reasonable means available to me. I would donate to the people who choose to obey the law and not take what is not theirs. They are the ones who deserve my help.

Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Applying the sermon on the mount to life is actually what has validated Christianity being real to me. There is a freedom that comes with being unafraid of thieves or violence. It has caused me to live a life where I am satisfied with having enough for the day I'm living in, to the point that no one wants to steal from me. I also have let people hit me - without striking back and they didn't even attempt to strike again.

If it makes you feel safe and secure then good for you. Unfortunately following the sermon on the mount could lead to you not taking action to escape dangerous situations such as being attacked. This is a risky approach to danger but it's obviously your life and your decision.
There is risk in being alive. Riding or driving automobiles is as dangerous as almost anything.

That's true. I choose to minimise risks though where possible. E.g. using a seatbelt, obeying the speed limit, ensuring the car meets all safety requirements. It's a lot safer than driving an unsafe illegal car without a seatbelt at 100mph while drunk.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:44:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

A truly god like post.
I can picture the way you got to know god isn't real. I think it's great . I picture you asking yourself questions upon questions. 1 day I hope to be half as smart as you. Nice post Chloe8.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:49:18 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 12:23:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

I'd say that some of those standing right there with him indeed saw Him coming in His kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time of the statement in Mark 9, but came soon thereafter. As to whether the passage in Mark 9 and Matt 16 refers to the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost or a coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, I do not know for sure, but I lean toward the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

It's impossible that any of the people standing by Jesus witnessed Jesus coming in his kingdom as it is yet to happen!
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:50:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 12:49:18 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:23:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

I'd say that some of those standing right there with him indeed saw Him coming in His kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time of the statement in Mark 9, but came soon thereafter. As to whether the passage in Mark 9 and Matt 16 refers to the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost or a coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, I do not know for sure, but I lean toward the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

It's impossible that any of the people standing by Jesus witnessed Jesus coming in his kingdom as it is yet to happen!

It's not "yet to happen." Paul said he was in it. Paul said the Colossians were in it. John said he was in it. John said that the first readers of Revelation were in it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 12:55:43 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 12:32:01 AM, Chloe8 wrote:

There is nothing insane about what he was saying. Can you explain to me why you find it so strange?

If he thought he knew Armageddon was imminent he was obviously insane. It didn't happen. Giving away possessions to theives and letting thugs beat you up without resistance is simply illogical behaviour. Criminals should not be rewarded for their crimes.
Jesus did not teach that Armageddon was coming in his lifetime. In fact, he taught quite the opposite. In regard to the concept of turning the other cheek, Jesus was refuting the idea of an eye for an eye (verse 38). Paul clarifies this in Romans 12:17, which reads:
"Return evil for evil to no one. Take into consideration what is fine from the viewpoint of all men."

I do not believe that Jesus was God, however, Jesus did not know when the end of times would be. Only the Father knows (Mark 13:32).

The reality is no one knows what the future holds for humanity. It's true Jesus was not the son of god, although Christianity has taught that myth for the last 2,000 years.
I believe that Jesus is the son of God, sure. I do not believe that he is God, however.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.
I am not sure how this is a problem. Why does it matter if it was in the first written gospel or not? Christians do not believe that there are corruptions in the Gospels, so we have to look at it from a secular position. What evidence do you have to suggest that The Sermon on the Mount was a later addition?

Because you don't realize the bible is full of forgeries or fabrications you are simply blind to the truth. I wasn't around 1, 900 years ago so I can't prove my claims. However my op shows why I came to such a view.
You can prove the claims by providing examples of early Christian writings that support your position. Do you think Christian history is based around blind assumptions? No. It is based on archeology and early writings. If you cannot verify what you say with any evidence, then why should anyone accept it?

That is a poor hypothesis given that it was still adhered to by Christians after John's gospel was written. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Sermon was rejected at a later date?

Most Christians throughout history have rejected his teaching. They engage in violence, wars, fights and don't give away possessions to thieves. They also build up possessions and assets and often become very rich.
Christians are sinners, I am glad we agree. I agree that many break the "rules," but does that mean they reject them as "rules"?

Jesus simply found a level place on the mount.

I wonder why both gospel writers didn't just write that instead of their contradictory accounts?
Two different people and two different ways of wording it. There is no contradiction. If you go to the grocery store and sit in the parking lot, I could say you went to the store while someone else says you sat in the parking lot. Neither are wrong.

If it is "very likely," then you should have no issue providing actual evidence. You should be able to provide early Christian writings that support your position. Otherwise, you are just making blind speculations.

Remember it was not until the 4th century the council of nicaea convened to decide which gospels to include in the bible. When writing their gospels the authors had no idea that their gospels would need to match other accounts. Each author merely wrote their own interpretation of Christianity. The author's were likely to have been Christians themselves and obviously wanted to make the religion appear as credible as possible. What is included in each gospel is what each author thinks represents Christianity in the best light.
Actually, the first canon was the Muratorian Canon in 170 C.E. The four Gospels were recognized as authoritative much earlier than that (Consider Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; 1 Timothy 5:18; 2 Peter 3:15-16). I do not need you to speculate for me, I need you to provide evidence. Provide me with the names of scholars who agree with you. Provide me with early Christian writings. Provide me with something!
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 1:01:20 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 12:50:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:49:18 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:23:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

I'd say that some of those standing right there with him indeed saw Him coming in His kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time of the statement in Mark 9, but came soon thereafter. As to whether the passage in Mark 9 and Matt 16 refers to the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost or a coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, I do not know for sure, but I lean toward the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

It's impossible that any of the people standing by Jesus witnessed Jesus coming in his kingdom as it is yet to happen!

It's not "yet to happen." Paul said he was in it. Paul said the Colossians were in it. John said he was in it. John said that the first readers of Revelation were in it.

That's an interesting way to get round this particular problem. It amazes me how much variation there Is among Christians on how they interpret the bible.

If Jesus has returned why has he failed to fulfil these prophecies?

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world " on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 1:11:32 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:13:06 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
Defending yourself against an unjustified attack is logical. In ancient Israel people could not rely on police or the criminal justice system. If someone attacked you or tried to steal from you it was essential to stand up for yourself. The advice Jesus preached likely led to many people dying as a result of assault when in normal circumstances they could have fought off the attacker. Giving thieves additional items is simply idiotic. It rewards crime.

In a situation you envision, you are certainly right. I observe that no where in the NT did anyone actually turn the other cheek. Jesus told his followers to carry swords. Paul was arrested and the chief priest ordered him to be struck. Paul replied, "God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law..." That's not turning the other cheek.

Being soft on crime is immoral because it causes other people to become victims of crime, even if you don't care about your own fate.

But, I envision more petty situations where the offender might feel justified. "If anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well." A court of law could easily be more expensive than your tunic and piddly cloak together. Jesus doesn't describe any of these evils being perpetrated by a criminal. Nor does Jesus describe any particularly damaging evils.

Jesus was probably engaged in some hyperbole, but, ironically, some people take "turn the other cheek" and apply it far beyond how Jesus applied it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 1:21:54 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 1:01:20 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:50:19 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:49:18 AM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/16/2016 12:23:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:22:41 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 9:31:57 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near

No, He didn't. The Sermon on the Mount, particularly the so-called Beatitudes, points toward the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2.

How do you explain Jesus making a false Armageddon prediction?

"For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

I'd say that some of those standing right there with him indeed saw Him coming in His kingdom. The kingdom of Jesus Christ did not even exist at the time of the statement in Mark 9, but came soon thereafter. As to whether the passage in Mark 9 and Matt 16 refers to the establishment of His kingdom on Pentecost or a coming in judgment against Jerusalem in AD 70, I do not know for sure, but I lean toward the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost.

It's impossible that any of the people standing by Jesus witnessed Jesus coming in his kingdom as it is yet to happen!

It's not "yet to happen." Paul said he was in it. Paul said the Colossians were in it. John said he was in it. John said that the first readers of Revelation were in it.

That's an interesting way to get round this particular problem. It amazes me how much variation there Is among Christians on how they interpret the bible.

I don't have a problem to "get around." When Jesus says, "My kingdom is at hand", then thirty years later Paul says, "I'm in the kingdom", I take it that the kingdom came some time between those two times.

If Jesus has returned why has he failed to fulfil these prophecies?

1. Build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28).

2. Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

3. Usher in an era of world peace, and end all hatred, oppression, suffering and disease. As it says: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall man learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

4. Spread universal knowledge of the God of Israel, which will unite humanity as one. As it says: "God will be King over all the world " on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9)

Who said those prophesies were not fulfilled? You are seeking to defend (for lack of a better word) a ridiculous premillennial theory They are specialists are citing passages, applying a wooden literalistic slant to them, then saying, "What about this?" Most of these prophesies have to do with the gospel age in which Jew and Gentile, male and female, bond and free are all one in Christ.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 2:51:40 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:35:10 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 11:01:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

If you are actually bothered by the Sermon on the Mount, it's more telling of you than Him

How? I'm just showing how early Christians made up the myth of the sermon on the mount to help preserve their cult that was threatened by powerful enemies of the time.

If the Bible wasfalse, it needs to quit predicting the future...

You haven't "proven" anything. You've made wild assumptions to fit your antichristian ideology.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 2:57:51 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:30:13 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 10:59:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

According to your thinking, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and any philanthropist that has ever lived is insane including Bill Gates. The only ones not insane are violent self absorbed people. You must love Muhammed.

I think if someone attacks you then you should stand up for yourself. It's ironic the other day you were accusing atheists of being too passive against perceived threats, claiming that only Christians stand up against them. Now your claiming a submissive passive approach is best?

You don't like women in the military but according to your logic it would be inappropriate for a Christian to be in the military? According to your logic should you merely roll over and let aggressors commit crimes? turn the other cheek against Russian and Chinese aggression? Allow a communist takeover?

Nope. Keeping it real and the truth are best. You have a fixation with attacking the belief system that is good, specifically a sermonabout loving your enemies, being merciful, etc, whichI find extremely bizarre. This while Atheists ignore the religion that literally seeks to destroy them and not coexist with them by killing them if need be. It's a logical fallacy. It's like keeping your eye on your neighbor that irritates you while ignoring the thief in your house who is killing your kids and going for your guns, still eyeing your neighbor because you refuse to like people who might pray for you or love Jesus...god forbid...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 2:59:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:30:13 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 10:59:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

According to your thinking, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and any philanthropist that has ever lived is insane including Bill Gates. The only ones not insane are violent self absorbed people. You must love Muhammed.

I think if someone attacks you then you should stand up for yourself. It's ironic the other day you were accusing atheists of being too passive against perceived threats, claiming that only Christians stand up against them. Now your claiming a submissive passive approach is best?

You don't like women in the military but according to your logic it would be inappropriate for a Christian to be in the military? According to your logic should you merely roll over and let aggressors commit crimes? turn the other cheek against Russian and Chinese aggression? Allow a communist takeover?

The Sermon onthe Mount is referencing your everyday life. Notice...Jesus' apostles carried swords...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 3:04:38 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 11:30:13 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/15/2016 10:59:22 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

According to your thinking, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and any philanthropist that has ever lived is insane including Bill Gates. The only ones not insane are violent self absorbed people. You must love Muhammed.

I think if someone attacks you then you should stand up for yourself. It's ironic the other day you were accusing atheists of being too passive against perceived threats, claiming that only Christians stand up against them. Now your claiming a submissive passive approach is best?

You don't like women in the military but according to your logic it would be inappropriate for a Christian to be in the military? According to your logic should you merely roll over and let aggressors commit crimes? turn the other cheek against Russian and Chinese aggression? Allow a communist takeover?

So of course now that I point out that Jesus Apostles carried swords, you'll convince yourself He must have been violent now to satisfy your anti Christian sentiment. See how that works? God can't win with Atheists no matter what He does. Tha's why He does it His way. No one on planet Earth could ever satisfy Atheist logic.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 4:37:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Excellent post Chloe.
But
Haters gonna Hate.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 5:26:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 4:37:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Excellent post Chloe.
But
Haters gonna Hate.

You could almost picture the second brontoraptor finished reading it ,
And the steps that followed , Rage , Retribution , Rant .
I truly seen his brain twist. There wasn't nowhere near enough time to start thinking about youtu.be clip to marry up with it .
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2016 5:38:17 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/16/2016 5:26:34 AM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 5/16/2016 4:37:39 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/15/2016 8:55:30 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
No matter how you look at the Sermon on the Mount, it presents problems for the credibility of Christianity. Let"s step through the problems:

Problem #1: If Jesus actually said these things, such as letting someone hit you on the other cheek after he"s already hit you once, giving a thief additional items after he has stolen from you, and not storing up resources for your future life, then he was insane.

Problem #2: To be fair, consider that Jesus said these things, but he earnestly believed that the end of times was very near, so defending your property or protecting your future was not important, so perhaps he was sane. But, if this was his thinking, then he was not God.

Problem #3: The Sermon on the Mount does not appear in the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of John. Mark was the earliest written gospel, so it is highly questionable why it was not included therein. To be sure, this sermon was the quintessential statement of Jesus"s philosophy, so it is hard to understand how it could not have been preserved in at least a strong oral tradition that would have placed it prominently in the first gospel.

Also, it is enlightening to observe that it was deleted from Gospel of John, which was written a few decades after the first three gospels. It is likely that at that time, it became obvious that Jesus was not returning soon, so the injunctions in the Sermon on the Mount were no longer applicable to the current population, and were, in fact, detrimental to the stability of the society at that time.

Problem #4: Where did the sermon take place? Matthew says it happened on a mount, but Luke says it happened on the flat surfaces next to the mount (says Jesus descended from the mount to deliver it). This is an important discrepancy, but it is theorized that Luke made this change deliberately to show that Jesus was presenting himself as a common man.

Problem #5: It is very likely that this sermon was made up by someone who was writing at a time after the Gospel of Mark, perhaps by a non-gospel author, whose manuscript was then used by both Luke and Matthew. Why was it inserted into Matthew and Luke? It is theorized that the early Christians were heavily persecuted and needed to adopt a passive attitude to survive. The following is taken from:

http://www.skeptically.org...

In evaluating SotM, however, we must keep in mind that in the last few decades of the first century, when the gospels were written, Christianity was in its formative stages. It was an obscure sect within Judaism struggling to survive. The earliest Christians lived for the most part in small, isolated communistic societies where their contacts were almost exclusively with each other. They had intentionally cut themselves off from main stream Judaism in hopeful anticipation of the promised second coming. In those days Christians were little more than defenseless outcasts who had renounced the world and taken refuge in egalitarianism and poverty in much the same way as had their predecessors, the Essenes. Outside of these tight-knit Christian communes there lay in wait a dangerously hostile world. In such a setting the early Christians were often subjected to the most outrageous verbal and physical abuse. Had they responded in kind, there is no question but that they would have been slaughtered without mercy. Their only defense lay in an attitude of passive non-resistance. Parts of SotM seem to be an attempt to deal with that problem.

This seems to be most plausible theory about the origin of the sermon, making the most sense given the facts on the ground.

As can be seen, the Sermon on the Mount presents many logistic problems with Christianity and can only serve to make its authenticity appear less likely.

Excellent post Chloe.
But
Haters gonna Hate.

You could almost picture the second brontoraptor finished reading it ,
And the steps that followed , Rage , Retribution , Rant .
I truly seen his brain twist. There wasn't nowhere near enough time to start thinking about youtu.be clip to marry up with it .

I say, I say that boy is always good for a belly laugh.