Jesus to our own liking?

[Elijah John]

People on this site all too often accuse others of "making a Jesus to their own liking". Maybe so, but doesn't this work both (or several) ways?

Haven't Trinitarian Christians for centuries been making Jesus to their own liking, ie into a god?

Or Aren't some atheists and agnostics also currently attempting to make Jesus to their own liking, as someone who did not believe in YHVH, or in God at all, but only went around preaching love?

Here for your consideration several views of Jesus, a mix of serious and light-hearted

1) A hippie-like flower child who preached only love of neighbor?
2) A "buddy Christ" like the one in Kevin Smith's movie "Dogma"?
3) A wandering "Cynic sage" removed from his Jewish context, and given a Greco-Roman one instead?
4) The cute "baby Jesus"? and from the prayer scene in "Talledega Nights":
5) The "Ninja Jesus"? 6) the "party Jesus", 7) the "Skynyrdesque angel band leader" Jesus?
8) The devout, but revolutionary/reforming Jew, who actually believed in God?
9) The God-in-the-flesh who wanted to start his own "Church"?
10) The avenging, apocalyptic Jesus of the book of Revelation

For debate:

-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?
-Which is the most historically likely Jesus?

By all means, if I missed any good option, please add.

Difflugia offered these two as well:

11) The Gnostic, spirit Jesus
12) The magic-child Jesus from the non-canonical infancy Gospels.

[Difflugia]

What about the gnostic Jesus, sent to Earth to impart the gnosis that can free the pneumatics from the material creation of the evil demiurge?

Or how about the child Jesus from the Protevangelium of James, Who first used His divine touch to lengthen a board that Joseph mistakenly cut too short and then used it to wither playmates and teachers that He didn't like?

[Elijah John]

What about the gnostic Jesus, sent to Earth to impart the gnosis that can free the pneumatics from the material creation of the evil demiurge?

Or how about the child Jesus from the Protevangelium of James, Who first used His divine touch to lengthen a board that Joseph mistakenly cut too short and then used it to wither playmates and teachers that He didn't like?

Views that could well be included in the OP. What do you think. Are either of these your own favorite view of Jesus? And to you think either of these are historically viable iterations of the real Jesus?

Seems the Gnostic Jesus is entirely in the realm of faith, and not historically verifiable. Certainly not Jewish. And the magic-child Jesus, it seems that is simply an extension of the mythologization process begun in John, who has Jesus as the Divine man come down from Heaven.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Elijah John: People on this site all too often accuse others of "making a Jesus to their own liking". Maybe so, but doesn't this work both (or several) ways?

Haven't Trinitarian Christians for centuries been making Jesus to their own liking, ie into a god?

Or Aren't some atheists and agnostics also currently attempting to make Jesus to their own liking, as someone who did not believe in YHVH, or in God at all, but only went around preaching love?

William: I think the main thing is that The Creator has been made into various images, with the Hebrew one being made in the likeness of that particular cultures image.

Perhaps the intent at attempting to consolidate The Creator into an idea involving less paganized thought processing was a step in some hopeful direction, but it became more or less an image of a Creator portrayed through Law, and law itself is simply another way in which to express personal preference, and so the problem - if it is a problem - of making things up about The Creator, is pretty much a universal one, and does not start with Jesus.

Neither the many versions of Jesus,nor the many versions of the many-named God of the Hebrews and the proclaimed facets of his behavior do any apparent justice to the idea of a Creator of This Universe when presented through the lens of any culture.

Obviously culture plays a big part in how one might decide to 'see' Jesus and I personally have no issue with that being the case.
It seems natural enough, in that light.

Human Cultures in and of themselves, offer no particular guarantee that truth is afoot when it comes to claims regarding The Nature of The Creator of this Realm.

If truth is to be sought, one will be required to seek it elsewhere than the deadendedness of Human Culture.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

What part of a triune God is to my own liking?

What part of salvation by grace is to anyone's liking? (Humans would much rather salvation by works).

[Difflugia]

Are either of these your own favorite view of Jesus? And to you think either of these are historically viable iterations of the real Jesus?

Seems the Gnostic Jesus is entirely in the realm of faith, and not historically verifiable. Certainly not Jewish. And the magic-child Jesus, it seems that is simply an extension of the mythologization process begun in John, who has Jesus as the Divine man come down from Heaven.

My favorite is a Gnostic Jesus. If I could pick one to become real, it'd be that one.

For what Jesus was actually real, I'm torn between not real at all and a Palestinian Jewish rabble rouser, sort of a would-be bar Kokhba, a few years too soon.

One one hand, none of the epistles seem to have anything to do with the Christianity described by the Gospels. The Gospels portray a Jesus and followers that were poor, barely-literate Palestinian laborers. All of the preserved epistles seem to have been written by educated, Greek-speaking, diaspora Jews. The Jerusalem Church described by Paul and its prominent members, James, John, and Cephas don't seem to match the corresponding characters from the Gospels. Cephas sounds like the same kind of wandering apostle that Paul is and I think it's likely that the "men from James" of Galatians 2:12 are the ones that convinced the Galatians to doubt the crucifixion in 3:1. That doesn't make sense if James was a blood relative of the crucified man, Jesus, but if the Jerusalem Church was a sort of Jewish-Gnostic outfit, then their beliefs might be similar enough to Paul's weirdness that their adherents might overlap, leading to the conflict and uneasy truce that Paul described.

On the other hand, I think it might be meaningful that a significant share of the Gospel characters are named James, Jude, Simon, Joseph, and John, and that the first four are the names of Jesus' brothers. I think James Tabor and Robert Eisenmann might be onto something by thinking that the "original" church was predominantly composed of Jesus and his brothers. James, identified by Paul as "the Lord's brother," took over leadership of the Jerusalem Church after the execution of Jesus. As the stories expanded, the original participants were divided into multiple characters that kept the same names. In this case, I still think Paul's letters bear little information about the real Jesus or Jerusalem Church and

Whatever's real, I think the Gospels are almost entirely fictional and were intentionally written as such. I think it'd be lucky if the Gospels retained anything historical at all.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

What part of a triune God is to my own liking?

What part of salvation by grace is to anyone's liking? (Humans would much rather salvation by works).

Really? Doesn't it take the burden off our shoulders if salvation had nothing to do with works, and was entirely due to the blood of Jesus? That seems to be the Evangelical pitch.

[Divine Insight]

For debate:

-Which is your favorite Jesus and why?

There would be nothing there to debate. This would be like asking someone what their favorite flavor of ice cream is and then trying to debate them on the validity of their choice.

-Which is the most historically likely Jesus?

Anything that has Jesus as nothing more than a mere mortal man. Period.

Because, after all, we can't ignore the fact that all the previous superstitious rumors about a magical Yahweh have no historical credibility either. And the superstitions surrounding Jesus are based on those previous superstitions.

A Jesus who was crucified, actually died, and then came back to life only to physically fly upward into the sky to return to heaven is most certainly not historically credible.

[Avoice]

Jesus (Christianity) is the religion that man would invent if he was to invent one.

Its about doing what they want. Not what God wants them to do. The very essence of the religion is what they accept to be the nature of God. You see, Christians, Jews abd Muslims all believe in God. And they all know that when we disobey God we are committing a sin. But Christianitys solution is far worse than whatever sin they want to cover. So what is their solution? Well, keep in mind that their solution is not a solution. But that solution they fibd totally acceptable. Meaning it is in their hearts. So what about all the sins and evils they commit? SOLUTION: kill God Make no mistake about it That is God hanging on that cross. They even wear it as jewelry. omg.

Christians have made it very clear to the almighty what they would do to save themself. Theyd kill him. They actually think God can be killed. They believe it because in their hearts that Is what they desire. But deep down man knows he cant kill God. How? Not if you cant see him. So they invented a trinitarian God. Where part was in the flesh. And the part they could get their hands on? Their joy is in his death.

I repeat - the joy of CHRISTIANITY is the death of God. And it is celebrated.

They want him dead. How then can they be saved if hes dead? Well, he has to stay dead unril they need him. He can cone back to save tgem. But after that they have no use for him. Do they?. Its all about God being dead with them. Jesus!

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Avoice]

Avoice: I repeat - the joy of CHRISTIANITY is the death of God. And it is celebrated.

They want him dead. How then can they be saved if hes dead? Well, he has to stay dead unril they need him. He can cone back to save tgem. But after that they have no use for him. Do they?. Its all about God being dead with them. Jesus!

William: Not that I agree with your particular cultural filters 'explaining' Christianity, yet your ranting does example what I explained in post #4 - The Hebrews were masters of taking another cultures idea of The Creator and putting their own spin on it. Pots calling kettles black doesn't cut it.