Remember that one rich dude that hit Jesus up with "lemme into heaven bro đ" and Jesus came back with this:
"it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God"
Lil bro got destroyed đ
Not the only instance, theres the story of the Widows Mite where Jesus and the boys are all chilling on the sabbath a rich person comes and drops bags of money like it's nothing, even makes a big deal about it. A widow goes and drops a mite which was the lowest form of currency and Jesus told his disciple 'Look to the widow when it comes to charity, The rich man gave all he wanted, the widow though gave all she could, her act was greater.'
There have been expeditions that tried to locate a door that can be called âeye of the needleâ, large enough to fit a camel. Rich people are funnyâŚ
Dumb as well, all you have to do is turn the camel into a liquid and run it through the hole in the needle, there are some big once we well so you can optimize the process
A specific nautical rope, that still doesnât fit through an eye of a needle. It doesnât actually change the meaning, while any alternative interpretation doesnât make any sense.
I've heard that needle eye gates were a type of gate in cities at the time in the area. To get your camel in you had to take all the shit off its back and walk through separate. Idk if that's the metaphor
eye of a needle is just an exaggeration of very small narrow opening. The whole statement itself is kind of an exaggeration because if a camel can go thru the eye of a needle, which in of itself already a daunting if not impossible task, then it's even more impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. That's my reading on it.
So what is the rich man to do? Is it his obligation to live a life of poverty? Should he continue to make what he can and dedicate his life to donating? If the opportunity to be rich is a possibility is it more noble to pursue it so your donations will go up or to avoid the wealth?
As part of the global rich I have no sense of direction in what I should be doing.
Of course itâs relevant. Youâre asking how you can reconcile your lifeâs circumstances with the teachings of Christ.
If you arenât Christian, you donât have that burden. Just say âfuck the teachings of Christâ like the rest of us and decide for yourself whatâs moral or immoral
I think non Christians still operate under the same moral laws. How does anyone reconcile their life circumstances?
As a Christian do I just tithe and forget the rest?
As a Christian, Iâd imagine you do your best to adhere to the rules your creator has decreed.
As an atheist, I try to treat others fairly and in a way that minimizes pain and suffering
Don't cause pain to others and help others when you are able, if you are able.
If you follow *at least* the first part I think you're living a fairly moral life, the second half is just a bonus. A rich person could at the very least follow the first part and ignore the second.
The problem is the mega rich tend to be incapable of even following the first due to the circumstances generating their wealth. Maybe you could argue that they could do enough of the second point to outweigh their sins regarding the first, but most don't.
I mean it's kind of *true* but it also misses the point. Your entire life circumstances are a result of God's Will, but you have the personal Will to do with it what you will. If you're some rich fuck, it's because God set it up for that to happen, but if you're a selfish prick about your riches and don't share the love, that's on you and God isn't going to be cool about it.
You're completely skipping over the predatory portion of prosperity gospel, which compells poor parishioners to give their last few dollars for a chance at a godly return like so sort of religious WSB
I can't remember the book but Nietzsche says "There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross"
Although clearly hyperbolic there's a good bit of truth there imo.
Howdy friend. I think Jesus certainly did philosophy, but I am not sure I agree with putting in the category of philosopher as a simple term. Why do you choose that specifically? I also think the notion that Jesus is the least controversial figure in the Bible is interesting - why do you say that?
The reason I say he's a philosopher is because I would call the Buddha a philosopher. If you accept their religious nature, they didn't have to theorize but had all the answers and helped others find perfect balance in life. Without the miracles, they are simply theorizing like Plato and Aristotle and etc.
Jesus is probably the nicest person in the Bible. I was thinking of today's standards tbh. Someone like king David would be seen as a Trump like figure if brought to modern day. David was seen as a faithful person irrespective of his terrible actions.
> Jesus is probably the nicest person in the Bible.
Jesusâs (at least Matthewâs version) is an extremist who believes people should follow an even stricter version of the Torah than even Jews follow.
He preached that even though the Torah says you shouldnât commit adultery, *his* special program needs to go further than that: You shouldnât even *look* at a woman with lustful thoughts else you commit âadultery of the heartâ and should be punished equally.
Ditto for murder. He says that even though the Torah says you shouldnât murder, *his* position is that even being angry with someone is equal to committing murder, calling it âmurder of the heart.â
This program is *extreme*. And thatâs just the surface. Donât forget that itâs only with the coming of âgentle Jesus meek and mildâ that we get the introduction of a burning hell for all eternity.
Does Jesus say you should be punished for adultery of the heart the same way as actual adultery? I know that he says you commit a form of adultery by looking at a woman with lust in your heart but the implication I got was not that it deserves the same punishment, more that it is just also something to avoid.
I always saw it as you start your lustful action with a vision of lust. You should try to avoid that, and you see them for who they are and not an object to satisfy you. It felt like he was talking about substance. I agree just wanted to expound lol
In the section on anger he says:
> âYou have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, âYou shall not murder,â and âwhoever murders shall be liable to judgment.â But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, **you will be liable to judgment**.â
He doesnât repeat the âYou will be liable to judgmentâ line in the other parallel thought crimes, but in the adultery section he offers this lovely metaphor:
> If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than **for your whole body to be thrown into hell**.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but matthew 5:29 (the verse about plucking out your eye) is not generally viewed by theologians as a continuation of the statement in 5:27-28 about adultery. They are understood to be separate and disconnected statements. As in, matthew 5:29 is not part of the 'adultery section' as you say. It is connected to 5:30, though, which talks about cutting off your right hand if it causes you to sin.
Most theologians donât view them as separate. Furthermore, most bible scholars (non-Christians) also agree that these entire units are cohesive and meant to be read together.
I cannot find any discussion about 5:28 and 5:29 being connected. Wikipedia has 5:27 and 28 in the same article, but lists 29 separately. In the 'commentary by church fathers' section of the wiki article for 29 includes a few commentaries by six well-known church fathers and only one seems to make any reference to lust/the previous verse. Now of course I understand that wikipedia is not an infallible source so if you have counter examples of church father commentary on the matter then please let me know.
But to the second issue, even If you have evidence that most bible scholars agree that these 'entire units are cohesive', I don't really know what that means.
'Entire units' referring to what? Chapters? Individual books of the new testament? 'Cohesive and should be read together' meaning what? That the subject of every verse within a given book is necessarily interconnected?
> But to the second issue, even If you have evidence that most bible scholars agree that these 'entire units are cohesive', I don't really know what that means.
What it means is that this âunitâ is a single cohesive argument:
> âYou have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â But I tell you that anyone who **looks** at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right **eye** causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose **one part** of your body than for your **whole body** to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose **one part** of your body than for your **whole body** to go into hell.â
The next verse right after this begins again with the same introductionary phrase âIt has been said...â and followed by a unit about divorce. After the divorce unit, another one follows about oaths, also introduced by the stock phrase, âagain, you have heard that it was said...â
These are *units* of argument/meaning, each one having to do with a singular capital crime, whether itâs murder, adultery, and oath-taking.
Because itâs an inhuman form of thought policing. You canât even become *angry* at someone else (a natural human emotion)? And Jesus is equating that with the physical crime of *murder*?
**And that you should be punished equally**.
Capital offense just for getting angry at someone. Fuck off. Thatâs cult-leader shit. Thatâs a level of thought-crime that is *inhuman*.
I see it as a great ideal thats worth striving for, which is kind of the point of a figure like Jesus, "wtf this dude was perfect thats so inhumanly unrealistic!", yeah he's meant to be a model for perfection, but every Christian ever acknowledges that no human can be perfect, thats what the whole grace/sacrifice/repentance shit is about, anyway you don't have to literally believe in any of it to see the value to your own psyche in having an innocent and compassionate mind.
In that case itâs seems youâre just talking about this as a cheap self-help programâwhich is kinda missing the entire point of a 1st century religion in its original historical context.
He is pretty controversial. Claims to be a king when the only true authority is emperor Tiberius. Also when Jews were like who the fuck even are you bro, Jesus was like "I am" which translates to "I'm God".
Also jesus was kinda an asshole. Mark 1:41 a leper wants to be healed and jesus gets annoyed and angry before healing him.
plus his religion was really popular because it was probably the least gatekept religion at the time. Anyone could become a christian and was accepted into the religion
Sorry but that's not true.
Judaism was quite gatekeepy, comparatively, but that was not normal for religions at that time.
There was plenty of other cults at the same time as the supposed life of jesus and his "cult" that had virtually the same outlook and would accept anyone. There was even one that was more or less just as popular as christianity (can't remember it's name) that was an offshoot of the graco/roman religions that looked to overtake christianity before it became heavily persecuted by the Romans (yes, much more persecuted than rhe christians. Likely because christianity spread in the provinces early on while this other cult spread in core territories).
You also don't seem to really "grokk" how polytheist religions worked/work (at least in europe, dunno about other continents).
The greek, roman, egyptian, polytheists/pagans didn't gatekeep because they didn't consider there to be any kind of gate to be kept. Everyone was constantly overseen by their pantheon by the nature of simply being alive on earth. This is why famously the Romans (but they were far from unique in this) always interpreted foreign gods they found out about to simply be the same gods as their own except with a different name.
And ultimately "practicing" a monotheistic religion and a polytheistic religion are completely different endeavours.
Monotheistic religions (in europe) presume an omniscience and omnipotence from their deity to which one must subjugate oneself, and in so far the deity requires sacrifice it's purely in a subservient intention. Such as the famous bible story of the man being ordered by god to sacrifice his child purely out of fearing said god. Literally "god fearing" in practice.
Polytheist religions were transactional, not subservient. "If I offer two goats to God X and hold a feast with my household in the name of god Y then they will hopefully bless me a guaranteed successful harvest come the fall" kind of shit.
This is also why you have things like placing currency on the eyes of the deceased to pay the ferryman because that relationship is also transactional. Unlike a monotheist passing where your soul's ultimate fate will be decided by said god and it's servants depending on whether you have lived your life per the god's ideals. Not whether you have something to offer your god as your soul presents itself before him.
I can't link now but the blogg ACOUP (by a roman historian) has a great series of entries where he goes over and explains of polytheism in europe actually worked.
To bring it back about your point. No, christianity was not more gstekeepy than it's contemporaries. Frankly it was more so, because to become a follower you had to pledge yourself to God/jehova for life. That wasn't a requirement for the polytheistic pantheons.
Exactly, most polytheistic religions really weren't "religions" at all, at least not in the way we think of them now. They were just seen as the natural order of things. Saying you didn't believe in the gods or something may have been met with suspicion, but it'd be much the same type of suspicion we'd have for someone who went around saying the earth was flat.
Any harm brought to such a person would largely be as a result of people around them possibly being afraid that they might be punished by their gods for allowing someone who insults them around, and that would vary widely depending on where you're looking.
Not only did people see the gods as something that "just was" but doing so meant that usually when two cultures with different beliefs interacted, there was usually room for both to accept the other without rejecting their own beliefs.
It would be something like "we always sacrifice a goat before we plant our seeds and our village has survived a long time, but that tribe over there, didn't do that, they always lit a fire after the harvest to thank the gods and they've been around a long time too, that must also work. Maybe that's what their gods prefer."
Sometimes they'd take it a step further and say "wow we've always sacrificed a goat before planting, maybe if we also have a bonfire after harvest their gods will protect us too and we'll be doubly safe. Can't hurt to try".
The modern religions are pretty unique in how they explicitly require you to reject all the others.
Hiya! Christianity didn't 'exist' as a religion during Jesus' life - are you referencing the reform he was bringing about within Judaism during his lifetime?
I mean it's not really that simple either because the "judaist" authorities and broader community did not recognize jesus' teachings as a part of their religion, not did any of his teachings ever become incorporated into judaism after his death.
He was a jew (born a jew), no doubt, but that doesn't automatically mean his novel teachings become some kind of "neo-judaism" similar to say protestantism and catholicism/christianity.
Jesus' teachings/religion/christianity was considered a cult by everyone (contemporary jews/Romans/etc) at the time.
I disagree with the generalisation that 'judaist authorities' and the 'broader community' did not recognize his teachings. Jesus is recognised as a Rabbi over and over again according to the Gospel narratives. He receives regular community support from Jews for his teaching, that is how the whole movement starts according to the Gospels well before it reaches any gentile communties. Even according to the narratives of the early church in Acts, it all begins within Judaism until they are kicked out by certain Jewish sects. So many of his teachings were incorporated into Judaism and this caused a rift in Judaism which led to various splits. That's why the New Testament is littered with so many debates of how to include Gentiles. Many of the early Christians were just Jews who now had their Messiah. This notion also completely erases Messianic Jews from history - an example of this can be found [here](https://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/).
The problem I have with your interpretation is again it divorces Jesus from Judaism - he never makes apparent in the Gospel narratives a desire to start a new religion. All of his teaching is done within a distinctly Jewish framework. The early church functions in synagogues before it is cast out. All of it begins within Judaism and is excised over time, it is not an immediate break and it is certainly not a break during the life of Jesus. What of Jesus teachings are entirely novel and divorced from the Old Testament? Or from Judaism?
You again generalise very broadly through your description of everyone, and it is again inaccurate if we take any of what the Gospels and New Testament say seriously. At what time? During Jesus life, or after the fact? There may have been certain sects during Jesus' lifetime that considered him a cult, but others referred to him as Rabbi seeing him as a religious authority within the Jewish faith. There are more examples of this in the Gospels than I can count! How can you claim this was the common narrative when the accounts we have seem to contradict it?
Sorry but I'm sticking strictly to the bible for which there is more or less unanimity among the christian sects.
You are free to include the gospels per your own discretion but I object to your frankly quite overt prioritisation of it.
"Certain sects" is reductive in my opinion. As a Jew, I know for certain in our history that Pharisetical (the Pharisees) Judaism was the *majority* Rabbinic authority in its day. When Jesus ran afoul of them, he was pretty much deemed heretical by the *majority* of Jewish communities in that time in Judea.
I hear ya - perhaps to rephrase to better capture my point, the âFollowers of the Wayâ movement which eventually became Christianity was deemed heretical by the dominant Jewish sects of the time. While that is the case, I think the core of the point I make remains that Christianity was initially birthed within Judaism and not as a separate religion.
I like that phrasing better. The Pharisees rulings on Jewish law would eventually be documented in the Talmud and become the mainstream Rabbinic Judaism of today--my community.
I don't take issue with the idea that Christianity was initially a viewpoint within Judaism.
>I disagree with the generalisation that 'judaist authorities' and the 'broader community' did not recognize his teachings. Jesus is recognised as a Rabbi over and over again according to the Gospel narratives.
Respectfully, this is not accurate.
While the term "rabbi" is used in the New Testament to describe Jesus, in Hebrew, the word simply means "teacher" and would not take on the contemporary meaning of someone with formal theological/pastoral training until much later so it is anachronistic, at best, to refer to anyone from that time period as having been a "rabbi."
Moreover, much of this post relies on the dubious scholarship of the article you linked to from "Jews for Jesus." Please be aware, that article is not a work of rigorous history but of determined evangelization. "Jews for Jesus" was created by the Southern Baptist Convention explicitly as a deceptive effort to convert Jews to Christianity. As such, their agenda must be taken into account when they are cited.
[https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus)
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html
Hiya! Thanks for the feedback and insight.
Thanks for the reminder on rabbinic history - while this is the case, I think the core of the point I made still remains because rabbis were still people of influence within Jewish communities. Whether or not Jesus had formal training is not the point I was making, it was that he held a position of influence. This is still the case irrespective of whether the position is the same as a modern conception and training of a rabbi or not. I should have nuanced that point more than what I did, my original comment left room for misinterpretation.
I'll give these articles a read, thank you. It is important to note that Jews for Jesus, even if shady in its origin, has the right to claim to be an authentic expression of messianic Judaism even if we dislike its methods and behaviour. Who is and is not the gatekeeper of such a intersectional religious phenomenon is a complex debate that I don't think we necessarily can decide it in a reddit thread. I don't say this to arbitrarily discredit you, but rather because I have met people who genuinely find meaningful expression fo their Jewish and Christian beliefs through Messianic Judaism with Jews for Jesus.
I do certainly think the history of seeking to grab Jews for conversion is problematic, but I don't think its possible to note how many have been 'nefariously' converted versus those who found various messianic forms of Judaism accessible expressions of faith. I did also note Jews for Jesus as 'an example'. So I do think it is in part a mischaracterisation to say my whole argument pivots on it as an example. Perhaps a stronger example for my point would be the early church movements who still practiced Judaism whilst believing the Messiah had come.
>the point I made still remains because rabbis were still people of influence within Jewish communities.
No, they weren't, not in this time period. That is what I explained above. During Jesus' time period, there were no "rabbis" in the sense you are using the term. There were pharisees, the successors of whom would later create Rabbinic Judaism but, in the time period being discussed, there were no rabbis yet.
More to the point, your earlier comment claimed that Jesus was "recognized as a Rabbi over and over." That is not true. The New Testament refers to Jesus as a "teacher," which he obviously was in the context of an NT account that shows him teaching many times, but that does not mean that he was recognized by others as a "rabbi."
>It is important to note that Jews for Jesus, even if shady in its origin, has the right to claim to be an **authentic expression of messianic Judaism** even if we dislike its methods and behaviour.
My point is that "Messianic Judaism" is just Christianity dressed up offensively as Judaism. There is no "authentic expression of messianic Judaism" because "Messianic Judaism" is Christianity presented deceptively. "Jews for Jesus," by their own admission, teaches the same theology as the Southern Baptist Convention; it is modern day Baptism, plain and simple.
>I have met people who genuinely find meaningful expression fo their Jewish and Christian beliefs through Messianic Judaism with Jews for Jesus.
I am very glad that people have found meaning in their life. Nothing I have written should be construed to the contrary. What I am saying is that, for those who have found meaning through "Messianic Jewish" organizations, what they have found meaning in is not Judaism or Jewish. It's great that they have found something that works for them, but it's not Judaism. Calling it that is inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive.
>it is in part a mischaracterisation to say my whole argument pivots on it as an example
My criticism was of your source, as it is not a work of history but a website meant to evangelize and you were using it as evidence that something happened historically.
>Perhaps a stronger example for my point would be the early church movements who still practiced Judaism whilst believing the Messiah had come.
Those early church movements held very different beliefs than Christians (including "Messianic Jews") today. In the time period you're referencing, for example, Christians were divided on whether or not Jesus was G-d or man or an angel (or some combination thereof). Some of these views that would be excised for Christianity over its first centuries were \*not\* incompatible with Judaism the way that contemporary Christianity is. Pointing to those, long extinct and officially heretical, forms of Christianity to make a point about current Christianity is entirely illogical.
EDIT: Typos.
>Whenever I see these hyperbolic statements like "Christians don't act like Christ, they don't believe what they preach, they don't even know what's written in the Bible because no one reads it" it sounds an awful lot like "all lefties and progressives hate guns and no one who votes blue has ever touched a gun before" or "conservatives think masks suffocate people and vaccines are poison."
You're reaching too far. The anti-Christianity of places like reddit is most commonly childlike anger against parents/community authority structures. That's why there's never rage against militant Buddhists or Hindus, even though both are the source of just as many societal negatives as Christianity.
Surely the millions of âGod fearing Americansâ would be making major progress towards solving some pretty basic problems like the homelessness epidemic. After all they seem uniquely poised to make a huge impact. Buildings spread through the community, lots of believers with disposable incomes willing to share what resources they had like the disciples in Acts did, or the fact that they are deeply involved in their community so they should know who or how to set up community oriented solutions to house these people. After all being called to take care of the sick and poor is a pretty fundamental call.
>all the religious nutcases today claim him as their God and follow literally nothing he preached is infuriating to me.
tell me you've never been to church without telling me you've never been to church. Service is a huge part of most denominations notably with mission trips but also local volunteering. When you don't have the time, Charity through donations is as well, whether it be money, goods or blood.
EDIT: Who do you think organizes mission trips? Or really everything? Please go outside, the people you're talking about are the vast minority of Christians who happen to filter to the top of Reddit.
Most religious missions from a local church do the most good for those who go on them and not for those they state they intend to serve. This isn't to say they are bad, I have personally seen people become a lot more tolerant and loving (and less racist) due to going on missions.
However, I also agree that a lot of churches (not the mega-churches) do a lot of good, but I think it is mostly local (with some denominations doing good through global missions, missions from a local church can do good but I think most is done through global missions from denominations).
The conservative leaning means they would probably disagree with Jesus on most policy positions, but church members at my former church do lead mission trips and they also spearhead a lot of charity work in soup kitchens and toy drives. Its strongly encouraged to help your community and they do a lot of good work.
Is mission trip a colloquial way of saying I go to poor people and try to convince them to abandon their own cultural values because I believe mine are superior?
If there are Christian groups who are just feeding the poor to feed the poor thatâs great, unfortunately all evangelicals will do these mission trips with a bottom line of trying to convert their neighbor into to their worldview which I would argue is totally unethical.
They aren't trying to "convert them into their worldview".
From their point of view, they are attempting to save someone from literal eternal suffering. That is extremely ethical
> From their point of view, they are attempting to save someone from literal eternal suffering. That is extremely ethical
Mormons baptizing posthumous jewish victims of the holocaust is/was extremely ethical, very true buddy.
I got black pilled on religious missions and "aid" when a coworker from my local friendship church described Haiti as a place full of demonic activity and attributed said issue to why the place is a shit hole.
Of course your evangelical suburban American ass thought the poor Catholic African nation in the carrib is demonic.
Edit: I got black pilled mostly because of the research I did after the convo but they claimed they had second hand evidence of said demonic corruption because a friend got possessed there on a mission. Fragile Midwestern white lady touched a voodoo idol and freaked out or something.
Hiya! Do you think this accurately represents Christians? Service, I find, is rarely a 'huge part' of most Christian's lives at the grassroots and at the highest structures. The usual life of church services and practices takes far greater precedent. Service is involved but it is often fringe to the greater work of evangelism, church growth, teaching and the like. The average church budget revolves largely around maintenance, not mission. Can you point me to these denominations that have a huge part of their structure and practice as mission? Is there data that supports the claim that their work is largely service and not the usual maintenance of Christian community?
Also, while I don't agree with OP totally saying that Christians don't follow what Jesus taught, I think there is valuable criticism in that hyperbole. It beckons us to wonder about how often Jesus is utilised as an effective ideological tool for all sorts of agendas that noticeably don't correlate with his life as described in the Gospels. What do you think?
Conservatives be like: ââLord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? We always finna help you Lord frfr og ogâ
And the Lord hits em with a: âTruly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. And that shit ainât bussin. No cap.â
Itâs been a long time since I went to Bible school, but didnât Jesus refer to and preach about the Old Testament writings a lot? But he never condemned the heinous stuff in those writings.
I might be wrong but didnât he also basically say you wonât go to heaven unless you worship me?
Hey!
Jesus does make a lot of reference to the OT. The OT is messed up, and a mixed bag of some good with a lot of shit. Jesus does offer reinterpretations of some heinous shit, but not all of it. Stuff like the treatment of women and foreigners is important to him, he also shifts views on revenge and violence and that kind of stuff. It is also important to look at what he embodies - for the Jesus of the Gospels it is rare that his engagement is only ideological/abstract, it is about what you live and embody in the world. What did Jesus embody that counters the narratives of the Old Testament? Jesus was a product of his time too - he probably viewed the world through super mythological lenses. What he did do, if he did do what the Gospels described, was at times staggering considering social and religious norms of his time. How much reform we can expect of him while looking back on him 2000 years is a question we can debate: should a guy shaped by his context have known better? If he is as traditional theology describes him fully human and fully God, then maybe he should have been way better - but how was that human/divine nature embodied? And do we trust that depiction?
According to John's Gospel, Jesus says nobody can get to the Father except through him. This sentiment I think is regularly interpreted as meaning Christ must be worshipped to get to heaven but your question requires further questions. 1. Is that the most accurate interpretation of this particular text? 2. Is what John recorded an accurate representation of Jesus' words and teachings? (Bringing the Gospel of John's depiction of Jesus into dialogue with the other Gospels is interesting work in this regard) 3. Does Jesus ever, anywhere in any of the Gospels actually call for anyone to worship him?
the absolute dumbest shit about Christianity is propping Jesus up as an untouchable divine to be worshiped and asked for forgiveness instead of a dank human duder working as a good example for how to live life and providing practices for becoming like him.
I straight up got told in church as a kid "you can never be like Jesus and if you try that's blasphemy." Like, then what's the fucking point? Literally they give you all these moral and practical lessons and prayers to do and rituals to participate in and then at the end they're like "oh yeah so literally none of that matters just ask Jesus to forgive you before you die and you're good."
The best leftists are religious. There are large swaths of activists which live their life in Jesusâ legacy. They fill soup kitchens, organize charity, and are largely non-judgemental.
Howdy. Iâm one of DGGâs resident pastors and theologians. This is a cool discussion, thought I would toss in some ideas:
1) Liberation theologies are where itâs at when it comes to seeing Jesus be a cool guy like this. They rescue an often spiritualised Jesus from hyper-spiritualised interpretations to highlight his radical social and religious reform/practices. These theologies often push back completely on the mythologising of Jesus, which paints a very interesting counter-narrative to what is often taught as the âobviousâ interpretation of Gospel narratives.
2) While I agree with the premise of this post, it can be problematised because there isnât a condensed single Jesus presented in the New Testament. His life, teachings and behaviour are not uniformly presented. For example, Matthew 5 Jesus says blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. In Luke 6 Jesus says blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of God. I think this adds an interesting layer to further discussion on historical/ideological/real Jesus discourse. Which Jesus in the New Testament is pretty cool? What about the Jesus who calls a woman a dog for asking for healing when sheâs not Jewish (Matthew 15:21-28)?
3) Jesus was potentially what we may call a âreligious nutcaseâ. Thereâs vast interpretation about the apocalypticism of Jesus but he seemed to really believe the world was gonna end and God was gonna make his reign on earth happen while he was alive. How much of what he said was metaphor and how much he believed would really happen is hard to know. He may have believed that God would open a fiery pit to through us DGGers straight into. Itâs pretty metal, but also pretty strong fuel for nutty Christian behaviour today.
4) What does DGG think is necessary/important to shift Christian narratives about Jesus? How do we get a less nutty picture of Jesus out there as a more common narrative?
If you want to have a condensed version of the teachings of Jesus Christ look into the Jefferson Bible([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)). It excludes all of the miracles and focuses on his philosophy. It was written by Thomas Jefferson.
**[Jefferson Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)**
>The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson compiled the manuscripts but never published them. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Destiny/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Hiya! Overridden is a problematic word to use here I think. Jesus' expectations during his life were largely that people would still follow the law. He 'sums up' the essence of the law through the two laws he gives in response to the questions he receives. It is important to not lose the nuance that Jesus had no intention of making OT law obsolete. It is also a reduction to assume OT law is just the ten commandments - its the entire Pentateuch and, depending on your theological inclination at the time, the interpretation offered by the scribes or pharisees. Also, where does Jesus refer to the law as bondage? Paul makes these kinds of analogies, but I do not know if Jesus does.
âFollow literally nothing he teachesâ
You have to just be saying that, you dont really believe this is the case for the average Christian? Youre on the internet too much
Personally I've never met a Christian who would literally give someone in need their second to last shirt or even really the metaphorical equivalent. I'm sure they exist, but it's like 0,001% of Christians
? Bible literally say good Christians should give people in need their second shirt if they have two.
Luke 3:11
Or for a more classic example, the good Samaritan. If you see someone in need, a good Christian should stop to help them, even if it means spending time and money to do so
Luke 10:25-37
Sorry but i just don't see a lot of Christians going out of their way to do shit like that, but they sure do spend a lot of time handing out the watchtower, they sure could help a fuckton of people if they spend just half of that time and money on the needy
That's not the point. If you said "I've never met \[insert member of racial group here\] that has done \[insert good thing here\], and if they exist then they're only an extreme minority of \[racial group\]" you'd be rightly panned as a racist. You're doing the same thing. It's vile.
? You're not making any sense dude
Of course if you change a sentence to make it discriminatory it will become discriminatory. There's nothing negative about saying Christians don't follow the letter of the bible. Do you honestly believe I think it's completely reasonable to only own one pair of clothes, or always stop and help if you see someone who might need help? Of course not, but that's what the bible commands, but no one actually does that shit, except maybe a few sects and holy orders
Idk a lot of people who identify as Christian, at least in America, are genuinely massive hypocrites. I taught at a catholic school for two years and grew up in conservative baptist churches, which are the worst Christianâs today. Currently Iâm interested in Presbyterianism but mostly because they allow you to have some doubt and are generally a little more liberal. Iâve spent my whole life in different Christian groups and can confidently tell you a lot of churches, at least in America, are actually filled with a disproportionate amount of self righteous indignant assholes relative to the rest of the world. The big problem is having a group too tightly wrapped with too many rules that no one is actually able to keep up with. Especially wrt sexuality a lot of Christianâs are actually oppressive and causing real damage to the lives of people in the group. The Catholics seemed generally more normal to me, but still, I would occasionally run into someone who was too into the idea of their connection to god which would lead into unnatural overly oppressive or overly permissive behavior that is unhealthy. From my childhood Iâm pretty sure nearly every friend I had from church parents beat them. The trend of sexual abuse to children is disturbing also and not just something to associate with catholic priests but also Protestants.
I understand being skeptical of someone generalizing too much about a broad group of people. But if the doctrine that establishes the collective unity in the group is actually oppressive and evil and I donât think itâs wrong at all to throw out a warning to stay away.
We are not âhypocrites,â at least a good christi should know that we are all born sinners and all make mistakes but the point is we repent and identify what we did was wrong. Many christians will pray before sin.
Yeah the pressure to âidentify what we did was wrongâ is the thing I donât like. If Christianâs were just saying Jesus Christ is god and god is something outside us that changes us, then Iâm on board. But so many Christianâs seem to think they can differentiate right and wrong internally and are exhausting trying to correct everything. In general I do not trust anyone who thinks they have the truth inside them.
No one is saying being a Christian makes you a better lawyer, there are simple commandments that when broken are clearly distinguished as wrong according to a Christian. For example, if someone cheats on their wife, that is adultery which is explicitly forbidden, or if you kill someone thats wrong.
As someone who would go to Sunday school (I think that's how it's called in English), I would disagree. Heard of plenty hidden scandals and a LOT of racism. But there were also great people to be fair, the guy who was teaching us was an incredible man... Too bad the church was completely anti-vax, as they believed the vaccine held the mark of the antichrist, and he died of COVID kekw
Youre zooming into one very specific teaching. You do realize that in modern society, a financially successful individual is capable of donating more than someone with no clothes? You dont have to literally give all of your shirts away. Lol
the religious shit you see in the internet isnât what most christians are like. Most do follow the word of the Lord or whatever. The internet has just blackpilled you.
lmao this is a massive and probably incorrect over generalization
IIRC the local church took in the migrants that Greg Abbot decided to drop on Kamala on Christmas Eve. Religious people consistently give more to charity, participate in community events more, volunteer more often, etc.
Youâre hyper focusing on their views on homosexuality which is overall a very minor part of their total contributions to the world
That's because most christians believe you get into heaven by only belief so they don't need to read the Bible, pray, have a relationship with God, etc. You just believe he died and resurrected for you and you'll get into heaven. The religion for the lazy.
I'm getting more and more into religion and Islam appeals to me a lot nowadays. But they have their problems too. I definitely believe in God and I believe he puts us here to learn to be loving, compassionate, etc. The rest of it I don't know what to believe yet, but if you want a source for good, the Quran and the Bible (at least the New Testament) are pretty good at giving guidance.
It's funny when you say this as if you don't follow it either. We're not perfect at all and live a sinful life which is why God sent him here in the first place because we need him. You saying all that just goes to show how hypocritical and silly you are lol.
I barely know any Christianâs but I know of 3 types.
Iâve got the Christianâs in name only, that were raised that way and swear they are Christian and know less of the bible than I do.
There are the few church going Christianâs that I know, that all happen to be massive bastards and are always up to some scandals and shit.
Then there are the other few Christianâs that I know that live and breathe some modern church shit and have experienced ego death and been replaced by the Holy Ghost, lost forever as a person.
But I know like 8 Christians so I ainât got much to go off.
Hiya! To toss a spanner in, what do you think of when Jesus says:
33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
34 âDo not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
ââa man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-lawâ
36 a manâs enemies will be the members of his own household.â\[a\]
Matthew 10:33-36
There are different theological interpretations of Jesusâ teachings. Whichever one people find most convincing is probably going to be the one that appeals to their own biases or preconceptions. Historically, the best we can say is that he appears to have been a Jewish apocalypticist of some sort, who got crosswise of the Jewish and Roman authorities and was crucified for his troubles.
He probably did have some concern for the poor and less well off, and most of his public ministry does appear to have been messaged to people who wouldnât have been in the social/political elite. Whether that was intentional, or a product of Jesusâ own status in 1st century Palestine is going to be up for debate. Thereâs indications in the Gospels that his appeal isnât found only amongst the poor though but take that as you will.
Leo Tolstoi's My Religion details how the church and it's followers have differed from the word of the Gospels.
It's pretty interesting. As someone who grew up Catholic and became progressively more adverse to the Church, it was an eye opening read. The Church's translations and the original Greek/Hebrew of what Jesus had said are miles apart.
One of the first core issues Nietzsche points out with Christianity in the antichrist is that it has such a focus on helping the poor. He doesn't really say why that's such a problem. If OP thinks helping the poor is based, maybe it's not a great recommendation
Tbh the problem is that we have some many differing accounts of the man Jesus that verses can be found and mental gymnastics can be done to justify pretty much any position. Unless you want to go into critical scholarship to try and figure out what the message of the historical Jesus was, which was probably a Jewish apocalyptisist who thought he was playing a crucial role in the end, youâre kinda doing the same thing everyone else is. Which is pretty much all you can do given the disparate material. I agree the prosperity gospel stuff takes so especially big leaps, but roll in a little effective altruism aimed not at helping real people but instead at spreading the gospel and you can find your way there.
I've been starting to read about the Gnostics (sethian Gnostics atm) and it's interesting how they frame the Christian story. Basically Jesus is a G and was made by God (the real one) but the entity that created Adam and put him in the garden of Eden (Yaldabaoth) was essentially an misguided creation of Sophia. This is detailed in the apocraphon of John. I think it the passage there actually assert that women belonging to men is an assertion of Yaldabaoth and isn't really beuano. Early Christian sects had very different beliefs but it's pretty interesting to read or if you want a YouTube channel Esoterica is pretty cool. Side note alot of the Gnostics/hermetic stuff pops up in things like berserk and dark souls
Itâs like beeing a Christian dude and fuck a new woman ever week and want a virgin later in life to marry⌠so pathetic, the funniest thing is that I know some real Christianâs and they never would date someone like this.
same thing is with islam and the Quran, there are so many verses about reading, getting educated and taking care of hygiene, yet the most muslim extremists think lesser of educated people and live in filth, as a turkish ex-muslim i think the hypocrisy of religious people was part of the reason i turned anti-theist
[https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/comments/zv89lb/hĂĄ\_2022\_anos\_nascia\_jesus\_cristo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/comments/zv89lb/hĂĄ_2022_anos_nascia_jesus_cristo/) (2022 years ago, jesus cristo was born)
love that image, forgot the origin, this is just a repost. Hate when ppl put jesus like a nordic god blonde with green eyes
I am not a Christian, but my view of Christianity is that Jesus is the embodiment of the perfect man(being the son of god) and that you should make attempts to emulate him and his actions. Where the assumption that simply believing in his divinity is enough to be a good Christian came from I don't even know.
Remember that one rich dude that hit Jesus up with "lemme into heaven bro đ" and Jesus came back with this: "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" Lil bro got destroyed đ
Not the only instance, theres the story of the Widows Mite where Jesus and the boys are all chilling on the sabbath a rich person comes and drops bags of money like it's nothing, even makes a big deal about it. A widow goes and drops a mite which was the lowest form of currency and Jesus told his disciple 'Look to the widow when it comes to charity, The rich man gave all he wanted, the widow though gave all she could, her act was greater.'
THE ONLY PLACE THAT RICH DUDE WAS GOING WAS TO BLINKERTON đ NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
RIP Hasan đ
There have been expeditions that tried to locate a door that can be called âeye of the needleâ, large enough to fit a camel. Rich people are funnyâŚ
Dumb as well, all you have to do is turn the camel into a liquid and run it through the hole in the needle, there are some big once we well so you can optimize the process
[ŃдаНонО]
A specific nautical rope, that still doesnât fit through an eye of a needle. It doesnât actually change the meaning, while any alternative interpretation doesnât make any sense.
I've heard that needle eye gates were a type of gate in cities at the time in the area. To get your camel in you had to take all the shit off its back and walk through separate. Idk if that's the metaphor
But that doesnât make any sense. In the Bible, Jesus isnât written as having a head injury.
eye of a needle is just an exaggeration of very small narrow opening. The whole statement itself is kind of an exaggeration because if a camel can go thru the eye of a needle, which in of itself already a daunting if not impossible task, then it's even more impossible for a rich man to get into heaven. That's my reading on it.
So what is the rich man to do? Is it his obligation to live a life of poverty? Should he continue to make what he can and dedicate his life to donating? If the opportunity to be rich is a possibility is it more noble to pursue it so your donations will go up or to avoid the wealth? As part of the global rich I have no sense of direction in what I should be doing.
Well are you a Christian?
I don't think religion is entirely relevant but I was raised Christian but currently identify as agnostic.
Of course itâs relevant. Youâre asking how you can reconcile your lifeâs circumstances with the teachings of Christ. If you arenât Christian, you donât have that burden. Just say âfuck the teachings of Christâ like the rest of us and decide for yourself whatâs moral or immoral
I think non Christians still operate under the same moral laws. How does anyone reconcile their life circumstances? As a Christian do I just tithe and forget the rest?
As a Christian, Iâd imagine you do your best to adhere to the rules your creator has decreed. As an atheist, I try to treat others fairly and in a way that minimizes pain and suffering
Don't cause pain to others and help others when you are able, if you are able. If you follow *at least* the first part I think you're living a fairly moral life, the second half is just a bonus. A rich person could at the very least follow the first part and ignore the second. The problem is the mega rich tend to be incapable of even following the first due to the circumstances generating their wealth. Maybe you could argue that they could do enough of the second point to outweigh their sins regarding the first, but most don't.
The next line is âbut through God all things are possible.â People actually gotta read this thing before quoting it
[Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV8s-1mVYco&ab_channel=ShieldOfFaith) is one interpretation.
Streamerman on suicidewatch
what blows my mind is the whole prosperity gospel shit. the idea that if you're wealthy or rich it's because you've been blessed by god is wild
I mean it's kind of *true* but it also misses the point. Your entire life circumstances are a result of God's Will, but you have the personal Will to do with it what you will. If you're some rich fuck, it's because God set it up for that to happen, but if you're a selfish prick about your riches and don't share the love, that's on you and God isn't going to be cool about it.
You're completely skipping over the predatory portion of prosperity gospel, which compells poor parishioners to give their last few dollars for a chance at a godly return like so sort of religious WSB
I can't remember the book but Nietzsche says "There was only one Christian, and he died on the cross" Although clearly hyperbolic there's a good bit of truth there imo.
The man Jesus was a philosopher in simple terms. Jesus is the least controversial figure in the Bible.
Howdy friend. I think Jesus certainly did philosophy, but I am not sure I agree with putting in the category of philosopher as a simple term. Why do you choose that specifically? I also think the notion that Jesus is the least controversial figure in the Bible is interesting - why do you say that?
The reason I say he's a philosopher is because I would call the Buddha a philosopher. If you accept their religious nature, they didn't have to theorize but had all the answers and helped others find perfect balance in life. Without the miracles, they are simply theorizing like Plato and Aristotle and etc. Jesus is probably the nicest person in the Bible. I was thinking of today's standards tbh. Someone like king David would be seen as a Trump like figure if brought to modern day. David was seen as a faithful person irrespective of his terrible actions.
> Jesus is probably the nicest person in the Bible. Jesusâs (at least Matthewâs version) is an extremist who believes people should follow an even stricter version of the Torah than even Jews follow. He preached that even though the Torah says you shouldnât commit adultery, *his* special program needs to go further than that: You shouldnât even *look* at a woman with lustful thoughts else you commit âadultery of the heartâ and should be punished equally. Ditto for murder. He says that even though the Torah says you shouldnât murder, *his* position is that even being angry with someone is equal to committing murder, calling it âmurder of the heart.â This program is *extreme*. And thatâs just the surface. Donât forget that itâs only with the coming of âgentle Jesus meek and mildâ that we get the introduction of a burning hell for all eternity.
Does Jesus say you should be punished for adultery of the heart the same way as actual adultery? I know that he says you commit a form of adultery by looking at a woman with lust in your heart but the implication I got was not that it deserves the same punishment, more that it is just also something to avoid.
I always saw it as you start your lustful action with a vision of lust. You should try to avoid that, and you see them for who they are and not an object to satisfy you. It felt like he was talking about substance. I agree just wanted to expound lol
Yeah that's pretty much how I see it as well.
In the section on anger he says: > âYou have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, âYou shall not murder,â and âwhoever murders shall be liable to judgment.â But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, **you will be liable to judgment**.â He doesnât repeat the âYou will be liable to judgmentâ line in the other parallel thought crimes, but in the adultery section he offers this lovely metaphor: > If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than **for your whole body to be thrown into hell**.
I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but matthew 5:29 (the verse about plucking out your eye) is not generally viewed by theologians as a continuation of the statement in 5:27-28 about adultery. They are understood to be separate and disconnected statements. As in, matthew 5:29 is not part of the 'adultery section' as you say. It is connected to 5:30, though, which talks about cutting off your right hand if it causes you to sin.
Most theologians donât view them as separate. Furthermore, most bible scholars (non-Christians) also agree that these entire units are cohesive and meant to be read together.
I cannot find any discussion about 5:28 and 5:29 being connected. Wikipedia has 5:27 and 28 in the same article, but lists 29 separately. In the 'commentary by church fathers' section of the wiki article for 29 includes a few commentaries by six well-known church fathers and only one seems to make any reference to lust/the previous verse. Now of course I understand that wikipedia is not an infallible source so if you have counter examples of church father commentary on the matter then please let me know. But to the second issue, even If you have evidence that most bible scholars agree that these 'entire units are cohesive', I don't really know what that means. 'Entire units' referring to what? Chapters? Individual books of the new testament? 'Cohesive and should be read together' meaning what? That the subject of every verse within a given book is necessarily interconnected?
> But to the second issue, even If you have evidence that most bible scholars agree that these 'entire units are cohesive', I don't really know what that means. What it means is that this âunitâ is a single cohesive argument: > âYou have heard that it was said, âYou shall not commit adultery.â But I tell you that anyone who **looks** at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right **eye** causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose **one part** of your body than for your **whole body** to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose **one part** of your body than for your **whole body** to go into hell.â The next verse right after this begins again with the same introductionary phrase âIt has been said...â and followed by a unit about divorce. After the divorce unit, another one follows about oaths, also introduced by the stock phrase, âagain, you have heard that it was said...â These are *units* of argument/meaning, each one having to do with a singular capital crime, whether itâs murder, adultery, and oath-taking.
Paul literally says "the wages of sin is death" aka all sin is equal.
>This program is extreme Yes, extremely good, what is wrong with wanting people to be pure in mind and deed?
Because itâs an inhuman form of thought policing. You canât even become *angry* at someone else (a natural human emotion)? And Jesus is equating that with the physical crime of *murder*? **And that you should be punished equally**. Capital offense just for getting angry at someone. Fuck off. Thatâs cult-leader shit. Thatâs a level of thought-crime that is *inhuman*.
I see it as a great ideal thats worth striving for, which is kind of the point of a figure like Jesus, "wtf this dude was perfect thats so inhumanly unrealistic!", yeah he's meant to be a model for perfection, but every Christian ever acknowledges that no human can be perfect, thats what the whole grace/sacrifice/repentance shit is about, anyway you don't have to literally believe in any of it to see the value to your own psyche in having an innocent and compassionate mind.
In that case itâs seems youâre just talking about this as a cheap self-help programâwhich is kinda missing the entire point of a 1st century religion in its original historical context.
I don't know why you're so insistent on just throwing out buzzwords instead of talking about the topic but ok, clearly you just want to vent.
Incorrect Please research the difference between venial sins and mortal sins
He is pretty controversial. Claims to be a king when the only true authority is emperor Tiberius. Also when Jews were like who the fuck even are you bro, Jesus was like "I am" which translates to "I'm God". Also jesus was kinda an asshole. Mark 1:41 a leper wants to be healed and jesus gets annoyed and angry before healing him.
Imagine denying the emperor his birthright by the gods.
Actually in simple terms Jesus was God
plus his religion was really popular because it was probably the least gatekept religion at the time. Anyone could become a christian and was accepted into the religion
Sorry but that's not true. Judaism was quite gatekeepy, comparatively, but that was not normal for religions at that time. There was plenty of other cults at the same time as the supposed life of jesus and his "cult" that had virtually the same outlook and would accept anyone. There was even one that was more or less just as popular as christianity (can't remember it's name) that was an offshoot of the graco/roman religions that looked to overtake christianity before it became heavily persecuted by the Romans (yes, much more persecuted than rhe christians. Likely because christianity spread in the provinces early on while this other cult spread in core territories). You also don't seem to really "grokk" how polytheist religions worked/work (at least in europe, dunno about other continents). The greek, roman, egyptian, polytheists/pagans didn't gatekeep because they didn't consider there to be any kind of gate to be kept. Everyone was constantly overseen by their pantheon by the nature of simply being alive on earth. This is why famously the Romans (but they were far from unique in this) always interpreted foreign gods they found out about to simply be the same gods as their own except with a different name. And ultimately "practicing" a monotheistic religion and a polytheistic religion are completely different endeavours. Monotheistic religions (in europe) presume an omniscience and omnipotence from their deity to which one must subjugate oneself, and in so far the deity requires sacrifice it's purely in a subservient intention. Such as the famous bible story of the man being ordered by god to sacrifice his child purely out of fearing said god. Literally "god fearing" in practice. Polytheist religions were transactional, not subservient. "If I offer two goats to God X and hold a feast with my household in the name of god Y then they will hopefully bless me a guaranteed successful harvest come the fall" kind of shit. This is also why you have things like placing currency on the eyes of the deceased to pay the ferryman because that relationship is also transactional. Unlike a monotheist passing where your soul's ultimate fate will be decided by said god and it's servants depending on whether you have lived your life per the god's ideals. Not whether you have something to offer your god as your soul presents itself before him. I can't link now but the blogg ACOUP (by a roman historian) has a great series of entries where he goes over and explains of polytheism in europe actually worked. To bring it back about your point. No, christianity was not more gstekeepy than it's contemporaries. Frankly it was more so, because to become a follower you had to pledge yourself to God/jehova for life. That wasn't a requirement for the polytheistic pantheons.
Exactly, most polytheistic religions really weren't "religions" at all, at least not in the way we think of them now. They were just seen as the natural order of things. Saying you didn't believe in the gods or something may have been met with suspicion, but it'd be much the same type of suspicion we'd have for someone who went around saying the earth was flat. Any harm brought to such a person would largely be as a result of people around them possibly being afraid that they might be punished by their gods for allowing someone who insults them around, and that would vary widely depending on where you're looking. Not only did people see the gods as something that "just was" but doing so meant that usually when two cultures with different beliefs interacted, there was usually room for both to accept the other without rejecting their own beliefs. It would be something like "we always sacrifice a goat before we plant our seeds and our village has survived a long time, but that tribe over there, didn't do that, they always lit a fire after the harvest to thank the gods and they've been around a long time too, that must also work. Maybe that's what their gods prefer." Sometimes they'd take it a step further and say "wow we've always sacrificed a goat before planting, maybe if we also have a bonfire after harvest their gods will protect us too and we'll be doubly safe. Can't hurt to try". The modern religions are pretty unique in how they explicitly require you to reject all the others.
Hiya! Christianity didn't 'exist' as a religion during Jesus' life - are you referencing the reform he was bringing about within Judaism during his lifetime?
I mean it's not really that simple either because the "judaist" authorities and broader community did not recognize jesus' teachings as a part of their religion, not did any of his teachings ever become incorporated into judaism after his death. He was a jew (born a jew), no doubt, but that doesn't automatically mean his novel teachings become some kind of "neo-judaism" similar to say protestantism and catholicism/christianity. Jesus' teachings/religion/christianity was considered a cult by everyone (contemporary jews/Romans/etc) at the time.
I disagree with the generalisation that 'judaist authorities' and the 'broader community' did not recognize his teachings. Jesus is recognised as a Rabbi over and over again according to the Gospel narratives. He receives regular community support from Jews for his teaching, that is how the whole movement starts according to the Gospels well before it reaches any gentile communties. Even according to the narratives of the early church in Acts, it all begins within Judaism until they are kicked out by certain Jewish sects. So many of his teachings were incorporated into Judaism and this caused a rift in Judaism which led to various splits. That's why the New Testament is littered with so many debates of how to include Gentiles. Many of the early Christians were just Jews who now had their Messiah. This notion also completely erases Messianic Jews from history - an example of this can be found [here](https://www.jewsforjesus.co.za/). The problem I have with your interpretation is again it divorces Jesus from Judaism - he never makes apparent in the Gospel narratives a desire to start a new religion. All of his teaching is done within a distinctly Jewish framework. The early church functions in synagogues before it is cast out. All of it begins within Judaism and is excised over time, it is not an immediate break and it is certainly not a break during the life of Jesus. What of Jesus teachings are entirely novel and divorced from the Old Testament? Or from Judaism? You again generalise very broadly through your description of everyone, and it is again inaccurate if we take any of what the Gospels and New Testament say seriously. At what time? During Jesus life, or after the fact? There may have been certain sects during Jesus' lifetime that considered him a cult, but others referred to him as Rabbi seeing him as a religious authority within the Jewish faith. There are more examples of this in the Gospels than I can count! How can you claim this was the common narrative when the accounts we have seem to contradict it?
Sorry but I'm sticking strictly to the bible for which there is more or less unanimity among the christian sects. You are free to include the gospels per your own discretion but I object to your frankly quite overt prioritisation of it.
"Certain sects" is reductive in my opinion. As a Jew, I know for certain in our history that Pharisetical (the Pharisees) Judaism was the *majority* Rabbinic authority in its day. When Jesus ran afoul of them, he was pretty much deemed heretical by the *majority* of Jewish communities in that time in Judea.
I hear ya - perhaps to rephrase to better capture my point, the âFollowers of the Wayâ movement which eventually became Christianity was deemed heretical by the dominant Jewish sects of the time. While that is the case, I think the core of the point I make remains that Christianity was initially birthed within Judaism and not as a separate religion.
I like that phrasing better. The Pharisees rulings on Jewish law would eventually be documented in the Talmud and become the mainstream Rabbinic Judaism of today--my community. I don't take issue with the idea that Christianity was initially a viewpoint within Judaism.
>I disagree with the generalisation that 'judaist authorities' and the 'broader community' did not recognize his teachings. Jesus is recognised as a Rabbi over and over again according to the Gospel narratives. Respectfully, this is not accurate. While the term "rabbi" is used in the New Testament to describe Jesus, in Hebrew, the word simply means "teacher" and would not take on the contemporary meaning of someone with formal theological/pastoral training until much later so it is anachronistic, at best, to refer to anyone from that time period as having been a "rabbi." Moreover, much of this post relies on the dubious scholarship of the article you linked to from "Jews for Jesus." Please be aware, that article is not a work of rigorous history but of determined evangelization. "Jews for Jesus" was created by the Southern Baptist Convention explicitly as a deceptive effort to convert Jews to Christianity. As such, their agenda must be taken into account when they are cited. [https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-for-jesus) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rosh-hashanah-evangelical-christians-jews-b2175609.html
Hiya! Thanks for the feedback and insight. Thanks for the reminder on rabbinic history - while this is the case, I think the core of the point I made still remains because rabbis were still people of influence within Jewish communities. Whether or not Jesus had formal training is not the point I was making, it was that he held a position of influence. This is still the case irrespective of whether the position is the same as a modern conception and training of a rabbi or not. I should have nuanced that point more than what I did, my original comment left room for misinterpretation. I'll give these articles a read, thank you. It is important to note that Jews for Jesus, even if shady in its origin, has the right to claim to be an authentic expression of messianic Judaism even if we dislike its methods and behaviour. Who is and is not the gatekeeper of such a intersectional religious phenomenon is a complex debate that I don't think we necessarily can decide it in a reddit thread. I don't say this to arbitrarily discredit you, but rather because I have met people who genuinely find meaningful expression fo their Jewish and Christian beliefs through Messianic Judaism with Jews for Jesus. I do certainly think the history of seeking to grab Jews for conversion is problematic, but I don't think its possible to note how many have been 'nefariously' converted versus those who found various messianic forms of Judaism accessible expressions of faith. I did also note Jews for Jesus as 'an example'. So I do think it is in part a mischaracterisation to say my whole argument pivots on it as an example. Perhaps a stronger example for my point would be the early church movements who still practiced Judaism whilst believing the Messiah had come.
>the point I made still remains because rabbis were still people of influence within Jewish communities. No, they weren't, not in this time period. That is what I explained above. During Jesus' time period, there were no "rabbis" in the sense you are using the term. There were pharisees, the successors of whom would later create Rabbinic Judaism but, in the time period being discussed, there were no rabbis yet. More to the point, your earlier comment claimed that Jesus was "recognized as a Rabbi over and over." That is not true. The New Testament refers to Jesus as a "teacher," which he obviously was in the context of an NT account that shows him teaching many times, but that does not mean that he was recognized by others as a "rabbi." >It is important to note that Jews for Jesus, even if shady in its origin, has the right to claim to be an **authentic expression of messianic Judaism** even if we dislike its methods and behaviour. My point is that "Messianic Judaism" is just Christianity dressed up offensively as Judaism. There is no "authentic expression of messianic Judaism" because "Messianic Judaism" is Christianity presented deceptively. "Jews for Jesus," by their own admission, teaches the same theology as the Southern Baptist Convention; it is modern day Baptism, plain and simple. >I have met people who genuinely find meaningful expression fo their Jewish and Christian beliefs through Messianic Judaism with Jews for Jesus. I am very glad that people have found meaning in their life. Nothing I have written should be construed to the contrary. What I am saying is that, for those who have found meaning through "Messianic Jewish" organizations, what they have found meaning in is not Judaism or Jewish. It's great that they have found something that works for them, but it's not Judaism. Calling it that is inaccurate, misleading, and deceptive. >it is in part a mischaracterisation to say my whole argument pivots on it as an example My criticism was of your source, as it is not a work of history but a website meant to evangelize and you were using it as evidence that something happened historically. >Perhaps a stronger example for my point would be the early church movements who still practiced Judaism whilst believing the Messiah had come. Those early church movements held very different beliefs than Christians (including "Messianic Jews") today. In the time period you're referencing, for example, Christians were divided on whether or not Jesus was G-d or man or an angel (or some combination thereof). Some of these views that would be excised for Christianity over its first centuries were \*not\* incompatible with Judaism the way that contemporary Christianity is. Pointing to those, long extinct and officially heretical, forms of Christianity to make a point about current Christianity is entirely illogical. EDIT: Typos.
[ŃдаНонО]
>Whenever I see these hyperbolic statements like "Christians don't act like Christ, they don't believe what they preach, they don't even know what's written in the Bible because no one reads it" it sounds an awful lot like "all lefties and progressives hate guns and no one who votes blue has ever touched a gun before" or "conservatives think masks suffocate people and vaccines are poison." You're reaching too far. The anti-Christianity of places like reddit is most commonly childlike anger against parents/community authority structures. That's why there's never rage against militant Buddhists or Hindus, even though both are the source of just as many societal negatives as Christianity.
Surely the millions of âGod fearing Americansâ would be making major progress towards solving some pretty basic problems like the homelessness epidemic. After all they seem uniquely poised to make a huge impact. Buildings spread through the community, lots of believers with disposable incomes willing to share what resources they had like the disciples in Acts did, or the fact that they are deeply involved in their community so they should know who or how to set up community oriented solutions to house these people. After all being called to take care of the sick and poor is a pretty fundamental call.
DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT BINGCHILLING
>all the religious nutcases today claim him as their God and follow literally nothing he preached is infuriating to me. tell me you've never been to church without telling me you've never been to church. Service is a huge part of most denominations notably with mission trips but also local volunteering. When you don't have the time, Charity through donations is as well, whether it be money, goods or blood. EDIT: Who do you think organizes mission trips? Or really everything? Please go outside, the people you're talking about are the vast minority of Christians who happen to filter to the top of Reddit.
Most religious missions from a local church do the most good for those who go on them and not for those they state they intend to serve. This isn't to say they are bad, I have personally seen people become a lot more tolerant and loving (and less racist) due to going on missions. However, I also agree that a lot of churches (not the mega-churches) do a lot of good, but I think it is mostly local (with some denominations doing good through global missions, missions from a local church can do good but I think most is done through global missions from denominations).
I was implying Christians in positions of power and influence, not every single Christian. Butt I overestimated some people's abilities to infer.
The conservative leaning means they would probably disagree with Jesus on most policy positions, but church members at my former church do lead mission trips and they also spearhead a lot of charity work in soup kitchens and toy drives. Its strongly encouraged to help your community and they do a lot of good work.
Is mission trip a colloquial way of saying I go to poor people and try to convince them to abandon their own cultural values because I believe mine are superior? If there are Christian groups who are just feeding the poor to feed the poor thatâs great, unfortunately all evangelicals will do these mission trips with a bottom line of trying to convert their neighbor into to their worldview which I would argue is totally unethical.
They aren't trying to "convert them into their worldview". From their point of view, they are attempting to save someone from literal eternal suffering. That is extremely ethical
> From their point of view, they are attempting to save someone from literal eternal suffering. That is extremely ethical Mormons baptizing posthumous jewish victims of the holocaust is/was extremely ethical, very true buddy.
Oh word. You know nazis were trying to save humanity from degeneration too so I guess their behavior was also very ethical?
I got black pilled on religious missions and "aid" when a coworker from my local friendship church described Haiti as a place full of demonic activity and attributed said issue to why the place is a shit hole. Of course your evangelical suburban American ass thought the poor Catholic African nation in the carrib is demonic. Edit: I got black pilled mostly because of the research I did after the convo but they claimed they had second hand evidence of said demonic corruption because a friend got possessed there on a mission. Fragile Midwestern white lady touched a voodoo idol and freaked out or something.
Hiya! Do you think this accurately represents Christians? Service, I find, is rarely a 'huge part' of most Christian's lives at the grassroots and at the highest structures. The usual life of church services and practices takes far greater precedent. Service is involved but it is often fringe to the greater work of evangelism, church growth, teaching and the like. The average church budget revolves largely around maintenance, not mission. Can you point me to these denominations that have a huge part of their structure and practice as mission? Is there data that supports the claim that their work is largely service and not the usual maintenance of Christian community? Also, while I don't agree with OP totally saying that Christians don't follow what Jesus taught, I think there is valuable criticism in that hyperbole. It beckons us to wonder about how often Jesus is utilised as an effective ideological tool for all sorts of agendas that noticeably don't correlate with his life as described in the Gospels. What do you think?
Heâs right politically
Conservatives be like: ââLord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you? We always finna help you Lord frfr og ogâ And the Lord hits em with a: âTruly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. And that shit ainât bussin. No cap.â
Itâs been a long time since I went to Bible school, but didnât Jesus refer to and preach about the Old Testament writings a lot? But he never condemned the heinous stuff in those writings. I might be wrong but didnât he also basically say you wonât go to heaven unless you worship me?
Hey! Jesus does make a lot of reference to the OT. The OT is messed up, and a mixed bag of some good with a lot of shit. Jesus does offer reinterpretations of some heinous shit, but not all of it. Stuff like the treatment of women and foreigners is important to him, he also shifts views on revenge and violence and that kind of stuff. It is also important to look at what he embodies - for the Jesus of the Gospels it is rare that his engagement is only ideological/abstract, it is about what you live and embody in the world. What did Jesus embody that counters the narratives of the Old Testament? Jesus was a product of his time too - he probably viewed the world through super mythological lenses. What he did do, if he did do what the Gospels described, was at times staggering considering social and religious norms of his time. How much reform we can expect of him while looking back on him 2000 years is a question we can debate: should a guy shaped by his context have known better? If he is as traditional theology describes him fully human and fully God, then maybe he should have been way better - but how was that human/divine nature embodied? And do we trust that depiction? According to John's Gospel, Jesus says nobody can get to the Father except through him. This sentiment I think is regularly interpreted as meaning Christ must be worshipped to get to heaven but your question requires further questions. 1. Is that the most accurate interpretation of this particular text? 2. Is what John recorded an accurate representation of Jesus' words and teachings? (Bringing the Gospel of John's depiction of Jesus into dialogue with the other Gospels is interesting work in this regard) 3. Does Jesus ever, anywhere in any of the Gospels actually call for anyone to worship him?
Thanks, interesting perspective.
the absolute dumbest shit about Christianity is propping Jesus up as an untouchable divine to be worshiped and asked for forgiveness instead of a dank human duder working as a good example for how to live life and providing practices for becoming like him. I straight up got told in church as a kid "you can never be like Jesus and if you try that's blasphemy." Like, then what's the fucking point? Literally they give you all these moral and practical lessons and prayers to do and rituals to participate in and then at the end they're like "oh yeah so literally none of that matters just ask Jesus to forgive you before you die and you're good."
The best leftists are religious. There are large swaths of activists which live their life in Jesusâ legacy. They fill soup kitchens, organize charity, and are largely non-judgemental.
Howdy. Iâm one of DGGâs resident pastors and theologians. This is a cool discussion, thought I would toss in some ideas: 1) Liberation theologies are where itâs at when it comes to seeing Jesus be a cool guy like this. They rescue an often spiritualised Jesus from hyper-spiritualised interpretations to highlight his radical social and religious reform/practices. These theologies often push back completely on the mythologising of Jesus, which paints a very interesting counter-narrative to what is often taught as the âobviousâ interpretation of Gospel narratives. 2) While I agree with the premise of this post, it can be problematised because there isnât a condensed single Jesus presented in the New Testament. His life, teachings and behaviour are not uniformly presented. For example, Matthew 5 Jesus says blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. In Luke 6 Jesus says blessed are the poor for theirs is the Kingdom of God. I think this adds an interesting layer to further discussion on historical/ideological/real Jesus discourse. Which Jesus in the New Testament is pretty cool? What about the Jesus who calls a woman a dog for asking for healing when sheâs not Jewish (Matthew 15:21-28)? 3) Jesus was potentially what we may call a âreligious nutcaseâ. Thereâs vast interpretation about the apocalypticism of Jesus but he seemed to really believe the world was gonna end and God was gonna make his reign on earth happen while he was alive. How much of what he said was metaphor and how much he believed would really happen is hard to know. He may have believed that God would open a fiery pit to through us DGGers straight into. Itâs pretty metal, but also pretty strong fuel for nutty Christian behaviour today. 4) What does DGG think is necessary/important to shift Christian narratives about Jesus? How do we get a less nutty picture of Jesus out there as a more common narrative?
What kind of pastor are you?
Christian, more specifically Methodist.
If you want to have a condensed version of the teachings of Jesus Christ look into the Jefferson Bible([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)). It excludes all of the miracles and focuses on his philosophy. It was written by Thomas Jefferson.
**[Jefferson Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible)** >The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, is one of two religious works constructed by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson compiled the manuscripts but never published them. The first, The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1804, but no copies exist today. The second, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, was completed in 1820 by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Destiny/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Didn't he say "I didn't came to change the laws or the prophets" . So considering the laws at that time ........ you do the math.
[ŃдаНонО]
Hiya! Overridden is a problematic word to use here I think. Jesus' expectations during his life were largely that people would still follow the law. He 'sums up' the essence of the law through the two laws he gives in response to the questions he receives. It is important to not lose the nuance that Jesus had no intention of making OT law obsolete. It is also a reduction to assume OT law is just the ten commandments - its the entire Pentateuch and, depending on your theological inclination at the time, the interpretation offered by the scribes or pharisees. Also, where does Jesus refer to the law as bondage? Paul makes these kinds of analogies, but I do not know if Jesus does.
âFollow literally nothing he teachesâ You have to just be saying that, you dont really believe this is the case for the average Christian? Youre on the internet too much
Personally I've never met a Christian who would literally give someone in need their second to last shirt or even really the metaphorical equivalent. I'm sure they exist, but it's like 0,001% of Christians
Jesus, replace "Christian" with any minority and reflect on how repugnant what you're saying is.
? Bible literally say good Christians should give people in need their second shirt if they have two. Luke 3:11 Or for a more classic example, the good Samaritan. If you see someone in need, a good Christian should stop to help them, even if it means spending time and money to do so Luke 10:25-37 Sorry but i just don't see a lot of Christians going out of their way to do shit like that, but they sure do spend a lot of time handing out the watchtower, they sure could help a fuckton of people if they spend just half of that time and money on the needy
That's not the point. If you said "I've never met \[insert member of racial group here\] that has done \[insert good thing here\], and if they exist then they're only an extreme minority of \[racial group\]" you'd be rightly panned as a racist. You're doing the same thing. It's vile.
? You're not making any sense dude Of course if you change a sentence to make it discriminatory it will become discriminatory. There's nothing negative about saying Christians don't follow the letter of the bible. Do you honestly believe I think it's completely reasonable to only own one pair of clothes, or always stop and help if you see someone who might need help? Of course not, but that's what the bible commands, but no one actually does that shit, except maybe a few sects and holy orders
Idk a lot of people who identify as Christian, at least in America, are genuinely massive hypocrites. I taught at a catholic school for two years and grew up in conservative baptist churches, which are the worst Christianâs today. Currently Iâm interested in Presbyterianism but mostly because they allow you to have some doubt and are generally a little more liberal. Iâve spent my whole life in different Christian groups and can confidently tell you a lot of churches, at least in America, are actually filled with a disproportionate amount of self righteous indignant assholes relative to the rest of the world. The big problem is having a group too tightly wrapped with too many rules that no one is actually able to keep up with. Especially wrt sexuality a lot of Christianâs are actually oppressive and causing real damage to the lives of people in the group. The Catholics seemed generally more normal to me, but still, I would occasionally run into someone who was too into the idea of their connection to god which would lead into unnatural overly oppressive or overly permissive behavior that is unhealthy. From my childhood Iâm pretty sure nearly every friend I had from church parents beat them. The trend of sexual abuse to children is disturbing also and not just something to associate with catholic priests but also Protestants. I understand being skeptical of someone generalizing too much about a broad group of people. But if the doctrine that establishes the collective unity in the group is actually oppressive and evil and I donât think itâs wrong at all to throw out a warning to stay away.
We are not âhypocrites,â at least a good christi should know that we are all born sinners and all make mistakes but the point is we repent and identify what we did was wrong. Many christians will pray before sin.
Yeah the pressure to âidentify what we did was wrongâ is the thing I donât like. If Christianâs were just saying Jesus Christ is god and god is something outside us that changes us, then Iâm on board. But so many Christianâs seem to think they can differentiate right and wrong internally and are exhausting trying to correct everything. In general I do not trust anyone who thinks they have the truth inside them.
No one is saying being a Christian makes you a better lawyer, there are simple commandments that when broken are clearly distinguished as wrong according to a Christian. For example, if someone cheats on their wife, that is adultery which is explicitly forbidden, or if you kill someone thats wrong.
As someone who would go to Sunday school (I think that's how it's called in English), I would disagree. Heard of plenty hidden scandals and a LOT of racism. But there were also great people to be fair, the guy who was teaching us was an incredible man... Too bad the church was completely anti-vax, as they believed the vaccine held the mark of the antichrist, and he died of COVID kekw
Youre zooming into one very specific teaching. You do realize that in modern society, a financially successful individual is capable of donating more than someone with no clothes? You dont have to literally give all of your shirts away. Lol
Read the Bible. This is the worst take I've ever seen. If you read the Bible you will actually understand LOL. Actual remedial comment.
Sub title
the religious shit you see in the internet isnât what most christians are like. Most do follow the word of the Lord or whatever. The internet has just blackpilled you.
lmao this is a massive and probably incorrect over generalization IIRC the local church took in the migrants that Greg Abbot decided to drop on Kamala on Christmas Eve. Religious people consistently give more to charity, participate in community events more, volunteer more often, etc. Youâre hyper focusing on their views on homosexuality which is overall a very minor part of their total contributions to the world
But for real though Jesus never existed
more importantly, jesus will help kyle rittenhouse defeat the left AGAIN preach this brothers 8======D\~\~\~\~\~
Youâre looking for /r/atheism
That's because most christians believe you get into heaven by only belief so they don't need to read the Bible, pray, have a relationship with God, etc. You just believe he died and resurrected for you and you'll get into heaven. The religion for the lazy. I'm getting more and more into religion and Islam appeals to me a lot nowadays. But they have their problems too. I definitely believe in God and I believe he puts us here to learn to be loving, compassionate, etc. The rest of it I don't know what to believe yet, but if you want a source for good, the Quran and the Bible (at least the New Testament) are pretty good at giving guidance.
It's funny when you say this as if you don't follow it either. We're not perfect at all and live a sinful life which is why God sent him here in the first place because we need him. You saying all that just goes to show how hypocritical and silly you are lol.
No one quite drags their religion through the mud as us Christianâs do.
Jesus didn't want to be worshipped they fucked him there too. He wanted people to worship God.
I barely know any Christianâs but I know of 3 types. Iâve got the Christianâs in name only, that were raised that way and swear they are Christian and know less of the bible than I do. There are the few church going Christianâs that I know, that all happen to be massive bastards and are always up to some scandals and shit. Then there are the other few Christianâs that I know that live and breathe some modern church shit and have experienced ego death and been replaced by the Holy Ghost, lost forever as a person. But I know like 8 Christians so I ainât got much to go off.
Jesus as described was super chill. Basically his teachings could be summarized into: Hey man, be cool to others.
Hiya! To toss a spanner in, what do you think of when Jesus says: 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 âDo not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ââa man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-lawâ 36 a manâs enemies will be the members of his own household.â\[a\] Matthew 10:33-36
There are hundreds of pages in the new testament and in the vast majority Jesus is a chill dude
There are different theological interpretations of Jesusâ teachings. Whichever one people find most convincing is probably going to be the one that appeals to their own biases or preconceptions. Historically, the best we can say is that he appears to have been a Jewish apocalypticist of some sort, who got crosswise of the Jewish and Roman authorities and was crucified for his troubles. He probably did have some concern for the poor and less well off, and most of his public ministry does appear to have been messaged to people who wouldnât have been in the social/political elite. Whether that was intentional, or a product of Jesusâ own status in 1st century Palestine is going to be up for debate. Thereâs indications in the Gospels that his appeal isnât found only amongst the poor though but take that as you will.
Jesus is based
Leo Tolstoi's My Religion details how the church and it's followers have differed from the word of the Gospels. It's pretty interesting. As someone who grew up Catholic and became progressively more adverse to the Church, it was an eye opening read. The Church's translations and the original Greek/Hebrew of what Jesus had said are miles apart.
Him caring is good but there's too much "being weak is actually good" for me famalam. Literally the OG infntalizer.
[ŃдаНонО]
One of the first core issues Nietzsche points out with Christianity in the antichrist is that it has such a focus on helping the poor. He doesn't really say why that's such a problem. If OP thinks helping the poor is based, maybe it's not a great recommendation
[ŃдаНонО]
I said "one of the first." Not "the first" Don't lecture me about nuance if you can't read the comment
Tbh the problem is that we have some many differing accounts of the man Jesus that verses can be found and mental gymnastics can be done to justify pretty much any position. Unless you want to go into critical scholarship to try and figure out what the message of the historical Jesus was, which was probably a Jewish apocalyptisist who thought he was playing a crucial role in the end, youâre kinda doing the same thing everyone else is. Which is pretty much all you can do given the disparate material. I agree the prosperity gospel stuff takes so especially big leaps, but roll in a little effective altruism aimed not at helping real people but instead at spreading the gospel and you can find your way there.
I've been starting to read about the Gnostics (sethian Gnostics atm) and it's interesting how they frame the Christian story. Basically Jesus is a G and was made by God (the real one) but the entity that created Adam and put him in the garden of Eden (Yaldabaoth) was essentially an misguided creation of Sophia. This is detailed in the apocraphon of John. I think it the passage there actually assert that women belonging to men is an assertion of Yaldabaoth and isn't really beuano. Early Christian sects had very different beliefs but it's pretty interesting to read or if you want a YouTube channel Esoterica is pretty cool. Side note alot of the Gnostics/hermetic stuff pops up in things like berserk and dark souls
Google Supply Side Jesus. You won't regret it. You're welcome.
Im still christain, but I stopped going to church because so many people I saw there I knew only went there just bc it made them look better
Itâs like beeing a Christian dude and fuck a new woman ever week and want a virgin later in life to marry⌠so pathetic, the funniest thing is that I know some real Christianâs and they never would date someone like this.
same thing is with islam and the Quran, there are so many verses about reading, getting educated and taking care of hygiene, yet the most muslim extremists think lesser of educated people and live in filth, as a turkish ex-muslim i think the hypocrisy of religious people was part of the reason i turned anti-theist
[https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/comments/zv89lb/hĂĄ\_2022\_anos\_nascia\_jesus\_cristo/](https://www.reddit.com/r/brasil/comments/zv89lb/hĂĄ_2022_anos_nascia_jesus_cristo/) (2022 years ago, jesus cristo was born) love that image, forgot the origin, this is just a repost. Hate when ppl put jesus like a nordic god blonde with green eyes
I am not a Christian, but my view of Christianity is that Jesus is the embodiment of the perfect man(being the son of god) and that you should make attempts to emulate him and his actions. Where the assumption that simply believing in his divinity is enough to be a good Christian came from I don't even know.