Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Jesus was a Liberal

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 76
  • Views: 2K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
No, but I'd say that our documentation ability, during Einstein's life, was significantly improved over Jesus' time. It's also safe to say that Einstein actually wrote a lot that is attributed to him. To my knowledge, Jesus wrote nothing. Finally, at least some of the people who wrote about Einstein probably actually met him.
Click to expand...
"Finally, at least some of the people who wrote about Einstein probably actually met him."

Same with Jesus.
 
Yosef said:
"Finally, at least some of the people who wrote about Einstein probably actually met him."

Same with Jesus.
Click to expand...
No. None of the Gospels were written by the people they are named for and all were written 3 or more decades after his death. Most of the NT is by unknown authors . 6 of the 13 books Paul supposedly wrote are questionable as well.
 
Yosef said:
"Finally, at least some of the people who wrote about Einstein probably actually met him."

Same with Jesus.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the consensus is that none of the gospels were written by people who met Jesus. Mark was written the earliest, and it was written 30+ years after Jesus died. The author may have spoken with primary sources and witnesses who knew Jesus, but I don't think there's any widespread belief that he was an eyewitness or met Jesus himself. (Leaving aside that the point of Mark and the other gospels was not necessarily to recount accurate historical facts about Jesus.)
 
finesse said:
No. None of the Gospels were written by the people they are named for and all were written 3 or more decades after his death. Most of the NT is by unknown authors . 6 of the 13 books Paul supposedly wrote are questionable as well.
Click to expand...
That is not known. Many accounts say otherwise.
 
Yosef said:
That is not known. Many accounts say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Not by virtually anyone whose whole sense of self isn't subsumed by their religion. Scholars who study the language and style, essentially a forensic literary analysis, all think that the none of the books were written while Jesus was alive and generally years after. Paul is an exception although he's a fraud that never met Jesus anyway.
 
finesse said:
Not by virtually anyone whose whole sense of self isn't subsumed by their religion. Scholars who study the language and style, essentially a forensic literary analysis, all think that the none of the books were written while Jesus was alive and generally years after. Paul is an exception although he's a fraud that never met Jesus anyway.
Click to expand...
By saying Paul was a fraud shows your agenda in this discussion therefore nullifies anymore discussions on this topic by me.
 
Yosef said:
By saying Paul was a fraud shows your agenda in this discussion therefore nullifies anymore discussions on this topic by me.
Click to expand...
I say it because Paul never met Jesus. Virtually every other important figure from John the Baptist to Jesus is prophesied. Yet Jesus said this.

“On this rock I will build my church” is a quote from the Bible, Matthew 16:18. Jesus said this to Simon Peter, also known as Peter, after Peter confessed that Jesus was the Son of God.

No mention of a Paul. No mention that a rich privileged kid who never met him and never followed him for years and served him faithfully would take over the church. And, if the authorship of the books of Peter is in doubt as many think, Peter is purged from the Bible after the book of Acts. Yeah, I think I have a pretty good case supported by the words of Jesus that the wrong guy ended up in charge.

It doesn't bother me if you want to stay ignorant but don't use that ignorance in judging others opinions. That's just doubling down and makes you look even worse.
 
Yosef said:
By saying Paul was a fraud shows your agenda in this discussion therefore nullifies anymore discussions on this topic by me.
Click to expand...
You don’t actually think the gospels were authored by eyewitnesses do you?
 
Last edited:
But back to the OP… perhaps the statement should read:
“The cat referred to as Jesus of Nazareth - and who is described in the modern editions of the New Testament/Bible/Gospels - seems to come across in those texts as a liberal or a progressive… at least as defined in today’s terminology and understanding of those descriptors.”

It’s easier to just say Jesus was a liberal.

But because the thread is titled they way it is, what Rodo said seems to make as much sense as anything: “…do not think this is super productive discussion to have…”
 
finesse said:
At least as far back as Oral Roberts.
Click to expand...
I grew up in a predominantly Irish/Italian/Eastern European and so Catholic area of the country and never heard of any of this stuff (prosperity Bible. Inerrant interpretations of the bible, literal) until I moved to NC for school. Shocked to find that some believe it is inerrant. Heard one argue against using the new testament in Greek as God intended the English speaking world to only consider the English version including ministrations and phrases from Shakespeare that were added
 
Last edited:
finesse said:
Reference to this? There was one reference to violence by him or his disciples in the NT that I'm aware of. That was in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus rebuked the disciple and healed the victim. There's also his quote about " Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's". I'm not getting any external revolution vibes from this. You seem to be confusing him with the Zealots that ended up later at Masada.
Click to expand...
Actually I was using the description I remembered of Jesus from Reva Asian’s book Zealot which I read about a decade ago.

The author’s name keeps changing with spellcheck! A s l a n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top