I wonder how quickly one would cage and kill the other?
I wonder how quickly one would cage and kill the other?
I wonder how quickly one would cage and kill the other?
You forgot my favorite parable, The Cleansing of the Temple:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables; And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise. John 2:15-16
Jesus whipping money lenders will always make me chuckle.
Right here folks. Jesus hates capitalists. Be like Jesus.
Money changers. Not money lenders.
Glad to know table flipping is timeless.
┻━┻︵└(՞▽՞ └)
It wasn't about money changers, it was about the people selling animal sacrifices. The money changers just enabled them.
This is more explicitly laid out in Mark where it prohibits carrying anything through the temple.
That gets conveniently left out in Matthew where he copies from it as there's a bit of a theological paradox if it's Jesus's death that makes animal sacrifices pointless and he's telling people to stop killing animals to cleanse their sins while still alive.
The concept of racism didn't exist in 1st Century Judea. That being said, the parable of the Good Samaritan relies on bigotry.
Despite being superficially a complement, "Good Samaritan" is supposed to be ironic. Samaritan "goodness" must be unexpected for the story to work.
Imagine a parable of "the generous Jew" or "the industrious black man", and you'll get the idea.
Mitchel and Webb did a great sketch on this:
The story makes sense (in context) because of animosity between Jews and Samaritans, going back many years. A modern equivalent might be a Trump supporter helping out a democrat, or a Russian helping a Ukrainian.
John 4:9 gives a good illustrates this situation. In that story, a Samaritan woman is surprised that Jesus would talk to her when he is a Jew. It also illustrates that Jesus very much went against the culture of the day in his relations with Samaritans.
So, Jesus' wasn't making a statement about whether Samaritans were good or bad - he was explaining that being someone's neighbour is about how you treat them, not who you are. A modern parallel might be the famous 'today you, tomorrow me' story on reddit.
The story makes sense (in context) because of animosity between Jews and Samaritans, going back many years.
The story relies on prejudice, that's my point. Jesus didn't say "Seminarians were as good as Jews", he said "Jews are worse than Seminarians".
There are dozens of examples from the Bible where prejudice and bigotry are explicit. Hell, the whole concept of a "chosen people" implies that some people are better than others. Jesus ordered Saul to genocide the Amalekites. And if you notice, Jesus punished Saul for not killing every single last one, which implies that genocide isn't just permissible, but a moral duty.
( I know that these stories are from the OT and you're probably annoyed that I said Jesus instead of God, but according to the sign out on route 519, Jesus is God. Y'all still believe that, right? )
The concept of racism didn't exist in 1st Century Judea
The concept is as old as mankind. Details (replace 'race' with 'guy from next tribe', same concept) or it's name maybe not.
That's called bigotry or jingoism, depending. Racism is a distinct flavor, and much like "Orange didn't exist as a color before the 15th century," there lacked the basic concept of a race as determined by skin color vs other identifiers such as language, city-state-affiliation, or religion.
The concept of racism didn’t exist in 1st Century Judea.
Were Jews not already looking down on others as the "chosen people"? They may not have had supremacy, but I would expect that they considered their rulers inferior. Maybe my mind is polluted by what Zionism has become. Also, I recognize that not all Jews are Zionists.
Samaritans are still around by the way. Not a lot of them, but there’s <1000 or so that hold on. Their beliefs are pretty similar to Judaism (they probably separated during Assyrian conquest? But this is very messy history)
That's what I dont get. White Nationalists hate the Jewish but worship Jesus, who is also Jewish?
They love their made up Jesus.
Their made up jesus loves Guns, Racism, Money, and hates brown people and kindness.
Which is fitting for people who have never bothered to read the bible outside of some mistranslated quotes their greedy, money grubbing and hate mongering preachers repeat ad nauseam.
I still think of this if they were to meet the "real" Jeebus
Also remember that today's Bible was retold by a game of telephone before being written down. It was then written in a tongue the average person on the street could not read, this was so that they could not translate it themselves and were at the mercy of a preacher to tell them what it said. It was illegal to translate and/or distribute a copy of the texts.
This is all to say that had any of it been real, it is more than likely to have been reshaped over the years, before white nationalists have now added their own spin.
Everyone reimagines the story in their own image. Whatever you want him to be be is what he is. That's the great thing about fiction. Why Vampires glitter now.
I laughed too hard at this.
You just made me remember Twilight, thanks I hate it
Time to rewatch the intro to hellsing ultimate abridged
"Who is it?"
"Oh you know, * BLAM * a real fucking vampire."
I've been told, unironically, that Jesus was the first Christian.
So I guess he worshiped himself?
I mean Christians have always had a history of hating Jews. Absolutely not defensible obviously, but not a recent outlier either.
Most particularly anti-semetic people aren't very Christian.
Pretty sure he had an AR-15 and lived in a trailer park in east Kentucky, check your facts dude
Poor and homeless? Dude was a carpenter. He wasn’t rich but my understanding is that he made sure his family were looked after before changing careers. He wandered, but he could have gone home at any time.
Not just a carpenter. He made fine cabinets etc.
Woodworking Jesus warned us against the evils of epoxy river tables and lichtenberg figure burning.
I bet he could build the finest of crucifixes
The way I heard it the better translation is day laborer.
I am curious, if the story happened the way it is documented why didn't your Jesus tell his mom that he was alright? He could clearly appear to people after dying. Not a single word about him visiting his poor old mom and telling her not to be upset about her son being tortured and murdered? If I had some power to offer any comfort to my family after death I would definitely do it.
I once saw a cartoon with a church with a sign "No homeless people allowed inside" and Jesus stands before the sign and doesn't enter
When I was a kid I got in trouble for telling people at church Jesus was "African-american" my dumb kid mind thought that was the only acceptable way to say "not white." I don't think I was ever able to explain what I meant.
The Mormons would have felt you. At least half of it.
Before or after 1978?
Honestly, leftie Jesus is a bit of a whitewashing itself. If you read the Bible the guy is petty AF half the time, especially with people who aren't entertaining religious solicitors and keep throwing his gang of preaching cultists out of places. I'm cool with calling out the hypocrisy of Christian right-wingers, but let's not pretend Christianity doesn't have a ton of built-in garbage along those lines. I mean, understandably, it's the preachings of some random guy 2000 years ago, so does Plato, but still.
Yeah I think biblical Jesus is really strongly anti divorce, for example. Some of the Christian right are also hardcore on that stance, but a lot aren't. Probably because that's hard for them personally.
Matthew 19
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
--
That's probably where people infer a lot of anti-gay stuff, too.
I don't think jesus' take there is very good, but I don't identify as a Christian n
Let's not get started on the thrice married and looking for a 3rd, morality police too...
He killed a tree because it didn't produce fruit as if the tree was deliberately holding out on him. Like you're literally God who literally created all living organisms, surely you understand how trees work and how they will turn off fruit production if conditions aren't right (namely if they don't have enough nutrients for it), and that it's an automatic response which the tree has no conscious control over because you didn't even design them to have a nervous system.
I mean, also the "I love you unconditionally, on the condition that you worship me otherwise I will personally throw you in hell" thing.
We make god in our own image
We love toga parties, beards, and smiting.
Don't forget that Jesus has such a bad temper that he cursed a fig tree so it would never bare fruit again.
The reason? It didn't have any figs because it was the wrong season, and he had a temper tantrum. 🤡
Add too the left "Hates figs" and on the right "Hates (slur)"
He also thought the world was flat 🤡
And didn't bother to tell people to wash their hands because of germs, which could have easily saved hundreds of millions of lives before science discovered it. 🤡
If he believed in his own teachings, he wasn’t Jewish.
Really interesting topic actually but most early 'Christians' didn't really think of themselves as converts but rather just Jews who understood Jesus to represent the 'completion' of Jewish script and prophecy.
Best example is Paul who most definitely continues to view himself as a Jew.
Anyone interested should check out a book like 'Did Jesus Exist?' by Bart Erhman or a Marginal Jew (huge read). There's a better book by him on the topic but blanking on the title
I've been binging Ehrman's podcast and videos and really appreciate how thoughtful and intellectually honest he is and his skill at explaining things for the layperson.
You can also tell from his choice of words that he is careful to separate fact from his own opinion. When someone asks him a question, I've heard him many times start an answer off by saying what other scholars believe, and then he explains why he disagrees, but he always is open to being wrong.
In a YouTube video I listened to just this morning, someone asked him a question (when did they start capitalizing the pronouns He and Him in the Bible translations?) and he just honestly said he didn't know, then he asked the audience if anybody knew.
He was culturally Jewish at the very least.
Ah, a pharisee in 2024. Nice.
The Romans would have disagreed.
He was also Socialist by definition.
But TBF the whole white jesus concept came from Christianity's spread from Rome and Northern Europe, not from Republicans in the USA.
People probably overestimate how "non-white" Jesus would be at the time. The whole skin color thing is a very colonial concept. I don't know that in a world centered in the Mediterranean people would have thought of Italians as "white" and Northern Africans or Middle Easterns as "non-white".
So in a way maybe yeah, "white Jesus" is a very American invention, just not necessarily in the way Americans parse it. US racial categories don't work anywhere else even today, anyway.
Roundheads (who later settled Massachusetts as Puritans) believed that Jesus would return to the center of the world (aka London, obs) speaking English to establish the New Jerusalem.
This Anglo-Jesus idea then got brought here.
Don't forget the mormons. "Actually, Jesus visited America before he ascended to Heaven! A stone in a hat told me so!"
Only argument I have with this is that he was definitely christian, the dude strongly believed in himself, I mean you don't go around saying you're the son of God willy nilly
He literally couldn't have been, Christianity didn't exist while he was alive (if he actually lived). He was definitely Jewish, that's why he went to Jewish temples and quoted Jewish scripture. He claimed to fulfill Jewish prophecy and called himself the King of the Jews. You could maybe argue his zombie corpse was Christian after it got up and walked around for a few days and issued the Great Commission, but can a corpse really believe in anything?
and quoted Jewish scripture
A sub-set of Jewish Scripture. He only talks about the stuff that was translated into Greek and widely distributed. Because that makes perfect sense for an Aramaic illiterate person to do. Check for yourself, he never once quotes from the Book of Esther for example.
Amazing isn't it? It would be like a book claiming to be the diary of George Washington only referenced Japanese textbooks about him that were popular in Japan 30 years later and has him speak in Japanese.
Is that like saying that Taylor is a Swiftie?
The historical Jesus was not a child refugee. He was from Nazareth, period. The stories of the family traveling to Bethlehem are not in the oldest gospel (Mark) and almost certainly got added in to explain why the messiah was not from Bethlehem when prophecy said he would be, the same home town as King David.
This is actually one of the best arguments for the existence of a historical Jesus I've heard - from the late Christopher Hitchens, actually. The only plausible reason someone would feel the need to invent the story of the family traveling to Bethlehem (the imperial decree is most probably completely made up and there are plenty of other plot holes) is because people already knew about a figure known as "Jesus from Nazareth" that needed to somehow be connected to Bethlehem in order to fulfil the messianic prophecies.
If Jesus was a completely made up figure (an idea that is implausible for other reasons) the writers of the gospels could just have made him come from Bethlehem and be done with it. But, since Jesus the Nazarene was already a known figure among their audience, they couldn't do that.
The first generation of Christians were Jews and thus wouldn't have had a Messiah coming from Bethlehem prophecy. The King David line was about 6 centuries old at that point, everyone could claim to be from it.
By casting him in Nazareth all evidence of him would be removed. Nazareth was nothing in the first century. Didn't even appear on maps of the area. A total blackhole. No one was from there and no one had ever been there. James could say whatever bullshit he wanted and no one could investigate it.
Now your last argument that the Gospel writers could have just changed the text doesn't work either. Since Paul mentions it.
Um, I don't think fundamentalists will want to talk to you after you tell them a part of their Bible was made up.
We know nothing about 'the historical Jesus' if there even was such a person because there was nothing written about him contemporary with his life. The earliest gospels were written down decades after the events described. Any of it or all of it could be a fiction.
What we have is plenty to say there was a historical Jesus (named Yeshua but whatever). There was nothing written contemporaneously about any of the illiterate builders and fishermen in the region, one became important enough that non-illiterate people started writing about him pretty soon after.
Paul's Epistle to the Galatians was probably written in the year 48, only 15ish years after Jesus died. Paul never met Jesus but it proves there were people talking about him pretty early. And he talks about meeting James the brother of Jesus in a later letter, and James' execution was mentioned by Josephus in the year 94, Josephus being a non-Christian corroboration 30ish years after the fact.
People can make the case, but people can make the case that Constantine didn't exist too. We only have so much corroboration possible so far back in history.
As for PARTS being fictional, haha yeah. Jesus only says he's God in John, the last gospel. Pretty big thing to forget to mention for the earlier 3. Plus many stories between gospels that conflict or at least get changed which is a weird thing to happen if both stories are literally true. And that's not to mention the conflicting Genesis stories etc.
My Bible knowledge is rusty, but didn't the whole family flee to Egypt for a couple of years because Herodes Kind of wanted to murder that kid that was prophecized to displace him?
Haha you actually believe the things written in any of those books are real?
Yeah I believe they are not entirely fabricated. There was a historical Jesus who had a following. A lot of the listed details are up for debate but the core of it is too hard to fabricate well enough to fool modern biblical scholars.
The Book of Daniel is from the 2nd century BC but it claims to be from the 6th century BC predicting events through to the 2nd century BC and beyond. One reason we can tell is the language usage and how the predictions are spookily accurate until the 2nd century BC and then they get way off. It was good enough to trick the people deciding the biblical canon so they included it even though it was written way later than all the other books, but not good enough to trick us in the 21st century AD.
The historical Jesus did not exist. The whole spin on Isaiah 53 didn't happen until later, in time for Matthew. Just as well Mark wouldn't have known what to do with that "fact" since it was important that Jesus became the son of god instead of being born the son of god.
Here's the thing, though: Jesus is no more than a stolen symbol to these types. It's just like saying, "I am a good person," there is no validation, certification, or standards for it. Anyone can claim they are Christian, anyone can claim they follow Jesus, They just picked up a name tag off the street and wear it. That's it. It's really down to a simplified "I am good, they are bad." So using logic, reason, and even proof in the bible is pointless. There's zero consequences to claiming you're doing what you want, even despicable acts, "because it's the Christian thing to do." Look at the Crusades. The papacy. It's not a new thing. It's the same old bullshit.
Even pedophiles can quote scripture.
If the various churches cared ANYTHING about their tenants, they'd have a vetting process. They'd check on their flock's behavior. They'd work on making the world a better place through helping others. They'd kick out any member of their group who violated their rules. But most of them don't, or if they do, it's a social moray fueled by their own hatred and ignorance. They just want the numbers, they just want the POWER, and it's no more valid than a gang of thugs or the Mafia.
And I see memes like this, and it's preaching to the choir. We KNOW they don't follow anything jesus said, claim that they do, and in the end of the day they are the same hypocrites that wear red hats to make America "Great" again. It's not adding anything to the narrative but creating a snobbish divide. "Well, look how smart we are to point out the obvious using technicalities that do nothing but insult them. Ha ha, they so dumb." Mentally, these people are children. You see toddlers interact? There's all kinds of wisdom into human culture right there. Only toddlers can't hide it yet. There's hitting, crying, illogical bullshit. But we, as adults, teach them to behave and are supposed to set an example. But they learn the hypocrisy from us, too, whether we know it or not.
So, you know, memes like this also do the same thing to these people who think Jesus is a white dude that they can wear on a tee short while calling the homeless discussing illegals or whatever. They hate us because we look down on THEM. We have to treat these people like children, and not "dismissively like stupid kids," but like, "Hey, buddy. I see you're having trouble processing your hate and fear. Let's go over here and calm down for a second." Or something. Raise 'em right.
The difference is that children want to learn, or at least society is built to typecast them into the roll of students - it's the opposite for adults; if you try to teach a kid something, they'll usually at least listen to you, even if they might not internalize what you told them, but if you do the same to a fellow adult, more often than not they'll get offended and dig even harder into their incorrect ideals. I've met very few adults who where honestly willing to change their opinion based on a conversation with someone who's not specifically in a leadership-style role like a boss, professor, pastor, etc.
Don't forget to contrast charitable versus selfish AF. Also humble versus self-important.
I'm agnostic
There simply isn't enough information to declare with certainty our origins or how it all got set in motion
It's ok for a question to remain a question
There is only one meaningful moral tenet
Don't be a dick
Don't do things to others you wouldn't want to have happen to you
As exemplified by
Stop It
You Know Better
For insight into why the Jesus myth exists & the history of the fable
Watch: Marketing the Messiah
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11851846/
Wait, redneck jeebus is against drinking??
they love their supply side american jesus
There are almost 2000 years of "radical Christians" failing to do that. It's almost like they can't see the built-in fundamental problems in their Christianity, the parts that sprout fascism.
I wonder how quickly one would cage and kill the other?
Depends on prep time. Can he go home, braid a whip, and come back to throw down? Bible Jesus would absolutely dominate the match.
image comparison reminded me of forensic Jesus face.
Looks like a guy you would have on a bowling team.
To be fair, being a Christian (an actual Christian, not what 99% do and using the term to excuse their opinions and actions) means being like Christ.
So Christ had to be a Christian since it means being like him.
Edit: I wanna add that you can be a Christian without following the religion that exists. Being a Christian boils down to being a good person and helping others.
Who even uses that definition outside of super niche communities?
So a good person who behaves like Christ but grows up in a rural village and has never heard of Christianity or read the Bible would be a Christian under this definition?
No, they’re a good person. It’s the same as living by Buddhist tenets.
Religion is a template for living in a certain way. Most of the time, it’s for developing a society into a way that they don’t rip each other apart
Nah, he was Jewish, he had to be to fulfill the Jewish scriptures he claimed proved he was god. He literally called himself the King of the Jews. Even according to Christians, people didn't invent Christianity until after his zombie corpse died again.
Like, Buddha couldn't have been Buddhist, we based Buddhism on him.
Also, if 99% of the members of a group agree on what membership means, it's the 1% that disagree who aren't really members. Maybe consider changing what you call yourself if it's at odds with 99% of the people calling themselves that.
And literally literally means literal except in the vast majority of its usage.
Along the same vein, the majority of Christians are not followers of Christ.
Eh, in my experience it's mostly young teenagers that use literally wrong, but they figure it out (edit: usually...often...sometimes)
I should hope he was Christian. You trying to say he didn't believe in himself?
Edit: This was a joke. Attempting to make it about his self-esteem.
"I hope Jesus believed in himself, he had a lot going for him, it would be really sad if even though he has being the Son of God and all that going on he has so much self-doubt."
Christianity evolved out of Judaism after Jesus' time, so no, he wasn't Christian
This guy is implying that if god himself was born on this earth he would have religious beliefs.
The idea is so ridiculous it’s almost as ridiculous as existence of god. Wouldn’t that be some sort of a paradox?
Judaism doesn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God. Jesus constantly stated that he was the Son of God. Jesus was Christian.
Most scholarship I’ve read doesn’t seem to think the historical Jesus was presenting himself as the Son of God.
It has always hurt my brain that Christ wasn't christian. That he was Jewish but Jews don't believe in christ.
For me it makes sense when you think about philosophers and psychology schools. Lacan didn't considered himself lacanian, but freudian. To almost quote himself "people ask me if I am lacanian, that I leave that for my followers. I consider myself freudian". It is a dynamic of who you followed built their own material with other people material, so having a not christian Christ is not the same as having Christ not believing in himself, but considering the path he went through to build his teachings.
You can't sell new history textbooks, without new revisions.