No, but as I understand it he was at the time just one more prophet with a following in a time and place that had a multitude of them.Christianity didn’t pull ahead of the pack until well after his death, which implies to me that either his followers or his message ( or luck ) deserve the credit for Christianity’s success.
There can be only one !
More seriously, it seems to me that it does make one less of a “Master Teacher”; if you are one among many then it doesn’t seem to me you are all that exceptional. I think it was more the time than the person; the culture of the time was ripe for a religious change, so prohpets came out of the woodwork; in a more stable time he’d have been an obscure preacher lost to history, I suspect.
True to a point, but irrelevant to this discussion. A great teacher who teaches a lie or delusion is still a great teacher; he’s just perverting his talents. It is unfair to claim that thay would have suicided if they’d had gasoline or Kool Aid ( and it wasn’t Kool Aid anyway ); suicide had been invented back then, I assure you.
I think the fact that Jesus influenced such a vast number of people means that, at the time, to the people who listened at the source at least, he was skilled in oratory to the point to get them to abandon many of their beliefs (particularly the apostles).
Whether or not the apostles were later responsible for the true spread of his message, he obviously got the ball rolling pretty fast, and the only logical thing to do would be to credit that to his teaching ability
So, his teachings we so exceedingly clear and cogent that all his followers from then on (or even his immediate followers, if you like) all agreed upon what his teachings were, right?
Right? Wait, no, not even close? Okay, well, then so much for that idea.
I would certainly say the spread of his teachings has a lot to do with the efforts of those who followed, but do you suppose 12 men left their livelihood behind to follow some dufus who just said the right words? There had to be a certain something about the man that inspired them to do so. In my own imagination I’d like to think there was a certain sincerity and authority in his presentation. Perhaps that’s just me, but I’ve met people who delivered the message with a certain sincerity and passion that made the message itself have more weight.
I’d say the same is partly true of the large crowds. Some came out of curiosity of this man they’d heard about but they stayed and listened even when they didn’t have enough to eat. People of all classes sought him out. That says something about the qualities of the man to me.
I don’t see the logic in that. I have no problem believing in the existence of an itinerant preacher/cult leader named Joshua bar-Joseph in Galilee some 2000 years ago, but that doesn’t lead me to believe his message was important or truthful, but I’ll acknowledge its popularity.
Jesus taught in his own little part of the world. How “many” were there then and at that time that caused the same stir he did? John the Baptist maybe who acknowledged Jesus as the greater.
And really , what makes you think the culture of that time was ripe for religious change? Any evidence for that?
Two problems. As you yourself say, it’s a question of “you’d like to think” and “in my own imagination” - we can’t be sure either way. Possibly he was a great teacher. Maybe he wasn’t. I’m not saying we can be certain he wasn’t, only that because of the message factor we can’t know. The other thing is that if it takes a great teacher to make that message popular, how can we know that the message has any merit? After all, it would need a great teacher to convince people of it.
I am no Bible expert, but I do recognise these points. Problem again is; is it because of the man, or the message? Or, indeed, some other factor?
You’re right, of course. What I should have said is “If he did exist as Christians believe him to, i.e. as the son of God, bringer of light etc etc then his message is the most important and truthful message ever”. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
He did get big crowds, but along with teachings He cured the sick and cast out demons - pretty good reason by itself to go and see Him.
The term Master could refer to the master of the subject He is teaching, which in one way was the message of God, but OTOH, His teaching it taken as the primary source (again Jesus gives credit to the Father, but Jesus is the primary human source), and as such the master.
< shrugs > That’s what I’ve always heard; that the old religions were dying, and new ones were springing up all over, and I’ve never heard anyone say otherwise.
That’s the sort of thing claimed by any number of preachers, then and now; it doesn’t make him stand out. Certainly there wasn’t any proof of that sort of thing that was good enough to convince someone who wasn’t already predisposed to believe it, or he wouldn’t have been crucified; I can’t see the Romans killing someone who had a pipeline to an actual god without a REAL good reason. And if they had killed him, they’d have brought along a wagonload of priests to pray to Zeus and whatnot to keep Jehovah at bay.
More likely they’d have talked him into coming to Rome and buddying up to the Emperor if he really had been slinging miracles.
I don’t think I get your point. We’ve been reminded that the OP is about Jesus as presented in the Bible That means the points I made apply. I find it hard to believe that a person who has little personal impact could convince 12 others of various backgrounds to uproot their lives and follow him to become teachers themselves under questionable conditions. According to the Bible several followed him without a lot of exposure to the message. I think to meet the points I presented it had to be a combination of a message that moves people and a presentation and manner that makes it come alive. In my book that qualifies.
Not that any of us teachers today expect to be casting out demons or raising people from the dead, but I guess you could put that down under “practical demonstration” for teaching skill.
Der Trihs it was not the Romans who wanted to crucify Him, it was the Jewish people (and/{under the influence of} the enemy).
During Jesus’ teachings He did mention some towns will not accept Him, He also mentioned that a prophet’s home town will never accept him. The Romans didn’t really see much of a problem with Jesus, and really didn’t want to crucify Him. I think He flew under their radar so to speak.
As for your claim that preachers of His time were casting out demons, where did you get that from, I would be interested in this being practiced before Jesus gave man the authority to do so.
But that would mean the message itself wasn’t very convincing. It would mean that it needed a great teacher to teach it, as i’ve said. And if it requires a great teacher in order that people think it has merit; how is the message different from any other message? As you say, we’re going with the Jesus from the Bible, here, which means the message is pretty much “the” message.
I don’t see how it proves he was a great teacher that people followed him without him having to teach. That merely makes him a charismatic presence.
I still don’t see why it must be both. To suggest that Jesus had to be a great teacher or he wouldn’t have gotten through means the message is no more believable or insightful than any other message. And, if we go from the Bible, we know that the message is very important; thus it seems fair to say that it is possible Jesus was an average teacher, and the success of the religion is down to the message’s truth or palatability.
Oh, please, not the “Jews killed Jesus” bit. It was the Romans who did so, under Roman rule and using a Roman execution technique.
Then they wouldn’t have done so.
:rolleyes: I said it was claimed by a lot of preachers then and now, not that they actually did so. There’s no such things as demons, therefore nobody can cast one out.
Why do I suspect you’re the sort of person who actually believes in demonic possession ?
No it wouldn’t necessarily mean that. Your theory about great message might mean bad poor teacher or great teacher means weak message just doesn’t make sense to me. I think it’s stretching a bit to get there.
Yes, I think he had a certain presence. I think the simple truth of the message and the way it was presented kept them there.
I don’t agree. I think it was the way he lived and presented the message that made it more than a nice ideal. He presented it as an achievable thing that bridged all the barriers of gender, tribe, and economics.
One of my points was that even facing death he remained true. I think it was a combination of a simple but potent message and a teacher who didn’t just advocate but was able to live by what he taught.
Could you explain what the problem is? Again, i’m not saying it’s a necessity - that it being a good message means Jesus must have been a bad teacher, and vice-versa - only that it seems reasonably logical. If the message was great, it is possible that Jesus was an average teacher. If Jesus was a great teacher, it is possible the message was not so great. Your situation, of a good teacher and good message, is certainly possible, I don’t deny that. I’m just saying these are plausible alternatives.
But it might be one or the other, rather than both, is my point.
An interesting choice of words. He presented it that way? Is it not an achievable thing that bridges all barriers of gender, tribe, and economics? Again we have the problem of message or man; is it the message itself that has these characteristics? Or was Jesus a great enough teacher that he taught people it was? Or both?
But again, it’s the same problem. Did he allow himself to be killed because of what he thought and the type of person he was? Or because he was convinced of the message enough that it overruled his doubts? Or both?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong or problematic with suggesting it could be one or the other… but then your seeming certainty that he was the way you believe he was seems strange to me in return.
What difference does the merit of the message (the subject being taught) have on the issue of one’s capability as a teacher? After all, there are good teachers teaching Shakespeare and there are bad teachers teaching Shakespeare. One would presume the message is the same.
