Intelligent Atheists: Who/What Was Jesus?

[Aractus]

They may not be self-consciously aware for significant periods of time. Despite this, the intention is to attract more 'intelligent' debate whenever possible, even if extreme unintelligence is inevitably unavoidable. Even if one possesses intelligence, one can still demonstrate ranges of intelligence regarding different topics. In that sense, intelligence can be seen as a sliding scale which one may be capable of choosing to engage with or not.

I now have a question for you; is it intelligent to respond to topics which one considers irrelevant and does not care about?

The problem is people think their biased opinions are equal to fact, even against academic evidence.

The question of who was Jesus is a very important one - he started a movement that then started a new religion. He reinterpreted much of the Mosaic Law, and I've said why I think he did that: there are two reasons actually; one he disagreed with the version taught by the mainstream first century Palestinian Jewish leaders/authorities, and two he valued compassion for people much more than the Jewish authorities. Whether this was itself motivate by his apocalyptic beliefs I'm not sure, but it seems quite plausible.

But I think it's important to realise he was just a human being; he didn't deliver teachings that stepped outside of what the Law (or his interpretation of it anyway) taught. He didn't say women aren't property, women should be allowed to inherit like they can in Egypt, or that domestic violence is unacceptable:

“The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” – Sir Matthew Hale in 1673 as Chief Justice; Hale was devoutly religious and had previously wanted to become a priest, and was said not to have missed Sunday church for 36 years straight. So you'd think Jesus could have given us a head's up about rape and domestic violence if he was truly wise and divine. The fact that he had nothing to say about it proves he was just an ordinary human - perhaps a great humanitarian for his time, but he was still just a fallible human.