• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why doesn't Jesus sound smart?

That was the point. Why were Jesus’s teachings, parables, etc dumbed down when entire other sections were not?
Click to expand...

I do not think they were dumbed down that much. Different books have different purposes. The psalms were purposed as songs or poems as a result of David's (among others) deep meditation and prayer. The proverbs were written for the purpose of teaching wisdom. The gospels were written to tell a story, and to put forward Jesus's public teachings. Totally different. People can study books and analyze them until they understand...when Jesus speaks in public, preaching to hundreds of people, many of which are probably uneducated, do you think he's going to want to say something very complex in context? Maybe he just wants to keep it simple. Why would Jesus speak in parables in the first place? because people can relate to them, it's easier to understand a concept when you hear it in the form of a story, a situation you can put yourself in. He wanted people to be able to understand the concepts he was trying to get accross in a more personal way...wanted them to make it their own in searching out the meaning. Parables are simple in context, but in meaning they can be complex. People had a hard time understanding him as it is, did you want him to confuse them even more or what? But I'm sure if Jesus wrote a book, not holding back in intellect, who knows how outstanding it would be. But by the way, Jesus was obviously extremely intellectual as is. His apparent ability to respond to an argument or question as portrayed in the gospels is amazing. There are numerous times in which he speaks parables or profound thoughts as a response to questioning, perhaps he came up with what are now famous parables off of the top of his head, or perhaps he had already prepared them as a response beforehand, either way he's a mastermind of speach and interaction, knowing how to draw a crowd and bring about interest.
 
BJQ87
Maybe he just wants to keep it simple. Why would Jesus speak in parables in the first place?
Click to expand...
Duh, to trick and deceive those that aren’t worthy of hearing the message. It says so right there in the Matthew 13:10-15.

But by the way, Jesus was obviously extremely intellectual as is. His apparent ability to respond to an argument or question as portrayed in the gospels is amazing. There are numerous times in which he speaks parables or profound thoughts as a response to questioning, perhaps he came up with what are now famous parables off of the top of his head, or perhaps he had already prepared them as a response beforehand, either way he's a mastermind of speach and interaction, knowing how to draw a crowd and bring about interest.
Click to expand...
Apparently you skipped mercuryturrent’s post entirely.

Ossai
 
mercuryturrent said:
Besides, I read there was a study done comparing his saying in the gospel to other historical quotes, and 60% of his original quotes came up fraudulent, and they couldn't trace the other 40% (which means 40% were probably not his. Probably somewhere less than 40% were.)
Click to expand...

Source for the study?
 
teacher said:
He was not well educated (a partial answer) and did not come to focus on the sociological aspects of man, (a partial answer) yet the words I read in the Gospels compared to classic Greek scholars are more profound and superior and have an air of authority, newness and... something beyond the power of mere man to conjur up.
Click to expand...
Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that both of you are reading into the works what you expect to find?
 
Ossai said:
That was the point. Why were Jesus’s teachings, parables, etc dumbed down when entire other sections were not?
Click to expand...
Because those other sections are part of the Jewish traditional scriptures - the Christian scriptures weren't written until at least a generation after the time he was supposed to have lived, perhaps more.
 
Jesus claimed that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds. Guess he didn't hang out in the poppy fields...
 
jjramsey said:
Source for the study?
Click to expand...

I couldn't find what I originally read, but I'll keep looking. I did google around, and I found this:

RICHARD OSTLING: At this conference several dozen scholars gather twice a year to vote on the validity of each incident in the gospel, choosing colored beads to represent different levels of authenticity. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, they think "Our Father" were the only words Jesus clearly spoke Himself. The rest is judged, probable, likely, or totally ruled out. Shocking many grassroots Christians the Seminar claims that at least 60 percent of the recorded words of Jesus were not His own but were created later on to express the faith of the Christian Church.

From: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jesus_3-28.html


EDIT: Bingo! But it looks like I was wrong. It's not 60%, it's a whooping 80%.

The many "sayings of Jesus" (logia) recounted in the gospels would, if they could convincingly be derived from a single personality or source, be strong evidence that an historical Jesus once existed. But such is not the case. A group of prominent Bible scholars, styling themselves "The Jesus Seminar" and sponsored by the Westar Institute in Sonoma, California, recently completed its six-year analysis of all the logia and reported that at least eighty percent of the sayings were not authentic! That is to say, they were able to find explanations for their composition which did not require an historical Jesus. [23] And what of the other twenty percent? All we can say is that their true origins are unknown. It has not been proven that they come from a man called Jesus.
Click to expand...

From here: http://www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html
That number [23]'s elaboration further down is thus:

The rules of evidence employed by this team of scholars, along with their reasons for accepting or rejecting a particular logion can be found in The Gospel of Mark Red Letter Edition, by Robert W. Funk and Mahlon H. Smith, Polebridge Press, Sonoma, California, 1991.
 
Last edited:
The Jesus described in the bible (whether he truly existed or whether he was as described is another issue) was a simple carpenter speaking to primarily simple, uneducated peasants... no reason to assume he'd be well educated or even if he were that he would speak other than plainly and simply to such an audience. He also obviously did not seem to expect his words to be written down, much less scrutinized, dissected, or revered for 2000 years. He predicted the end of the world within the lifespan of his followers.

Why would it be expected for him to sound like a scholar teaching his students? Or a scientist's analytical observations? Or a professional poet? His humble words, for the most part, fit his humble message and audience. His parables were easy to understand, easy to remember, and thus easy for people to repeat in a society where oral tradition far outweighed the record keeping and documentation of the Greeks and Romans.

Of course... that's all opinion and speculation on my part, and we all know what that's worth. :D
 
I had forgotton and I guess most of us had that there is of course a story relating to jesus as a 12 year old talking with scholars.

Let's throw this in the bag and jangle it about:

“They (Jesus’ parents) found him (Jesus) in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” (Luke 2:46-47)

I don't think that readers of the bible are supposed to think of Jesus as a simple man at all but in fact, at least at this stage, a brilliant youth.

Of course when your dad is a hebrew god chatting metaphysics with rabbis ain't so hard. I mean when you are a hebrew god. I mean when you're the holy ghost. I mean..urgh.
 
I am little confused by something in this thread. A couple of our resident christians, among others, have stated things along the line of 'Jesus wasn't particularly educated/intelligent.' Does this mean you accept the divinity of Jesus as fiction? I really don't see any other way you can make such a statement. As god made flesh, one would think he would posess far more than the sum total of all human knowledge would he not? As a fiction however he could only evince the intelligence of his authors.
 
prepare yourself for answers that involve the fallibility of human knowledge and jesus was both human and god and yada yada yada mix my terms up, shoehorn the shape of jesus into the shape of the question etc.
 
Jesus made no writings. He did not dictate to a scribe. His facility with language is exactly this: unknown. The best any scholar can say about his Bible sayings (and actions) are that they are attributed to him. Piecing together a picture of his intellect is no more or less difficult than it would be with any historical figure who left no personal works. It is an evaluation of his biographers, including the quality of their skills and an understanding of their biases.

The fact that serious study by scholars indicate his attributed sayings might have had prior or contemporary sources need not lessen the opinion that he was a good Rabbi (a teacher need not be an originator). The Bible is indisputeably a work not of his hand, so any faith in its accuracy is really faith in its authors--and that is certainly a Xtian argument I've heard, that the writers were guided by god in their crafting of this tale (despite the all-to-human inconsistencies).

Jesus, the man, had no influence outside his culture. He was a blip compared to Paul and the early evangelists. The idea of a Christ was immensely powerful, and that is the spring of Jesus' influence. You might compare this to the fame of Socrates, who also wrote and dictated nothing, but whose fame was spread by Plato. And there's plenty of debate about how much philosophical thought attributed to Socrates is actually the work of Plato.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Then how do you explain Psalms, Song of Solomon and Proverbs, all of which are complex and beautiful? Why weren't those also 'dumbed down'?
Click to expand...
Perhaps in the original language they are a lot more beautiful than the translations? Linguistics? I've read the Qu'ran in English, and it required all sorts of footnotes. As a recital in the original Arabic, the Qu'ran sounds sublime. As for it "divine inspiration", that's probably for another thread.

I read somewhere that certain analysts concluded that there is collusion where the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (almost certainly falsely attributed those persons) - in that "Luke" dictated his version of events to "Matthew" and "Mark". Hence the inconsisencies (contradictions) when it came time to record the similar events.

Paul was the one who invented Christianity and gave it universal appeal.
 
Last edited:
1984 said:
I read somewhere that certain analysts concluded that there is collusion where the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (almost certainly falsely attributed those persons) - in that "Luke" dictated his version of events to "Matthew" and "Mark".
Click to expand...

Unlikely. Mark is usually thought to be the earliest gospel, and for good reason. Here's a link about Mark 6:1-6, which notes briefly the differences between Matthew's and Luke's versions of the same events.

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/ind...s#Jesus.27_failure_to_do_miracles_in_Nazareth

Notice that Markan priority makes for the cleanest explanation of the differences.
 
shells-on-my-eyelids said:
I had forgotton and I guess most of us had that there is of course a story relating to jesus as a 12 year old talking with scholars.

Let's throw this in the bag and jangle it about:

“They (Jesus’ parents) found him (Jesus) in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.” (Luke 2:46-47)
Click to expand...

Bible scholar Robert M. Price points out how this resembles the trend in comic books to create stories about the childhood and adolescence of superheroes. Maybe some christian network will follow the example of the WB's Smallville and film a series about Jesus' "lost years" titled Nazareth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom