Opinion: Jesus of Nazareth was a failed apocalyptic Jewish Messianic sage who's failed prophecies and execution led his followers to believe that God had in some sense or another "raised" Christ to Heavenly glory. He wasn't buried in a tomb, but rather was left to rot on the cross and/or eventually taken down and thrown into a mass criminal grave, probably at night. Popular Greek beliefs about ascension to Heaven being made known via a missing body, as well as Roman rule over Judea (with the hopes of YHWH freeing them) being viewed mythically and tribally as a new and perhaps final exodus- both contributed to the deification of Jesus as the Anointed King and Son of God.
For a failure, he sure managed to fuck shit up good for every apparatus around him. Was that not the point?
Evan Fisher
The Jew shills are being paid overtime today
Jacob Morgan
He actually accomplished almost nothing in his life. His domain of influence was pretty much a few shit-hole villages that were all within walking distance of each other. He didn't even leave any written words behind nor did any the followers that knew him in his life time.
The religion didn't get big till Paul did his thing. Before you mention the Gospels, those were not written by who they are named after, it was Paul's legacy.
I think the whole ascension thing is mostly from Paul. He was the one that made his death a huge fucking deal.
Dylan Turner
t. Reza Aslan
Eli Nelson
Don't know who that is but that's what you are going to here in every New Testament course taught at anywhere.
Thomas Martinez
What is his failed prophecies ?
David Kelly
The >His domain of influence was pretty much a few shit-hole villages that were all within walking distance of each other HORSESHIT doesn't hold up unless you consider Jerusalem a shithole village too.
Carson Gutierrez
Wasn't Jerusalem an impoverished city?
Even if it had a decent trade district all the Gospels seem to give the account that Jesus's ministry was FOR the poor. They are the one's he spends the lion's share of his time talking to. Certainly his 12 disciples were lowly members of society. And his moral teachings all toned for the lowely and the weak.
Parker Adams
>city >village
Carter Cooper
So now we're arguing symnatics.
Let's turn it around. What evidence IS there to the contrary: that Jesus had any real significance in his life and that the movement was big before Paul?
Luis Morgan
"Everyone I Disagree with is Jewish: a White Nationalist's Guide to Online Discourse"
Evan Moore
Your circumcised penis is showing Schlomo
Ayden Richardson
>high level of discourse is expected
>please treat other posters with respect and address the content of their post instead of attacking their character.
sage
Josiah Gomez
He's right though
Charles Brown
That the end was nigh, and would take place within the first century.
>inb4 he didn't mean the end of the world he meant his resurrection and/or the destruction of the Temple
Obviously not true. Jesus is very clear that the end is nigh and to be ready. He was definitely apocalyptic, and every early Christian writing we have reflect this apocalyptic attitude.
Owen Reyes
>the difference between a city and a village is semantics
Nathaniel Adams
Reza Aslan is a low IQ retard
Carson Turner
I havn't seen you address any points about the scale of his missionary pre-Paul.
If it wasn't a big movement till Paul comes a long that pretty much cements the idea that the religion was his doing.
Asher Murphy
Not the one you're replying to but... we don't really know what Christians believed before Paul. Paul is the earliest Christian writer we know of. The creed Paul quotes in, I think, in Corinthians is agreed by many scholars to be pre-Paul; thus it must have been inherited from an earlier written or oral Christian tradition. Corinthians is typically dated to around 55-58, but sometimes as early as 49. The creed affirms that Christ was raised on the third day, so I don't think Paul invented the ascension / resurrection.
Jason Hall
You said Jesus' influence didn't exist outside of a few villages next to each other (probably you meant Galilee) when it's documented he had strong support in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Jerusalem church is older than Paul and actually opposed Paul and tried to get him killed.
Nathan Scott
What is nigh? Otherwise do you have source saying that ? In the Bible ?
Jose Cooper
Well that's a good point about the Creed.
Would you agree it is reasonable Paul increased the significance of his death?
The attempts to chronocle Jesus's life are heavy on parables and moral teachings which I think is what would have comprised his movement when he was alive.
I don't buy the idea him being apocalyptic prophet is his defining trait. There were many apocalyptic prophets and they all failed. I am not saying he wasn't apocalyptic but I don't think that's what made him memorable.
>Thoughts Very very edgy and fedorable. Especially the part about Jesus being an apocalyptic preacher, even though Revelations was written by John well after Christ died and said nothing about the Rapture. In fact most of that is a modern mythology expounded by pr*testants
Ian Robinson
In the first Gospel Jesus has his followers run around like the city is on fire telling everyone it's happening.
Kayden Scott
>That the end was nigh, and would take place within the first century.
When did he say that?
Carter Jones
The apocalyptic nature of Jesus' preaching is supported in the Gospels. You don't need Revelations. Christ's central message in the earliest Gospel (Mark) is "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." He explicitly says that he will return "before this generation passes away."
Now whether or not Jesus actually said this, or if this is "Mark's" projection stemming from the political and religious atmosphere of his day, is hard to tell. Many have argued that all the apocalyptic elements in the Gospels are inventions of Mark or perhaps earlier sources who believed that because Christ had been raised, the general resurrection was soon to come.
Dylan Green
Mark 13, is one example
Paul also clearly believed the end was eminent, and Paul's epistles pre-date the Gospels.
Levi Howard
>Revelations >s AH FUCK OFF
David Sullivan
>What is nigh?
Nigh means near; close at hand
>Source?
Yes. Mark 13 is one example.
Levi James
Catholics don't read the bible
surprise, surprise
Kayden Wood
Bad post
Dominic Wilson
>Tfw athiests come from such a proddie background that they think the Second Coming was an apocalyptic event like it was in Revelation The central tenants of Christ's teachings was not to become prepper and hide out in your little bomb shelter for the Rapture, the Second Coming was hardly a central tenant in the religion. The Kingdom of God being at hand was a reference to coming of the Church and people being able to find salvation through Christ.
It does not compare in anyway to modern Christians, and doing so is just projecting onto the past
Bentley Campbell
Proddies don't actually read the Bible with context. Suprise surprise.
Brody Hughes
>The second coming barely mattered to early Christians
Please let this be a joke. The eminent return of Jesus and the judgement of the whole world are constantly talked about throughout the NT. The Kingdom of God, is, I agree, something that was largely or partially thought to be in the hands of the apostles via spreading the Gospel to every creature. So it wasn't just "hide and wait" but it was "Christ has been raised, the end is just around the corner, we better repent and spread the message to everyone else as well so they might be saved."
Brody Wood
>The central tenants of Christ's teachings was not to become prepper and hide out in your little bomb shelter for the Rapture, the Second Coming was hardly a central tenant in the religion. The Kingdom of God being at hand was a reference to coming of the Church and people being able to find salvation through Christ.
No, the Kingdom of God refers to the final judgment of earth. The view you're describing comes the later gospels where Jesus' apocalyptic message is watered down, claiming the kingdom is already present. Mark, and Matthew say nothing like that and always describe it as a future cataclysmic event.
The view of imminent judgment is also found in Paul, writing before any of the gospels recommends that people don't get married because "time is short" and anticipates he himself will be alive at the second coming.
Evan Hughes
>No, the Kingdom of God refers to the final judgment of earth. The view you're describing comes the later gospels where Jesus' apocalyptic message is watered down, claiming the kingdom is already present. Mark, and Matthew say nothing like that and always describe it as a future cataclysmic event. >The amount of mental gymnastics athiests have to do to make it seem like early Christianity was like a modern incarnation of proddie prepper shit Or, or- maybe the Kingdom of God always referred to Jesus, the Messiah, leading people to salvation and into the uh - heaven - or kingdom of God as it were >Constantly talked about >The Kingdom of God Yes but never the rapture just that Christ has risen and will come again. There is 0 evidence in the gospels or in any historical context that Christianity was akin to doomsday preppers droning on about the apocalypse and muh seven horsemen
Owen Cruz
Meanwhile, protestants read and """"interpet""""" the bible so much they think they can find nostradamus-esque future telling in it
Luke Roberts
>There is 0 evidence in the gospels or in any historical context that Christianity was akin to doomsday preppers droning on about the apocalypse and muh seven horsemen
hmm...
Chase Morris
>no context >not understanding metaphors
Connor Phillips
did you get to the end of the story op? A retired man no longer working the road? read the whole NT or just one of the versions which are all pretty close. Amazing how many people never read the end of the story which illuminates the whole
Christopher Murphy
I'm pretty sure the author knows the context
Jaxon White
>Popular Greek beliefs about ascension to Heaven being made known via a missing body, as well as Roman rule over Judea (with the hopes of YHWH freeing them) being viewed mythically and tribally as a new and perhaps final exodus- both contributed to the deification of Jesus as the Anointed King and Son of God.
"Son of God" is a royal title used by pagan kings. For example, Pharaohs were called "Sons of Ra." Jesus didn't fail, the Jews have always been murderous damned nobodies pretending to be somebodies.
You realize that *all of this* happens after Jesus dies on the cross, right?be In fact it's said that Romans who saw the crucifixion converted afterwards , which is what is referenced at the last paragraph with "some people won't believe me until they see that the Kingdom of heaven has real power"
Plz tell me you actually read the fucking Bible before you read this book
Early Gospel used the form 'son of man' or 'son of humanity' which is from the Book of Ezekiel.
Connor Walker
>Early Gospel used the form 'son of man' or 'son of humanity' which is from the Book of Ezekiel.
I find it hard to believe that it used exclusively the phrase "son of man" and never "son of God" considering passages like the one included in this screenshot. The gospels are clearly an account of one of the many times the Jews had no problem murdering Kings for a terrorist. They admit themselves they are professional "Kingslayers" - for example, they claim they murdered Jezebel for encouraging worship of Ba'al, the god of storms. They claim they like King Solomon but consider Moses a worthy man to stand in judgement over him because Solomon had multiple wives and worshiped the gods instead of a terrorist. Is there a word in the Bible about how Moses shouldn't have slaughtered the men, women and children of neighboring tribes and raped the virgin women? But King Solomon, whomever he was, was "evil" because he had more than one wife?
And then there was the time they converted King Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon to Judaism after King Nebuchadnezzar discovered you can't burn Jews in furnaces (Daniel 3).
And for these reasons they spend eternity in hell along with their co-conspirators.