Why is Jesus not considered a philosopher?

It is disconcerting how a large majority of modern philosophers choose to ignore or reject outright any philosophical basis to biblical teachings and, more specifically, those attributed to Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus’ teachings, in their most basic assertions and evidencing provide the basis for a phenomenological approach to knowledge, a method for understanding reality, and a clear logic for ascertaining truth.

The fact that belief and faith play a foundational role in the building of such ‘phenomenology’ (I am aware of Husserl’s 1st-person perspective), should not stop philosophers from researching its validity, the evidence provided in biblical texts, real life, and the relevance of the philosophical knowledge thereby imparted.

The generalised practice of modern philosophers asking questions about the world, life and purporting to seek knowledge has been to first draw suited conceptual perimeters or spheres able to contain the ‘eternality’ and ‘wideness’ of the conceptions they are able to witness, imagine and theoretically believe in, to then build a set of mostly causal relationships back towards the individual centre of their own mental activity, attempting to draw in the process the further reaches of such conceptions (“eternal and infinite” as they may be) towards the reach of material/real human understanding.

Now, a ‘god’ that may be called God and which entity is worth its weight, cannot be said to exist as humans do exist. God is. The God entity is the creator of existence while ‘infinitude’ and ‘eternality’ are two of God’s characteristics as far as we are told and can summarily tell. But that's another topic.

As many of the ancient philosophers demanded of those ‘plotting the field’, ‘humility’ is to provide both a logical (what can humans really know about the interactions of infinity and eternality?) as well as an appropriate starting point (the ‘truths’ we witness are often witnessed differently by others).

They (from Socrates to Confucius) recognised how, faced with all these 'truths', faced with the traditions people hold on to, with the societies we have 'grown' and, more importantly, with how the mysterious nature of the world and life itself require 'openness' and 'enlightenment', they recognised (to paraphrase a fellow Substacker) that ‘the thing was not about winning an argument or proving someone wrong but about remaining open and continuing to learn’.

However, we now witness how the modern tendency to ‘enlighten’ and ‘be enlightened’, far from enhancing the understanding of truth or valid/correct knowledge, does much to confuse the dialogue. For those who have investigated, lived through, and thought deeply about various philosophies, cultural bias and beliefs, ‘enlightenment’ tends to blurr beyond all recognition the philosophical view.

The obvious first-hand conclusion a philosopher faces when looking at the profuse amalgam of theories and philosophical outlooks is yet another question: ‘How can this all make sense or be concurrently valid? How can it all be true?

In fact, saying that they are all true, consistent with each other, concurrently valid and logical represents the opposite of ‘humility’ and speaks of an impossibility rather than truth or accurate knowledge. It speaks of a blatant ignorance about truth.

The dictionary ‘truth’ defined as: "Conformity to fact or actuality, Reality; actuality. The reality of a situation" has been abandoned.

Based on this, I'd say there is a problem with the logical intent of modern philosophy at large, a line of argumentations which, as I see them, originate essentially in trying to equate that which is not, and can never be equal.

The enlightened position of the modern philosopher is to equate personal ratiocination and expression of conceptual theorising with truth.

As such, this is unreliable at best. Trying to equate all individual philosophising expressions under the banner of philosophical truth or validity is implausible. And to expect that the act of such philosophical expressions being communicated through language will somehow validate such equality is even more implausible as a philosophical premise.

Additionally, if such varied philosophies are meant to provide a foundation for the improvement of human society and explain how that may be achieved, then their validity must be phenomenonological in nature and provide tangible corroboration of its adoption which, in view of the numerous and divergent alternatives available, summons the spectre of very high improbability levels.

The modern philosopher, by and large, has exchanged ‘truth’ for ‘truths’, adopted the change without external confirmation, and happily works their way to build their knowledge base independent of corroboration or any direct relationship to truth in fact.

This means that if philosophical ‘truth’ has no direct and effective connection to reality, in fact, if truth does not show, embody, or completely fill our reality, it cannot be called truth.

As such, truth is an experience, and the truth of Jesus is as tangible and personal to those having witnessed it as any other truth. It effects change because it is true or, as we know from history and from modern times, it was used by ancient philosophers and is currently utilised by people everywhere because it points to a universal, underlying principle that remains eternally valid.

John 1:1-5 is the revelation to humanity of the divine experience, the truth of that experience. And truth is unique and universal, not comparable or equivalent to any other so-called philosophical ‘truth’.

John 1:1-5 says God's Word (Logos) is life, life is itself light, and light maybe comprehended or understood in the light and not in darkness.

John 1:6-14 explains how light (life, the Word and God) are understood by humans, how humans become witnesses to the light, to God, and how humans, by receiving (by believing in, by having faith in, by witnessing to the truth) the Word made flesh (God with us Immanuel/Jesus), by witnessing Him (the Lord Jesus), are born (again) as children to God. That is, children to truth.

So, there are those who recognise the light - the truth - and those who don't. And these children are born again ("born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:13), they are in truth with God through Jesus (light of the world). They hold the first-hand knowledge of the truth in Jesus.

Now, there are many ways, as many as there are individual people to express the phenomenon of truth, and Jesus tells us clearly: "And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 8:11).

These are those people who see the light in Jesus through His Word (the universal Logos), whose heart have turned away from personal conceptions, philosophies, and the varied expressions (guesses at the mysteriousness of what we experience) of humanity and look into the light, the life, into God through choosing the Way of Jesus (His philosophy), His loving of the true knowledge of God. The Logos has said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

True humility lives in witnessing God's Word, God's life, God's light, receiving the Holy Spirit, and making the 1st and 2nd commandments efforts to remain dependent and subject to Him in truth throughout our lives.

‘Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”

Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”’ Mark 12:29-31

‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said [God’s Word], “Let there be light”: and there was light [God's Word = Jesus = the light of the world]. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.’ Genesis 1:1-4

God creates existence by His Word and what He creates is not only the expression of His truth, It is the truth itself manifested in the light which itself manifests in life. Who among humans can live without light? Who among humans can do what God does?

What is the truth? Which philosophy would humans hear?