The “Real” Jesus

jesuspicture

I left the following comment on Steve’s blog in response to one of his recent posts. As I was reading it back to myself, I thought it might be fun to open up the floor and let others use their imagination to describe their version of Jesus. So have at it folks! Put your ingenuity to work! Who was this guy … REALLY?

Here’s what I came up with …

-IF- Jesus existed at all, I would agree he was simply the child of natural parents. As he grew up, he was somewhat drawn to the Hebrew perspectives on Yahweh. Further, he was an individual who enjoyed attention, so he held a lot of bull-shitting sessions in which “the guys” mulled over the various beliefs and laws and such. After awhile, he became rather well-known in the community and, taking advantage of his newly-established reputation, he widened his circle of listeners. At some point, however, he became a bee in the bonnet of the Romans and, well, we all know the end of the story.

All I ask is that you please keep it clean. 🙂 (And definitively NO references to modern-day politics! We have enough of that already.)

************************************
Image by Jose Conejo Saenz from Pixabay

108 thoughts on “The “Real” Jesus

  1. I have long favored historicism (over mythicism). That there was a real Jesus seemed to better explain what we see.

    However, now that I have seen Qanonsense, and the ability of the T**** cult to form beliefs with no evidential basis, I am re-examining. Perhaps mythicism makes more sense than I had realized.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. IF, is the correct word here, but….just a normal man with some sort of small following, who was probably killed by the Roman’s for being a trouble maker. Then 200 years later had his life embellished to a ridiculous level by several writers, who got included into the bible also, as they made the “cut” because many of the books didn’t. Thus a complete fantasy was born into a breakaway religious dogma where the cult part really blossomed into what we see as Christianity today, which is minus the early good things attributed to him..like feed the poor, be kind, take care of the immigrants, love one another and desire peace.

    Liked by 6 people

  3. I have several possibilities. First, possibly someone who thought that he was the actual messiah. He thought his entry into Jerusalem and actions there would fulfill the prophecies, and that god would then work the prophesied miracles and drive out the Romans. I found this idea discussed at length here: https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/gned/maccoby.pdf

    Or, one of the many “end of the world” preachers that we have been plagued with throughout history. Jerusalem’s version of Harold Camping.

    Or, someone like a 1960’s cult leader who gained a following telling his followers that they didn’t need to follow the harsh rules of “the man” but just needed peace and love. Roman-era hippies.

    My best guess is that there were several different preachers and philosophers around that time, including whoever Jesus was and probably also Apollonius of Tyana, all of whom influenced the formation of a new mystery cult based on old Jewish writings, with strong Greek and Egyptian influences added in. This cult created a literary Jesus character that was an amalgamation of those thinkers, with a large quantity of fanciful details about miracles and prophecies thrown in, so that “Bible Jesus” bears almost no resemblance to any person that actually lived.

    Liked by 8 people

    • This is a pretty solid assessment I think, by Ubi. Jesus was a devout Jew that became an apocalyptic preacher that believed the overthrow of the Roman tyrants and the establishment of the heavenly realm on Earth was imminent, i.e., in his lifetime (As Paul also believed). I think one of the most striking moments in NT scripture is when he is arrested in Gethsemane in Mark, where he goes from thinking that two swords is plenty “enough”, to getting arrested and hardly speaking at all. Clearly – at least as I read it – he expected the army of angels to come to his aid and, when this did not happen, he was in shock, now realizing he was NOT the messiah and he was in his last days. He had to know from his life in Israel that he was bound for a most grievous execution; scourging & crucifixion. There were, we know, a number of apocalyptic self-described “messiahs” during this time (Simon Bar Kochba, meaning “Son of the Star” led a rebellion, albeit unsuccessful, in 132 of the first century. He was actually called Messiah by Akiva, the leading Jewish scholar of his day and still a giant among Jewish people. Of course he ended up dead as well, on a Roman battlefield. He was followed by a number of others but clearly Jesus is the best known of them.

      As far as all the mythological aspect go; the virgin birth, walking on water, water-into-wine, etc. is all just that, mythology. In fact, I doubt these stories even existed during his lifetime.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Nan, you know pretty well how I’ve always approached this question.

    I critique it/Yeshua from a historical forensics viewpoint, examining extensively ALL the pertinent, contextual contemporaneous sources… from the canonical Synoptic Greco-Roman Gospels to the Earliest Apostolic and Patristic Roman Church Fathers’ extant writings to non-canonical, non-Roman traditions, and then the most critical sources… the Late Second Temple Jewish sources of the Zugot and Tannaim Periods in particular, and finally the Dead Sea Scrolls. To date, these are all of the key relevant sources to accurately define The “Real” Jesus—minus all the much later superstitions and Greek Apotheosis implanted into the convoluted Latin Greco-Roman version we all a familiar with today. Two of my blog-posts cover much of this summation with several others expanding and elaborating on the same question. Those two primary blog-posts are…

    https://professortaboo.com/2018/03/10/the-incarnation-of-g-man/

    …and…

    https://professortaboo.com/2019/09/07/christ-the-roman-ruse/

    None of the contents of these two primary posts deal with anything remotely connected to the mumbo-jumbo of modern Christian Apologetics or politics. Just PURE historical sources, records, and exhaustive Secular and religious evidence. 🙂

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Great topic Nan. I think Jesus was from boyhood a man on a mission- at 12 he was already ‘about his Father’s business.’ His mother probably told him at least some details surrounding his birth and infancy. So that he gradually grew conscious that the prophets had written about HIM. Just your ordinary average Jew who lived commonly among commoners- who better to turn religion on its ear.

    It seems he took matters casually, as they unfolded before him. And as from God- he didn’t seem to separate spiritual stuff from the commonplace. For example, he often saw God in the natural world- flowers and birds, thunder and lightning. Yet I think Jesus came most of all to make us fit for an everyday relationship with God. That’s how I see Jesus- with me in the daily mix.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Jesus was a teenage boy who got lost in the desert, and rescued by Tibetan Buddhist monks travelling to the Dead Sea. They took him back to Tibet where he studied with TiBu masters who taught him about reincarnation (Hebrew had no word for it, just “reborn,” or “born again.”) He also learned about nirvana (heaven) and samsara (hell, slightly distorted). He learned, amongst other things, to walk without his feet touching the ground (walking on water). He probably met the Dalai Lama (Father) too.
    Many years later he yearned for his homeland and returned there. He had all this new ideas, but there were no words for them in Hebrew. So he used available words, but the ideas were grossly misunderstood. He tried to teach his friends (the disciples) but could not make them understand fully (they were left with half-understood teachings).
    This is really simplistic, I wish I had been given this task when I still remembered my TiBu lessons. It all made sense, once upon a time…
    But there are so many similarities, just that there were no meaningful translations. He wanted to teach Buddhism, but his followers turned it into Christianity. Having none of the background TiBu monks learned from childhood, his followers filled in the spaces with ideas they were used to — God, heaven, etc. Then along came Paul of Tarsus, and the rest is history.
    IF there ever was a man named Jesus, (“Christ” is very similar to an ancient Sanskrit word meaning teacher) he was learned in Tibetan Buddhism, and wanted to spread it in Israel.

    Liked by 6 people

    • This is certainly one of six possible MIA places Jesus/Yeshua was at during his SEVENTEEN missing years—in the canonical gospels—all 17 critical years! They are:

      Jesus stayed in Nazareth.
      • Jesus traveled to Japan.
      • Jesus traveled to Britain.
      • Jesus went to Qumrān, and studied with the Essene sect.
      • Jesus became a disciple of John the Baptist.

      And then this one…

      Jesus traveled to the Himalayas, and trained with mystic gurus there. To date, this is another explanation that unravels with little plausible or reliable evidence to support it.

      All of these theories have one thing in common: conjecture. Yes, even the most popular explanation that Christian apologists offer — he stayed in Nazareth as a normal ho-hum boy doing carpentry — is ultimately creative imaginations with insufficient or the thinnest of any support. For the reasonable, logical Christian this mystery should give serious pause, to put it mildly. Nevertheless Rawgod, your theory/feedback is popular. 🙂

      Liked by 4 people

    • It really doesn’t take a Tibetan teacher to conclude the Buddhic principles Jesus taught. If one is alone to contemplate the nature of things Buddhism is a natural conclusion. I agree teaching this to monotheistic Hebrews would be a challenge, especially with the penalties of blasphemy floating over your head.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I think I must have said something wrong to elicit such a comment out of you, Jim. But no matter. i think ikt all boils down to the same thing.
        If Jesus was real, and not a character in fiction as I accused him of being, he did not wander around in a desert for x number of years. He spent time in a Buddhist monastery somewhere, and ! think he botched it when he tried to bring it back to Israel.

        Liked by 1 person

        • You said nothing wrong. I just think no one needs a Tibetan teacher to realize Buddhism. They just need to be away from public influence for a while. The Buddhist like to take credit for something that will come naturally if you let it.

          Like

    • Certainly referring to his “heavenly father” would fit into talking about the lama. I remember reading about this from a Soviet magazine decades ago (well obviously), that claimed some evidence pointing to Levantine initiates in one of the Himalayan monasteries having been found, but when a further study was attempted a group of westeners had ransacked the archive and nothing could be saved. Naturally, if even a hint of possible evidence of Jesus being a Buddhist was possible, there would be a bunch of mighty organizations, that would have it in their interrest to destroy said possible evidence before it could be validated, or even dismissed. I could never find a second reliable source for it, so I left it in the “interresting thoughts” folder, so to speak.

      I think the similarities between the teachings of Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus and say Lao Tse, are more likely stemmed from our common human condition. It is true, that all of the abowe come from Asia and both a commercial and cultural connection between the locales where these notions were born has long existed, but human ideas are less unique, than we tend to think. For example feathers in a cap, hat, or helmet are an universal method of adornment and just because both the Conquistadors and Aztecs wore them, we can not assume one of these groups copied the habit from the other just because there was contact between them. In fact we can point to a cultural continuation for both cultures of wearing feathers long befor they had contact. This is not to say they were not culturally influenced by each other, just that one should not jump into too detailed conclusions.

      Liked by 2 people

      • We can always come up with reasons to believe the unusual, BUT we also can always come up with reasons to not believe the obvious. Aztecs wearing feathers n their headress can de directly connected to aboriginal people on Turtle Island wearing eagle feathers in their head dressings.
        It is quite possible Hinduism and Judaism were related 5000 years earlier. Hindism and Jainism changed into Buddhism and centuries later Judaism changed into Christianity, and later into Islam. Anything is possible, even when it seems unlikely. In my personal visio of pre-history, religion started from one man creating spirits with which he interceded with on behalf of his tribrspeople because he was too scared of death to be a hunter of early mammoths or bears, etc.
        He stayed home with the women, children, and elderly but was still able to claim his piece of the carcasses of whatever hunters brought home to feed their families. The more privileges he won for himself the more other cowards copied him.
        From this one man grew all religions and philosophies.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Agreed, though I do not think Judaism is quite as old as that. We should propably speak of proto-Hinduism and proto-Judaism. New religions are constantly emerging and tend to evolve all the time. In my lifetime the rigid Finnish Lutheran state church has opened priesthood to women. Today there are almost as many female priests as there are male ones here. Apparently their god does not care what sort of dangly reproductive organs the ritual expert is sporting after all (good for him), though generations of believers were convinced they just knew how their god wanted the priesthood to pee like and were pretty sure this was a terribly important detail. It kind of puts into perspective wether to believe something on faith is at all a good method to evaluate reality.

          Liked by 1 person

        • It kind of puts into perspective wether to believe something on faith is at all a good method to evaluate reality. — Absolutely! Great observation. Too bad more don’t pay attention to such wisdom.

          Like

        • As far as I could tell, from the outside, many churches were afraid of losing tithing parishoners (using tithing in a general sense) if they did not allow women to head churches. This is just another sign that religions have nothing to do with gods in my mind. These decisions come from humans, not from a God or gods.

          Liked by 1 person

    • The disciples listened for what they wanted to hear. They were self-centered and dense (like me). The stuff he wanted to say was ‘more than they could bear’ until he sent his Spirit: “He will guide you into all truth.”

      Relationship with God isn’t an overnight sensation. It’s more trial and error and repeat. It’s following Christ’s orders: ‘Love God first, then love people.’ It’s my eyes meeting his when helping someone. It’s a relationship.

      Like

      • WOW! Did you just write a truth — The disciples listened for what they wanted to hear.
        All one needs to do is replace the word “disciples” with “Christians” and you’ve summed things up perfectly!

        BTW, Arnold. I daresay most everyone that visits my blog has already been “preached to” so you can ease off. OK?

        Liked by 1 person

      • In your mind, Arnold. I cannot have a relation with either God or Jesus since in my mind they do not exist. Again you are speaking like the expert when you are not expert at anything but your own understandings. That, I will give you, I hope you are expert at. 😔

        Like

  7. It’s interesting to note that even some who profess to ‘believe’ still speak of Jesus in the past tense.
    One message that seems to have filtered through the mythology more strongly than anything (to me, anyway) is that Jesus was an ordinary man, and no more or less the son of a god than anybody else. Any concept of ‘God’ was to be found not in the heavens but within him, just as it is to be found within us all. Jesus’ therefore, was a construct of all men (and women), and remains so.
    Jesus is God. But no more so than are you and I. That is the message, as far as I can tell. Many people define God as being ‘all powerful’, but ‘all responsible’ would be a more apt description. Most of us are simply ‘over awed’ by such responsibility and choose to assign it to a nonexistent higher power rather than acknowledge that the responsibility is ours alone (and, simultaneously, ours together).
    The mythical entity of Jesus seemed to understand this but failed to get the message across, for the most part.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Jesus Christ came to life the first time someone stubbed their toe. Only I usually drop an f bomb in there. 😉

    Was he/she real? Even if that was so, and I don’t believe it for a moment, does it matter at all now? IMO it matters as much as the rest of the dead gods. Which is not one little bit.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. If we play the game of considering the Gospels as historical fairly contemporary sources and put them into the Hellenistc and Jewish context, it is more than likely they are based on an amalgam of several individuals fitting into the narrative. As sources for example Mathew is merely a later extrapolation of Mark.

    Assuming there was a particular individual, Yeshua could be seen as a Nazarine ascetist, who turned into a wandering preacher. He seems to have tried to recreate a Jewish identity, but his vision appears to be filled with influences from around the multi-national & multi-cultural Roman empire and beyond, wich was more typical than not. Obviously sporting some Zoroasterian ideas and perhaps even influences from Buddhism. By some he was considered to be a “son of god”, meaning he kept the commandments. The term was used to refer both angels and the patriarchs, but also just any “holy” man.

    He caught the attention of crowds by appealing to the better nature of humans, some healing skills and a few parlour tricks, but to his misfortune he also caught the eye of conservative religious leaders, who – stripped of their former power – turned to the lawenforcement of the empire. Any new religious movement offering alternative set of values is a threat to those weilding power in the name of gods and profiting from worship of gods.

    The Romans did not consider him a real threat, but saw him as an asset to exact their divade and conquer policy and sold him to the highest bidder (rich merchant follower of his Joseph of Arimathea) after staging a mock trial and execution – the latter not getting much attention from the crowds, or even from his personal buddies. He survived and later that led superstitious people to think it was the resurrection he talked about, when he wanted people to renew their lives for the better.

    He hid for a while and either died of his wounds sustained while being interrogated by the Romans on his alledged subversive activity, or left tired and disappointed.

    After the trauma of the failed Jewish revolt there was a social order for a story about a different Jewish hero. How the stories about him got interpreted in Roman/Hellenic/Egyptian religious culture explain why the small Jewish cult turned into a separate religion and the preacher character became worshipped as a god. But that is a nother story…

    Liked by 3 people

    • Consider this: if we make it, if we survive, if sometime in the next hundred years we somehow find a way off this ball of rock and her atmosphere’s rapidly deteriorating compatibility with carbon-based lifeforms … we will have been turned out of the garden.

      Liked by 2 people

        • Arnold, I think our “inherent nature” –meaning our essential character– is to question the whys and wherefores of our lives … and this is exactly why many have followed the path of Science to study such things and provide reasonable and rational answers.

          Unfortunately, there are others who attempt to assign supernaturalism to the “unknown” and ignore the value of education and enlightenment, thus sorely misguiding susceptible individuals with fanciful tales involving legendary deeds and beings.

          Liked by 2 people

        • There is a presumption in your question that there
          is a god, and this god is your god, Yahweh.
          If this man-made Canaanite deity were real and one considers his exploits which are those of a genocidal meglomaniac, what sort of Intellectually Disabled person would worship such a monster?

          Liked by 1 person

        • I have to ask, Arnold … have you ever closely read the bible? I’m NOT talking about the New Testament or the deeds of Jesus. I’m asking if you have read the entire bible, in particular the various books in the Old Testament. If you have, then I can’t help but question how you can say God is not a monster.

          Liked by 1 person

        • So you tacitly acknowledge the heinous actions he committed and / commanded were the actions of a genocidal meglomaniac.
          Now, the question remains,why do you worship such an entity?

          Like

        • Jesus Of Nazareth ( Christ is a title NOT a name) is considered to be your god,Yahweh in human form( flesh).
          You acknowledge this ,yes?
          Therefore your moral compass is a skewed as your god’s.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Well that’s good then, as god can then be the meanest cruelest SOB that ever existed, since there’s no moral compass for him or his believers.

          Like

        • That’s the kind of magical thinking that got us into this mess.

          Recalling that in all legend lay a kernel of fact, reading the fabrications koran, bible, and torah in larger, historical context with other fabrications lain down in stone it is in fact quite easy to afford “Intelligent Design” a measure of credibility. When chariots with wheels of fire flitting about, vast arks propelling the seeds of life across vast empty spaces, and fathers asking of their wives “be this my son, or that of a “giant?” are lain aside the physical record it isn’t all that far fetched to supposit that at some point in the past half-million years extra-terrestrial travelers – for whatever reason: pure science, sheer boredom, desperate survival, or profit – genetically interfered with the development of the proto-humans they found roaming the savannahs of Northern and Western Africa. Not only are we but fleas agitating the hide of a far greater organism, but some bastard’s abandoned science project, if not cattle, or pigs, as it were, as well.

          Wrap the twelve percent of your brain you use around that.

          You are a clear and present danger to my grandchildren’s futures, one that need be eliminated.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Jesus Christ said “Come unto me.. I am the way.” So that’s what I did, am doing and am going to do. His call is a yes or no choice not a directive to reform the world. He came into the world to separate his way from the world way.

          Like

        • Chose to do without him? i’m sorry but this kind of pious platitude is why I find the Abrahamic religions so repellent. Your God set up his i no ent, ignorant creation to fail! Being all knowing, the Fall was part of His PLAN. why is that a good thing? Why are you blaming the victims? You claim to get all kinds of war and fuzzy lurrrrv for your hell fire breathing Jesus, but some of us don’t find much morality or hope in. our toxic good news.slaves

          Like

        • Let’s then say a setup. Now what, a victim pity party? all out war vs God? To me it’s irrelevant what happened or how, the immediate problem is the gap.

          Like

    • i think it’s a memory of the creation of sedentary agriculture. peasants did not live as well as early hunters and gatherers until the Victorian Age. the old ways were Eden, before priests and kings and starvation.

      Like

  10. Thinking more about this, I ran across this article from Bart Erhman’s book. I had heard of the book and know the author is a religious historian at Duke University. He was born into Christian fundamentalism, but got free and is now either an atheist or agnostic. But he believes Jesus was a real person. The comments are better than the article and worth a read. Many don’t agree with him.
    I find it fascinating that even IF, this man (not a super natural man) existed and had a small following and was martyred in death, that 2000 years later, with a chunk of his early life missing and much of the texts taken from earlier Greek and Pagan religious dogmas, that this whole thing has morphed into one of the largest religions in the world and controls and dominates so many governments, culture and laws. While good things are sometimes done, this religion in particular, has been responsible for atrocities towards non whites, started numerous wars, Crusades, Spanish Inquisitions, witch trials here and now in modern times, filling itself up with hatred towards Jews once again, minorities, immigrants, the LGBTQ community, women, as always, and supporting the most abominable man to come into leaderships in our country ever.

    And all of this based on a pure fantasy.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Mary, you wrote While good things are sometimes done, I contend these SAME ‘”good things” can be and are done by the non-religious. They just don’t get the credit that the “Christians” do.

      On the other side of the coin, the infidels get all the blame when things go wrong whereas the Christians, who many times are just as or more guilty, cover their tracks and push it all under the rug.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Oh, come on Mary. Be reasonable. A few genocides over the years, sure. And yes, a bit of rape and murder. Well … OK….. a lot of rape and murder. But gee …. there’re just getting the hang of it. It’s only a little over twenty centuries, after all. These things take time …. especially if you have to make the whole thing up as you go along. Who knows? The Nazis might have turned out to be a lovely bunch if we’d only given them a chance to iron out the bugs.
      And we have to account for a few things lost in translation over time. ‘Love thy neighbour’ might easily sound like, ‘kill anybody who doesn’t look and sound like you’ through the fog of time.

      Liked by 3 people

  11. Jesus Was a Capricorn, Kris Kristopherson, Ode to John Prine, long time ago …

    Jesus was a Capricorn
    He ate organic food
    He believed in love and peace
    And never wore no shoes

    Long hair, beard and sandles
    And a funky bunch of friends
    Reckon we’d just nail him up
    If he came down again

    [Chorus:]
    ‘Cause everybody’s gotta have somebody to look down on
    Prove they can be better than at any time they choose
    Someone doin’ somethin’ dirty decent folks can frown on
    If you can’t find nobody else, then help yourself to me

    Eggheads fussin’ rednecks cussin’
    Hippies for their hair
    Others laugh at straights who laugh at
    Freaks who laugh at squares

    Some folks hate the Whites
    Who hate the Blacks who hate the Klan
    Most of us hate anything that
    We don’t understand

    [Chorus]

    Liked by 3 people

  12. I’m a fan of Jack Daniels.( On the rocks)
    You would know better that I what is Yahweh’s favourite spirit. I’m guessing he … Oops, sorry, He … is a Gin and Tonic man,yes?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Good grief! No politics and she wants me to keep it clean. Dang nabbit. 🙂

    One can learn everything one needs to know about the real Jesus by reading the book:

    “Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Pal” by Christopher Moore, published in 2002. 🙂 We are talking an eye witness account here.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. There was no such person as Jesus. Nazareth didn’t exist until at least 300 c.e., when it was created by the emperor’s mother Helena as a tourist destination for Christians. (maybe there was village there before that but it wasn’t called Nazareth).

    The persona Jesus was created by the Romans to subdue the various Jewish sects, some of which were beginning to call themselves Christians, some (but not all) were quite rebellious against the Roman rule. Whatever the name of the leader these sects may have revered, he was merged into one main story of a preacher who preached love & submission to authority, which is what the Romans wanted & is what all governments want. HOW CONVENIENT.

    In a spiritual sense, it does not matter one bit who the “real” Jesus was, if he was a historical figure or if the Bible is historically correct. I think it’s quite obvious that the Bible is patently untrue … just enough there to hook people into thinking that it “could” be real history. But as far as spirituality & religion is concerned, whether or not Jesus is a real person, who cares? We don’t worship gods/goddesses because they were once real people. It’s not important with Jesus’ father. Why is this important with Jesus?

    He’s not a real person. He’s completely made up. There’s nothing wrong with this, either. He’s a god, he’s not supposed to be a real human being.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Therefore, one can assert with confidence that, either you have no sense of ethics or morality whatsoever, or, you are simply an indoctrinated fucking moron?
    Of the two which do you feel you align with?

    Like

  16. I think there may have been a germ of reality behind the figure of Jesus just as there were (perhaps!) shadows of some real people behind King Arthur and Robin Hood and a history of interaction and conflict behind the story of the Trojan War.

    I’ve come to believe Jesus is a Thought Entity which has changed direction with the changing intentions of its followers over the centuries. I suspect the “original” idea of Jesus was as an inspirational figurehead of the many revolts and rebellions in Jewish history. The name “Jesus” is, after all, the same as the name “Joshua” and a whole lot of the Jesus of the Gospels is simply reframing of Jewish prophecies and poetic works. Some Hellenistic philosophy was added to the mix, Constantine took advantage of Christianity to legitimize political violence and Divine Right, and it was off to the races. To me, there’s a clear link from the Jesus of Constantine to the Jesus of the Crusades and onward to the Jesus of White Christian Nationalism.

    The real miracle, IMHO, is that the idea of Jesus teaching the love of neighbor managed to survive at all. As a Graeco-Roman polytheist , I’m inclined to think that may have a lot to do with continued interest through the centuries in the writings of classical philosophers like Marcus Aurelius:

    The universe made rational creatures for the sake of each other, with an eye toward mutual benefit based on true value and never for harm.

    “Revere the gods; watch over human beings. Our lives are short. The only rewards of our existence here are an unstained character and unselfish acts.”
    — Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hello HTGB! Thank you for stopping by. Your perspective is … interesting. 🙂 And to me, it is just one more indication that “Jesus” is nothing more than an “icon” in that he can be viewed in so many different ways. If he truly were all that believers claim him to be, surely ALL would agree on his persona.

      Liked by 2 people

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.