Thread 17904596

Your appearance

>if Jesus did exist he'd worship the degenerate orange fat slob retard
Not the flex you think it is.

>>17904596 (OP)
Frankly the only way you can be a Christian and not be a liberal pussy is to basically say that you disagree with God and disregard basically the entirety of the NT, which most Christians already do. The moral authority of the church(es) have been broken since the 1400s or so and the only reason it continues to exist is for a social ritual, which is fine, but ultimately delusional.

Why are they like this

>>17904596 (OP)
i don't believe jesus exists and i also don't think he would be a liberal like me. for one, i think slavery is bad, and jesus does not.

read Acts; early christians were communist cannibals which is why the normally tolerant Romans persecuted them.

>>17904596 (OP)
This assumes it's even difficult to figure out how Jesus thinks you should behave.
He would be a liberal on many things, but the problem is when you start making shit up beyond that

>>17904596 (OP)
>Reaction post for Christians when you point out they don't follow the teachings their God explicitly said.
Remember all those times Jesus called out hypocrites?

>>17904712
Pretty much every single Christian on Earth is a hypocrite because if Christians actually followed the Bible to a T it would be Islam-tier

>>17904715
Most Christians claim reasons not to follow most of the Mosaic laws, but they at least claim to fully follow what Jesus said.

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet and thought the world was going to end next Tuesday. He didn't have a political affiliation.

>>17904724
King of the jews is a political position, retard

>>17904873

Jesus wasn't "King of the Jews", that's a title he neither espoused or even begrudgingly accepted. Pagan Romans gave him that title.

However:

>Od: King

>Dinn: Jew

>Oddinn = Odin = King Jew

>Amaterasu Omikami

>Amaterasu -- August Deity

>Omi -- Jew/Jews

>Kami -- God/Gods/Goddesses/Goddess

>Amaterasu Omi Kami -- August Deity, Goddess of the Jews

>>17904873
>King of the jews is a political position
Messiah was going to be the "king of the jews" in the kingdom of God (IE the end of the world). That is likely why the Romans were confused and why they needed the Sanhedrin to interpret the claims of Jesus. Messiah didn't mean anything to the Romans, so when the Jewish elite told them that he was going around styling himself as a "king" that marked him for execution. But make no mistake, he thought God was coming back in two weeks and he would be God's right hand man.

I don't think Jesus was divine, and I don't know how much of what was written about Jesus is actually true, but a lot of the stuff he said and preached would come across as pretty liberal today. I myself quite like how peaceful, humble, and selfless Jesus is depicted to be. I try to mirror those qualities, not because I think Jesus is God, but because I think those qualities are good.

>>17904938
>but a lot of the stuff he said and preached would come across as pretty liberal today
The Gospels have plenty of stuff the writers (who were likely influenced by Paul) made up whole cloth. Something that can't be understated is that when the gospels were being written, it was very important to be considered meek and timid, less you get nailed to a cross for being an annoying upstart. This is a common feature of Religions. You even see the prophet Mohammad preach about peace and tolerance when he (and Islam) found itself on the backfoot.

>>17905006
Okay. I still like it.

>>17904938
It would be very weird if, to the extent that there was a historical Jesus, his message wasn't at least decently well-aligned with the whole love, pacifism, egalitarianism and generosity ideas, near-term apocalypse expectations notwithstanding. That's what distinguished him from the other would-be messiahs of the time, isn't it? That's what makes the story where the Jews choose Jesus Barabbas, the murderous insurrectionist, over him so significant. There's a stark contrast between our Jesus and the murderous insurrectionist fellow.

Even in a place where it might be imagined that the historical Jesus' violent streak were seeping through, like Luke 22, where Jesus supposedly tells his disciples to buy two swords, it can instead be satisfyingly understood as Luke's clever invention (it isn't mentioned in the other gospels) actually teaching against violence, though most translations have misunderstood its subtlety and so misinterpreted the passage as Jesus directly commanding his disciples to buy swords when that isn't quite what he did.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/27035

>>17905096
Sorry, meant for
>>17905006

>>17905096
> It would be very weird if, to the extent that there was a historical Jesus, his message wasn't at least decently well-aligned with the whole love, pacifism, egalitarianism and generosity ideas, near-term apocalypse expectations notwithstanding.
He probably did preach to love your neighbor, and by neighbor, he ment your fellow Jew.

But in any case, I’m sure he taught a non-violent, non-materialistic moral philosophy. What use is money if the world ends tomorrow?

>>17904596 (OP)
>muh librulz
Go start a family you faggot millennial it's not 2011 anymore
>>17904873
No, it's theological. It refers to a God-king and not simply the human heir of some kingdom like Herod was.

>>17905123
>by neighbor, he ment your fellow Jew.
This is an easy assumption to make, but Taking for granted the typical academic idea that Mark was the first gospel, and then noting that Matthew has in some cases apparently modified Mark's stories to be less gentile-friendly, (e.g. intensfying the story of Jesus meeting the gentile woman who accepts being called a dog by having Jesus say "I came only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" and conspicuously removing the "for all nations" part of Jesus quoting "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations" from Isaiah.) I actually think it's possible that there was a very early even more gentile-friendly narrative that got edited for being too scandalous before the direction of bias reversed as Christianity got mostly out of the Jews' hands and into gentile hands.

Even in the Tanakh there are many passages that could be used to argue for loving more than just fellow Jews, like Deuteronomy 10:19, "And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt."

Also I think Bart Ehrman believes the historical Jesus had a very universal understanding of how altruism should be applied, though I'm not sure how he argues for it.

>>17905178
Of course even Matthew (at least our version of it) has Jesus say

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

>>17905187
Luke has similarly

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you expect to receive payment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

>>17904596 (OP)
How did you get this photo of me, delete this immediately