23 replies

  1. It seems Bart has stopped making debates? It’s been a while since last debate I watched for him.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Bauckham did not say Jesus did not say the content of the sermon, he only said that all of those sayings were not said all at one time all together as in Matthew 5, 6, & 7.

    Jesus actually did say all of those things, but, it seems Bauckham is saying that Matthew gathered them all together in one long discourse.

    The actual sermon was probably some of Matthew 5, and then Matthew added a lot of other sermons and sayings of Jesus and arranged them all in 3 chapters.

    It is historical in the sense that Jesus did preach a sermon with some of that content (maybe all of it at one time, we are talking about Bauckham’s view here), as written in matthew 5:1-2, but that Matthew added material that Jesus spoke on other occasions to make 3 long chapters.


    • He agrees there was never a Sermon on the Mount at all!

      Matthew made it up using bits and pieces of sayings found elsewhere and created one long sermon which was never preached as such by Jesus.

      Liked by 2 people

      • @ Paul

        Why do you reject the view that the speech could have happened but othet parts were later added?


      • I don’t reject that view personally. My point is that Richard Bauckham and Bart Ehrman both agree that the famous Sermon on the Mount is a literary fiction, cobbled together from others occasions. Ken as usual cannot accept this. But his own scholars refute him.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken’s arrogance knows know bounds. Maybe if the sincere bloggers here were anonymous like in his doctrine of belief he would be inclined to basic reasoning🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      • No, he did not say, there was never a sermon on the Mount, “at all”; he was just agreeing that it is probably a compilation of a lot of different sermons and teachings of the real historical Jesus, put all together in one sermon.


      • Richard Bauckham and Bart Ehrman both agree that the famous Sermon on the Mount is a literary fiction, cobbled together from others occasions. Ken as usual cannot accept this. But his own scholars refute him.


      • But he did not say that 5:1-2 are not historical. Certainly he did preach something at least once like that; but that Matthew combined other of Jesus’ many sermons into one big three chapter sermon.


    • Bauckham’s view is that the sermon was not historical, and it’s hard to tell what the historical individual sayings are among them. Therefore and as what Bart said “If he didn’t deliver the sermon on the Mount, and you cannot decide on the individual sayings, I don’t know what you’re left with

      Those christian scholars just dance on a thin ice, and Bart is skillful in exposing this ambiguity those scholars adopt for no reason!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Sabit cekic,
    How is that “arrogance” ??


    • @Ken

      You degraded jesus(as) to the level of pharaoh and just like pharaoh you worship a man. Does it make sense that the creator got jealous of Pharoah and decided to steal his idea?
      Its true what people say, christianity destroys all logic and reasoning.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. @ Ken

    So I’m confused are you ifnthe opinion the Sermon happened but other sermons were added or are you saying that the whole thing happened in one sitting?


    • 5:1-12 seems like one historical sermon & setting, then Matthew combined other sermons and other speeches by Jesus into one long discourse of teaching of the rest of chapters 5, 6, & 7, Jesus probably repeated these teachings many times over the 3 1/2 years of his ministry which shows up in Luke chapter 6 where he preaches a lot of the same material as in Matthew 5-7, but on a flat area.


  5. It is far closer to history than the funky stuff you find in the Quran.


  6. @ Ken

    Sooooo… you’re saying that “Matt” took incidents and combined them thus creating something that Jesus (as) never did?


    • That’s what it sounds like.


    • No; the phrase – the second part of your statement is wrong – the phrase “thus creating something that Jesus never did” is not what I am saying. The first part is fine as is, but the second part is wrong.

      Gospel studies and scholars agree that Jesus probably repeated Himself and his messages a lot over the 3 and 1/2 years.

      There was a real sermon on the mount in history – Matthew 5:1-12 – (is a unity and seems like one sermon), but the rest is combined from many of His other sermons and teachings – all true and historical – Matthew is just putting them all in 3 chapters.

      And there was a real response to His sermons and teachings at the end of chapter 7. Many times this is repeated in the Synoptic gospels.

      Just as there was a real sermon on the “level place” in Luke 6:17 ff (but it could be just a level place in a certain spot on a Mountainous area, etc., but possibly on a different occasion with similar content but with some key differences and different emphases.


      • @ Ken

        I am not arguing on if the speech was given or not (I would like to hear its flow in Aramaic though as imo that will tell you if it was delivered in one sitting)

        I’m saying if I take a bunch of a person’s sayings or sermons and create a framework around them that didn’t happen then say he said this I have lied about that person:

        1. You have now created an event that didn’t happen and have lied on his(as) life.

        2. Sermons and statements have context behind them. This is just as, if not more important than the statement itself because it shows what the intent was and its application (if a law)

        2. I agree it’s possible to repeat a portion of a sermon in another sermon (notice I am again not criticizing that) I am saying why would you take a famous speech (I’ll for discussion sake assume it happened as I haven’t heard criticism of the event itself) and modify it? The gospels relate an action Jesus(as) did all the time as a new story. For example, he went here and healed some lepers, he went to such and such and healed a blind man, he went to such and such and then healed two blind men etc. So why would;d you take THE MOST IMPORTANT thing (the teachings) and modify it into one long speech that he didn’t give?

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: