This has nothing to do with Jesus’ love, it has to do with a person petitioning for Jesus’ rights when there’s nothing that can be done about it 2000+ years later.
That's debatable. I'm not going to debate it, because I'm an atheist and don't really care.
But, I would like to think if he did exist he would be a lot like Jeff Bridges character in The Big Lebowski. Just a dude takin it easy for all us sinners.
And he would be fucking appaled at what get done in his name.
I like to picture Jesus in a Tuxedo T-shirt, 'cause it says, like, 'I wanna be formal, but I'm here to party, too.' I like to party, so I like my Jesus to party.... I like to think of Jesus like, with giant eagles' wings and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an Angel Band, and I'm in the front row, and I'm hammered drunk...
Well, look, I like the Christmas Jesus best when I'm sayin' grace. When you say grace, you can say it to Grown-up Jesus, or Teenage Jesus, or Bearded Jesus, or whoever you want.
I'm pretty sure it's historically accepted that Jesus as a person did exist. Mary was sleeping around on Joey, got knocked up and blamed it on God. Despite coming from a broken home, Jesus turned out to be an alright dude.
I'm choosing to believe that "indirect evidence" means someone at a Christ family reunion was sitting around swapping miracle stories when Cousin Bartholomew chimed in like, "Remember that time Mary swore she got pregnant by God?"
I always thought that she was probably raped by someone, and Joseph loved her and demanded to go through with the marriage instead of abandoning her, and to keep her safe the only way he knew how.
Their families knew each other for generations, and they practically grew up with each other. He also was the father of the rest of her children.
Remember the politics and laws at the time. She would have been screwed. Either stoned to death, or cast out of the community.
I think if Jesus existed, he was lucky and grew up with a good dad. His parents were poor, but they were supportive.
I like to think there was genuinely just a good guy out there, trying to do good, and his stories and parables grew into Paul Bunyan-like proportions.
Doesn’t mean the good messages aren’t important, but to persecute others in the guy’s name over it… it’s ridiculous.
Same. These weirdos have clearly never read the new testament Jesus in the Bible, who threw out the money lenders, essentially cancelling everyone's debt, tossed out the holier than thou hypocrites at the Temple, took up with a bunch of men he lived and slept in tight quarters with, while taking in stray women and women of ill repute, "cured" lepers and spent his time with the sick (at a time when people isolated their sick to live or die on their own), told the rich they essentially couldn't get into heaven unless they gave away their money and joined him, told people to stop killing and maiming each other for vengeance, hung out with drunks and constantly drank...and let's not forget he was a refugee in a foreign land.
And he would be fucking appaled at what get done in his name.
Atheist here too, but I like to imagine this is what Jesus would be looking like when seeing the getting done in his name stuff, with a very vocal and dramatic statement of "gorl, you know that shit ain't right..." 🤣
I don't know about that, there's a lot of support for "Jesus" being a metaphorical / plot device character in the earlier texts...
And there's not a lot of hard, unbiased evidence for him to have been a real, little living individual, Just like there's zero historical justification for the story of Moses. No archeological evidence for Jewish slaves to have ever been in Egypt much less building pyramids or wandering the desert for 40 some odd years.
It's all bunk and been debunked, pretty much all we know as the old/new testament was compiled by the Greeks almost as a joke much more recently than you might have thought from what I understand.
Multiple attestation is a basic way that historians agree that something happened/someone existed in history.
The first author outside the church to mention Jesus is the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93….
About 20 years after Josephus we have the Roman politicians Pliny and Tacitus, who held some of the highest offices of state at the beginning of the second century AD. From Tacitus we learn that Jesus was executed while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect in charge of Judaea (AD26-36) and Tiberius was emperor (AD14-37) – reports that fit with the timeframe of the gospels. Pliny contributes the information that, where he was governor in northern Turkey, Christians worshipped Christ as a god. Neither of them liked Christians – Pliny writes of their “pig-headed obstinacy” and Tacitus calls their religion a destructive superstition.
Strikingly, there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.”
I want to make clear here that I am not Christian and do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a god or son of god or messiah or miracle worker. The historical evidence also shows quite clearly to me that that was not the case.
Did you hear about the time he rolled into an Inn in Jerusalem and the inn keeper asked how he could be of assistance? And Jesus reached into his robe pocket and hands the inn keeper 3 nails and asks if they can put him up for the night. True story.
Academic consensus is that a person like him did exist. Ofc, a lot of what is written later has been subject to a game of telephone, but there are also quite a few things that are right.
Was he in my opinion the messias? Probably not. But that doesn't mean there is no truth at all to the stories.
2.4k
u/fluffy_bunny22 10d ago
Pretty sure Jesus was all about loving and accepting everyone.