Allow me to rephrase myself then. Jesus (As a person or as an author mouthpiece) referred to the Gold Rule once, and he cited Jewish law as the source of that moral guideline. Trying to scope out an a-religious source for the morality presented in the Gospels strikes me as reading things into text that aren't there.
I don't think that where the Golden Rule appears in the Gospels Jesus is presented as giving
any source for it. He just says it. Of course, it came not from the Jewish Law but from common Jewish teachings of the time. According to the Mishnah, Hillel had said something similar:
Hillel said:
That which you do not wish people to do to you, do not do to them. This is the Law and the Prophets. The rest is commentary; go and learn it.
But I think JELEEN's point was that irrespective of the original context of the saying, the principle
itself has no intrinsic religious character, and could equally well be followed or recommended by a person of any religion or of none. Which is obviously correct. Although I think one could find better principles.
And I'm sure it wasn't quite like The Life of Brian's portrayal of the various "liberation" groups either, but I was under the impression that there was strong opposition to Roman rule.
There will always be opposition of some kind or another when a country owes allegiance to a larger, external power - just look at UKIP. But JEELEN is right to say that in Jesus' day there was not much serious opposition, partly because there wasn't much, in practical terms, to oppose. The Roman authorities had about 3,000 troops in total and spent most of their time cooped up in Caesarea on the coast, trying to avoid the natives. The actual running of the whole of Palestine was left up to native rulers - even Jerusalem, which was administered by the high priest of the Temple. This changed after Jesus' death as a series of heavy-handed prefects created more resentment that eventually boiled over into the First Jewish War, but that was thirty-five years after the time of Jesus. There is no evidence that the fanatical groups of this period, such as the Zealots or the Sicari, even existed in Jesus' day (in fact the title "Zealots" seems not to have been used until after the war began).
Really? I was under the impression that the Jews are still waiting for their Messiah. Does this not have roots in scripture, or am I just totally wrong about it?
I think that this is an assumption that Christians or those raised in a Christian culture make about Jews. Christians believe that the Messiah has come, so they assume that the Jews, who didn't believe in him, must still be waiting. I think that Jews do believe that the Messiah is yet to come, but this expectation is not a very important element of Judaism. I'd suggest asking a Jew and seeing what they say.
Aren't there plenty of quotes from the Bible that indicate otherwise? ie. "Forgive them Father, etc."
No, and that quote doesn't indicate anything of the kind, as I'm sure we discussed only a couple of pages ago. Surely Jesus is just forgiving them for executing an innocent man - assuming he ever said it.
Ahh.. Well, I suppose we then would have had to have that person crucified by the Romans.. and a very specific chain of events would have had to take place for something like Christianity to evolve.
That still assumes that Jesus' own personality and distinctive teachings had no influence on the emergence and development of Christianity, which seems implausible to say the least. After all, John the Baptist was also executed, and also had many followers, who outnumbered those of Jesus; these followers continued to exist after his death, like those of Jesus. So why did Jesus' followers end up founding a major religion and John's dissipate? There's no definite answer to that other than the exigencies of history. And, of course, the fact that Jesus' followers were convinced that he had risen from the dead and bestowed his spirit upon them. But why was that?
You may be right as well, but being an animal might indeed not be essential to being a cat
Maybe it is and maybe it isn't (although I hardly see how it could not be), but the point is that an argument of that kind
doesn't show it. You can have an argument with true premises and a true conclusion, but if the latter does not follow from the former, that is a worthless argument.
I'm ignoring that anima suggests that animals have a soul - just like humans are supposed to.
Yes, but that's non-controversial because "soul" in this sort of context just means "whatever makes something alive", which carries no weird metaphysical baggage.
So... he didn't claim to be the Son of God? (I must say, from a Judaic viewpoint that indeed strikes me as being blasphemous at least - and quite possibly sufficient grounds to have him stoned.)
I wonder how many times I'm going to have to repeat myself on this. "Son of God" is practically meaningless in a first-century Jewish context. It just means someone whom God regards with favour. It has this meaning throughout the Old Testament and is applied to all sorts of people, including the entire Jewish people on occasion. If Jesus had "claimed" to be Son of God it wouldn't have meant much and certainly would not have had any overtones of actual divinity. The title "Son of God" acquired those overtones only later, in the third and fourth centuries, when Christian theologians who were ignorant of its original meaning assumed that it was a reference to Jesus' divinity, just as "Son of Man" was a reference to his humanity.
