There are historical records of somebody named Jesus that lived at the time. The Bible story is just horse shit. He was an apocalyptic preacher just like today, and probably had undiagnosed schizophrenia, thought he could talk to God, and was the son of God. Plenty of people think that today, and we put them in Institutions instead of create a whole ass religion out of their life.
There are historical records of somebody named Jesus that lived at the time.
No, there are no contemporary primary sources about him from his purported lifetime. All sources stems from several decades to centuries after his purported death.
The consensus about his existence is established based on the likelihood of him existing, but his existence can never be verified with absolute certainty.
He never claimed to be the literal son of God, this is something that was addded into the dogma 2 to 3 centuries after his death during the Council of Nicaea (check Arianism).
We have no idea if he was apocalyptic. We suspect he was a reformer as reformist movements were popular at the time.
Knew a theology professor (ended up in his class for credits somehow) who went with the “multiple Jesus’s” theory. Apparently it’s quite possible that stories of a variety of healers/figures got combined into the Jesus mythos. Explains a lot of the time and geographical inconsistencies with the historical record iirc
Could be, it always interesting to get theology professors take on it. A lot of times they were preachers who went into it to understand “god” more, or historical Jesus, and rhen come out of it an atheist or agnostic at least.
I feel like this professor pissed off a lot of students who joined his class expecting sermons or something. Did more to reinforce my atheism than anything else. He was a good dude
I will say this, I can’t think of a thing Jesus says in the Bible that isn’t pretty based. He prioritized pragmatism over rules and protocol, compassion and understanding over judgment, generosity over greed, forgiveness over scorn, acts over words. Everyone following his death like Paul seem to be the ones that start to miss the point.
Umm there’s a few
When he spoke of division instead of peace (Matthew 10:34-36, Luke 12:51-53)
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Acting like a gate keeper of Salvation (John 14:6)
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Slavery and servanthood (Luke 12:47-48)
“The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.”
Gentiles as ‘Dogs’ (Matthew 15:21-28)
When a Canaanite woman asks for help, Jesus initially replies: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
There’s a few more, but I’m too lazy to keep going. The problem with the bible is it tried to be too many things at once. Especially trying to sell the concept of fear and love in one, which isn’t possible.
I grew up Christian and no longer believe but with the exception of Matthew 15:21-28, which you only quote a piece of, you are taking these out of context.
Matthew 10 is Jesus sending his apostles to preach his word. The bit about not bringing peace but a sword is a reference to the changes he promised and the suffering he tells the apostles they will face for preaching his word. This is also where Jesus tells them to separate from family that turns their back on Jesus’ word.
It’s not an endorsement of violence.
John 14:6 is properly read in context. You cannot follow a path different than the one Christ set and get to heaven. The guy who constantly steals, cheats, abuses people, and only pursues wealth or the praise of others isn’t a “good guy” in most religions. This isn’t as controversial as you make it out to be.
Luke 12:47-48 is part of a parable which discusses how since you cannot know when Jesus would return you always need to be ready.
This isn’t an endorsement of slavery nor is it a refutation of it, rather, it is part of a metaphor and wasn’t taken literally. If you got this one off a website or infographic rather than your own knowledge of the texts it’s a trash tier source. If this came from your own knowledge WTF this is one of the most famous passages in the whole book you shouldn’t be fucking this one up if you know the NT.
The last part is the only thing actually taken correctly in context. Jesus wasn’t there for the gentiles. The idea he was here for all comes from all the Paul related writings aka the gentile who never met Jesus IRL.
When you see something that looks as off as these quotes do you should look at the larger passage because they rarely mean what the atheists think they do.
Matthew 15, yes, shows the point.
I highly disagree on Matthew 10, that seems like strong apologetics. I don’t see how saying he brings the sword means his people will suffer from spreading his word.
John 14, still is gatekeeping. Also theres some irony there with the wealth of the church
On Luke 12, yeah I get it. He also doesn’t condone slavery when having that discussion at all. Yes he uses the metaphor of servants awaiting their master’s return to illustrate accountability and judgment. But damn that’s a bad metaphor, equating people to slaves. If you read further you also see v4y refers to someone who understands what God expects but willfully ignores it. Jesus warns that such a person will face severe consequences. Kinda like a slave… Then in v48 he goes on that if the servant still does wrong but does not fully understand their responsibility. As a result, their punishment is lighter. Again, equating followers to slaves. Not only does he seem to not have issues with slavery, he seems to agree with some of the principles of it.
The quotes don’t seem off to me, they seem to express the point I was trying to make. Maybe I could have offered more color or explanation but I stand by what I called out.
Most of that was written hundreds of years later (and rewritten several times since), so who knows what was added later for religious control purposes.
He could have sat around all day stoned off his nut.
I like stoned Jesus. Weed stoned, not biblical punishment stoned that is.
I agree he said a lot of cool stuff for sure but ultimately he was a apocalyptic preacher. I think it’s immoral to tell people they need to accept your God or you’ll go to hell, personally, so that’s one not cool thing.
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
Pretty messed up given that belief is not something you can even really choose.
There’s no such thing as hell in the Bible. Jesus said sinners would cease to exist.
Honestly ceasing to exist sounds like my heaven, good thing I’m gay. Will miss out on the gay orgy but at least I won’t be here.
37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I’m not a biblical scholar but my understanding was there was biblical basis for it. Especially mentioned by Jesus as he was an apocalyptic preacher. Something like this sounds like it fits the bill pretty well:
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Like I said though I’m not a biblical scholar. Although I’m not sure simply being denied an infinite reward is that much better really. It’s still effectively an infinite punishment for something you have no control over.
Yup. Born and die in a place where it wasn’t possible to believe because knowledge hadn’t spread yet? Believe it or not straight to hell.
Reminds me of the classic Bill Hicks bit about Jesus and crosses.
Fucking paulists ruined Christianity
I agree. His motivations were purely political in order to keep people in line when he realized this new movement wasn’t going away any time soon.
Which is why on one hand we have Jesus calling for freedom of oppression, while Paul was telling slaves to obey their masters, even the cruel ones
Religion has always been politically motivated to control people.
The desire to control people who follow compassionate teachings is what turned sound advice into the dogma we see today. It’s an unfortunate history, not unique to Christianity.
It’s the institutionalisation of religion that’s a problem.
If everyone would just focus on finding their own connection with god/the universe/whatever, nobody would have a problem.
Fuck churches and using religion for politics.
That’s why we have the separation of church and state at least - although not enough and currently it’s backpedaling…
That’s why we have the separation of church and state
Weeps in Utahn
dontbelasagne@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s like how Saint Nicholas really existed but wasn’t Santa Claus. My go to rebuttal whenever someone tries to bring up historal evidence as existence of Jesus. If you believe in the mythological version of Jesus, then you must also believe in Santa Claus