What were Jesus most important teachings?

The one who exalts self will be humbled.

The humble will be exalted.

The truth will set you free.

" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.

But I am a very conservative Christian believer, neither an unbeliever or a nation, and so that particular quote doesn't apply to me, does it?

a reply to: Akragon

Now that the OP has been banned, perhaps we can continue with a saying of Jesus, which is puzzling rather than "favorite"

[A] woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about [Jesus], and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And she started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: "Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]" But as a rejoinder she says to him: "Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!" Then he said to her: "For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter." She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone (Mk. 7:25-30).

originally posted by: gladtobehere
Matthew 10:34
"Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Prepared to Preach Despite Persecution:

The message Jesus’ disciples preach will divide households, some family members accepting it and others not. “Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth,” Jesus explains. Yes, it takes courage for a family member to embrace Bible truth. “Whoever has greater affection for father or mother than for me is not worthy of me,” Jesus observes, “and whoever has greater affection for son or daughter than for me is not worthy of me.”—Matthew 10:34, 37.

The Visit That Changed My Life:

One afternoon in 1941, when I was 15, an elderly man and his wife came to our home. He was introduced as “your uncle Talmadge Rusk.”
...
What he explained about God’s purpose for humans to live on the earth forever was much different from what I had heard in church. Most of the family rejected—even despised—what they said. They were never again allowed into the home. However, my aunt Mary, only three years older than me, accepted a Bible along with publications that helped to explain it.

Mary was quickly convinced ... She also experienced what Jesus had foretold, namely: “A man’s enemies will be persons of his own household.” (Matt. 10:34-36) Family opposition was intense. An older sister, prominent in county affairs, conspired with the mayor and had Uncle Talmadge arrested. The charge was peddling without a license. He was convicted.

Our hometown newspaper reported that the mayor, who was also the judge, said to those in the city court: “The literature this man is distributing . . . is as dangerous as poison.” My uncle won the case on appeal, but he spent ten days in jail in the meantime.

Be nice to prostitutes.

a reply to: pthena

I apologize for my previous... unbelief... lol

i find it hard to believe that someone that spent so many years in Christian circles finds nothing of value in his teaching... said teaching being here say is really besides the point.

As far as that passage is concerned... what is puzzling about it?

a reply to: Akragon

Some time after I was posting on the forum, someone asked me why I thought Jesus had any intention whatsoever to have his message go to gentiles. This was one of the verses he mentioned. I had no good answer. I'd never thought about it, and only assumed that it was so. The only justification I could think of was The Great Commission verses at the end of Matthew, which I already considered to be a late addition.

So I'm challenging the assumption.

Jesus didn't write a book. His disciples didn't write a book. Why? Perhaps they thought they would still be alive to see the glorious kingdom.

According to accounts, Peter didn't even ever set out to have the sayings of Jesus set out in order, he would go about teaching what he was teaching, and throw in a story about Jesus to illustrate a point that he was making. Disconnected story-lets which later were arranged by the author of Mark.

The point being that if Peter was explaining why some Gentiles were allowed in the kingdom of god, this was probably the story to illustrate it, as in, the best example of Jesus deviating from his self-proclaimed mission to seek the lost sheep of Israel exclusively.

a reply to: pthena

According to accounts, Peter didn't even ever set out to have the sayings of Jesus set out in order, he would go about teaching what he was teaching, and throw in a story about Jesus to illustrate a point that he was making.

Keep in mind Peter wasn't a preacher, or even a man of "the church" whatever that could be defined as at the time... he was a simple fisherman... A jew, yes... but that doesn't mean he had a vast knowledge of their scriptures...

Whatever peter was teaching was what he heard from Jesus... HE made peter a "fisher of men"

The point being that if Peter was explaining why some Gentiles were allowed in the kingdom of god, this was probably the story to illustrate it, as in, the best example of Jesus deviating from his self-proclaimed mission to seek the lost sheep of Israel exclusively.

But was that his mission?

Keep in mind Matthew was a very Israel based text... clearly written exclusively for them...

A few passages in john show otherwise...

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.



For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.


And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.


For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.


I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

Of course those are just a few examples... His mission wasn't just for Israel...

Only Matthew says such things as far as i can remember

a reply to: Akragon

Matt 10:5Jesus sent these twelve out, and commanded them, saying, "Don't go among the Gentiles, and don't enter into any city of the Samaritans. 6Rather, go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7As you go, preach, saying, 'The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!'
...
23But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next, for most certainly I tell you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man has come.

It's obvious that the message you quote from John is not the same message as the one in Matthew. Quoting wars are bound to be endless. I propose an other solution. Consider the timeframes.

Matthew's (whoever wrote it) was written 40 years or so after the Jesus time, based on a guy heard that a guy heard that Jesus said, while himself making it relevant to "the facts on the ground" ie. the destruction of Jerusalem.

There was still time for the Zechariah prophesy at the end to be fulfilled, city seemingly taken, but then the god would come and save the remnant and restore Jerusalem and punish the attackers and set up the world capital to which the kings of the earth must come in humble obedience carrying their tribute money, or else. That's a big theme of post-exile Psalms & Isaiah, of course the Law and the Prophets must remain intact, that's where Jerusalem the capital of one world empire is found.

Another 40 or so years pass, and in the meantime, Gentile believers far outnumber the Jewish believers, cuz after all, a generation waiting for the glorious World empire has passed away. Why in the world would a Jew consider Jesus to be 'the one they hoped for'?.

Whoever wrote John was writing to a completely different audience. It wasn't that the 'Gospel' was being sent to the Gentiles to call them to salvation. It was written for the benefit of the Gentiles who already believed thanks to the morphing of a specific message into a generalized message, one that was left after time wore away the transient hopes into a spiritualized timelessness unrelated to a world empire capital with a chosen family group as benefactors of the enslavement and subjugation of the rest of the world.

I have to take a break, eyes getting very strained. To be continued.

a reply to: pthena

You should read the whole Wikipedia article on Rabbi Akiva en.wikipedia.org..., very instructive. The author of John and Rabbi Akiva were most likely contemporaries.

‘When Moses ascended into heaven, he saw God occupied in making little crowns for the letters of the Torah. Upon his inquiry as to what these might be for, he received the answer, "There will come a man, named Akiva ben Yosef, who will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law." Moses' request to be allowed to see this man was granted; but he became much dismayed as he listened to Akiva's teaching; for he could not understand it’ (Men. 29b). This story gives a picture of Akiva's activity as the father of Talmudic Judaism.

That's an example of his greatness. I can't help but think of the "not one jot or tittle ..." seeing as this is what was being added some 80 years after the proposed time of Jesus, the Masoretic text being cooked up, and being supplanted by the beginnings of the Talmud.

He recognized Bar Kokhba as the Messiah, and was executed by the Romans in the disastrous aftermath of the Bar Kokhba revolt.

He was in Rome for the purpose of petitioning that Bar Kokhba be recognized as the legitimate Son of David, King of Judea at the time the revolt broke out. He quickly left Rome as can be imagined.

A strange quirk that no one seems to want to recognize the 3 1/2 years that Bar Kokhba actually had control of Jerusalem and had the sacrifices re-instituted as a fulfillment of any prophecy. Probably would not fit with any particular agenda.

But notice the methodology "will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law", a methodology used by very many people these days still. It isn't the literal words that have meaning, but the numerology, or each letter stands for a whole paragraph worth of info and only the highly trained inner circle knows the key, etc, etc, etc.

It might be thought that with the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem—which event made an end of Sadduceeism—the halakhic Midrash would also have disappeared, seeing that the Halacha could now dispense with the Midrash. This probably would have been the case had not Akiva created his own Midrash, by means of which he was able "to discover things that were even unknown to Moses" (PesiḲ., Parah, ed. S. Buber, 39b). Akiva made the accumulated treasure of the oral law—which until his time was only a subject of knowledge, and not a science—an inexhaustible mine from which, by the means he provided, new treasures might be continually extracted

If the older Halacha is to be considered as the product of the internal struggle between Phariseeism and Sadduceeism, the Halacha of Akiva must be conceived as the result of an external contest between Judaism on the one hand and Hellenism and Hellenistic Christianity on the other. Akiva no doubt perceived that the intellectual bond uniting the Jews—far from being allowed to disappear with the destruction of the Jewish state—must be made to draw them closer together than before. He pondered also the nature of that bond. The Bible could never again fill the place alone; for the Christians also regarded it as a divine revelation.

What we know as Christianity and Judaism had its irreversible split at this moment. John's Universalism and Judaism's Jewish exclusive identity.

- another break needed - Sorry.

a reply to: pthena

It didn't happen though - that irreversible separation. Time, that pesky element that limits mortals!

Bar Kokhba rebellion, 135 CE, John (the gospel written by whoever) some time leading up to that time. Deutero-Paul (that is- second Paul or from the school of thought of Paul) had already been in circulation for at least 40 years before the appearance of Gospel of John.

scholars who dispute Paul's authorship date the letter to between 70–80 AD. In the latter case, the possible location of the authorship could have been within the church of Ephesus itself.
wikipedia

And how universal was Ephesians?

2:11Therefore remember that once you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "uncircumcision" by that which is called "circumcision," (in the flesh, made by hands); 12that you were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

Paul's teaching, from the perspective of the residents of the world outside of Judea, came to them long before any collection of sayings from Jesus ever did. A fact that Paul bashers fail to acknowledge, and pretend rather that people had some choice between one version of Jesus or another.

Paul himself wrote: Romans 3:1"What, then, is the advantage of being a Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? 2Much in every way. First of all, they have been entrusted with the very oracles of God." And of course, his nice picture of the olive tree of wild Gentiles grafted on to the wonderful cultivated olive tree (Romans 11). This reminds me an awful lot of the story of the woman who was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria.

If the Gospel of John had come first I can imagine a World in which a major religion has a God Universally accessible in some spiritual way with no race or gender classification at all, where the prophecies have all been fulfilled, as in, this is as good as it gets and seeking earthly rule is not just irrelevant, but counter to the religion.

Instead, we have Christianity glued to the Old Testament with all the worldly glory promised in the Old Testament unfulfilled, so therefore an obsession with Jerusalem etc. etc. etc.

While at the same time, we have Judaism glued to its Talmud which teaches that Jews are the mediator of god to the Gentiles, as in, From g.d to the Jews, to the Gentiles. And oh yeah, every political entity in the World must acknowledge "Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state of Israel" or else.

So here's the question: Is Paul's worldview of 60s CE closer to the original which may have been taught by a first century Jesus, 40 years before the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem temple, or something written another 50 years after Paul?

-The end- for now

a reply to: pthena

So here's the question: Is Paul's worldview of 60s CE closer to the original which may have been taught by a first century Jesus, 40 years before the 70 CE destruction of Jerusalem temple, or something written another 50 years after Paul?

IF you are asking me personally... i would most definately say the things writen after Paul is far better

For one thing He never met Jesus, and rarely if ever touches what Jesus taught according to what we have... IF we are to believe that Paul actually had this revelation and conversion as he writes... i think he would have taught something of what he taught... but aside from his stance on "love" most of his writing is useless... at least to me.

We don't know what happened to Luke... but from the gospel according to him, He researched his findings about Jesus extensively... interviewing people that actually knew him, which would of course point to mary.

John Mark, we know little about... but it is believe he was the author of Mark, which is said to be a dictation of Peters teaching directly from Jesus... but who knows.

Matthew is the same situation... we know little about him or what happened to him... for all we know he might have written said gospel well after Paul disapeared... maybe it was before he even arrived on the scene... details are nil when it comes to all of the writers of the gospels.

John was apparently the last writer... and i tend to leave revelation out of the mix entirely... i don't believe John of Patmos was the same person... though i could be wrong.

Though Paul simply wasn't qualified to teach what he did not know about the man... all he knew was what he heard from the apostles... and said little about it.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Wombocracy
" But inasmuch as it was necessary that the nations should be called into the room of those who remained unbelieving, so that the number might be filled up which had been shown to Abraham, the preaching of the blessed Kingdom of God is sent into the world. On this account worldly spirits are disturbed, who always oppose those who are in quest of liberty, and who make use of THE ENGINES OF ERROR to destroy God's building;...


Taught to Peter by Jesus and recorded by Peter's disciple. Decide for yourself.

But I am a very conservative Christian believer, neither an unbeliever or a nation, and so that particular quote doesn't apply to me, does it?

You tell me. I should not be the one to decide that for you.

Nations is translated from the same word as Gentile in the Koine Greek language. Ethnos, if I am not mistaken.

Either way it would be goyim in Aramaic or Hebrew and Gentiles is not the greatest word for ethnos and nations is more accurate. Gentile is a negative word because it classifies one group as different than the other with both groups having individuals who will find their group superior than the other by birthright or belief.

So nations being less offensive and absolutely proper is what was used. Goyim can mean "the heard" or ''cattle" in Hebrew and gentile is always goyim in Hebrew which I actually find offensive to both sides.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

I am surprised that you didn't know that. 25 years of study should have brought that to your attention at some point. That you have not looked into the meaning of and origins of a word so common.

Usually that is a sign that you are not much of a seeker of knowledge and just accept things without investigation.

And there is the fact that you live in a nation, most people do. Surely you couldn't have thought that nations was meant to mean sovereign states of government.

But, you did. I find it a little comical that you tried to be clever and accomplished the opposite.

You really do think that being a very conservative Christian is something that makes you better than people and immune to the universal law of don't be a snob and a know it all because you end up being the only one who doesn't realize it?

The wise know that they are wise and don't flaunt it.

Those who flaunt it aren't wise at all and only the less wise than they don't see it.

a reply to: CabablancaHizb

I think teaching people to refrain from sex before marriage is very important.

a reply to: Akragon

IF you are asking me personally... i would most definately say the things writen after Paul is far better

For one thing He never met Jesus, and rarely if ever touches what Jesus taught according to what we have... IF we are to believe that Paul actually had this revelation and conversion as he writes... i think he would have taught something of what he taught... but aside from his stance on "love" most of his writing is useless... at least to me.

I was actually asking you personally, because I greatly fear persecution, and you have a reputation for not persecuting or cursing people you disagree with, especially ignorant heathens like me.

So you read the sayings of Jesus, and accepted the God of Jesus as your God. So you have no problem with the Shema, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."

Do you see also how many people may have a truly conscientious problem and downright refuse to recite the Shema, given the context and implications involved? Does that render the conscientious objector evil, wicked, without hope and without God in the World? That would be the bottom of bottomest questions. In my mind anyway, at least at the moment.