Talk:Jesus

	This Christianity related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
Editorial notes It contains unsourced statements Tagged since May 2016

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

There is much more information particular to this Article, much of which can be found here...

There is much much more information particular to this Article, of which can be found here...

http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm

I suggest adding this as a reference as well to completion.

Myth

"It is traditionally accepted that myths generally do not derive from thin air, and that the characters and stories in these myths are exaggerations, deifications, or simple mischaracterisations of events and persons that really existed and did something of some kind of note."

Maybe it is, but so what? It's hardly axiomatic, given that the various creation myths (two in the first two chapters of the Bible alone) and the roles of gods in stories (i.e. YHWH's various character roles throughout the tanakh) hardly point to historical events or people (good luck finding the historical Moses). Thereby, to concede historicity is more likely (contra Carrier) on that basis is flawed and presumptuous. --Scherben (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

ew

Impregnated by the holy spirit puts a disturbing picture in my mind... Silent Scream (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

"...ambiguously Gay, Socialist Jew.."

Haha no but seriously, what is this? Jewish:definitively and defingly so. Important to mention, no qualms there

Socialist: Maybe by some people's understandings (I'm a fan of the diggers myself), but no where is there a reference for this. It also isn't clear whether this is referencing something from manuscripts written after he had died (like those collected in the New Testament) or is something he historically did, or both.

Ambiguously Gay: Firstly, the concept of being of homosexual or heterosexual attraction is alien to the place and time Jesus lived in, and the examples given for what could possibly point to him being gay are relatively weak. To say either Jesus Christ of the New Testament or the historical Jewish itinerant preacher who walked around Roman Judea was possibly gay is just as equally baseless as saying he was ambiguously straight. This part ("ambiguously Gay") specifically really does add anything meaningful to the article, except maybe frustrate people who will not read this wiki

GenericGman (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Terry

The part of Jesus being the first socialist should be removed. First, because socialism, just like liberalism, conservatism and any modern political philosophy didn't exist 2000 years ago. Second, because, supposing we're quote mining someone to claim that they were a socialist or a proto-socialist, the Greacchi brothers are older than Jesus. Regarding being a Jew, well, he was a jew, so I don't think we should remove it. I agree about the part of Jesus being gay. Putting something that is probably incorret just to make Christians angry is not the way to go. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 11:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I added that there as a subtle joke that Jesus may have been gay because he wasn't known to have a wife and hung around a lot of men, and as for the socialist part, a lot of people on the left think he's a socialist (even though he wasn't because modern ideologies like socialism didn't exist thousands of years ago). I was in no way trying to make christians angry or offend them. Rational Dude (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Pythagoreanism predated Jesus and the Apostles, and I've read that they formed similar small collectivist communes. Chillpilled (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Rational Dude, I can certainly see the intention now better now that you've explained it, but on first glance it looked like the equal opposite of something that Breitbart or Conservapedia would say, which I see now wasn't your intention. I didn't mean to throw shade your way, I apologize if I came off that way at all. As for Jesus being a socialist, I would agree (with GeeJayK) that making him one requires you to renegotiate the texts mentioning him for your own purposes and uses, just as all Christians do for their own ends. It also means your applying a wide range of ideologies and a worldview that wasn't defined until the first half of the 19th century, even if you can say some people practiced it before then. Retrofitting old figures with our ideas for our world isn't without precedent, but it's hardly rational. My openness to the idea of him being a socialist is partially because of my sympathy for those who call themselves socialist and Christian, those who have the same goals as myself ultimately, and whom I respect. But I concede that you can't seriously make an argument from a scholarly point of view that Jesus of Nazareth was anything we would call socialist today, which is why to make that argument you need to renegotiate the texts to make them fit that idea. Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk. If any of my formatting is off let me know, or fix it yourself if you are so inclined. GenericGman (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Terry

Son of God

I know TamponConvention was just a ban-evading troll, but they may have had a point with the "Jesus is the Son of God" thing. It might actually be worth including on the page, as long as it has a disclaimer that it's what Christians believe and that non-Christians can and most likely will disagree.

Also, I… uh… I'm not entirely sure what I did with the "Patron Saint of Republicans" line. I was just trying to make it more coherent, I swear. --Luigifan18 (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To elaborate on what I was saying earlier, the whole "Jesus is the son of God" thing is a big deal to Christians. It's one of the core points of Christian doctrine that Jesus was not only a human being who actually existed and did and said most if not all of the stuff that the Bible says he did and said, but was and is also an aspect of their god who gets more-or-less equal billing to the Father (Yahweh) and Holy Spirit. (Yes, I know it's weird. Even sophisticated theologians struggle to wrap their heads around the whole Trinity thing. That line in the Eucharist ceremony about "the mysteries of faith" is really not kidding about the "mystery" part.) So, yeah, the article does need to bring up the "Son of God" thing, but maybe it already does. I haven't looked too far past the opening paragraph.

Speaking of which, the more I think about it, the more I think that the "patron saint of Republicans" line is a non sequitur. Yes, the Republican Party is infested by fundamentalist Christians right now (and has been for quite a while), but… going off what the Bible says about Jesus, he'd probably be embarrassed and/or infuriated about being associated with them. Republican values, such as white supremacy and "fuck you got mine" capitalism, are incompatible with everything Jesus ever stood for. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

…yep, "son of God" is already mentioned in the second paragraph. I should have figured. --Luigifan18 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, while browsing through the article, I noticed the bit about Jesus telling the Pharisees off for not honoring the mandate of "a child who curses his parents is to be put to death" and seemingly valuing divine law over human life, and I was sorely tempted to add this alternate-take remark to it, but I backed out because I noticed myself rambling. So… what do you guys think of this? (And, yes, this would have been a good place to use a ref note instead of parentheses… the new topic ban is way too harsh IMO… but on the other hand, like I said, this addition kind of rambles on and needs to be trimmed anyways.)

“”Jesus thus appears, on the surface, to put following divine law before valuing human life (though he could simply have been calling the Pharisees out for hypocrisy, cherry-picking, and/or putting too much value on the letter of their traditions while disregarding societal evolution, much like modern atheists deride modern fundamentalists for eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics (though, much like with the parables, it would probably have been helpful if he made his point more clearly)).

On a second unrelated note, I listened to Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" on audiobook a while ago, and I recall him talking about a Jew who converted to Christianity because he read the Bible and concluded that Jesus did fulfill all the messianic prophecies. I was tempted to include a ref note in the section about Jews' stance on Jesus being the messiah mentioning this anecdote and how it should be taken with a larger-than-usual dose of salt because, well, Lee Strobel is the one sharing it, but I listened to the book a long time ago and I don't currently have it on hand, so I balked at trying to cite it. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Christianity as an apocalypse cult

I just thought of something else to add in the "Jesus's not-so-good deeds" section as a counterpoint to some of Jesus' harsher messages being not intended to be taken literally or to their logical conclusions, namely the idea of the end of the world being right around the corner. This may or may not be ref note material, and either way, there will need to be some citations of the parts of the Bible where Jesus actually said the kingdom of God was coming any day now before it can be brought up seriously.

“”On the other other hand, Jesus apparently expected the end of the world to come within his or his direct followers' lifetimes, which would obviously make sustainable living a moot point and make getting into heaven a matter of extra-paramount importance.

I'm a bit torn on whether or not this should be included, or whether or not I'd end up violating my topic ban by trying. Any thoughts or advice? --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)