What Jesus was, and what he was not.

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > What Jesus was, and what he was not.

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

This is why buddhism describes the buddhas appearance in exhuasting detail

# ¿ Jul 8, 2020 09:23

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 23:38

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Animal-Mother posted:

People are always like "I'm not religious, but Jesus' message and teachings were pretty dope" and I'm just sitting there thinking this dude killed a tree because it wasn't shady enough, had magic powers that obviously nobody in real life has, and promised he was coming back "soon" almost 2000 years ago. Jesus' teachings sucked. "Be nice to people (or else my father (who I also am) will throw you in a lake of fire for eternity)." Wow, I am stunned, you philosopher.

In their defense, I personally really don't give a poo poo about tree suffering. They don't even have brains.

# ¿ Jul 8, 2020 21:41

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Captain Jesus posted:

There's this series of lectures about the New Testament on Yale Open Sources which go into historical interpretation of the Gospels. While the Gospels as a whole are not historical sources, it is possible to extract some possibly historical information here and there. I think the argument goes that when there's something that is contrary to the religious message of the Gospels, it can indicate some actual historical piece of information.

I remember the placing of the word "INRI" declaring Jesus to be the king of the jews on his cross being given as an example, because Jesus doesn't claim to be the king of the jews and it's not a title the authors of the Gospels give him. Therefore it could indicate that a prophet the romans considered a wanabe king of the jews got executed.

Anyway, I find it more likely that there was a person at the beginning of the movement that developed into christianity than that there was no such person and the movement just made them up later, especially when such person was supposed to exist in a time where prophets like that were common.

Yeah its called argument from embarrasment and its a pretty common method for religious textual analysis.

Its pretty common sense of youre going to lie you lie to support what youre saying not what goes against and if youre trying to say this person is the best of the best and a literal god/prophet/chosen one then the parts where you say he did something embarrasing or bad are treated as more credible than "he was super good looking and everyone loved him."

The crucifixition itself actually falls under Argument From Embarassment because it was such a humiliating painful way to die that was reserved only for the lowest of the low that if early Christians had made up that particular story they would have tried to come up with a way for him to not be crucified.

BIG FLUFFY DOG fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jul 9, 2020

# ¿ Jul 9, 2020 15:03

BIG FLUFFY DOG: Feb 16, 2011; On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Shinjobi posted:

You ever wonder if Jesus felt dumb after he died since there were probably infinity number of followers who would have taken the punishment in his place?

"Aw poo poo, Billy would have taken my place in a heartbeat. Boy is my face red."

No but sometimes I wonder if he ever thought about just asking the Father to not send people to hell anymore instead of implementing an incredibly complicated Goldberg machine plan that involved him being tortured and executed

# ¿ Jul 9, 2020 18:32

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > What Jesus was, and what he was not.