Opinion of people who think Jesus of Nazareth would be a "......." today

[All Along The Watchtower]

Well?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Jesus was certainly political in one sense of the word, but the politics of his time was very different from the politics of our time.  However, charity is a virtue that Jesus took seriously, and very seriously, so I don't think it would matter to him whether the poor were being supported through private or public funds as long as they were being supported.  As far as general politics goes, I find using Jesus to back up specific policy positions as fallacious as using the Founding Fathers' opinions to support your own.  All those guys would be in for quite of a culture shock if they saw the world today, so what looked like a good idea back in the day might not seem so great for present time.

[Deus Naturae]

HPs. They remind me of a guy I know who claims Lincoln was a Keynesian.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Option 3 or 4.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Option 4, but if forced to choose between 1 and 2, then definitely 1.

[CatoMinor]

Both progressives and conservatives are equally guilty of trying to use Jesus's words to add justification to opinions they already came to without Jesus, instead of forming their views based on Jesus and his teachings. Jesus told the rich to sell their positions and give to the poor if they wanted to truly follow Him, never did he force him to do so against their will. Nor did Jesus ever call for the expulsion of immigrants or strict death penalties. His ministry preached the truth and of the Kingdom of Heaven, not on what is the best public policy.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 3.  Jesus would be hated by virtually all political authorities, just like He was IRL.

[Mechaman]

Option 3.

I mean really, just shut up people.

[Randy Bobandy]

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

In the unlikely event that he actually did exist, I would choose Option 1:

"Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.' When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions." - Mark 10:21-22

"Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.'" - Luke 6:20-21

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'" - Matthew 25:34-36

Those verses are conveniently missing from most Republican-owned Bibles, I suppose.

[DC Al Fine]

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

That's incredibly dubious.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

In the unlikely event that he actually did exist, I would choose Option 1:

"Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, 'You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.' When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions." - Mark 10:21-22

"Then he looked up at his disciples and said: 'Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh.'" - Luke 6:20-21

"Then the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.'" - Matthew 25:34-36

Those verses are conveniently missing from most Republican-owned Bibles, I suppose.

You take the Bible more literally then most fundies, and have misunderstood it just as well as they do.

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

That's incredibly dubious.

God or simply man, Jesus was definitely a historic figure.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

So, how much time did you spend researching this to come to that conclusion?

[Randy Bobandy]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

[Randy Bobandy]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

[Randy Bobandy]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

Right.  No single picture of Jesus has convinced most scholars.  Just because scholars view Jesus from different perspectives doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence entirely.  Scientists differ on how evolution occurs; they don't doubt the whole thing because of it.

[afleitch]

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

Bear in mind that scholars of the bible, if they have faith themselves tend to be guilty of confirmation bias. The Bible does show, to the neutral observer, signs of it's own 'fabrication'. I am not in the business of giving as much of a sh-t these days to talk about it, (unless there's an asshat pastor on the street) but it's worth pointing out.

[Randy Bobandy]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

Right.  No single picture of Jesus has convinced most scholars.  Just because scholars view Jesus from different perspectives doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence entirely.  Scientists differ on how evolution occurs; they don't doubt the whole thing because of it.

I would be willing to bet there's a much larger consensus on how evolution occurs as opposed to how this Jesus character lived and died. That's probably because there's much less to work with when it comes to Jesus--nothing more than some writings about this Jesus dude composed years and years and years and years after his supposed death.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

Bear in mind that scholars of the bible, if they have faith themselves tend to be guilty of confirmation bias. The Bible does show, to the neutral observer, signs of it's own 'fabrication'. I am not in the business of giving as much of a sh-t these days to talk about it, (unless there's an asshat pastor on the street) but it's worth pointing out.

That's certainly plausible, but it's not always true.  I don't think one's faith should be considered a roadblock to their credibility as a scholar.  You could easily discredit non-Christian scholars who reject the evidence for the same reason.

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

Right.  No single picture of Jesus has convinced most scholars.  Just because scholars view Jesus from different perspectives doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence entirely.  Scientists differ on how evolution occurs; they don't doubt the whole thing because of it.

I would be willing to bet there's a much larger consensus on how evolution occurs as opposed to how this Jesus character lived and died. That's probably because there's much less to work with when it comes to Jesus--nothing more than some writings about this Jesus dude composed years and years and years and years after his supposed death.

You're missing the point.  All the facts point to the probability of there being a Jesus of Nazareth who lived, was baptized, and died at the order of Pontius Pilate.  There's reason to believe and to doubt other aspects of his life, but you won't find many scholars who outright reject his existence.

[Randy Bobandy]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

[afleitch]

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

Bear in mind that scholars of the bible, if they have faith themselves tend to be guilty of confirmation bias. The Bible does show, to the neutral observer, signs of it's own 'fabrication'. I am not in the business of giving as much of a sh-t these days to talk about it, (unless there's an asshat pastor on the street) but it's worth pointing out.

That's certainly plausible, but it's not always true.  I don't think one's faith should be considered a roadblock to their credibility as a scholar.  You could easily discredit non-Christian scholars who reject the evidence for the same reason.

It's not a roadblock to their credibility as a Christian Scholar no, but it can be a roadblock to accepting truths that test their faith. Most atheist/humanist people that I talk to about biblical scholarship in depth have tended to be people formerly in the seminary or studying theology who made that leap.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

So Josephus was a Christian?  Because he certainly is a first Century writer who mentioned him.  Now I can see doubting that the miracles associated with the birth, baptism, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus happened, but there really is no basis to doubt that Jesus the son of Mary lived in Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered disciples and evangelized, and then was crucified. Even a myth has to start somewhere.

[CatoMinor]

Really. You're basing everything you know about Jesus from two sources. The first of which is the New Testament of the Bible, which is not at all historically reliable. The second is the writings of first century Christian writers. How about first century non-Christian writers? Zero mention of Jesus. This is probably because early Christianity was even more of a pagan, myth-centered cult than it is today.

Actually the earliest copies of the gospels and letters of the NT have been found to be within 2 generations of the apostles. The Bible is actually the most reliable book from antiquity with 99.5% transcript agreement across over 24,000 pre-dark ages manuscripts. 7/8 of all any errors are just grammatical.  The gap between the original composition to the earliest copies we have is about 170 years. No other book from antiquity has anywhere near the volume of manuscripts available today. Even Using just the original Greek there are over 5,300 (The Illiad only has 650).