Did Jesus want to create a poli-theism religion?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

When quoting scripture, it’s immaterial whether Jesus was a historic figure. Even if Jesus was completely ahistorical and the Bible a complete work of fiction, Jesus said what he said, in exactly the sense that Obi Wan said, ‘These aren’t the droids you’re looking for.’

Boru

An atheist sticking up for Jesus.......now I've seen everything.

Who’s ‘sticking up for Jesus’? I was pointing the grammatical convention of quoting a fictional character.

Boru

[LinuxGal]

Whatever jesus wanted, if there was a jesus, was lost in the sauce.  We got the religion that shamans and warlords wanted.

Atheists don't need to be reminded that scripture is fiction.  But believers need to be reminded what the rest of their scripture actually says if they insist on treating all of it as non-fiction.

[Foxaèr]

The Jesus character stated his intent wasn't to do away with the old law but to build upon it.

[Eclectic]

This is 2 years for me Google translate has bad translated for me. From 2-3 month before that corona virus epidemi started. Before that it better translated.

Please see:
Persian:
مسیح با مترودین جامعه دوست بود و دایم آنان را مهمان می کرد

Google translate:
Christ was friendly with the community and would constantly guest them.

[Jehanne]

This is 2 years for me Google translate has bad translated for me. From 2-3 month before that corona virus epidemi started. Before that it better translated.

Please see:
Persian:
مسیح با مترودین جامعه دوست بود و دایم آنان را مهمان می کرد

Google translate:
Christ was friendly with the community and would constantly guest them.

One of the earliest and one of the few historical passages in all of the Gospels is Mark 3:21-22:

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”

Ergo, Jesus' own family thought that he had "lost it"; the Jews thought that he was possessed. Jesus, like Jim Jones & David Koresh, was probably psychotic.

[LinuxGal]

One of the earliest and one of the few historical passages in all of the Gospels is Mark 3:21-22:

And when his family heard it, they went out to seize him, for people were saying, “He is beside himself.” 22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Be-el′zebul, and by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.”

Ergo, Jesus' own family thought that he had "lost it"; the Jews thought that he was possessed.  Jesus, like Jim Jones & David Koresh, was probably psychotic.

Also Mark 3 (verse 11): And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

So we're left with the task of judging what's historical in Mark and what was not.  For what it's worth, the scroll was written about forty years after the events depicted.  It'd be like someone in Generation Z writing a gospel today about Reagan being shot for our sins in 1981.

[Jehanne]

One of the earliest and one of the few historical passages in all of the Gospels is Mark 3:21-22:


Ergo, Jesus' own family thought that he had "lost it"; the Jews thought that he was possessed.  Jesus, like Jim Jones & David Koresh, was probably psychotic.

Also Mark 3 (verse 11): And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.

So we're left with the task of judging what's historical in Mark and what was not.  For what it's worth, the scroll was written about forty years after the events depicted.  It'd be like someone in Generation Z writing a gospel today about Reagan being shot for our sins in 1981.

This goes back to the dawn of higher criticism and the work of scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann. For instance, Dr. Bultmann pointed out the fact that you or I can observe in our day exorcisms; we don't observe people walking on liquid water. Likewise, we can observe family members going after one of their own who has gone off the "religious deepend"; we don't hear spirits talking to them. And, so, higher criticism is about separating what probably did happen from that which almost assuredly did not.

[Ahriman]

I can't blame atheists for not taking the whole Jesus thing seriously, the stories written about him are very far-fetched. Even if there was some guy back then, claiming to be a divine healer, I do not believe for a second that any of those "miracles" actually happened. It's just not possible. Not back then, not ever.

[Jehanne]

I can't blame atheists for not taking the whole Jesus thing seriously, the stories written about him are very far-fetched. Even if there was some guy back then, claiming to be a divine healer, I do not believe for a second that any of those "miracles" actually happened. It's just not possible. Not back then, not ever.

Jesus was not unique for his day, not the only one claiming to perform miracles or to be divine, or, who, after his death, ascended into Heaven per his followers.

[LinuxGal]

This goes back to the dawn of higher criticism and the work of scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann.  For instance, Dr. Bultmann pointed out the fact that you or I can observe in our day exorcisms; we don't observe people walking on liquid water.  Likewise, we can observe family members going after one of their own who has gone off the "religious deepend"; we don't hear spirits talking to them.  And, so, higher criticism is about separating what probably did happen from that which almost assuredly did not.

Thomas Jefferson did that, basically he created a New Testament with all the supernatural stuff deleted.  That's easy peasy.   The more respectable branch of this is source criticism. That's where you date, say, the Book of Acts to the 90s by showing that it uses material from the works of Josephus, or where you decide such questions as whether Matthew used Luke as a source or the other way around, or both used a lost "Q" source.