How do you, people (Specifically atheists) of LULZ feel about Jesus the person? Take away his divinity and leave him with just his humanity. How do you feel about how he was as a person, do you agree with his teachings?
Me personally, I think you gotta respect that Jesus was a man of his word, he always practiced what he preached, and he remained true to his word, he was celibate, he wasn't violent (You could make an argument about the temple) and always tried to help those in need. So I have a lot of admiration for Jesus not only as a man, but as the son of god
>Take away his divinity
Then He's no longer Jesus.
I meant look at him through his human nature as Jesus is both 100% Human and divine
The man is inseparable from the God
they are intertwined. hence oriental/“miaphysite” positions were always correct
Why? Proof?
I feel the same way about him as I feel about Aragorn or Luke Skywalker.
Why?
It's easy to be likeable when you're a fictional character but it also makes it less inspirational or admirable.
>I feel the same way about him as I feel about Aragorn or Luke Skywalker.
great, so how do you feel about them? you still haven't actually answer the question.
aragorn isnt a bad comparison considering his charachter is best known for his purity of spirit and noble strength of character, and of course, the idea that he lives a humble and relatively acetic life despite being destined to return to his people as their king and saviour at a time when darkness and evil holds the world tightly within its clutches
>start hating your family, quit everything you're doing and follow me. the world will end very soon!
Typical cult leader stuff. The moral aspect of his teachings doesn't redeem this.
>Hate your family
Out of context. Metaphor to show it comes at a great cost to follow him.
>Quit everything you're doing and follow me
I've always interpreted this as giving up the material world, as ultimately this world does not matter in the scheme of things. Our lust does not matter, our anger does not matter, our pride does not matter. We need to give up our earthly desires to ascend into the kingdom of heaven
they're linked, though.
Christ repeatedly says He is God.
if you do not agree with that, you can't really take Him on His word.
kind of relatable and comparable to the hypostatic union where you cannot separate the natures.
pretty good explanation. are you a believer?
Yeah, I grew up "Catholic" but recently I've delved more into the faith, I bought a KJV bible and I'm currently going through it.
>Christ repeatedly says he's God
I haven't seen an outright quote that says this tbh
you can find as much in a few places.
everything He said boils down to that really.
e.g. one of the most famous verses John 14:6
>Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
keep looking, you'll know soon with enough study.
>Christ repeatedly says He is God.
Surprisingly, this is debatable and debated in academic biblical scholarship
>ehrman
>"academic" """scholarship"""
literally the field concerned with trying to disprove the Bible really hard until they begrudgingly have to admit they were wrong.
They are not specifically concerned with trying to disprove the Bible, that is just what happens if you actually study the sources.
the problem is that they are intellectually dishonest.
there's several instances of people actually researching, converting, then writing about it.
there's a mainstream historian who basically proved Luke was correct above other ancient historians in his writings, while the main belief held was obviously against him.
their idea of "studying the sources" is trying their hardest to muddle the waters with apocryphal texts, and to deface the canon with "interpretations".
>their idea of "studying the sources" is trying their hardest to muddle the waters with apocryphal texts, and to deface the canon with "interpretations".
Negative connotations aside this is basically what historians do with every single source of any importance on anything.
the serious ones often end up converting.
the issue here isn't method, it's the desire behind it.
as i said in the first post, they often want to hold onto the bone until it isn't intellectually possible to do so anymore.
you can see it in several historical findings, especially in an episode regarding the Tel Dan stele:
one of the most respected readers of inscriptions said that read the name of King David in the stele, and guess what?
he was ostracized until technology proved him right nearly a century later.
to use ehrman as an example, he literally contradicts himself in the middle of arguments, and has even proven the exact thing he was arguing against on occasion.
what's the historical evidence for some guy walking on water 2000 years ago?
>the serious ones often end up converting.
Well Erhman. was a Christian, and began his academic studies as a Christian, and his mentor, who he contiued to work with even after deconverting, was a Christian
Nor his his the bulk of his work controversial, even among other Christian critical scholars. Like 90% of it is pretty uncontroversial.
>the issue here isn't method, it's the desire behind it.
This is silly. Not only is there no intellectual expectation that a scholar will be well disposed to a text they are studying, assuming they are all coming to the text to debunk it is very prejudicial, and even if they were, that wouldn't be a problem if they succeed.
>ostracized
How was he ostricised? did he loose his job? Academics putting out new theories or findings get flack for it all the time, especially from the old guard. How did this go beyond that?
>he was Christian
doesn't change anything.
you're misunderstanding me.
i'm saying some of them are biased towards negative findings, and simply do not accept other views unless absolutely proven.
they also often end up attacking Christianity/Christians directly along the way.
>how did he get ostracized
literally pulled off the stage and of the entire field until he was proven right.
it was not flack, it was literally getting booted from academia.
oh, and to also show the bias with the same episode;
for merely taking the side of the Bible, he was stripped of credibility until proven correct.
Wow, who took his credibility, where did they store it?
Maybe the bias actually goes most the other way, and you should consider people like Ehrman to be really really good reason to doubt the Christianity
>i'm saying some of them are biased towards negative findings, and simply do not accept other views unless absolutely proven.
No, I understand that. I just don't find it that remarkable. Nor do I think anti-Chirstian skeptics make up a majority of people in the field.
>literally pulled off the stage and of the entire field until he was proven right.
Are you talking about the guy who found it, because I didn't see anything like that in his bio. In any case, if it happened nearly a hundred years ago its not necessarily indicative of the academy today. The majority of people in biblical archeology and related fields are Christians of one sort or another. I will grant you that there are plenty of liberal Chirsitans who are not bothered by the idea of the bible not being literally true, but they are not athiests or antitheists.
>the issue here isn't method, it's the desire behind it.
Another anon already mentioned that Ehrman started as a Christian. This is the usual case. Why would you dedicate your entire professional career to the study of some ancient texts you don't believe in? It's not like being a passionate public atheist like Richard Dawkins or something. It's dry scholarly work.
These Christian scholars bring Christian ethics into the field. Christian morality involves not lying, not even to yourself. The Catholic church used to have the position of "devil's advocate" to keep the canonization process honest. When these scholars see facts that contradict established dogma they are forced, by their own Christian ethics, to bring these facts to light. This may be what you are misinterpreting as "a bias towards negative findings". It's literally just honestly.
i mean stuff like ehrman's "theories", which are flimsy attacks with no substance.
he often goes through hoops to hold those points, and as said before ends up refuting himself quite often.
nah, there's over two millenia of serious study on it.
i take that over these fellows.
i don't doubt you could refute much of modern critique with just theological works.
some maybe even directly addressed in anti-heresy works.
hammerspace. it was big.
he often goes through hoops to hold those points, and as said before ends up refuting himself quite often.
This is a vague assertion on your part without any concrete examples. At least compared to the apologists I often see attacking him, he strikes me as both better informed and far more interested in historical academic norms.
>he strikes me as both better informed and far more interested in historical academic norms.
this is a vague assertion on your part without any concrete examples.
and for my bit, you can find it by literally searching for such a thing.
i think he laughs it off after being called out on it during a discussion, in the most famous example.
>this is a vague assertion on your part without any concrete examples.
Its my impression, as opposed to your own.
>i think he laughs it off
He laughs all the time at all sorts of things, even when being interviewed by friendly parties. The man is by no means infallible, but he is not a radical as far as the scholarship is concerned. He is pretty mainstream even in regards to what Chirsitans in the same field think.
you've not got into specifics, but now I'm super curious what theories you think Ehrman is pushing that is just too strange
>i mean stuff like ehrman's "theories", which are flimsy attacks with no substance.
The main criticism of Ehrman is that he doesn't bring a lot new in his books but writes about concensus in the field.
>Tel Dan stele
Looked this situation up and it's completely different than what you said. Who was the person who was ostracized, and what year did that occur?
Your story doesn't seem to fit with the timeline of the Tel Dan stele's discovery at all.
What is the source for the claim you made?
The main reason for this is the divinity claims in Mark are mostly done through action in miracles, so naturalists like Ehrman rule out using those. For verbal claims like forgiving sin and the son of Man stuff, Ehrman does various gymnastics to reinterpret or discredit them. This is why Ehrman says Mark believed Jesus to be God while also saying his Jesus didn't claim to be God
While I often disagree with Ehrman, some of the patterns he points out does make me feel that Jesus may not have claimed to be God during his life, but that it became evident after his death.
I do think his argument regarding the Gospel of Mark is an interesting one. The text highlights a mysterious nature to Jesus, and his followers constantly don't understand his actions. While the end of Mark makes it clear that Jesus is some sort of spiritual being, his followers seem oblivious to how important he is until after the resurrection.
Judea and Samaria had no exception of apocalyptic preachers. The Pharisees and the Hellenistic court of Herod inspired resentment amongst the people.
Disgusted.
Christian "people" represent Jesus.
Pic rel but israeli
The Trinity is illogical, unless you treat God as an adjective
>.t Mudslime
It's really not that hard to understand man. To deny the trinity is to deny yourself, are you, not a trinity? Are you not a mind body and soul? Can you exist without one of these parts?
If you think God cannot be human then you are denying his omnipotence, if god can do anything he can be 3-in-1 and a human. If you don't think God can be a human because it does not represent his glory then I point to Genesis 1:26
>"Let us make man in OUR image"
He's also appeared to humans before like in Genesis 18:1
>To deny the trinity is to deny yourself, are you, not a trinity? Are you not a mind body and soul? Can you exist without one of these parts?
I don't get your comparation.
>If you think God cannot be human then you are denying his omnipotence, if god can do anything he can be 3-in-1 and a human.
I don't know if omnipotence means being able to do anything. Can God create a rock he cannot carry?
>If you don't think God can be a human because it does not represent his glory then I point to Genesis 1:26
>"Let us make man in OUR image"
First of all, why is the Bible the word of God, 100% correct? This Trinity doesn't make sense.
>He's also appeared to humans before like in Genesis 18:1
You're just citing the Bible. Why should one believe it?
>I don't get the comparison
It's very simple, you just don't want to understand it. A tree has multiple parts like branches, leafs, and roots, individually They are not the tree, but together they make the tree
> Can God create a rock he cannot carry?
That would not represent his glory, however, being 3 beings as one entity or being able to come into our world as a human does not go against his glory, If Jesus was fully human and not divine it would not represent his glory.
>WHO WROTE LE BIBLE?!
The first five books of the OT were written by Moses, and dictated by God. It's why the israelites only use the first five books in their canon
>WHY SHOULD I BELIEVE IT
B-because it's IN the bible? It's part of the Christian canon? Are you just going to ignore every bible verse you don't like? If you need more proof, again, Moses worte the first five books under Gods supervision, and God is the best witness you could have
>A tree has multiple parts like branches
So each person is a part of God, not God itself
>B-because it's IN the bible?
And? That's circular reasoning.
>So each person is a part of God, not God itself
Again, this is not hard to understand, you simply refuse to understand. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are not god by themselves, they are three beings, but one entity, Use the Tree analogy as an example
>IT'S CIRCULAR REASONING
We're talking about Biblical Canon here, it's irrelevant if you want to believe it or not because it is true to the religion, so instead of saying "FUCK YOU I'M NOT LISTENING TO THIS" refute Genesis 18:1
>The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit are not god by themselves
The doctrine actually say they are
>it's irrelevant if you want to believe it or not because it is true to the religion
Let's consider it's true to the religion and pass this point. Is is actually true?
>refute Genesis 18:1
I'm talking about if it's true or not, not if the Bible says it or not
>Are god by themselves.
I backtrack
>Is it actually true
Yes, do you want more bible verses where god appears to people before Jesus?
>I'm talking about whether it's true or not
It is
One mind, three bodies if that makes more sense. They are the same soul. See John 5:7-8
I don't get it. How do we know if what's in the Bible is true without circular reasoning?
We don't.
The first 5 books of the Old Testament are history written by Moses under the supervision of God. The other books are Prophets.
In the New Testament Jesus is very well documented, receiving 40 reports to emperor Tiberius 10, he was 100% crucified with even more evidence for his resurrection.
My question for you is, can you prove it's false? Do you have evidence God didn't appear before Abraham like the bible said? Otherwise this is irrelevant
>under the supervision of God
Evidence? How to know that (without circular reasoning)?
>he was 100% crucified with even more evidence for his resurrection
What evidence?
>My question for you is, can you prove it's false? Do you have evidence God didn't appear before Abraham like the bible said? Otherwise this is irrelevant
Isn't it a matter of Occam's Razor?
Can you prove I'm not God?
>One mind, three bodies if that makes more sense. They are the same soul. See John 5:7-8
Well that can't be true either because Jesus had no idea the date and time of end times come only the father did. No shared mind there.
When I was a Christian I would always say it was the difference between the Sun and its radiance. There is no real definable difference yet they are definable things yet the same thing. That doesn't really work either though, since The radiant is only a product of the sun, and there was a moment where the sun existed in the radiance did not.
There's no way around the illogic of it. Some people say they share an essence. But if that's all it requires then one could just simply say the Olympic gods share an essence and all of a sudden it's monotheism. That's silliness.
>they are three beings, but one entity,
Not him but this makes no logical sense. You're just using two words that mean essentially the same thing and pretending they are different. They're synonyms. A being is an entity. One cannot be three beings and also one entity at the same time.
I really don't think any amount of old writings could ever make me think it's true that someone rose from the dead 2000 years ago.
Too bad, so sad.
Same tbh. I might convert if Jesus streamed his resurrection on twitch.
Like Napoleon said, he was the only one to build an empire from love
Like Jefferson said his words are sweeter and more profound than the wisest of philosophers
I want to be Christian but in my eyes the bible is written by men and filled with nonsense so its hard to know what to take seriously. I will never accept the old testament or revelations and the apostles seem to all have different interpretations
What I want to know is why Paul never talks about the empty tomb, and only mentions Mary like once
the person
>he thinks there was ever a "Jesus the person"
I feel like alot of cultures and religions tried to have a piece of him. I met hindus who believe he's a god in some sense like a manifestation. Buddhists believe he was enlightend and Muslims believe he was a great prophet that didn't die.
If you compare him to let's say Moses, Mohammed and buddah it's clear that he's Atleast honorable enough that Many other tradions would like to have him in some way.
Mohammad is limited to Islam and not only that he's not viewed positively among other tradions or views, to Christians he's a false prophet. Hindus and Buddhists don't find him intresting since he was too legalstive and materialistic rathe than spiritual.
I would say among historical figures who preached spirituality Jesus would be S tier.
Atheist here.
Jesus was some random preacher. All religions are lies. Even if he didn't intend to convince people he was the son of God (I dunno whether he did or not, I don't know enough about him), he was still a israeli preacher right? So he was still preaching Judaism, which is a lie, because all religions are lies.
So I certainly don't think he's anybody special. Just some random preacher. Us humans should reject the lies of religion and invest in science, which discovers the truth about the universe and reality.
>Preaching Juadism
>Atheist here.
As an atheist, I see Jesus as a great man, the greatest moral teacher of humanity and a great magician.
Why are you an Atheist? Or the better question is do you want to be an Atheist
He seemed like a fun guy to hang out with. Kind, funny, chill, and stuff. Well, except for:
>them pigs :^(
>temple spergout
>hand hygiene (he took baths tho)
>slavery good
>divorce bad if no cheat, even if she's a bpd bitch
>remarry bad, even if cheat
>fapping bad
>even looking at beautiful women bad
Honestly, I feel really bad for him for getting executed in such an agonizing way, after suffering torture and humiliation, possibly even prison rape, and his words of the cross, when he realizes the truth of it, are heartbreaking.
Dude needs a hug. Unironically.
I personally highly respect him and regard him as the greatest philosopher of all time.
>I personally highly respect him and regard him as the greatest philosopher of all time.
Can you point to any particular philosophical principle he introduced that is great?
Unfortunately I don't think there is much there. Even if we take the sermon on the mount as described in the Gospels as what he actually said, it doesn't seem consistent with his other actions within those Gospels to me.
A lot of the sayings that are attributed to him are interesting, but a large chunk of it becomes meaningless platitudes if he doesn't have the support of a divine element to back it up.
The person likely had very little to do with what was written about him. If what is written about him is accurate, tho, then he was a crazy person. This is provable because he said he would be back to finish the warrior side of the messianic prophecies, and establish paradise on earth, before some people alive then died the first death. This didn't happen, thus he would have been delusional.
He didn’t exist. If he did exist, he was just a regular cult leader similar to the many famous modern cults.