Enough bullshit. Is Jesus God or not?

Enough bullshit. Is Jesus God or not?

Attached: bible1-1024x768.jpg (1024x768, 129K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Yes and no

What did he mean by this

Reach out and touch faith

No. They probably never even claimed to be

You’re a good egg

Attached: cigarette.png (250x202, 8K)

While the synoptic gospels seem to be rather ambiguous about the divinity of Jesus, John is pretty explicit and even Trinitatian.

That being said it is not much of a reach to read Jesus-is-God from the other three.

There is no better source for what Jesus said than these, even to the most critical or secular historian.

I dont think there is a simple or easy way to answer this question. CS Lewis said something like "Either Jesus was a madman or the Son of God" which is an argument that would have never convinced CS Lewis for three seconds.

Perhaps Jesus was a prophet whose later followers incorrectly equated with God, for example. This is an argument Muslim apologists often make, and it's also a theory in historical criticism.

And then if you go to actual Christians or Christian sources, who have quite a lot of differing ideas on Jesus and God, some Trinitarian, some even Unitarian, you will probably hear about the necessity of following Jesus or praying to Jesus, or encountering Jesus, in addition to reading the Bible, and you will be told that these are necessary to have faith in Jesus being God.

My point here is that if you really want to get to the bottom of this Jesus character, you have to go through a lot of "bullshit." Perhaps even a lifetime of it, though I suspect it is less like drudgery than the term "bullshit" suggests.

Or you can do what lazy modern people do and follow some previously adopted set of principles to the rather obvious conclusion they lead to (Ex: God doesnt exist because x,y,z, so obviously Jesus wasn't God).

Ummm
The likelihood of the Jesus figure being one person if any is in doubt, no Matter which of these orally passed on tales you take on face value

>The likelihood of the Jesus figure being one person if any is in doubt

Please try to argue that. Did you hear it on a podcast or something?

>no Matter which of these orally passed on tales you take on face value

These "orally passed on tales" happen to date from the first century and are by far the most detailed accounts of Jesus in the historical record. Who said I take them on face value? Biblical literalism is complete nonsense, it's a reactionary response to historical criticism.

Nobody in the ancient world read texts "at face value." Nobody in the ancient world did archaeology either. I try to read the Gospel as an account which gives us a snapshot of how the early Christians saw and understood Jesus.

Nope, Zoroaster is.

As far as I know, and I may be incorrect, none but the Christians developed a theology wherein the monotheistic creator God (outside time and space, the prime mover, the unseen manifestor etc.) is equated with a human.

It is an extremely peculiar and, on the surface, ridiculous and outrageous idea.

>I read that Jesus was real!
>Where from?
>The bible!
I have less faith in these sources.

The universal consensus among historians is that Jesus was real. All the evidence points to it. People who say Jesus didn’t exist aren’t taken seriously in academia at all. Do your research.

It's pretty obvious from this post that you have no clue about the current state of historical Jesus research and are just parroting an opinion you probably read on Reddit.

I love it when people set themselves up to be BTFO’d.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

“Most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted,[15][17][95] and in modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars.[96][2][97][98][note 3]”

Yes

A lot of people have written about Shakespeare being composite, or not existing.

A lot of biblical scholars among the minimalist school have written a lot of books about Moses being a Greek from the third century BC and King David not existing (and then trying to show recently discovered Hebrew inscriptions from the 9th century BC confirming David were in fact forgeries).

A lot of people have gone out of there way to show a vague reference to the "Habiru" in an Egyptian papyrus proves the literal Biblical Exodus in fact took place.

Why? Because the Bible is not just any old book (just as Shakespeare is not just any old playwright), as we know, and elicits responses ranging from devotion to ridicule. How one reads the Bible has a lot to do with how one feels about Christianity.

There is certainly some minority scholarship on Jesus as a composite figure. Most scholars, including non-Christians, have no problem referring to a "historical Jesus."

I gave you an opportunity to refer to any number of them but you appear to not know what you're talking about at all, despite having a very strong opinion.

>Ah yes I'll post a link to Wikipedia! That'll satisfy these cucks!

>wikipedia
even worse than reddit

Matthew 4
>Satan tempts Jesus
>Jesus: Hey, don't tempt God

Pure denial

Did you even check the sources being cited by that portion of the article? They are abhorrent. You are the definition of a pseudointellectual

It is bad to make an argument based on an excerpt from Wikipedia. It is worse to pretend to speak for "the current state of historical Jesus research" without making a single argument, or referring to a single text or author.

Please let's not descend into rapidly Googling, and let's just have a cool discussion using what knowledge we actually possess, because this is a Turkmenistani face painting forum.

How are they abhorrent? Explain. There are plenty of sources from credible people explaining why atheists are full of shit. Fact is, you can’t point me to a single reputable historian who claims Jesus never existed. Christ Mythists hardly ever get mentioned in the relevant literature, they’re just ignored, in the same way physicists ignore flat-Earthers. Christ Mythists are more interested in denouncing Christianity than objectively looking at the evidence.

To be honest, I know nothing about historical Jesus research, I just thought saying that would upset him.

Maybe

>they
enjoy hell, faggot

Attached: 39023669_1813937608642173_3268674157562298368_n.jpg (720x405, 61K)

Spoken like a true follower of Jesus.

The Christian punishment for blasphemy is death and butterfly is a sodomite. What was unchristlike in my response? Or do you seriously think that American protestant nonsense or Novus Ordo trash is representative of true Christianity?

Attached: JustinianBlasphemyPunishment.png (749x613, 80K)

I am not that, you kiddie diddler.

I believe this is the case, yes.

God is real of course. But yes

>Judge not lest you be judged
>Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
>Love your enemies
...
>Kill the sodomites?????????????????

Aren't you a tranny?

No.

No he is a prophet of Allah.

Attached: IMG_4829.jpg (240x240, 12K)

Don't judge for stupid shit like a guy being bad at baseball. BUT if they are sodomites they deserve the stone.

>But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.

>Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

>And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one


For the entirety of Christian history up until the renaissance, death was a fitting punishment for certain crimes

Wow Christianity is cringe and bluepilled

Huh, could've fooled me.

>Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
sounds more like Mohammed than Jesus

Luke 19:27 comes from a parable and is clearly not intended literally as an injunction for actual people to kill actual people. Read from 11 through 27.

The verse about going out to buy a sword is mysterious and I dont pretend to know its meaning, but Jesus tells this to the disciples at the last supper and then yells at one of them (Peter according to John) soon after when he draws his sword to protect Jesus from arrest.

The verse about sowing discord is in line with other things Jesus says about turning away from parents etc. To follow him. He is not talking about bringing war or violent revolt to the world. He is talking about the necessity of conflict (and persecution and internecine strife) emerging as a result of people choosing to follow him.

I know that the first verse was from a parable. The point still stands that Christianity is not a religion of pacifism.

The verse about buying a sword is literal as far as I understand. Why else would St Peter have a sword in Gethsemane? If you want to see what traditional Christian justice looks like, read the laws from any of the sainted emperors like Justinian I who I posted above. Chtistian pacifism is an invention of the reformation with no basis in the scriptures nor in patristic writings nor in historical Christian legal praxis

Muhammad followed the Abrahmic tradition before the West mellowed it down.

You're the one with a dick and spoog collection, not me.

>Those digits...

Go worship Saturn elsewhere

Attached: 1527002904477.gif (800x337, 1.99M)

Weird I thought one should read Jesus to know what Jesus was about, but at last I know we should be reading the law decrees of a late Roman Emperor.

I thought Christian Pacifism might have had something to do with Christ's unwillingness to violently oppose his executioners. If ever there was a just war it would be defending Jesus (the only innocent man) from death. But I digress.

And the parable about the master and the servants is not about slaying political enemies anymore than it is about the importance of investing money. The master is God, the servants represent followers of Christ. The investments represent the gifts of God bestowed upon his servants, as grace or ability. The "enemies who did not want me to be king" are those who hear the word but do not come to follow Christ, and "slay them in my presence" is the judgement of God. Get it now? Nothing in this parable suggests it is okay for humans to be violent towards each other.

And I just went back to the swords passage. Jesus tells the disciples, "Enough!" Two times immediately after this. He tells them to carry a purse a traveling bag and to sell his coat for a sword. This is a direct reference to the sending of the Twelve, who are told to go out into the world without a purse or a second coat. The meaning is: I am leaving you, soon you will not have my protection. He tells them to literally put their swords down twice after metaphorically telling them to take it up once.

This is a decent summary, but I'd say John uses more binitarian language, it's the Logos/Jesus and God being identified. The other books are ambiguous but most of them present Jesus as divine in some sense. Personally I think they're closer to the 2nd Temple apocalyptic belief in a divine deputy of God who carries out his judgement, like archangel Michael and Melchizedek in the Dead Sea Scrolls.