I think everyone already knows where I am going with this. Where do you think Jesus got his inspiration for his sermon on the mount? My view is Jesus read Second Temple literature and Jewish tradition and his OT to help form His sermon on the Mount. For example,

(1) the saying in Matthew 7:12 was already used in the letter of Aristeas.

(2) the idea that God if the father of individuals is found in pseudepigraph and apocrypha (See Jubilees 1:24, 28; 3 Maccabees 5:7; 7:6, Wisdom 11:10 etc)

(3) the "two ways" is mentioned in Jewish literature in Pre-Christian period (Testament of Asher 1; 2 Enoch 30:15; 2 Enoch 42:10)

(4) the saying in Matthew 7:2 with the measure you measure is found verbatim in the mouth of R. Meir who said "Whence can it be proved that a person is measured in turn with the measure with which he measures). R. Meir cited Isa 27:8 which said measure for measure, if you should violate it, you punished it. The Midrash interprets it as for each measure of sin there is a similar measure of punishment... "measure for measure" covers such pasages as Wis 11:15f; 12:24; 184, Jesus had already found this sating as a firmly formed maxim and used it.

(5) the beatitude Matthew 5:3 is based on Isaiah 61:1

(6) the third beatitude resembles Psalm 37:11

I could go on and on and on.

Now obviously, I do not think Jesus got the whole Sermon from Jewish sources. And obviously the burden of proof lies which each individual case. But think of it this way. In the ancient synagogue there was a spiritual power which no one who wanted to gain public influence could escape; a spiritual power to which Jesus was no less subject than the men of the learned schools. The power was the Torah, the religious-moral thought world of the OT. In this world Jesus breathed and lived up to his last words on the cross. This was the second temple world. Jesus was not reading the church fathers, they did not exist.

EDIT: let this record stand, for this post I am labelled "autistic" a "sinner" and "dishonest". My opponents, rather than engage in honest debate, have resorted to personal attacks against me. These opponents, largely followers of post-modernism, have no hope left, they are utterly in darkness. I have overcome them. 4/28/2023 codker92

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this. Where do you think Jesus got his inspiration for his sermon on the mount? My view is Jesus read Second Temple literature and Jewish tradition and his OT to help form His sermon on the Mount. For example,

(1) the saying in Matthew 7:12 was already used in the letter of Aristeas.

(2) the idea that God if the father of individuals is found in pseudepigraph and apocrypha (See Jubilees 1:24, 28; 3 Maccabees 5:7; 7:6, Wisdom 11:10 etc)

(3) the "two ways" is mentioned in Jewish literature in Pre-Christian period (Testament of Asher 1; 2 Enoch 30:15; 2 Enoch 42:10)

(4) the saying in Matthew 7:2 with the measure you measure is found verbatim in the mouth of R. Meir who said "Whence can it be proved that a person is measured in turn with the measure with which he measures). R. Meir cited Isa 27:8 which said measure for measure, if you should violate it, you punished it. The Midrash interprets it as for each measure of sin there is a similar measure of punishment... "measure for measure" covers such pasages as Wis 11:15f; 12:24; 184, Jesus had already found this sating as a firmly formed maxim and used it.

(5) the beatitude Matthew 5:3 is based on Isaiah 61:1

(6) the third beatitude resembles Psalm 37:11

I could go on and on and on.

Now obviously, I do not think Jesus got the whole Sermon from Jewish sources. And obviously the burden of proof lies which each individual case. But think of it this way. In the ancient synagogue there was a spiritual power which no one who wanted to gain public influence could escape; a spiritual power to which Jesus was no less subject than the men of the learned schools. The power was the Torah, the religious-moral thought world of the OT. In this world Jesus breathed and lived up to his last words on the cross. This was the second temple world. Jesus was not reading the church fathers, they did not exist.

---

I'm going to go with God as his inspiration

---

So I guess it happened something like this?

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

"Inspiration"

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

Howdy Dammit said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this.

---

Yes. Somewhere I don't understand.

---

Or somewhere you don't want to understand.

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

So is your position that Jesus didn't have any original thoughts or ideas?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So is your position that Jesus didn't have any original thoughts or ideas?

---

Care to quote anywhere where I have ever said anything remotely like that?

dermdoc said:

---

Jesus is God.

He knows everything.

---

Apparently he had to read the law for some reason. I guess for show?

codker92 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

So is your position that Jesus didn't have any original thoughts or ideas?

---

Care to quote anywhere where I have ever said anything remotely like that?

---

I inferred that from your other statements. That's why I asked the question to clarify.

codker92 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

I have to be honest, half the time I have no idea what the point of your posts are but I feel bad when you have no replies so I just throw something up to see what sticks. The theological questions you pose are a little too challenging for me bc I often cannot figure out the reason why the question needs an answer in the first place.

---

The question I posed is not theological. The question I posed is whether Jesus read books or whether he had information beamed into his head under the conclusory label of inspiration. The second temple literature in circulation at the time of Christ included nearly all of the major points in Jesus' sermon on the mount. This fact directly contradicts the idea of inspiration. Jesus did not just make up his sermon from nothing. He read scripture.

---

Then I guess I'd say I have no confident idea of how Christ developed his ideas for the sermon on the mount. But I would say that his sermon came both from his own readings/experience and inspiration from the Father (I understand you think this is contradicted...but I don't). There is a great deal of similarities between Moses at Sinai and Jesus here. Both fled Egypt. Moses delivered his people from Pharoah, Jesus delivered from Satan. Moses ascended to receive the Decalogue, Jesus ascended to bring forth Gods new law to fulfill the old covenant. Moses received the 10 commandments, so I don't think its a stretch to say Jesus also receive inspiration from the Father.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I think you misread.

Jesus(God) desired to GIVE a deeper understanding [to those he taught]. Not that he wanted/needed to understand better.

---

I think you are missing my point. If Jesus already knew what the scripture said. Why in the world did he read it? Was he just doing it for show? Jesus read scripture. But according to you he already knew it all. The whole point of reading is to learn. Do you believe Jesus was just reading for show? Like a hipster at starbucks?

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Common elements between Jewish scripture and teachings with the teaching of Jesus could denote the use of common source material rather than Jesus using the Jewish scripture and teachings as a reference.

In this case, God is the source material for the OT. The writings of Jewish scholars/theologians is based on study of the OT and potentially further inspiration from God.

Jesus had access through his divinity to the original source material and didn't need to rely upon study of the OT and writings of Jewish theologians.

---

Ok then why did he read the scripture then?

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Common elements between Jewish scripture and teachings with the teaching of Jesus could denote the use of common source material rather than Jesus using the Jewish scripture and teachings as a reference.

In this case, God is the source material for the OT. The writings of Jewish scholars/theologians is based on study of the OT and potentially further inspiration from God.

Jesus had access through his divinity to the original source material and didn't need to rely upon study of the OT and writings of Jewish theologians.

---

Ok then why did he read the scripture then?

---

Where in your links does it say Jesus read the Scripture you are talking about?

The only time I can remember Jesus reading Scripture was when he read Isaiah when he was in the synagogue explaining why He came.

Now he quoted Scripture like when he was being crucified.

But I can think of no Biblical source that says Jesus read Second temple writings to formulate His ideas.

Who do you think Jesus was(is)?

He is God, the mystery of the trinity. And the inspiration of all Scripture.

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I think you misread.

Jesus(God) desired to GIVE a deeper understanding [to those he taught]. Not that he wanted/needed to understand better.

---

I think you are missing my point. If Jesus already knew what the scripture said. Why in the world did he read it? Was he just doing it for show? Jesus read scripture. But according to you he already knew it all. The whole point of reading is to learn. Do you believe Jesus was just reading for show? Like a hipster at starbucks?

---

I know the NT references Jesus reading scripture in the synagogue. Reading aloud to others can be to teach others and/or to participate in a discussion. If one wanted to participate in a scriptural discussion in which others are taking turns reading the scripture, probably works better if you take your turn reading too.

Authors often have reading sessions where they read their book aloud, especially kids books. Somehow I don't think the point is to learn from the children's book they wrote.

I'm not aware of a scriptural passage in which Jesus is reading/studying the scripture on his own. If there is one, please let me know.

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Common elements between Jewish scripture and teachings with the teaching of Jesus could denote the use of common source material rather than Jesus using the Jewish scripture and teachings as a reference.

In this case, God is the source material for the OT. The writings of Jewish scholars/theologians is based on study of the OT and potentially further inspiration from God.

Jesus had access through his divinity to the original source material and didn't need to rely upon study of the OT and writings of Jewish theologians.

---

(1) & (2) Right, common elements between Jewish scripture and teachings with the teachings of Jesus could denote the use of a common source material, except no evidence of these writings is available. The first three points I cited are not found in the canonical old testament, they are found in second temple literature. The evidence most closely suggests Jesus was reading second temple literature -- Jubilees, Wisdom etc.

(3) The community at qumran created scholarly commentary on the book of Jubilees, indicating that ultra conservative sects of Jews treated Jubilees as scripture. Even during the time of Jesus, the ideas of which books were scripture was not settled. The sects of jews (pharisees & sadducees) who allied with rome, were mainly left wing or centrist. Jesus was actually commanded by God to read scripture and understand it.

Even your scripture supports this:

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18

dermdoc said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

Common elements between Jewish scripture and teachings with the teaching of Jesus could denote the use of common source material rather than Jesus using the Jewish scripture and teachings as a reference.

In this case, God is the source material for the OT. The writings of Jewish scholars/theologians is based on study of the OT and potentially further inspiration from God.

Jesus had access through his divinity to the original source material and didn't need to rely upon study of the OT and writings of Jewish theologians.

---

Ok then why did he read the scripture then?

---

Where in your links does it say Jesus read the Scripture you are talking about?

The only time AJ can remember Jesus reading Scripture was when he read Isaiah when he was in the synagogue explaining why He came.

Now he quoted Scripture like when he was being crucified.

But I can think of no Biblical source that says Jesus read Second temple writings to formulate His ideas.

Who do you think Jesus was(is)?

He is God, the mystery of the trinity. And the inspiration of all Scripture.

---

Even your scripture supports this, the new Testament calls Jesus king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to read scripture everyday.

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18

The question of whether Jesus read the scripture I was talking about turns really on what you consider scripture.

The community at qumran created commentaries on the Book of Jubilees, Wisdom etc, which indicates that far right conservative Jews in Jesus's day considered Jubilees scripture. Even during Jesus's day, each Jewish sect had a different idea of what scripture was. It was not settled. The sects that allied with rome, the leftist sadducees and centrist Pharisees did rejected the contemporary Jewish literature and allied themselves with Rome, adopting greco-roman syncrenisms.

Zobel said:

---

He didn't have to read the Torah as He gave it. Your view basically makes Moses the ultimate source of Jesus teaching.

---

Not sure that is quite right.

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18.

Moses was not the source of the Torah. God dictated it to him on Mount Sinai. Moses was just the typist...

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

BiochemAg97 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

codker92 said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Would His divine nature be too simple an answer?

---

It has nothing to do with whether the answer is simple or not. Point is Jesus wasn't reading the church fathers. Jesus did read second temple literature. If you aren't reading the New Testament in context you are going to miss major points. You wouldn't use the communist manifesto to decide how the magma carta is interpreted. Why would you use the church fathers to interpret Jesus commentary in OT

---

Perhaps your point alludes me, but to me it's fairly simple:

1) Jesus is God the Son
2) He was well versed in the writing of the OT, the Law and the lack of the full concept of the law in the Jews.
3) He desires to give a deeper understanding of the Law.
4) it seems to me His inspiration was in him all along. It comes from His endless love no wanting anyone to perish.

---

That is not a good enough answer. What you are saying is that God had the same exact ideas that Jews had in Second Temple literature and that God "beamed" that information into Jesus' head?? If you believe that then God told me he wants me to write a speech called I Have a Dream. It is my original work, inspired by God.

Your own post contradicts itself. You say Jesus has inspiration. If that is true then he did not need to read the law to understand the law. But then you say he desired to have a deeper understanding of the law. What?! That makes no sense. Either he understood the law because of "inspiration" and did not need instruction or he read that law.

---

I think you misread.

Jesus(God) desired to GIVE a deeper understanding [to those he taught]. Not that he wanted/needed to understand better.

---

I think you are missing my point. If Jesus already knew what the scripture said. Why in the world did he read it? Was he just doing it for show? Jesus read scripture. But according to you he already knew it all. The whole point of reading is to learn. Do you believe Jesus was just reading for show? Like a hipster at starbucks?

---

I know the NT references Jesus reading scripture in the synagogue. Reading aloud to others can be to teach others and/or to participate in a discussion. If one wanted to participate in a scriptural discussion in which others are taking turns reading the scripture, probably works better if you take your turn reading too.

Authors often have reading sessions where they read their book aloud, especially kids books. Somehow I don't think the point is to learn from the children's book they wrote.

I'm not aware of a scriptural passage in which Jesus is reading/studying the scripture on his own. If there is one, please let me know.

---

Jesus is king of israel and the king of israel is commanded to read torah every day.

Even your scripture supports this:

Jesus is the king of Israel, and the King of Israel is commanded to write for himself a copy of the law, approved by the Levitical priests, and he shall read it all the days of his life.

They took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, " Hosanna! Blessed in He who comes in the NAME of the LORD, even the King of Israel!! John 12:13

And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests. And it shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God by keeping all the words of this law and these statues, and doing them. Deut. 16:18

The Lord was the source of the Torah.

And Christ is not the king after the pattern of David, but the fulfillment of that pattern - something David never was, both King and Priest. That passage cannot be read to apply to Christ Jesus in that fashion. He doesn't need to learn to fear the Lord; He IS the Lord.

Zobel said:

---

The Lord was the source of the Torah.

And Christ is not the king after the pattern of David, but the fulfillment of that pattern - something David never was, both King and Priest. That passage cannot be read to apply to Christ Jesus in that fashion. He doesn't need to learn to fear the Lord; He IS the Lord.

---

Both David and Jesus sit on the same throne.


For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us;
And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.
There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace,
On the throne of David and over his kingdom,
To establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness
From then on and forevermore.
The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this. Isaiah 9:6-7

Howdy Dammit said:

---

codker92 said:

---

I think everyone already knows where I am going with this.

---

Yes. Somewhere I don't understand.

---

Would that somewhere be that you think Jesus has two distinct natures in one person?