Is it really a matter of importance that we determine which of the sermons was first, or where they might have taken place?
I was thinking the same thing. I really don't care when
or in front of whom
when it comes to Jesus' sermons. The thing that matters the most is to whether or not they are actual events that took place, and
is what was preached is real. I am not saying that they didn't because there could've been this cool hippy-like dude preaching the kingdom of god to at least a few people, but is there anything real about the message.
The sermon on the mount in Mat 5 claims a lot of things. For one thing it opens with eleven or twelve situations where people are 'blessed' perhaps by god for what they have done in their lives or whatever situation and stage they are in in their lives. Like the poor in spirit are said to be blessed, the meek, peacemakers, pure at hearts, etc. Then after 'jesus' finishes describing those who are 'blessed' ends
"Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
which is a pretty bold claim to be giving to a multitude of followers.
Whether or not these sermons happened is an important question to ask. Whether or not the main premise and underlying theme of the sermons actually exists is an even more important question.
*Jesus could've been telling the truth to these people and is truly their (and our) lord and saviour.
*He could've been lying to them all for some kind of personal gain, and was nothing but a fraud and a great oratorian.
*Or he could've deeply believed his thoughts and deeply believed he was the son of god, and is inspired by god, but what he has
either witnessed, seen or knows regarding god is all in his head, though he truly believes to have some connection with this deity the christians call YHWH, thus making him a lunatic.
I'm sure we all know that's a variation of the Lewis Trilemma
that is supposed to prove the divinity of Jesus.
I have a question for euroclydon. Since you come off as someone who very thoroughly understand logic, do you find anything illogical with Lewis' conclusions that jesus was Lord, and not a liar or lunatic?