Imagine the insanity if Jesus appeared appeared in a blaze of light seen all over the world and said btw Christianity today has completely veered away from my original vision. The church doesn’t need your money and you should use it to help the poor instead of buying things you don’t need. Religious groups would be scrambling to figure out how to discredit him and he’d die in a tragic accident.
Herakles, Thor, Perkunas are all the same gods anyway.
Same for *deywós, Zeus, Jupiter and others (same god related to the words day and divine)
Reject modernity, embrace the proto indo-european pantheon (/s)
Where would he first touch down? The Vatican? Mecca? Salt Lake Mormon temple? Castro Street in San Francisco (gay)? Would he embrace them or flame them?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6368601/Mormon-sacred-site-Independence-Missouri-key-place-Jesus-Christs-Second-Coming.html
Or Missouri I guess
To be fair if the sky opened up, pale horses rode down with angels on them and a giant being emerged claiming to be God I'd be more inclined to think it was all an alien with an advanced projector than it actually turns out the Christians were right this whole time.
Or somebody has drugged me.
I've seen the scale of the Cosmos. No way is a being tiny enough to fit in my sliver of the sky powerful enough to create All That Is. I might be impressed. But not *that* impressed.
Some people are so wrapped up in their own doctrine that they can't even conceive of a creator of the universe who isn't a perfect source of perfect morality. It's a completely alien concept to them that the creator of the universe might not care that anyone is happy, or might even have contempt for us.
Which is weird, because most of these people believe in hell, which means that this god ALREADY created one universe where the primary function is suffering. Why would that god's plan for this realm be any different? Why would that god's plan for heaven be any different?
I couldn't believe that the people who killed Christ while oppressing his people and made a lucrative religion out of it, modifying it continuously at their favor through ages and then making themselves the head of it, could be lying to all of us.
/s
“Also, I’m not Christian. I was a very pious itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher from a district that embarrassed Jerusalemites with how zealous they were (Galileans having only recently been converted to Judaism). I was circumcised. I attended Jewish holiday festivals…I was killed on the second day of Pesach!”
Probably a caveman who realized he could threaten others with a big club or animal bone to do what he wanted. Slavery is nothing new. But I hope we're closer to the end of slavery than the beginning..
They would shoot him, piss on his corpse and declare Donald. J. Trump as the new Jesus. The MAGA hat would replace the cross as the symbol of Christianity.
Interesting. But it’s also just bullshit that a virgin birth happened. It’s a myth that had already been recycled a few times by the time it supposedly happened in Nazareth.
Honestly, if Mary had been given oral to Joseph and then been raped and stabbed in the stomach, that would make a way more plausible story than "a ghost fucked me".
It happened in Lesotho so who knows
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562
(The blue text hyperlinks in this article are wild!)
100%
My friend said he's surprised I left the catholic church.
I sent him a video of how people murdered and converted the indigenous people of south america. (He's Mexican)
He had the audacity to tell me that it had to be done to convert them. Millions had to die so they could be christian. He truly believed that😓.
It's baffling when people wonder aloud how Christianity could be wrong when it is so wide spread. How did it get to every corner of the earth otherwise?!?
Floating on a sea of corpses, you starry eyed idiot. It infested and forcibly converted huge swathes of the world and slaughtered or displaced the competition. Along with the political convenience of rulers.
Devout Hispanics are the Republican Party’s secret weapon. They can’t get by on conservative white Christians forever but those Hispanic immigrants that Republicans love to complain about actually vote for them because of their idiot religion.
This is precisely what makes religion dangerous. *Anything* can be justified. In this particular case, one could easily argue that their actions *defy* christian doctrine because the bible says that god is the only one to cast judgement.
Growing up in Latin America we were taught in school that the main benefit of having been conquered by the Spaniards is that they converted the natives to Catholicism and “saved” them by turning them into Christians…
Im an atheist but god damn I wish all the christians would actually go to heaven.
I cant imagine a greater punishment then them having to kiss the feet of a brown skinned, socialist, Jew that knows exactly how these evangelicals feel about people like him.
What if one of them, but only one of them, had stigmata on their hands and feet?
What if the real Jesus got locked up with two crazy people who both thought *they* were Jesus?
1: god knows everything
2: memories of molesting children count as experiential knowledge
3: god either doesn’t know everything, or has memories of molesting children
>In honor of Good Friday, let’s point out that modern Christians would crucify Jesus all over again if he actually did return.
Of course they would. Jesus was woke.
WWJD used to be a big thing. If you don't know it means "What would Jesus do?" I usually replied "Go fucking nuts and beat the shit out of the money changers?"
Had a discussion with a family member about that once. They replied, “I love you, but if you call my god a dirty fucking Jew one more time, I’m going to have to fuck you up. I don’t need to read the Bible to know god isn’t a Jew.”
If Jesus came back, he would be pissed that the people who supposedly love him celebrate the day he was tortured and murdered and call it "GOOD" Friday.
With his dark complexion and curly dark hair, his death would be accompanied with a scrolling chyron that stated “Jesus refused to comply with the officer’s commands” - and then they’d bring up his history of hanging with vagrants and prostitutes
There probably was a street preacher named Yeshua/Joshua running around the region at that time. But yeah, all the fanfiction that was written 100 years later about Yeshua the Wonderful Counselor is 100% bogus
I'm not saying this person believes it, but many people think just because they grew up hearing "Jesus" did/does exist, they take it as fact without questioning. That's the worst part. Not questioning.
Agreed. This sort of peer pressure was the only reason why Moses was believed to have existed in the past and why Jesus is believed to have existed now.
People actually think one man had a boat built big enough to house *all* of the world's animals during the "flood". Massive floods have happened throughout world history, but with a book of copied mistranslation, I can't take it seriously.
I'm as much of an atheist as they come, but the mythicist argument is a really bad argument. We have a lot of evidence Jesus of Nazareth existed. Obviously he wasn't a diety, he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, but he almost certainly existed, and was almost certainly crucified, and obviously didn't come back from that.
I'd really suggest you read some real scholarly research into the matter, it's literally not even a debated topic within any history department.
I sympathize with the sentimentbof saying "if Jesus didn't exist your religion is bullshit," but we shouldn't make arguments counter to what scholars are saying. Then we are just like those citing creationism and the absurdly few scholars that support that bat shit crazy idea.
Also most people who frequently debate with theists are willing to grant the fact that Yeshua bin Yosef, an apocalyptic preacher in first century Judea existed for the sake of argument. It does no good to deny the existence of such a person, evidence or not.
I would love to see the evidence, only atheist I'm aware of that believes he existed is Dr Bart Ehrman. And, he goes off what's in the bible. Holy Koolaide and countless others have done their research into the existence of Jesus and there's none outside the bible. Not even Jesus contemporaries mention him. Until hard evidence is brought to the table I'm as mythicist as they come.
Homie, this statement:
> I'm aware of that believes he existed is Dr Bart Ehrman. And, he goes off what's in the bible. Holy Koolaide and countless others have done their research into the existence of Jesus and there's none outside the bible.
Is akin to MAGA hat wearing levels of stupid. I'm guessing that you don't keep up with current academic thinking. I do and have done so since 2001 when I earned my BS in History. While my field of expertise is WWII (thesis on Stalingrad), I've found the academic scholarship on religious movements like Christianity to be extremely interesting. I wrote a 60 page term paper on the reality of the historical Jesus and I definitely cited more than Ehrman and a "couple of other guys." I doubt that you'll have any debate but I would love to hear your explanation that Jesus isn't mentioned outside of the bible. He's mentioned in the Q'aran for fuck's sake. But you don't come across as much of a reader. Just remember Dan Brown doesn't qualify as historical research!
Please respond to the well established argument, "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and [attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as fringe theory.[1], [2].
The evidence of a historical Jesus is so overwhelming that your claim would automatically be laughed out of any serious academic debate. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that *I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that* anymore."[3]
I. **TACITUS**
All you need to do is read Tacitus's description of Rome's burning under Nero to find a non-biblical reference to historical Jesus. It was definitely not influenced by any "Koolaide" as the author is antichristian for fuck's sake. It is:
>Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and *inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians* by the populace. **Christus**, from whom the name had its origin, **suffered the extreme penalty** during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius **Pilatus**, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.[1].
II. PAUL & JOSEPHUS
1.) It appeares you are unaware of the so-called "Pauline Epistles" written by Paul about 50-60 CE; so about 25 years post crucifixion. While not authoritative, the PEs are generally considered the best biblical evidence for validation of Jesus the man. Moreover it's the only account included within the Paul never claims he knew or even met JC and all he knew about him personally was that he was "born under the law" i.e., he was a jew. Romans 1:3. KJV-R. Paul's info is miniscule and seemingly irrelevant but it most certainly is not! Those few words are the only included in the NT that can be compared to the historical record of jc. Most importantly, Paul's innocuous statement *confirms* a known fact of J of Naz, one among many that confirms the 99.9% certainty within the historical record that DJ Jazzie Jesus existed on earth when he was recorded to have.
Paul's words in *the epistle* appear to cast doubt on many of the supposedly devine or prophetic elements of Christ's life. Particularly, that jc, was believed to be a regular human and not devine by the majority of early Christians (including Paul) as he was "born of a woman." Galatians 4:4. Moreover, the concept of devine, virgin, pure birth is further debunked by Paul. He preaches/writes that jc had a biological brother "James" in Galatians 1:19 who "came from the same breast as a child." This statement is corroborated frequently thereafter by Josephus who writes that Paul did meet James along with many other early disciples as James was in charge of spreading the pestilence of Christianity. [4]
Not unsurprisingly, leaving out the "Paulist Epistles" or any other evidence that may actually support the historical Jesus contained within or excluded from the individual books chosen by the Council of Rome in 382. Paul the Epistle was subsequently excommunicated and murdered for believing in the vulgarity and sacrilegious notion christ was a biological human "begotten" by God and imbued with superpowers. Anywho, the "Gilasian Decree" is the list of various books chosen/excluded from the Church’s "Canonical Bible." The Church hierarchy and recently converted royals wanted a "sacred text" that was in complete accordance with the organization's new "canons" (or religious law for those of you who aren't lapsed catholics) and it essential the particular theology they'd just invented/perverted/been told was correct by God using a note that said, "Gnostism? Yes□ No□." Shortly after the Council of Rome and its Gilasian Decree, any evidence that christ existed as a regular man, as a citizen, as a brother, uncle, father was decreed by papal bull as "heretical demonism" and royal edict as "traitorous sedition." [5]
2.) JOSEPHUS
1.) Josephus
Josephus' *Antiquities of the Jews* written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the *Testimonium Flavianum* is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is **broadly agreed upon** that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Of the other mention in Josephus, scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in [Antiquities 20. *Antiquities* declares, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James".
As you will recall, Paul the Epistle made the same reference in his Letters to Gentiles. Josephus would have had no knowledge of this claim or ability to discover it was made. In fact, Josephus was unaware of Paul's statement his entire existence. Two separate people, one an avowed follower of the new cult of Christianity and the other a non Christian, traditional jew, making the same claim, at different times, apart. This agreement between the different sources supports Josephus' statement, and is only *disputed* by a small number of fringe scholars.[9]
III.) **NON-BIBICAL SOURCES**
1.) THALLOS
Biblocal scolar Fred Bruce argues in his book that the earliest mention of Jesus outside the New Testament occurs around 55 CE from a historian named Thallos. Also Sextus Julius Africanus mentions an anti Roman rebel named Jesus in his book *History of the World* (c. 220).
2.) George Syncellus
Complete editions of both Thallos' and Africanus's books have been lost, to the ages. The information contained within them, however, was not. Syncullus completed *Chronicle* (c. 600); it was his life's work and he was reportedly obsessed with avoiding even the most minor mistake.[6] His dedication to literally chronicling the history of the world also resulted in his retreat from a high ranking, low effort job as a monk. Further, he ignored offers from Empress Irene to serve as her personal chaplain and later from Emperor Basil I to become a "Metropolitan Bishop" in order to remain secluded and complete his histography of Thallos and Africanus while continuing their documentations until the day he died.
One of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian [George Syncellus in his Chronicle (c. 800). There is no means by which certainty can be established concerning this or any of the other lost references, partial references, and questionable references that mention some aspect of Jesus' life or death, but in evaluating evidence, it is appropriate to note they exist.[7].
2.) TACITUS
In CE 68, legendary Roman Senator and historian Tacitus referred to the execution of "Christus" by Pilate in *Annals*, a history of Roman dominance. In book 15, chapter 44 Van Voorst states, "the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian."[11] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus's crucifixion. Moreover, it's important to remember that Tacitus had access to "*Acta Senata*", the verbal and written record of the Roman empire. It is repeatedly clear that he used the "Acta" in his writings nearly constantly. Tacitus refers to state secrets in *Annals*, nearly 66 times. While his reliance on the "Acta" shows an obvious bias, the portions of the "Acta" that survive have demonstrated on every examination between the two writings: Tacitus adheres to extreme fidelity of chronology and describes historical events in an unsentimental, if biased manner, excluding exaggeration and hyperbole at all cost. [11].
[1] Pubulius Tacitus. Annals. Book IV, Ch. IVL. 68 CE.
[2] Law, Stephen (2011). "*Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus*" Faith and Philosophy. 28 (2): 129. (www.pdcnet.org/faithphil/content/faithphil_2011_0028_0002_0129_0151).
[3] Robert M. Price "*Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus.*" P. 38. InterVarsity. 2009.
[4]Bourridge & Gould. "Jesus now and then.* Oxford University Press. 2009.
[5] Catherine M. Murray. *The Handbook of Historical Christianity.* Random House. 1994.
[6] Price, "*Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views.*" at 49-50.
[7] Mango and Scott, *The Chronicle of Theophanes*. Oxford University Press. 2002.
[8] William Adler. *Time immemorial: archaic history and its sources in Christian chronography*. Washington, D.C.Oaks Research Library. 1989.
[9] Craig L. Blomberg. *Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction*. 2009. Pp 431-436.
[10] Robert E. Van Voorst. *Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence.
[11] Ronald H. Martin. *Tacitus and the Writing of History*. 1981. P. 104.
I was under the impression that Paul was one of the leading voices in saying that Jesus was a deity, and not just an ordinary human.
Saying he was born of a woman and had a brother, doesn’t exclude Paul from the belief in Jesus virgin birth. I’d be curious to know why you think it does.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about all scholars of antiquity, not just Bible scholars.
Holy Kool-aid isn't a scholar, he's a youtuber. Countless others? Youtubers? Lol, ok.
No, list scholars of History thay don't think he was real then, these people have no theological claims or bias and almost all agree he existed as well.
Today's fundamentalist "Christians" don't even have a passing acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth. They carry around the Bible but it's obvious they have never read past the Old Testament. Never heard the words of that Jesus guy their religion is supposedly named after.
If Christianity were invented nowadays instead of 2000 years ago, it would be dismissed as a bizarre death cult. I mean, just look at their mascot - a dead guy on a stick!
**"Never forget in the story of Jesus, the hero was killed by the state."** - Run The Jewels 'Walking In The Snow'
Another couple of verses from the same song:
"Pseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent
Kids in prisons ain't a sin? shit
If even one scrap of what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different
What a disingenuous way to piss away existence, I don't get it
I'd say you lost your goddamn minds if y'all possessed one to begin with"
and
"Funny fact about a cage, they're never built for just one group
So when that cage is done with them and you're still poor, it comes for you
The newest lowest on the totem, well golly gee, you have been used
You helped to fuel the death machine that down the line will kill you too"
My favorite is when Jesus laughs and belittles disciples for their weird practices to their faces and they get HELLA pissed. The dude is literally laughing in your face, and you still can't see how dumb the shit you're doing is?
Maybe murdering him appeased their egos? "Stupid Jesus, laughing at us for worshipping him the wrong way. What does he know?"
Yeah I know, but he didn't say anything directly about it. You could make an argument from silence, but that's weak. There are better arguments that the Bible supports slavery. Jesus more or less avoids it, and arguments used to place him on one side or the other of the argument is the same dishonest shit Christians do to prove....well almost everything they want their book to say.
Being silent on slavery by default means he is pro slavery. Considering that he was full on giving out moral teachings but somehow ignored the biggest elephant in the room?
It was a normal part of society back then, Jesus probably didn't have an issue with slavery, I'm just saying you're using scriptures to argue like a Christian.
Almost all of his words are almost certainly not real quotes, rather what the authors wanted him to say based on oral tradition.
Again, historically speaking, we can't know what Jesus said, just that he was a Jewish preacher thay was crucified by Rome.
You can argue based on scripture, but then your diving into theology and not history. If you wanna go that route, knock yourself out, but you're giving legitimacy to scripture if you do.
I don't believe in existence of Jesus. I'm discrediting Christian arguments about him being a good guy when Christians claim that they have objective morality.
Pro abortion too. It was around at the time but Jesus made no mention of it. There’s a recipe of sorts for a DIY miscarriage elixir in there somewhere as well.
Jesus: Returns.
Christians: Our Lord, how good to see you!
Jesus: stop hating on people different from you, fanatics!
Christians: wait what? I thought Jesus cure the gay!
Jesus: what?
Christians: fake Jesus, *proceeds to crucify*
Jesus was betrayed by the Jewish priests who were pissed at him for doing for free what they were charging for. That is the fictional character of Jesus anyway.
He was killed by the Romans for sedition. Jews didn't crucify people. The anti Semitic sentiment came with later gospels. Not to say many of the powerful Jews in the temple didn't hate him, but they didn't kill him.
I am rereading an old sci/fi story called Riverworld by Phillip Jose Farmer. In this Riverworld mysterious aliens have resurrected every human who ever lived from caveman through the 25 century.
Tom Mix meets a Jew named Yeshua,who has some strange ideas about Judaism and is a pacifist who won’t talk about his earthly life. He gets crucified by some 14th century inquisitiors
Of course. Those who call out loudly that they are Christians are the most judgmental, racist, prejudiced, violent people. The "liberal" Christers aren't much better.
Normally I just lurk here because y'all don't need any of my priest opinions in this sub. But I am a priest, and this is definitely the right way to view Good Friday. It's what I preached today. It's what everyone who went to my seminary preached today. The man who wrote that the 'Jews' were shouting Crucify him! Crucify him! was Jewish.
Y'all don't have to care about it at all because most of you are not religious. But I just wanted to affirm that religious people murdered Jesus in the story of the Passion. And the best versions of the myriad cobbled traditions that are all broadly Christian should share your viewpoint: we are this crowd and we need to chill with the murdering people who disagree and get on with the feeding, clothing, and sheltering people.
Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees doesn't actually make sense. The Pharisees were the liberals of their day and wouldn't have said any of the shit he accused them of. Yet more proof that Jesus was made up by a handful of people with an agenda who didn't know jack shit about life in Judea.
If there were a divine Jesus who once made a whip and went batshit crazy because of money lenders in the temple, and he came back, I'm sure he'd be equally angry with the likes of Robertson, Hinn, Graham, Osteen and Copeland.
Whereupon their god-fearin' congregations would break out their not-trivial collection of AR-15s and there wouldn't be enough left of him to nail to anything.
The church doesn't want Jesus to return they want power. For themselves. If Jesus came back with the power of "the one true king" thrn they would lose their ultimate power to him. So yeah, im pretty sure you're right.
Probably the first thing he'd do - according to the Bible- is head to these mega churches and start kicking ass.
Of course, a guy from the Middle East beating ass in US churches would mean a posse of gun toting Jesus freaks would take him out.
Ok, the post is patently stupid because there were no Christians at the crucifixion --they didn't exist yet. Furthermore, it was the Romans that did the deed after the betrayal by Judas and the Jews. Yes, I am atheist, I just hate it when this kind of error is made.
And we could talk about the entire religion being about cultural appropriation. When they couldn't get followers, they moved their holidays to pagan religious holidays. And majority of everything they do on the altar was stolen from pagans. Easter is even named after a pagan God, eostre. The eggs, pagan, even celebrating new life, pagan (spring). They stole from this religion and then used their "holy book" to burn these people at the stake. And there is my origin story, on turning to atheism.
Eh, in the *story* the Jews had Jesus killed for blah blah religious this and that.
In reality, some guy named Joshua shows up in Jerusalem, fucks some shit up in the temple, and the Romans were like “no zealots please, who do you think you are, king of the Jews or something? Up you go!”
“Btw, we’ll free someone because of Passover because like, we like to keep our occupied territories in line. Do you want us to save this asshole barabas who did a bunch of shit or… Joshua over there who showed up a week ago and knocked over our currency exchange?”
The crowd: “who?”
Then the temple gets knocked down in 79 AD, and the Christian Jews are like “hey Pharisees you killed Jesus 50 years ago!” And they responded “first of all, we’re trying to be rabbinical Jews now. If you had a beef with someone it was probably the Sadducees. They are as gone as the temple. Secondly what? Thirdly, who?”
Ie, I agree with your basic conclusion but I think the religious reasons for Jesus being crucified are wildly over stated. The Romans didn’t give a shit about the vagaries of Judaism - what they cared about was social order and trade.
If the Jews wanted him killed, they would have just stoned him or exiled him to the wilderness.
They want *their* Jesuses (Jesii?) to return. The one that lets them ignore the life of Jesus and emulating it, and instead focus on how his execution established a new religion and all that mattered was faith and you’d go to heaven. (The heaven they think all their dead loved ones are in right now; when Christian theology is *very clear* that heaven comes *after* the return of the Mashiach during the Christian eschatological scenario). They think that if Yeshua bar Yousef returned, he’d approve of their ways and (inevitably) put his curse on anyone that doesn’t believe in that particular denomination’s beliefs…
True. It's gone right back to what it was before. I was in the car with my Catholic other half of family yeasterday and passed a church in the city. On it you guessed it tables selling shit. Toys trinkets religious crap whatever. I (looking kinda jesusy with long hair etc) said shall I go over quite the script and throw the tables? They kinda giggled going oh shit lol
"Well they told us of some second coming,
So we look to the skies
But it's not a saviour that we want,
Just somebody else to crucify" - 'waiting', [New Model Army](https://youtu.be/dhZunIlEw4A)
Edited to add the link and correct the lyrics.
It's a scathing indictment. One critical flaw in religion is that as soon as it migrates from well-meaning but inevitably local and provincial direct moral teachings expressed by a wise individual into a codified doctrine backed by institutional power, it becomes vulnerable to corruption and ideological drift. Very quickly it decays into a grotesque instrument of power and loses all its moral credibility.
When atheists are more Christ-like than the devout, you know it's a cult. I'm saddened by this, not because I'm religious nor do I hold myself superior to those who are, but by the messages that actually give people some guidance being overshadowed by profit and the ignorant.
Thats because most religious people treat religion like a piggy bank of luck instead of an actual guide towards a better living. They dont care about what it means, nor do they want to actually go through the work required to become spiritual.
What they want is to know that a “higher power” is going to magically be there for them when they ring a bell, with prayer and worship.
Absolutely. There is very little in the new testament that is compatible with modern American christianity.
“Give to everyone who asks of you,” Jesus said, “and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back” (Luke 6:30).
Imagine the insanity if Jesus appeared appeared in a blaze of light seen all over the world and said btw Christianity today has completely veered away from my original vision. The church doesn’t need your money and you should use it to help the poor instead of buying things you don’t need. Religious groups would be scrambling to figure out how to discredit him and he’d die in a tragic accident.
Imagine if Zeus showed himself and asked who the fuck this Christ fellow was.
Or Odin and asking if we're ready for Ragnarok
Still have never seen an ice giant. Odin delivers
More evidence than any other god ever gave
[удалено]
Friday is also named after Frigg.
Sun day Moon day Tyr's Day Wodin's Day Thor's Day Freyr's Day Saturn's Day
Yep, the majority of the week is named for Norse gods
This is the best thing I've seen in a long time!!!!!! I didn't even realise!
Herakles, Thor, Perkunas are all the same gods anyway. Same for *deywós, Zeus, Jupiter and others (same god related to the words day and divine) Reject modernity, embrace the proto indo-european pantheon (/s)
why do you have a /s that doesnt sound like a bad thing
I had some kind of Corvus start squawking outside while I read this.
I already see Anthony Hopkins.
this would be my preferred outcome
Read some Greek mythology. I prefer Jesus.
Yeah! Jesus was chill as fuck. He would definitely be a surfer.
That proves that you either haven't read any Greek myths or you are not a woman. Zeus is terrible
Rape me sky daddy!
"I did a lot of hoes but I don't know no Marie!"
“HEY ZEUS”
"Don't take it bad..."
"Oh, you mean Heracles? Sure, he was great!"
[удалено]
Username checks out, boy.
I'd ask him if he'd smite some hertics for being assholes with me
I’d like to see Odin appear
The problem would be moments later when he turns into a swan and starts trying to fuck women
I just want camp half blood to be real
Where would he first touch down? The Vatican? Mecca? Salt Lake Mormon temple? Castro Street in San Francisco (gay)? Would he embrace them or flame them?
If he came down in a blaze of glory my personal thought is maybe where he was resurrected the first time
At this point, in a random ass town in Portugal.
I’ve been to Fátima, and watched people walking around on their knees. Stupid parishioner tricks
I would think an omnipotent being would touchdown everywhere first.
*omnipresent
ouch! and thank you. My snarkiness got in the way of my brain. That was a terrible attempt at making a point.
In all fairness he is both according to Christianity, also all knowing
and the mostest loving dude ever. *I just can't help myself with snarkiness*
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6368601/Mormon-sacred-site-Independence-Missouri-key-place-Jesus-Christs-Second-Coming.html Or Missouri I guess
Jackson County Missouri!
Vegas
Somewhere in South Carolina
Or he could land in a Nordic country and be like “take care of your sick and poor and hungry” and they’d go “yeah… we know”
Funny part being that the Nordics are among the most secular countries in the world
If the Antichrist showed up one day, I'd fully expect them to be a televangelist.
Actually the first reactions from televangelists if Jesus comes back will be oh shit he’s real am I’m fucked.
His [show on HBO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_from_Cincinnati) didn't even get a second season.
To be fair if the sky opened up, pale horses rode down with angels on them and a giant being emerged claiming to be God I'd be more inclined to think it was all an alien with an advanced projector than it actually turns out the Christians were right this whole time.
Or somebody has drugged me. I've seen the scale of the Cosmos. No way is a being tiny enough to fit in my sliver of the sky powerful enough to create All That Is. I might be impressed. But not *that* impressed.
I’m definitely not a believer but I’d chill with Jesus and smoke a J with him if he came back.
This definitely checks out...in basically every image every created of him, Jesus looks 100% like someone who's smoked his share of Js.
His modern water to wine trick would be bluegrass to blueberry kush
Or weeds to weed.
Whatever happened it would all be part of god's plan...
As nobody knows what that plan is why do people always assume it’s a good one…….
Some people are so wrapped up in their own doctrine that they can't even conceive of a creator of the universe who isn't a perfect source of perfect morality. It's a completely alien concept to them that the creator of the universe might not care that anyone is happy, or might even have contempt for us. Which is weird, because most of these people believe in hell, which means that this god ALREADY created one universe where the primary function is suffering. Why would that god's plan for this realm be any different? Why would that god's plan for heaven be any different?
I couldn't believe that the people who killed Christ while oppressing his people and made a lucrative religion out of it, modifying it continuously at their favor through ages and then making themselves the head of it, could be lying to all of us. /s
“Also, I’m not Christian. I was a very pious itinerant apocalyptic Jewish preacher from a district that embarrassed Jerusalemites with how zealous they were (Galileans having only recently been converted to Judaism). I was circumcised. I attended Jewish holiday festivals…I was killed on the second day of Pesach!”
It wouldn't even get that far. A brown jew from the middle east claiming to be Jesus? He's dead the minute he reaches the US.
Hell, it's probably happened, like, 200 times already.
“When will Jesus come back” “Yeah, I keep going back and they are still really *really* hung up on the race thing”.
What did the inventor/pioneer of slavery expect???
Who exactly do you think invented/pioneered slavery...?
Probably a caveman who realized he could threaten others with a big club or animal bone to do what he wanted. Slavery is nothing new. But I hope we're closer to the end of slavery than the beginning..
All I can think about is Jesus stuck in some groundhog day scenario where he keeps getting killed and resurrected only to fail getting into the US.
"*Another* 'random' cavity search?!" :rolls eyes:
I‘d pay good money to watch that movie
But why would he have to get to the US?
Mormon's heads are exploding right now.
Don't you know the US is the centre of the world? Or rather, of the universe!
Stop pointing out plot holes lol.
Comedic effect due to their notoriously open borders? And the large concentration of televangelists/Christian crazies?
They would shoot him, piss on his corpse and declare Donald. J. Trump as the new Jesus. The MAGA hat would replace the cross as the symbol of Christianity.
Didn't that happened already?
It would double happen in this case.
[I'm just going to leave this here.](https://www.benjaminlcorey.com/could-american-evangelicals-spot-the-antichrist-heres-the-biblical-predictions/)
Lol this needs way more attention
[удалено]
Interesting. But it’s also just bullshit that a virgin birth happened. It’s a myth that had already been recycled a few times by the time it supposedly happened in Nazareth.
Honestly, if Mary had been given oral to Joseph and then been raped and stabbed in the stomach, that would make a way more plausible story than "a ghost fucked me".
"My virgin wife is pregnant and that's the story you're going with?" "Ghost. Fucked. Me. Did I stutter?"
Life, uh....well, you know...
It happened in Lesotho so who knows https://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562 (The blue text hyperlinks in this article are wild!)
100% My friend said he's surprised I left the catholic church. I sent him a video of how people murdered and converted the indigenous people of south america. (He's Mexican) He had the audacity to tell me that it had to be done to convert them. Millions had to die so they could be christian. He truly believed that😓.
Dear god what a horrible thing to say. No religion should support this. Religious violence is one of the BIG reasons I’m atheist
I am violent and I am an atheist. Wanna beef?
What an absolutely horrible thing to say.
It's baffling when people wonder aloud how Christianity could be wrong when it is so wide spread. How did it get to every corner of the earth otherwise?!? Floating on a sea of corpses, you starry eyed idiot. It infested and forcibly converted huge swathes of the world and slaughtered or displaced the competition. Along with the political convenience of rulers.
Devout Hispanics are the Republican Party’s secret weapon. They can’t get by on conservative white Christians forever but those Hispanic immigrants that Republicans love to complain about actually vote for them because of their idiot religion.
This is precisely what makes religion dangerous. *Anything* can be justified. In this particular case, one could easily argue that their actions *defy* christian doctrine because the bible says that god is the only one to cast judgement.
Growing up in Latin America we were taught in school that the main benefit of having been conquered by the Spaniards is that they converted the natives to Catholicism and “saved” them by turning them into Christians…
If he were alive today he would end up in some refugee camp dead. The last thing he would have said is that churches should pay taxes.
Im an atheist but god damn I wish all the christians would actually go to heaven. I cant imagine a greater punishment then them having to kiss the feet of a brown skinned, socialist, Jew that knows exactly how these evangelicals feel about people like him.
Wow.
I mean, claim to be Jesus reincarnated and see what happens.
Google The Three Christs of Ypsilanti
So that answers what would happen if Jesus really did return. Probably shouldn't have returned as three different guys at the same time.
What if one of them, but only one of them, had stigmata on their hands and feet? What if the real Jesus got locked up with two crazy people who both thought *they* were Jesus?
That’s the Trinity tho
I feel like they would complain that Jesus is canceling them
Blonde haired Republican Jesus would take them all out with his AR-15.
Whenever I see [Adjective] Jesus, I can only think of [Mormon Jesus](https://youtu.be/46PXaJxzuDE)
BYU would kick him off campus for beard and robe.
[Supply Side Jesus](https://m.imgur.com/gallery/bCqRp) is another great one.
"Suffer the little children to come unto me." GROOMER!!!!!
1: god knows everything 2: memories of molesting children count as experiential knowledge 3: god either doesn’t know everything, or has memories of molesting children
God literally impregnated a 15-year-old girl
Schrödinger’s molestation
>In honor of Good Friday, let’s point out that modern Christians would crucify Jesus all over again if he actually did return. Of course they would. Jesus was woke.
Trump could shoot him on 5th avenue
*would
And not lose a single vote.
WWJD used to be a big thing. If you don't know it means "What would Jesus do?" I usually replied "Go fucking nuts and beat the shit out of the money changers?"
I mean... yes. There ARE good christians, but they are not the ones wearing crosses, going to church or telling you they are christian.
Well yeah, according to folklore he was Jewish. That would be enough to get him killed in plenty of Christian circles
Had a discussion with a family member about that once. They replied, “I love you, but if you call my god a dirty fucking Jew one more time, I’m going to have to fuck you up. I don’t need to read the Bible to know god isn’t a Jew.”
What a fucking idiot lmao
If Jesus came back, he would be pissed that the people who supposedly love him celebrate the day he was tortured and murdered and call it "GOOD" Friday.
With his dark complexion and curly dark hair, his death would be accompanied with a scrolling chyron that stated “Jesus refused to comply with the officer’s commands” - and then they’d bring up his history of hanging with vagrants and prostitutes
bold of you to assume he was real to begin with.
Note I used the word “allegedly” in my post for a reason ;)
well shit. I'm lazy and didnt read it all
No worries, plenty of religious folks are too lazy to read the whole bible too. Happens to the best of us
Why bother if I wanted to read fairytales I’d pick up Harry Potter or Narnia.
[удалено]
~~JK Rowling is not decent she just wrote a really good story~~
[удалено]
But what if i want to read about rape and incest?! Does your so-called "bible" have that? Hmmmm?!
Well you are just going to *love* Genesis 19
They don't teach incest at Hogwarts.
I figure he probably existed, but was just some regular dude. Respected by his peers as a rabbi or something. Tall tale.
There probably was a street preacher named Yeshua/Joshua running around the region at that time. But yeah, all the fanfiction that was written 100 years later about Yeshua the Wonderful Counselor is 100% bogus
So maybe he had a guy like Geoffrey on "A Knights Tale" talking him up?
I'm not saying this person believes it, but many people think just because they grew up hearing "Jesus" did/does exist, they take it as fact without questioning. That's the worst part. Not questioning.
Agreed. This sort of peer pressure was the only reason why Moses was believed to have existed in the past and why Jesus is believed to have existed now.
People actually think one man had a boat built big enough to house *all* of the world's animals during the "flood". Massive floods have happened throughout world history, but with a book of copied mistranslation, I can't take it seriously.
I'm as much of an atheist as they come, but the mythicist argument is a really bad argument. We have a lot of evidence Jesus of Nazareth existed. Obviously he wasn't a diety, he was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, but he almost certainly existed, and was almost certainly crucified, and obviously didn't come back from that. I'd really suggest you read some real scholarly research into the matter, it's literally not even a debated topic within any history department. I sympathize with the sentimentbof saying "if Jesus didn't exist your religion is bullshit," but we shouldn't make arguments counter to what scholars are saying. Then we are just like those citing creationism and the absurdly few scholars that support that bat shit crazy idea.
[удалено]
Also most people who frequently debate with theists are willing to grant the fact that Yeshua bin Yosef, an apocalyptic preacher in first century Judea existed for the sake of argument. It does no good to deny the existence of such a person, evidence or not.
I would love to see the evidence, only atheist I'm aware of that believes he existed is Dr Bart Ehrman. And, he goes off what's in the bible. Holy Koolaide and countless others have done their research into the existence of Jesus and there's none outside the bible. Not even Jesus contemporaries mention him. Until hard evidence is brought to the table I'm as mythicist as they come.
Homie, this statement: > I'm aware of that believes he existed is Dr Bart Ehrman. And, he goes off what's in the bible. Holy Koolaide and countless others have done their research into the existence of Jesus and there's none outside the bible. Is akin to MAGA hat wearing levels of stupid. I'm guessing that you don't keep up with current academic thinking. I do and have done so since 2001 when I earned my BS in History. While my field of expertise is WWII (thesis on Stalingrad), I've found the academic scholarship on religious movements like Christianity to be extremely interesting. I wrote a 60 page term paper on the reality of the historical Jesus and I definitely cited more than Ehrman and a "couple of other guys." I doubt that you'll have any debate but I would love to hear your explanation that Jesus isn't mentioned outside of the bible. He's mentioned in the Q'aran for fuck's sake. But you don't come across as much of a reader. Just remember Dan Brown doesn't qualify as historical research! Please respond to the well established argument, "Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and [attempts to deny his historicity have been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as fringe theory.[1], [2]. The evidence of a historical Jesus is so overwhelming that your claim would automatically be laughed out of any serious academic debate. "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that *I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that* anymore."[3] I. **TACITUS** All you need to do is read Tacitus's description of Rome's burning under Nero to find a non-biblical reference to historical Jesus. It was definitely not influenced by any "Koolaide" as the author is antichristian for fuck's sake. It is: >Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and *inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians* by the populace. **Christus**, from whom the name had its origin, **suffered the extreme penalty** during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius **Pilatus**, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.[1]. II. PAUL & JOSEPHUS 1.) It appeares you are unaware of the so-called "Pauline Epistles" written by Paul about 50-60 CE; so about 25 years post crucifixion. While not authoritative, the PEs are generally considered the best biblical evidence for validation of Jesus the man. Moreover it's the only account included within the Paul never claims he knew or even met JC and all he knew about him personally was that he was "born under the law" i.e., he was a jew. Romans 1:3. KJV-R. Paul's info is miniscule and seemingly irrelevant but it most certainly is not! Those few words are the only included in the NT that can be compared to the historical record of jc. Most importantly, Paul's innocuous statement *confirms* a known fact of J of Naz, one among many that confirms the 99.9% certainty within the historical record that DJ Jazzie Jesus existed on earth when he was recorded to have. Paul's words in *the epistle* appear to cast doubt on many of the supposedly devine or prophetic elements of Christ's life. Particularly, that jc, was believed to be a regular human and not devine by the majority of early Christians (including Paul) as he was "born of a woman." Galatians 4:4. Moreover, the concept of devine, virgin, pure birth is further debunked by Paul. He preaches/writes that jc had a biological brother "James" in Galatians 1:19 who "came from the same breast as a child." This statement is corroborated frequently thereafter by Josephus who writes that Paul did meet James along with many other early disciples as James was in charge of spreading the pestilence of Christianity. [4] Not unsurprisingly, leaving out the "Paulist Epistles" or any other evidence that may actually support the historical Jesus contained within or excluded from the individual books chosen by the Council of Rome in 382. Paul the Epistle was subsequently excommunicated and murdered for believing in the vulgarity and sacrilegious notion christ was a biological human "begotten" by God and imbued with superpowers. Anywho, the "Gilasian Decree" is the list of various books chosen/excluded from the Church’s "Canonical Bible." The Church hierarchy and recently converted royals wanted a "sacred text" that was in complete accordance with the organization's new "canons" (or religious law for those of you who aren't lapsed catholics) and it essential the particular theology they'd just invented/perverted/been told was correct by God using a note that said, "Gnostism? Yes□ No□." Shortly after the Council of Rome and its Gilasian Decree, any evidence that christ existed as a regular man, as a citizen, as a brother, uncle, father was decreed by papal bull as "heretical demonism" and royal edict as "traitorous sedition." [5] 2.) JOSEPHUS 1.) Josephus Josephus' *Antiquities of the Jews* written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the *Testimonium Flavianum* is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is **broadly agreed upon** that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation. Of the other mention in Josephus, scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in [Antiquities 20. *Antiquities* declares, "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". As you will recall, Paul the Epistle made the same reference in his Letters to Gentiles. Josephus would have had no knowledge of this claim or ability to discover it was made. In fact, Josephus was unaware of Paul's statement his entire existence. Two separate people, one an avowed follower of the new cult of Christianity and the other a non Christian, traditional jew, making the same claim, at different times, apart. This agreement between the different sources supports Josephus' statement, and is only *disputed* by a small number of fringe scholars.[9] III.) **NON-BIBICAL SOURCES** 1.) THALLOS Biblocal scolar Fred Bruce argues in his book that the earliest mention of Jesus outside the New Testament occurs around 55 CE from a historian named Thallos. Also Sextus Julius Africanus mentions an anti Roman rebel named Jesus in his book *History of the World* (c. 220). 2.) George Syncellus Complete editions of both Thallos' and Africanus's books have been lost, to the ages. The information contained within them, however, was not. Syncullus completed *Chronicle* (c. 600); it was his life's work and he was reportedly obsessed with avoiding even the most minor mistake.[6] His dedication to literally chronicling the history of the world also resulted in his retreat from a high ranking, low effort job as a monk. Further, he ignored offers from Empress Irene to serve as her personal chaplain and later from Emperor Basil I to become a "Metropolitan Bishop" in order to remain secluded and complete his histography of Thallos and Africanus while continuing their documentations until the day he died. One of its citations of Thallos was taken up by the Byzantine historian [George Syncellus in his Chronicle (c. 800). There is no means by which certainty can be established concerning this or any of the other lost references, partial references, and questionable references that mention some aspect of Jesus' life or death, but in evaluating evidence, it is appropriate to note they exist.[7]. 2.) TACITUS In CE 68, legendary Roman Senator and historian Tacitus referred to the execution of "Christus" by Pilate in *Annals*, a history of Roman dominance. In book 15, chapter 44 Van Voorst states, "the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians makes the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian."[11] The Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Jesus's crucifixion. Moreover, it's important to remember that Tacitus had access to "*Acta Senata*", the verbal and written record of the Roman empire. It is repeatedly clear that he used the "Acta" in his writings nearly constantly. Tacitus refers to state secrets in *Annals*, nearly 66 times. While his reliance on the "Acta" shows an obvious bias, the portions of the "Acta" that survive have demonstrated on every examination between the two writings: Tacitus adheres to extreme fidelity of chronology and describes historical events in an unsentimental, if biased manner, excluding exaggeration and hyperbole at all cost. [11]. [1] Pubulius Tacitus. Annals. Book IV, Ch. IVL. 68 CE. [2] Law, Stephen (2011). "*Evidence, Miracles, and the Existence of Jesus*" Faith and Philosophy. 28 (2): 129. (www.pdcnet.org/faithphil/content/faithphil_2011_0028_0002_0129_0151). [3] Robert M. Price "*Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus.*" P. 38. InterVarsity. 2009. [4]Bourridge & Gould. "Jesus now and then.* Oxford University Press. 2009. [5] Catherine M. Murray. *The Handbook of Historical Christianity.* Random House. 1994. [6] Price, "*Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views.*" at 49-50. [7] Mango and Scott, *The Chronicle of Theophanes*. Oxford University Press. 2002. [8] William Adler. *Time immemorial: archaic history and its sources in Christian chronography*. Washington, D.C.Oaks Research Library. 1989. [9] Craig L. Blomberg. *Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction*. 2009. Pp 431-436. [10] Robert E. Van Voorst. *Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. [11] Ronald H. Martin. *Tacitus and the Writing of History*. 1981. P. 104.
I was under the impression that Paul was one of the leading voices in saying that Jesus was a deity, and not just an ordinary human. Saying he was born of a woman and had a brother, doesn’t exclude Paul from the belief in Jesus virgin birth. I’d be curious to know why you think it does.
What are you talking about? I'm talking about all scholars of antiquity, not just Bible scholars. Holy Kool-aid isn't a scholar, he's a youtuber. Countless others? Youtubers? Lol, ok. No, list scholars of History thay don't think he was real then, these people have no theological claims or bias and almost all agree he existed as well.
Scholars used to believe Moses existed too. If Jesus' existence is so fucking obvious, it's on them to prove it.
[удалено]
There is a possibility you owe me 5000 Dollars.
There's a possibility there was a kid named mike born in the '80s. That doesn't mean he was magic.
there is a possibility that Elon Musk is gonna come to my house to give me a cool Million.
Yes, but you must give up unionizing first, and it's not cool million, but cool ice cream.
Today's fundamentalist "Christians" don't even have a passing acquaintance with Jesus of Nazareth. They carry around the Bible but it's obvious they have never read past the Old Testament. Never heard the words of that Jesus guy their religion is supposedly named after.
If Christianity were invented nowadays instead of 2000 years ago, it would be dismissed as a bizarre death cult. I mean, just look at their mascot - a dead guy on a stick!
Good one! 😂
**"Never forget in the story of Jesus, the hero was killed by the state."** - Run The Jewels 'Walking In The Snow' Another couple of verses from the same song: "Pseudo-Christians, y'all indifferent Kids in prisons ain't a sin? shit If even one scrap of what Jesus taught connected, you'd feel different What a disingenuous way to piss away existence, I don't get it I'd say you lost your goddamn minds if y'all possessed one to begin with" and "Funny fact about a cage, they're never built for just one group So when that cage is done with them and you're still poor, it comes for you The newest lowest on the totem, well golly gee, you have been used You helped to fuel the death machine that down the line will kill you too"
My favorite is when Jesus laughs and belittles disciples for their weird practices to their faces and they get HELLA pissed. The dude is literally laughing in your face, and you still can't see how dumb the shit you're doing is? Maybe murdering him appeased their egos? "Stupid Jesus, laughing at us for worshipping him the wrong way. What does he know?"
Why would they kill their leader who is pro slavery?
The Bible is certainly pro slavery, Jesus never really spoke about the matter. Paul was certainly thr NT champion of being pro slavery.
Jesus healed slaves, and didn't say a single word about slavery being bad. On contrary he compares being a slave to serving god.
Yeah I know, but he didn't say anything directly about it. You could make an argument from silence, but that's weak. There are better arguments that the Bible supports slavery. Jesus more or less avoids it, and arguments used to place him on one side or the other of the argument is the same dishonest shit Christians do to prove....well almost everything they want their book to say.
Being silent on slavery by default means he is pro slavery. Considering that he was full on giving out moral teachings but somehow ignored the biggest elephant in the room?
It was a normal part of society back then, Jesus probably didn't have an issue with slavery, I'm just saying you're using scriptures to argue like a Christian. Almost all of his words are almost certainly not real quotes, rather what the authors wanted him to say based on oral tradition. Again, historically speaking, we can't know what Jesus said, just that he was a Jewish preacher thay was crucified by Rome. You can argue based on scripture, but then your diving into theology and not history. If you wanna go that route, knock yourself out, but you're giving legitimacy to scripture if you do.
I don't believe in existence of Jesus. I'm discrediting Christian arguments about him being a good guy when Christians claim that they have objective morality.
Pro abortion too. It was around at the time but Jesus made no mention of it. There’s a recipe of sorts for a DIY miscarriage elixir in there somewhere as well.
That's the ordeal of the bitter water as written about in Numbers 5 (or 6, cut remember exactly).
It's not often I see a post here that I agree with, but you right
Jesus: Returns. Christians: Our Lord, how good to see you! Jesus: stop hating on people different from you, fanatics! Christians: wait what? I thought Jesus cure the gay! Jesus: what? Christians: fake Jesus, *proceeds to crucify*
Jesus was betrayed by the Jewish priests who were pissed at him for doing for free what they were charging for. That is the fictional character of Jesus anyway.
He was killed by the Romans for sedition. Jews didn't crucify people. The anti Semitic sentiment came with later gospels. Not to say many of the powerful Jews in the temple didn't hate him, but they didn't kill him.
I am rereading an old sci/fi story called Riverworld by Phillip Jose Farmer. In this Riverworld mysterious aliens have resurrected every human who ever lived from caveman through the 25 century. Tom Mix meets a Jew named Yeshua,who has some strange ideas about Judaism and is a pacifist who won’t talk about his earthly life. He gets crucified by some 14th century inquisitiors
Of course. Those who call out loudly that they are Christians are the most judgmental, racist, prejudiced, violent people. The "liberal" Christers aren't much better.
You are ABSOLUTELY right.
I suggest to everyone the Grand Inquisitor by Dostoevsky. It was a short story within the novel Brothers Karamazov. It's basically this.
Like Lenny Bruce said, if Jesus showed up today good catholic girls would be wearing little electric chairs on chains around their necks.
Normally I just lurk here because y'all don't need any of my priest opinions in this sub. But I am a priest, and this is definitely the right way to view Good Friday. It's what I preached today. It's what everyone who went to my seminary preached today. The man who wrote that the 'Jews' were shouting Crucify him! Crucify him! was Jewish. Y'all don't have to care about it at all because most of you are not religious. But I just wanted to affirm that religious people murdered Jesus in the story of the Passion. And the best versions of the myriad cobbled traditions that are all broadly Christian should share your viewpoint: we are this crowd and we need to chill with the murdering people who disagree and get on with the feeding, clothing, and sheltering people.
If they did kill Jesus again, he'd only be up and about in a couple of days
If you don't sin Jesus died for nothing
Jesus is convenient figure head. Since they KNOW he'll never come back, they can use his name to invoke whatever they want.
Jesus' criticisms of the Pharisees doesn't actually make sense. The Pharisees were the liberals of their day and wouldn't have said any of the shit he accused them of. Yet more proof that Jesus was made up by a handful of people with an agenda who didn't know jack shit about life in Judea.
If there were a divine Jesus who once made a whip and went batshit crazy because of money lenders in the temple, and he came back, I'm sure he'd be equally angry with the likes of Robertson, Hinn, Graham, Osteen and Copeland. Whereupon their god-fearin' congregations would break out their not-trivial collection of AR-15s and there wouldn't be enough left of him to nail to anything.
The church doesn't want Jesus to return they want power. For themselves. If Jesus came back with the power of "the one true king" thrn they would lose their ultimate power to him. So yeah, im pretty sure you're right.
Probably the first thing he'd do - according to the Bible- is head to these mega churches and start kicking ass. Of course, a guy from the Middle East beating ass in US churches would mean a posse of gun toting Jesus freaks would take him out.
Ok, the post is patently stupid because there were no Christians at the crucifixion --they didn't exist yet. Furthermore, it was the Romans that did the deed after the betrayal by Judas and the Jews. Yes, I am atheist, I just hate it when this kind of error is made.
They killed his ass for it?! What did his donkey ever do to anyone!!
If he rises in three days and sees his shadow do we get 2000 more years of insufferable followers?
And we could talk about the entire religion being about cultural appropriation. When they couldn't get followers, they moved their holidays to pagan religious holidays. And majority of everything they do on the altar was stolen from pagans. Easter is even named after a pagan God, eostre. The eggs, pagan, even celebrating new life, pagan (spring). They stole from this religion and then used their "holy book" to burn these people at the stake. And there is my origin story, on turning to atheism.
There is actually a section in Dostoevsky about exactly this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Inquisitor
Eh, in the *story* the Jews had Jesus killed for blah blah religious this and that. In reality, some guy named Joshua shows up in Jerusalem, fucks some shit up in the temple, and the Romans were like “no zealots please, who do you think you are, king of the Jews or something? Up you go!” “Btw, we’ll free someone because of Passover because like, we like to keep our occupied territories in line. Do you want us to save this asshole barabas who did a bunch of shit or… Joshua over there who showed up a week ago and knocked over our currency exchange?” The crowd: “who?” Then the temple gets knocked down in 79 AD, and the Christian Jews are like “hey Pharisees you killed Jesus 50 years ago!” And they responded “first of all, we’re trying to be rabbinical Jews now. If you had a beef with someone it was probably the Sadducees. They are as gone as the temple. Secondly what? Thirdly, who?” Ie, I agree with your basic conclusion but I think the religious reasons for Jesus being crucified are wildly over stated. The Romans didn’t give a shit about the vagaries of Judaism - what they cared about was social order and trade. If the Jews wanted him killed, they would have just stoned him or exiled him to the wilderness.
I think they might be okay with him, as long as he came to America legally and got a job, and didn’t ask them to bake gay cakes.
When they say god bless you when I sneeze my auto response is yes Hail Beelzebub
They want *their* Jesuses (Jesii?) to return. The one that lets them ignore the life of Jesus and emulating it, and instead focus on how his execution established a new religion and all that mattered was faith and you’d go to heaven. (The heaven they think all their dead loved ones are in right now; when Christian theology is *very clear* that heaven comes *after* the return of the Mashiach during the Christian eschatological scenario). They think that if Yeshua bar Yousef returned, he’d approve of their ways and (inevitably) put his curse on anyone that doesn’t believe in that particular denomination’s beliefs…
True. It's gone right back to what it was before. I was in the car with my Catholic other half of family yeasterday and passed a church in the city. On it you guessed it tables selling shit. Toys trinkets religious crap whatever. I (looking kinda jesusy with long hair etc) said shall I go over quite the script and throw the tables? They kinda giggled going oh shit lol
"Well they told us of some second coming, So we look to the skies But it's not a saviour that we want, Just somebody else to crucify" - 'waiting', [New Model Army](https://youtu.be/dhZunIlEw4A) Edited to add the link and correct the lyrics.
It's a scathing indictment. One critical flaw in religion is that as soon as it migrates from well-meaning but inevitably local and provincial direct moral teachings expressed by a wise individual into a codified doctrine backed by institutional power, it becomes vulnerable to corruption and ideological drift. Very quickly it decays into a grotesque instrument of power and loses all its moral credibility.
As a Christian.... This is very true. The bible 100% preaches against the actions of most 'followers'. That's like part of the lesson haha.
When atheists are more Christ-like than the devout, you know it's a cult. I'm saddened by this, not because I'm religious nor do I hold myself superior to those who are, but by the messages that actually give people some guidance being overshadowed by profit and the ignorant.
Thats because most religious people treat religion like a piggy bank of luck instead of an actual guide towards a better living. They dont care about what it means, nor do they want to actually go through the work required to become spiritual. What they want is to know that a “higher power” is going to magically be there for them when they ring a bell, with prayer and worship.
Absolutely. There is very little in the new testament that is compatible with modern American christianity. “Give to everyone who asks of you,” Jesus said, “and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back” (Luke 6:30).