Reality of modern religious propaganda

Reality of modern religious propaganda


Your post was removed because it does not fit within the rules and guidelines of r/religiousfruitcake. You can find the posting rules via this link: https://www.reddit.com/r/religiousfruitcake/comments/d39wef/official_posting_rules_for_rreligiousfruitcake/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf If you feel that this message is in error, please message the mods. Thank you.


As someone on tumblr once said, “I like canon Jesus much better than fandom Jesus”


Oh come on. This thing of Jesus supposedly being a socialist hippie is a complete myth, unless you think mysogyny and bigotry and rape and murder and slavery are all socialist ideals. All you have to do is read the Bible to know that he's a massive dickhead. And dude, jesus explicitly says in the bible in Matthew 5:17 that *every single law and rule* in the Old testament still applied and will continue to apply till the end of time. In John 7:16-19 he berates people for disobeying the old testament, and in Luke 15:17 he says it's easier for the universe to fall apart than for one single letter of the law to. So that includes stuff like murdering your children if they misbehave being OK, murdering your wife if she speaks up and disagrees with you or disobeys the man (father or husband) who owns her, it being OK to slaughter whole socieities for worshipping the wrong god and keep their children as virgin sex slaves, it's OK to murder a mixed-race couple to keep the race "pure", etc. It has stuff like God performing abortions because the *fetuses'* parents don't believe in him. He did a Hitler by killing a whole peaceful society of people so that his followers could have a place to live, literally Lebensraum. He threatened to literally rape children, because they didn't believe in him and said it's OK because "it is for the greatness of your iniquity that your skirts are lifted up, and you are violated . . . because you have forgotten me and trusted in lies.". Etc etc etc And let's not forget that the New Testament is also horrible and violent, as is Jesus himself, like in Matthew 10:34. And in Acts 12:23 of the new testament, God murders a bloke just for not believing in him. Plus it was the new testament that invented Hell. In the old testament if you were bad, you simply died and that was it. In the new testament God says that if you are sinful (so doing terrible evil things like eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics) then you'll be tortured beyond all human comprehension for *ETERNITY*. And the new testament is incredibly bigoted and mysogynistic. Like in 1 Timothy 2:11-1 Timothy 2:15 where it says men always have authority and control over women because Eve ate an apple once and so all women are punished forever for it. It goes on about this elsewhere too like 1 Corinthians 11:3-1 Corinthians 11:6, 1 Peter 3:7, Ephesians 5:22-Ephesians 5:24, Ephesians 6:5 and so on. And Jesus promises to be extremely violent and commiit genocide in Revelations 19:11-21


So I now like fandom socialist Jesus more than canon Jesus.


It's also worth remembering that the four gospels were written by different people living decades apart, with different goals and ideas. It shouldn't be surprising that the descriptions of Jesus in each of the books are slightly different, including which messages are said to have come from him.


It's like that one meme where Jesus is teaching his followers and says "Alright, listen closely. I don't want 12 different versions of this shit"


It’s almost like it’s a complete load of made up bollocks…


OnlyFans Jesus > Cannon Jesus > Fandom Jesus > Canon Jesus


Alright, I’d see OF Jesus. He’s the savior we need, but don’t deserve.


I like Big Lebowski Jesus more than pretend Jesus.


Fun fact: his entire role was improvised (The Lebowski one, not the other, lol)


That’s whole water to wine thing was off the cuff?!


Who’s role was improvised?? I did a cursory search and it seems like that is just a rumor


You should read the Bible yourself instead of depending on other people to read it for you. He's miquoting multiple parts of the Gospels and misunderstands [supersessionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism).


So, I've read the bible, and like any good Christian, I take out the parts I don't like.


You should read it while high too. I found Donkey from Shrek in it.


Balaams donkey!




Ehhhm you should just completely ignore the bible.


I mean, being aware of theologies should be a part of peoples well rounded lives. Like I know about Egyptian/Greek/Hindu mythologies but that doesn't mean I worship any of it. Knowing Bible canon/lore is also important for cuktural context when it comes to Western society, since it shaped a lottt of aspects of its history. Especially colloquialisms or old sayings in English. But that's just my opinion.


I'd say the most important parts to understand about the Bible are the history of how it was written and came to be, and the history of the differing denominations and interpretations of it.


"You should read the alleged word of God and then come to your own conclusions" that's worked really, spectacularly well for a few thousands years..


Except no one knows what the Bible said when it was written. The book has been in the hands of the church for 2000 years, and has been re-written and edited scores of times to push the narrative that the church wants. Jesus, if real, could have been all the things written about him, or none. Man is the one that can't be trusted to tell you the truth.


The meaning of Matthew 5:17 is hotly debated and Luke 15:17 seem irrelevant, perhaps you meant something else


The bible you know now should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you truly trust the people who changed him to be a white man to not add in all their on ideas and dogma? What we know for a fact is that he inspired a lot of undesirables by Roman standards. Changed a lot by standing up to the strong, being a revolutionary.


Eh, some of the things you mentioned can be explained if you read the Bible more objectively. This collection of books has been translated, transcribed, and passed hands more times than anyone could count, so there’s definitely been some changes along the way. I read it more like a history book rather than a book of truths to blindly believe in. People also wrote very differently 2000ish years ago, so who knows what we might be missing there. All I really know for sure is that I’m a firm believer in love and respect for all people no matter what, because that’s what I feel like Christianity is *supposed* to be about.


Interestingly, Jesus never wrote a single word in the Bible and every word written was actually second hand. Furthermore, many passages were left out at the direction of powerful men. Prime Video has a great documentary that exposes many myths about not only the Bible but Jesus and religion in general. It may be on the PBS Documentary Channel which I think cost an extra fiver or so. Well worth it. It is currently my favorite channel on Prime.


I mean... do people actually think Jesus *himself* wrote any of it? The gospels themselves don't even claim that they're written by Jesus, they just claim to be first-hand accounts of what he said and did.


I actually know this one, albeit without believing in it. In most mainstream Christian denominations, it's believed that the \*holy spirit\* guided the hands of those who wrote all the books in the bible. By extension, since the father, son, and holy spirit are all the same by being aspects of the holy trinity, it's logical to say that any of the other two aspects were responsible for writing it. So far as I can tell, this is some mistaken attempt at applying the transitive property without realizing that the aspects of the trinity being separate destroys the logic. Yes, this sounds insane. Yes, people also believe it.


Right. I grew up in a non-trinitarian family so I often forget how most Christians think about this stuff.


Problem is, the older tales from the old testament dont add up with archeologist finds and contains anacronisms, according to wikipedia. It does give you a general idea of what happened in the region, but thats mostly it.


Sounds like the Old Testament stories weren’t safe from errors in translation/simplification either, that explains the anachronisms I think. Depending on the archeological finds (I’ve heard some issues related to time explained by the fact that they counted their years differently), they can be explained further too. Not in any way saying that I’m a scientist and I know everything though, because I know I don’t. I’m just a college student still trying to decide what to do with his life, it’s not like I’m a preacher or priest. There are some holes in our religion that people could argue about for years, but I’m not all about that. I’m a simple man, so I believe in a simple religion that helps me interact with others and be an overall kinder, better person. I think that no matter what you believe in, as long as you treat others with kindness and respect, you’re alright in my book.


The stories of the Old Testament were meant to be stories. Oral history in those times weren't taken literally. It's like TV today. For example, imagine if modern people believed that Fox News was actually news and not just mindless entertainment. That would be silly.


why would anybody ever want to read the bible "objectively". Missing the point of both religion and literature


This is very interesting. Have your read the bible out of your own interest to know all this, were you a believer, or did you study christianity? I'm really just curious. I was forced to be a believer as small child, and decided to quit because it was too fucked up for me. Nsver went into a detailed research like you tho.


So... the bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus. It's fan fic. Most of this picture is pretty OK [if you want to interpret it historically.](https://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-P-Sanders/dp/0140144994) If you want to rage-type about fan fiction written 1800 years ago, then, go ahead. You're just as guilty of bullshit interpretations of the bible as mormons and evangelicals - note: they're all bullshit.


Yea, this needs to be the message were spreading. Fandom socialist Jesus is great but it's not accurate.


I like space jesus




And this is a [great book about the missing years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb:_The_Gospel_According_to_Biff,_Christ%27s_Childhood_Pal) :)




Modern day religions are amalgamations of other religions and folklores. There are stories in the bible that can be traced back to earlier forms of religion or deity worship. Paganism for instance celebrated the sun god, that image is what became god. Horus (iirc) had a son who rose from the dead in a cave after a specific amount of time. It’s not called the greatest story ever told for no reason. It’s about as true as the Mr Men series from Roger Hargreaves. Whilst there may be some elements of truth of these people existing, the stuff in the bible certainly didn’t happen at anytime, and has just be lifted and used to create a new religion, which has then superseded other forms of religion.


Read (or listen to) the epic of Gilgamesh. In the last third, Gilgamesh visits a ferryman, who tells him the story of a great flood, which was later copied for Jewish and, even later, Christian texts **WORD FOR WORD** I don’t know how anyone can truly believe in a story that is objectively stolen from a religion they’d call heathens and burn at the stake


The great flood myth predates Gilgamesh, and is written about Atrahasis, where the gods of Babylonia flood the world because mankind grew too populous and made too much noise. However most cultures have a great flood myth due to how common floods are, especially across river basins.


That’s true but beside the point. The Gilgamesh Epos is the direct source for Jewish texts and that’s hilarious




Literally fucking Gilgamesh and the Torah


Where is this 'word for word'? Do you have a source for this?


Most modern scientists believe that at some point the Dead Sea and mediterranean flooded their banks in some disastrous event, because basically every culture and people group has a flood story. Really interesting IMO.


> which was later copied for Jewish and, even later, Christian texts **WORD FOR WORD** Gilgamesh and the Biblical flood have strong overlaps, enough to warrant claiming that the biblical flood is derived from the epic of Gilgamesh, but it isn't word for word. Got something to back that?


Yeah, word for word was a bit of a hyperbole, sorry for that. It’s way more than an overlap though, way more than an inspiration.


I often see certain types of Christian actually use the similarities as proof the Flood happened. "If all these cultures all over the world have flood myths, they all must be telling different stories of the same biblical flood!"


Well, I mean, just to be fair, archeologists are discovering that many of these societies did actually experience devastating floods. Not to the point like it was in the Bible, but if you think about it from their prospective, water as far as the eye can see, it looks like the entire world is just covered by water. However, what gets me, is when they discovered the, “flood tablet” which is a 4000 year old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia. It not only talks about the flood but it gives VERY detailed instructions on how to build the ark, and even the two by two part. I mean, you COULD argue that it was a prophecy of sorts but, It just seems suspicious to me, especially since the Bible has been rewritten so many times.


“They were so close, if only they knew the *full truth* [which of course we and no one else have and don’t question it]” was the go-to response where I’m from


Don't forget about Zoroaster and his religion. Many similarities between his religion and Christianity despite him being alive hundreds, if not thousands of years before Jesus.


This is the most accurate thing I've ever seen.


They missed the bit about how historical jesus threw the money changers out of the temple and that rich people were more likely to pass through the eye of a needle --> into heaven etc etc but Christian jesus knows preachers needs a new private jet so please donate.


I could google it but I think its more like It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it would be for a rich person to get into heaven. Thought experiment: 1. You're a Christian 2. The Bible is a book about Jesus (your ticket to salvation) 3. He appears in this book alot but is only quoted a handful of times If I decided I wanted to live in that world I would go out of my way to take the few times Jesus is quoted very seriously.


I like the 6'2" Jesus with six-pack abs and a Raiders tattoo. That motherfucker is badass. Super into American firearms and four-wheelin'! Dude has a custom camouflaged F-150 with a ringer exhaust for blastin' those lame-assed cyclists with soot! He also hates socialism (healthcare LOL!), gays, and brownies, and votes for gazillionaires who undermine and sabotage any chance for justice in this world. Now that's a real man and a true American patriot! Amen, you fuckin sissy, liberal sheep! I WON'T BE MASKED!


Swole Jesus lol


This is what happens when you tell people that showing up to a building on Sunday and eating a cracker absolves them of being a piece of shit during the rest of the week. And not only that, but you're a good person because those nerds totally had it coming.


Catholicism believes that belief alone is not enough. You have to be pious to get into heaven.


Nah, not just Catholics but Christians believe that even being extra good is not good enough to earn A ticket to heaven. They believe that it's only through belief in CHRIST that u can.


You only gotta outrun the slowest person though


My favorite version is the sweet little eight point six ounce baby jesus, in golden fleece diapers, don't even know a word yet, just a little infant, so cuddly, but still omnipotent.


I get you’re talking about people when you said brownies, but all I can think about is the delicious and chocolatey dessert.


Rock me sexy Jesus


Yeah I was pretty lazy and a bit stoned.


Is it? IIRC, only about a third of the things in the "historical Jesus" list are regarded as credible by historians.


Not really. He was just a regular jewish guy with non-marriage father. It was close to death sentence, so both him and his mom was outcasts and very religious as everyone back then. But it's the same thing for all new religions, started by weird autistic bunch who feel like an alien in regular society.


Why the hate for autistic folks though?


bible is basically the continuum of "a prophet is not welcomed in his own hometown". and now every christian thinks their toxicity is the based criticism of an unwelcomed prophet, while everyone else who opposes them and does the same with their own opinion are pharisees. it's like how everyone nowadays claims to have swallowed the red pill.


i live in israel, historical jesus looks like some dude i would see on the street ngl


Yeah this is why the debate over what he looked like kills me. The region he lived in still exists… it’s a place that you can visit today. There’s no reason to think he would’ve looked different from the people who are native to that part of the world.


yeah straight up i could see that dude and he would ask me for a light or a cig and like everyone else i would explain i don't got either, he looks like any other mizrahi jew i've seen


I wish I could visit there


Wonder what Jezus would say of modern day Israel. Talk about religious fruitcakes.


That's kinda cool though. You could go back in time and run into some young dude (a rabbi, or someone "training" to be, however that worked) who's chill, soft-spoken but can get heated when he encounters assholes or hypocrites. You have a conversation that gets philosophical, he says a bunch of stuff about loving God by loving others, and you part ways, thinking "that guy was cool." Someone tells you later it was Yeshua from Nazareth and he pretty much goes around the whole country talking to people like this. Sometimes he hands out fish. I dig chill Jesus.


yeh that's part of what was appealing about the message, while he was the son of god he also looked like a normal man of the area. if he was white the jews would think he was an invader. opposed to nowadays if you see a white dude in israel most likely he's ashkenazi like me


In my opinion, they should have kept the long hair. Sexy as fuck.


I'm all for Korean Jesus, but he busy... with KOREAN SHIT


I know what you're thinkin': angry, black captain. Well guess what? I'm black, and I worked my ASS off to be the captain. And sometimes, I get a little angry, so suck a dick!


My name Jeff


I totally agree with this, but, at what point can we say someone belongs to a demographic named after their own teachings? I mean I'm absolutely on board with Jesus being from a Jewish family, but would he have not *also* be considered Christian as a result of his spiritual and political ideas. I guess what I'm getting at is similar to: was Marx a Marxist?


It's a bit different. Jesus lived his life as a Jew and Christianity began from the tale of his death and resurrection. Marx within his lifetime created and espoused Marxism, so he would be considered a Marxist.


Yeah, the messiah absolutely fits within jewish beliefs - the split came because Jesus didn't end up ticking all the predicted boxes, so the jews that believed he *was* the messiah became christians, those that didn't remained jews. While he was alive, christianity didn't exist so he couldn't have been one.


The vast majority of Jews would disagree that Jesus could even possibly be the Messiah.


Well, yeah. That's why they're jews, not christians. The point is that Jesus *at the time* fit the bill. He was doing what was expected of the messiah.


Yeah, no. Messianic Jews consider themselves to be both Christians and Jews, but they are a minority. Just like today, most Jews at the time of Jesus would disagree that he “fit the bill” as the expected messiah. He doesn’t fulfill the requirements. It’s for this reason that Christians had to dig through the Old Testament looking for phrases that matched Christ’s life, label them as prophecies and then claim that Jesus had “fulfilled” them, even though most of these passages were not regarded as messianic prophecies at all when written and still aren’t by non Christians today.


He ticked none of them to be fair.


As I understood it he did things the messiah is supposed to do, but didn't result in the world he was supposed to produce being produced. Like, right method, wrong answer.


Not really, the only thing some could pretend that matched was that he was from the house of David, but that's not true as he didn't have a human father and that's how 'being from the house of X' was understood. The joke was that he was precisely an ani-messiah, subverting ALL of Jewish expectations, otherwise he would be recognized as messiah during his lifetime and Judaism->Christianity conversion rate would be much higher overall.


Jesus fully or partially fulfilled over 300 Messianic prophecies (Messiah in both testaments by Fred Meldau) but none of the ones that indicated the Messiah would be a conquering king. Some of his followers claimed that he said he would come back


Oh interesting, so is this why angry Christians like to threaten me with "when Jesus comes back to be King you'll be sorry" type stuff? Because he didn't fulfill every prophesy so obviously he's gotta come back at some point cause he has to do the rest?


During the Babylonian captivity, the priests and scribes pored over the Scriptures they had, looking for answers. The Talmud and midrash contain many commentaries on passages believed to be messianic. There is much discussion of the obvious contradictions and meaning of the passages that portray the Messiah as a suffering servant, while other passages present a conquering king


There is even this theory of two Messiahs. Messiah son of Joseph and Messiah son of David - one was to suffer and die while the other to conquer and reign.


Ehhh. I mean, Jesus's teaching diverged from the predominant jewish status quo at the time. Like, you dont tell people that you fulfilled the Law (Matt 5:17), and thus releasing people from the laws in the Torah and still being "living life as a Jew" because thats a fairly massive divergence from the text.


Fair dues.


Marx said himself that he isn't a Marxist, since he knew that it was to early for a revolution


Yeshua ha-Notsri (Jesus the Nazarene) was a restorationist rabbi who endorsed that Jews return to orthodoxy and abandon orthopraxy, meaning that he taught that faith was a lot more important than deeds and rituals.


Was Luther Lutheran or Christian? Was Calvin Calvinist or Christian? Anyway, Christianity isn't simply stuff Jesus preached, Christianity is religion ABOUT Jesus and his importance. He couldn't possibly be Christian because he thought there is more important stuff than him, like the impending apocalypse he was constantly talking about.


"Non-violent" Literally made a whip then chased the tax collectors out of th temple with it.


jesus said eat the rich


Are they kosher?


meh...comparatively speaking I'd still qualify Jesus as at least the most non-violent of the founders of Abrahamic religions. That's the only instance mentioned for his violence, it was mild and the others were just ISIL in different times.


He was also the first to say that Hell was a place of eternal fire and torture. Eternal torture of over half of all humanity beats out Mohammed being a warlord for a couple of decades.


This is the basis of my justification to my Christian family as to why we’re having a Jewish wedding to my Jewish fiance. Jesus died so gentiles could go to Heaven, Jews are fine on their own


Where does our image of long-haired Jesus come from anyway?


Here's a good video from the YouTube channel ReligionForBreakfast explaining that plus more. https://youtu.be/7DUekrCnye8


Thank you til of “donkey headed Jesus theory” and kinda hope it’s true


People make their gods look like them that's why Jesus became long haired white Anglo Saxon man.




I prefer Korean Jesus


Korean Jesus is dope


Saw something a while ago of richard carrier (a "fringe" historian im told) that earliest depictions he didnt eve have a beard, that that was added aswell


I like Carrier well enough, but to be fair/clear, his view that Jesus probably didn’t even exist really is fringe, academically speaking.


I think I heard it was Michelangelo doing something for the church? Of course, I also heard his male model was his secret lover so.. If correct, the popular idea of Jesus would be a gay Italian man.


There's also [a theory](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0013/2962/7213/products/image_343c23ed-b1b5-4e71-a25e-85bed899932b_1242x.jpg?v=1596773752) that Rodrigo Borgia, Pope Alexander the 6th, had all Jesus paintings modelled after his son, Cesare Borgia, to make the [image of Jesus more relatable to Europeans.](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/96/1b/a2/961ba225ffbbbd329b255396cf1c3481.jpg)


For a time I lost my faith, but I'm realsing more and more that it's the fans I don't like not Jesus


Jesus is cool. The religion made up in his name is similar to that which he criticized, as the meme makes clear


It honestly blows me away that so many Christians don't see how they are literally doing the exact fucking thing they were told not to do. Like those Girl Defined girls, can they not see that if their religion is real they're going straight to hell for the amount of hate and judgement they spread. These super churches lead by men who look like a caricature of an evil, demon possessed priest who clearly cares about money over anything else, like how can anyone look at that and think "oh yeah Jesus loves this shit". Baffling.


Dennis: You know what, Christianity is cool. What I don't like is Mac


Yeah everyone forgets that Jesus was best buds with a total slut. Mary Magdalene absolutely loved the cock!


Not positive but I dontthink theres any source for her being a prostitute, and its made up by the church to downplay her role since shes a woman. Its not canon but there is a book of mary that may have been of some importance previously


Fanfic reaches far and wide


The whole thing is basically nothing but fanfic. Just because some old men in dresses came together centuries later and made some of it their canon doesn't change that.


*The Catholic Church wants to know your location*


Come at me, fuckers!


Came to correct you, but it turns out you’re right. The connection between Mary and prostitution started with a series of Easter sermons given by Pope Gregory I in 591. In these, he spoke of the sinful woman of Luke 10 (Mary of Bethany) as if she were the same person as Mary Magdalene, even though it was a common name and there’s no earlier textual evidence connecting them.


This is cool. A lot of people would ignore what they found when it proved them wrong.


To clear the confusion, a prostitute named Mary of Bethany is often confused with Mary Magdalene. Mary of Bethany is a sister of Lazarus and she is forgive by Jesus despite of her sins.


In some gospels that aren’t included in the Bible, Mary Magdalene is actually Jesus’s wife and they have multiple kids. It was cut out because the church found it easier to convince men to become celibate priests if Jesus never had sex


no way, for real??


Yeah! I don’t have any direct sources on it unfortunately but there are plenty of theologians who believe this to be true and information in the apocrypha (“heretical gospels”, as some call them, particularly in Magdelene’s chapter that she wrote herself) that support these claims. It’s a very hotly debated issue in the theology community and some people don’t support the idea I will admit, but I would be very surprised if it wasn’t true


that’s amazing! yeah i was raised to think of them as heretical gospels, so that makes sense as to why we never learned about them ever. thank you for that bit of knowledge


Just read or the Da Vinci Code. It plays off the idea is a good way to rot your brain. Plus movie has Tom hanks.


And also Peter literally left his wife and family to live with Jesus, so there's some gay floating around there too


Peter was a fisherman. Peter liked fish sticks. Peter was a gay fisher of men. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.


Now I don't have a direct source for this, but I believe the 'earlier' versions of the Bible described Mary Magdalene as an African queen with multiple husbands/concubines, which was very normal for that time and place. But ofcourse that's just a powerful woman and the church didn't like that


Hi! I’m a biblical scholar and have a theology degree, and I have never heard this interpretation. I know some versions refer to her as Jesus’s wife and as an apostle, which is unheard of because women were rarely allowed to be religious leaders; both of which were cut for the reasons you say, the Catholic Church didn’t like women centered in their spirituality. I’ve looked for a source on this and can’t find anything that suggests Mary Magdalene was an African Queen, but if you ever come across it again or remember where you read it, I’d love to know where I can find more about this idea


Historical Jesus looking mighty fine


Where does it talk about Jesus's half siblings?


The council decided those books would not be included in the compendium.


Both are totally imaginary and delusional. There is Zero Evidence for either description. The 'J' wasn't invented until 1524. >Both I and J were used interchangeably by scribes to express the sound of both the vowel and the consonant. It wasn't until 1524 when Gian Giorgio Trissino, an Italian Renaissance grammarian known as the father of the letter J, made a clear distinction between the two sounds. How difficult is it to understand, there is no 'jesus' or Yeshua Ben Yosef? The Romans were meticulous record keepers and there is no contemporary evidence of any figure even close to the Delusional Fantasy 'jesus'. https://i.imgur.com/Nbkb1r5.jpg


I’m going to go post this to r/catholicmemes wish me luck


Update, I was perma banned. I think im going to screen shot and frame it for my bedside table.




https://www.reveddit.com/v/CatholicMemes/ Seems like most of the content gets removed... lol


oof good luck haha


That subreddit literally gave me a headache after 15 seconds of scrolling


Life of Brian is a more honest depiction of Jesus than how he is portrayed today. Just an average dude with decent morals.


Lol Jesus was never Christian


This assumes that Jesus actually ever even existed. There's absolutely no historical evidence of him. No birth certificate, no record of his trial or death, nothing. Great story, though. Good PR.


Define "historical"


Religious Right logic: hate middle eastern people, hate hippies, worship a middle eastern hippie.


This should be "Colonizer Jesus vs Biblical Jesus." There was no *historical* Jesus. Earliest account is from 130 years after he would have died. Even if he was a real person, the first written accounts would have been by the great-grandchildren of anyone that had known him personally.


The vast majority of scholars agree that a man named Jesus lived, was baptized by John the Baptist, was an itinerant rabbi and was executed by Pilate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus


The english wikipedia page for the historicity of Jesus is a joke.


That’s because (IMO) the actual historical evidence for Jesus is thinner than is often portrayed. For an example, there’s a particular source referenced by historians named Josephus, who was a Jewish writer a hundred or so years after Jesus’ hypothetical death. Josephus wrote about supposed messianic figures from the perspective of a practicing Jew, who don’t believe in a messiah even today. Josephus writes about dozens if not hundreds of what he sees as false messiahs, including several paragraphs about an unrelated, no-name shepherd who tried to claim prophet status around the time of Jesus. The section Josephus wrote about Jesus is shorter than most of the sections in this work including the one I mentioned about the shepherd, and is seemingly written from the perspective of someone who *believes* Jesus is the messiah despite the rest of the work. Depending on how you read the work, it could even be missing entire pages. It just screams with implications that the section was altered or edited after the fact, if not completely fabricated by the long line of Christian caretakers of the document. And yet, this is still one of the *strongest* pieces of evidence Biblical scholars use to claim Jesus’ historicity.


That level of evidence could be applied almost every single person who ever lived before a few hundred years ago. There are plenty of rulers and "important" people who the only hard evidence we have that they existed at all are writing from historians hundreds of years after they died. There are entire large groups of people ("nations" didn't really exist back then) that only exist in second-hand accounts. There's a reason powerful rulers were obsessed with building massive monuments to their glory, it's the only way people would know they existed long after they died. It's not like you're going to be able to dig up Jesus' social security card and Facebook page.


Besides the many New Testament authors (with Paul's letters starting maybe 15-20 years post crucifixion) and the growth of the early church, there's Tacitus and Josephus. Most scholars think Josephus did write about John the Baptist and Jesus, and a Christian apologist fraudulently altered the existing copy. Jesus' critics in the Mishnah didn't dispute he existed. Some references indicated they were calling Jesus the bastard son of Pantera the Roman Centurion; that he was a sorcerer who did fake miracles; that he misled the people with his teachings and was being boiled in excrement for eternity. Why did they care so much, and why did they make the attacks they did?


TLDR People who believed in Jesus find very thin evidence that he existed historically. Like paper thin evidence that a man named Jesus was baptized and then later crucified.


The claim that majority of scholars accept the historical Jesus is seen all the time, but there is no evidence for that either, even though it is plausible for plenty of reasons that have nothing to do with the historical record. That's because the vast majority of people who choose to become biblical historians already believe the historicity of Jesus by default. It does not change the fact that there is no valid historical basis for doing so. In fact, it is still quite common for historians to write books that *try* to establish any credible historical record, and yet - as far as I understand - to date, no one has done so successfully yet; hence why they keep trying. No one is out there writing books arguing for the historical existence of Nero. All of that aside, even if Jesus existed, it's not up for debate that there are no primary historical accounts of him, all of them are derived, all of them are late, none of them are contemporary. Existing or not, there was no *historical* Jesus.


I love that people who claim to hold on to rationalism for dear life always seem to think that the most logical explanation for the existence of Christianity is that it came out of nowhere for absolutely no reason. Also it's widely accepted by people who study these things that the gospels were written early enough to be feasibly authored in the later lifetime of people who knew Jesus. The most obvious point in favor of this is that if the synoptics in particular were written after the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70, there's no way they wouldn't have mentioned it because of how much it vindicated certain things that Jesus said.


There are literally zero published biblical scholars that advocate that any of the four gospels were written prior to 70 CE. That is a ludicrous claim. The only books of the NT with accepted dates prior to 70 CE are all Pauline texts (still \~25 years after Jesus would have died; but Paul never met Jesus, and there is a lot in the epistles that Christians haven't always been fond of, such as Jesus' brother James or Paul's call to stop obeying Mosaic law. Every book in the NT written by anyone other than Paul was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Matthew 24 is an obvious example of prophecy written after the fact, but many of the other discussions in the NT about the destruction of Jerusalem could be 70 CE or 3000 CE - they are just too vague.


Whilst I agree largely, you've said it yourself - Israel was colonised by Rome. It was hellenicised heavily before Jesus was born. So white people were not an uncommon sight in the holy land, and it is not far fetched to believe Jesus had Roman ancestry, sadly due to the frequency of rape in those times.


I got in a LOT of trouble for, when I was about 10, saying “it sort of sounds like maybe Mary was simply an unwed mother and was banished for it and the whole “mysterious impregnated by God” bit was a tall tale?” Not saying I was correct for that, my point is that even Anglo-Saxon 10 year old me who was raised in the Bible Belt felt the story was illogical and false. My theories were unwelcome


Basically American God's... Mexican Jesus, Asian Jesus, Hippie Jesus, Black Jesus, Trans Jesus....


How does Korean Jesus fit in? Or Chinese Jesus? Only room to talk about racism when you feel its pointed in the "right" direction?


I was raised Christian, even so far as going to private Christian schools for a stretch, in the Southern U.S.. My own interpretation even as a child, was far more in line with the historical side depicted here, though I did, and still do, know a few people who obviously see their interpretation as the other one. I think there are a few different kinds of religious people. But I know that the vast majority will not actually read to gain context, they'll just follow along with whatever opinion the clergy had for that sermon and maybe read the exact verses to that specific sermon, and no further. Most of the difference here is the historical side is far more in line with anyone that had actually read the source material. Whereas the other is almost always someone who has never read the source material and interprets it out of context, based on whatever their clergy surmised as the point of their sermons. My problem with organized religion is far more about the people's interpretation of the stories, than the source material. Anything can be taken out of context and spun into propaganda. And something so vast, and honestly, quite boring at times, always runs the risk of the lazy being mislead by the controlling factions. It's the entire foundation of how fundamentalism and fanaticism works. Charismatic leaders prey on the ignorance of their subjects, and anyone who's established can weaponize that information with very little concern that their subjects will actually read the source in its entirety, for proper context. That creates huge room for mass manipulation. And I am highly against that. I like having my own interpretation. I'm very wary of churches and religious people. Often times, despite being told otherwise in their own religious texts, they are not inclusive and very hypocritical in their judgement of others, especially those deemed lower class, similar to the lepers and prostitutes, of which Jesus was fond of and spent most of his time with, according to texts.


His race is an Aramaic Jew, a race mostly extinct today to my knowledge.


Sooooooo I’m still waiting for credible proof of the existence of a historical “Jesus”....as far as I’m aware the only contemporary anecdotal support for those stories was Josephus and many scholars have roundly rejected his contributions as BS....there should be records of Jesus’ execution at the least and there are none....anyone care to cmv?


Jesus on the right owns a coptic bakery in Flushing--his secret is a little pinch of ground pistachios in his hummus. Sends a case of baklava to his local teacher's union every Christmas. Jesus on the left does Tiktok makeup tutorials for men--his secret is use every single filter at once. Sends questionable DMs to his underage followers.


Historical Jesus made an entire town blind because one kid was mean to him. But yeah great dude


You forgot the part about how neither were divine or holy, and accounts like walking on water, healing the blind or lepers, turning water into wine, etc., are purely fiction. Also, both are terrible sources for moral directives.


Yeah it baffles me how many modern christians think Jesus Is white


They're both correct depictions. A character in a story which are both full of contradictions.


Wait isnt that 5th point complete bs tho? How could jesus have been killed by "the church and state"? How does it make sense for churches to exist before him?


I'm with you... But Jesus was kinda violent when he went to kick people out of temple treating it like a market... But im being pedantic


Almost entirely agree with this but going with the bible he Is a king and died for our/your sins but that doesn't change that he was killed by state and religious people, and that he was a homeless Man. Jesús, king of kings came to live like a homeless outcasted Man, died for our sins, killed because His message didn't go with religious and state's ideas of god. God himself came in Jesús to give His true message and he was killed because of It.


This assumes he was an earthling


I'm Catholic and I honestly don't understand why people find it so hard to believe he was a middle easten jew.... Or anything. I mean.... Like ignorance at its fullest.


> Non violent Didn’t Jesus beat up a bunch of tax collectors in a church


Just out of curiosity, what is this about half siblings?




Religion was an idea that was written full of Bombs to suppress, oppress, sexually abuse and murder! And fanatics exploit it to this day!. Besides,. it's a huge money maker!


Only thing; how do we knos if he was killed by the church and state? I may be wrong but dont all roman documents from that era actually say dont persecute christians, and the roman persecution was them kinda fetishizing it?


How would Rome have laws about not persecuting Christians before they even crucified Jesus?


Roman historian Tacitus wrote that Pilate executed Christ


Tacitus also wrote that Nero blamed Christians for the fall and burning of Rome, which isn’t substantiated in history.


So, we're gonna trust Roman documents saying that Romans didn't persecute Christians? Feels kinda like the police investigating themselves for police brutality and saying they found "no evidence of wrongdoing"


Haha, but this is a very silly argument anyways bc of course the Romans weren’t persecuting Christians at the time of Jesus. That’s because there weren’t Christians in the time of Jesus bc Christians didn’t exist before Jesus died, you know, like the whole basis for the religion?


It's like listing traits of Thanos vs Darkseid. It's based on lore.


White Jesus looks like he would patronize the money lenders, not flip their shit 🤣


It would be more accurate if the historical Jesus side was just blank


Organized religion is easily the worst creation of human kind. Absolutely ruins any chance of a person developing any real critical thinking skills, because god/Jesus has a plan. Have faith in yourself, not some imaginary deity, that was invented as a form of crowd control.