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.

[Wootah]

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!

Did you know: The romans killed the Christians because they considered the Christians atheists.

[marco]

Did you know: The romans killed the Christians because they considered the Christians atheists.

I believe the word "atheist" was coined in the 16th century. Rome was remarkably tolerant of foreign religions. They quite liked Isis, though I think they would have dealt with the modern version with more efficiency than we have done. Christians, to intelligent Romans, were just a rabble, full of nasty ideas. Nero persecuted Christians as a way of deflecting blame from himself, after the great fire. Trajan, a more sensible emperor, advised Pliny that Christians are not to be hunted down.

[marco]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

I think the baby Jesus, lying in straw while cattle are lowing, is a lovely image. His vulnerability rather than his potential for destruction is attractive. Pity is roused by his portrayal with outstretched arms on a cross and for this more is owed to Art than to the gospel writers.

His re-emergence into history on the Somme in 1915, presumably armed with a sword against tanks (it is not clear which side he was on) make him seem rather silly and one would wish he'd stayed away for a bit or at least made his appearance at the Olympic Games somewhere.

His private counselling, often reported online here, is admirable. It must be like having the Queen drop by.

[Overcomer]

Marco wrote:

Rome was remarkably tolerant of foreign religions.

Yes, it was -- as long as people ALSO worshiped the Roman emperor as one of their gods as well as the traditional ones. To refuse to do so was considered atheism (in the Greek it's ἄθεος transliterated as "atheos") in that day and age, and, since Christians refused to do so, they were considered atheists. This is why Rome was intolerant of them. Had Christians worshiped the emperor and other popular gods along with the Lord, Rome would not have had a problem with them. But they insisted on worshiping the one true God alone. Therefore, they were seen as enemies of Rome.

See here:

https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2016 ... -atheists/

[Difflugia]

Did you know: The romans killed the Christians because they considered the Christians atheists.

I believe the word "atheist" was coined in the 16th century.

In English, perhaps. From The Martyrdom of Polycarp, likely written before AD 200; this is one of my favorite paragraphs in all of Christendom:

καὶ λοιπὸν π�οσαχθέντος α�τοῦ, θό�υβος ἦν μέγας ἀκουσάντων, ὅτι Πολ�κα�πος συνείληπται. π�οσαχθέντα οὖν α�τὸν ἀγη�ώτα � ἀνθ�πατος, εἰ α�τὸς εἴη Πολ�κα�πος. τοῦ δὲ �μολογοῦντος, ἔπειθεν ἀ�νεῖσθαι λέγων· Αἰδέσθητί σου τὴν ἡλικίαν, καὶ ἕτε�α το�τοις ἀκόλουθα, ὡς ἔθος α�τοῖς λέγειν· �μοσον τὴν Καισα�ος τ�χην, μετανόησον, εἶπον· Αἷ�ε τοὺς ἀθέους. � δὲ Πολ�κα�πος �μβ�ιθεῖ τῷ π�οσώπῳ εἰς πάντα τὸν ὄχλον τὸν �ν τῷ σταδίῳ ἀνόμων �θνῶν �μβλέψας καὶ �πισείσας α�τοῖς τὴν χεῖ�α, στενάξας τε καὶ ἀναβλέψας εἰς τὸν ο��ανὸν εἶπεν· Αἶ�ε τοὺς ἀθέους.

The bolded word is atheous. In relatively modern translation:

And next he was brought forward, and there was a great uproar of those who heard that Polycarp had been arrested. Therefore when he was brought forward the Pro-Consul asked him if he were Polycarp, and when he admitted it he tried to persuade him to deny, saying: "Respect your age," and so forth, as they are accustomed to say: "Swear by the genius of Caesar, repent, say: 'Away with the Atheists'"; but Polycarp, with a stern countenance looked on all the crowd of lawless heathen in the arena, and waving his hand at them, he groaned and looked up to heaven and said: "Away with the Atheists."

[tam]

Peace to you all!


And thank you for this topic, EJ!

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?

Yes.

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

Yes.

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?

Yes.

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?

I have no favorite Jesus. I have no favorite Jesus because Jesus is not my Lord.

My Lord is Jaheshua, the Chosen One of JAH. He has nothing false in Him. Not even in His name.

-Which is the most historically likely Jesus?

I think you can add "Historical Jesus" to your list, EJ, and I mean no offense to you. Not because there was no actual person who lived (in the flesh) two thousand years ago. But because "Historical Jesus" is also being made to some people's own liking, and is being contrasted against the Christ, as if Christ is false and "Historical Jesus" is true.



There is only one person who is the Christ. Not many seek Him (the person He truly is)... I find this sad, so so sad... because Jaheshua is the actual person who gave His life for us. He is the actual person who intercedes on behalf of His Bride.

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

I would not say they are 'good' options, because falsehood is not good.

But:

Jesus as Michael the arkangel.

From the WTS: Jesus as Abaddon (the Destroyer, Rev 9:11), who returns and destroys most people on the earth when he returns. < - there are so many things wrong with that, with calling Christ - who is the LIFE - the destroying angel, Death, instead. Do people not understand that it was the blood of the LAMB on the households of Israel, in Egypt, that caused Death (the Destroyer) to pass over their homes and NOT destroy their firstborn??!! The Destroyer could not touch them BECAUSE of the blood of the lamb (representing of course the blood of the Lamb of God: Christ Jaheshua).



You could also add the RCC "Jesus" (who had no problem sending his people out to torture and execute and persecute in his name; despite the words of Christ, who said that these things would be done TO His sheep; not BY His sheep).




***


But as my Lord says,


"My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand."


and,


“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.�




May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the truth from THE Truth (Christ Jaheshua). The One who has no falsehood in Him. He is the Truth and the Word of God. May anyone who wishes and anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit (Christ) and the Bride say, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[marco]

Marco wrote:

Rome was remarkably tolerant of foreign religions.

Yes, it was -- as long as people ALSO worshiped the Roman emperor as one of their gods as well as the traditional ones. To refuse to do so was considered atheism (in the Greek it's ἄθεος transliterated as "atheos") in that day and age, and, since Christians refused to do so, they were considered atheists. This is why Rome was intolerant of them. Had Christians worshiped the emperor and other popular gods along with the Lord, Rome would not have had a problem with them. But they insisted on worshiping the one true God alone. Therefore, they were seen as enemies of Rome.

The term "atheism" is a relatively modern coinage specifically denoting those who reject the Christian God. The learned people of Rome, such as Cicero who wrote a treatise on the gods, regarded Christians as barbaric, disseminating false ideas and thereby being a threat to the "Pax Romana". Rome represented civilisation and through its magnificent engineering produced a system of communication the envy of many countries today. Early Christians were a noisy, disruptive rabble.

Trajan required Christians, when brought to trial, to "maledicere" or curse, Christ. They would then be released if they did, or punished if they did not. This does not indicate any particular resentment about other religions - there was a person in charge to oversee other religions. It was a political precaution, designed to preserve order. Later Emperors relaxed rules against Christians.

[marco]

I have no favorite Jesus. I have no favorite Jesus because Jesus is not my Lord.

My Lord is Jaheshua, the Chosen One of JAH. He has nothing false in Him. Not even in His name.

A rose by any other name.... There is a certain artificiality in ignoring the transliterated names of people like Jesus, John, Peter, Mary... Perhaps in trying to avoid falseness, one falls into it.

He is the actual person who intercedes on behalf of His Bride.

This metaphor, reaching into the marital status of two humans, is on examination completely inappropriate. If artificiality were sought, behold we have it. One can accept the shepherd metaphor, even though it reduces thinking humans to mindless sheep, but "bride", no.

You could also add the RCC "Jesus" (who had no problem sending his people out to torture and execute and persecute in his name; despite the words of Christ, who said that these things would be done TO His sheep; not BY His sheep).

Well the Catholic Jesus that I learned about was as placid as yours; he talked like yours about sheep and offering calm and rest; he was an ever-listening ear. In all religions there are wicked people but it is a mistake to tar everyone with the same brush. The saints that shine in the centuries, imitators of Christ, never harmed a soul. Father Kolbe, victim of the faith you condemn here, offered his own life for someone he did not know, without hope of any resurrection soon. There are good people and there are religious fanatics who come in every colour.

It is a mistake to assume we have a monopoly on Jesus, or whatever name we want to give him. That we paint him as our friend, companion, adviser, saviour … is a variation on the theme being discussed in the OP, whatever we want to think.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco,

I have no favorite Jesus. I have no favorite Jesus because Jesus is not my Lord.

My Lord is Jaheshua, the Chosen One of JAH. He has nothing false in Him. Not even in His name.

A rose by any other name.... There is a certain artificiality in ignoring the transliterated names of people like Jesus, John, Peter, Mary... Perhaps in trying to avoid falseness, one falls into it.

Jesus is not a transliteration of my Lord's name, and a rose is not a Tree (of life).

I also did not refer solely to the name.

He is the actual person who intercedes on behalf of His Bride.

This metaphor, reaching into the marital status of two humans, is on examination completely inappropriate. If artificiality were sought, behold we have it. One can accept the shepherd metaphor, even though it reduces thinking humans to mindless sheep, but "bride", no.

Do you care to explain why you believe this should be considered 'completely inappropriate'?

You could also add the RCC "Jesus" (who had no problem sending his people out to torture and execute and persecute in his name; despite the words of Christ, who said that these things would be done TO His sheep; not BY His sheep).

Well the Catholic Jesus that I learned about was as placid as yours; he talked like yours about sheep and offering calm and rest; he was an ever-listening ear. In all religions there are wicked people but it is a mistake to tar everyone with the same brush. The saints that shine in the centuries, imitators of Christ, never harmed a soul. Father Kolbe, victim of the faith you condemn here, offered his own life for someone he did not know, without hope of any resurrection soon. There are good people and there are religious fanatics who come in every colour.

Marco I said nothing about individual people, fanatics or otherwise. Surely you are not denying that the religion (the RCC itself) sanctioned violence, forced conversions, even encouraged and ordered such things to be done?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Difflugia]

Jesus is not a transliteration of my Lord's name...

Sure it is. It's just not transliterated straight into English from the (presumed) Aramaic, but is transliterated from a Greek word, that is itself presumably a transliteration of Aramaic. It's the same process that gave us Moses, Isaac, Joseph, and John.

Tradition would also have us believe that two of the four evangelists spoke face-to-face with Jesus Himself. When they wrote the story down in Greek, they chose to represent His Name as ΙΗΣΟΥΣ. Did the proper way to write His Name not come up in discussion during the three years they were together?