Old Question Revisited - Who is Jesus?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Kimmio said:
So, had they left it out or put it in a different order, I've wondered if that may have changed people's thinking about the book.
Click to expand...

If it had been left out I doubt many people would even be aware of its existence and fewer would have bothered to read it.

If it had been placed earlier than any of the other pastoral letters it would still be what it is and say what it does.

The problem with the book has been its misappropriation by people who do not understand the genre. Most people do not know the difference between apocalyptic and pornographic and this has allowed the book to be used to titillate rather than educate.
 
revjohn said:
If it had been left out I doubt many people would even be aware of its existence and fewer would have bothered to read it.

If it had been placed earlier than any of the other pastoral letters it would still be what it is and say what it does.

The problem with the book has been its misappropriation by people who do not understand the genre. Most people do not know the difference between apocalyptic and pornographic and this has allowed the book to be used to titillate rather than educate.
Click to expand...
It's been used to do more than titillate. It's been used to scare and even fanatacise, affective large groups of people.

I still think the order/ placement has an impact, in its case. A book about 'the end' at 'the end'. I wish there was a 'do-over' with the choice and order and stronger emphasis on interpretative focus on some of those texts. Especially Revelation. The only interpretation that non-Christians know about is the end times one, popularized by the media. That doesn't help them to respect Christianity much, either.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely, it has been used against people. People on this very site think that Jesus is coming back.

And for the record, I think you are allowed to make it up as you go along. You could re-compile the bible tomorrow, and delete the stuff you don't like. You could write a new book. But then you have to call it something else. "Mormonism" is taken.
 
I believe Jesus is coming back, too. How I conceptualize that is very different, especially to the way literalist Christians conceptualize it. I believe there will be a rise of awareness, in people, about what Jesus represents - mistakes of the past are already starting to weigh on people's consciences - about how we all play a part. And Jesus' name will be heard and understood by more people - what he stood for will be on more hearts and minds - even if they don't call themselves Christian because they don't like the negative connotations. I don't think that matters, actually, if they call themselves Christian or not. That's an institutional requirement. I don't think it will appear as some magic poof from the sky. I don't believe that's how it works. That's a misunderstanding and mischaracterization, I believe. It's subtle. Kind of like how you don't notice changes in culture that much until you look back a decade - and when you do really look at it, it's profound - except this is forward looking, mindful change.
 
Is that rising of awareness going to be about Jesus or Jeebus? Remember, they aren't the same people and they did not say the same things. Jeebus, I'm sure, saves us from Heck.
 
Jesus "is" this

(i liked this movie -- all told straight & noncynically)
(this also could be a dramatization of this thread)
 
Last edited:
powerful-beyond-measure-Kimmio's comment on order of texts in the bibble reminded me of well-studied human behaviour called


it even works if you are aware of it and it also has been found out to have effects on questionnaires & surveys, where even small things like question order can affect results

this behaviour is harnessed in various different things like sermons, advertizing, education, marketing & holy works
 
I am not a Belieber. There's no such thing as Jeebus.

There's Jesus.

To answer your question seriously, out loud...if the humour has anything that helps us to look at our own folly and mistakes, laugh at ourselves, learn, and become better people than, yes. If it's just a low blow to insult Jesus, and Christians, then, no.
 
Last edited:
Kimmio said:
I am not a Belieber. There's no such thing as Jeebus.
Click to expand...

:3 (y)

I concur there is no such thing as Jesus who

Kimmio said:
understands campy, ironic humour.
Click to expand...

After all, how can a

Kimmio said:
I believe Jesus is coming back, too. How I conceptualize that is very different, especially to the way literalist Christians conceptualize it. I believe there will be a rise of awareness, in people, about what Jesus represents - mistakes of the past are already starting to weigh on people's consciences - about how we all play a part.I don't think it will appear as some magic poof from the sky. I don't believe that's how it works. Kind of like how you don't notice changes in culture that much until you look back a decade - and when you do really look at it, it's profound - except this is forward looking, mindful change.
Click to expand...

conceptualization, like the one you have, understand or not understand, be or not be offended by ironic humour?

That's all up to you :3

Flaunt your power.

(And how can that conceptualization 'come back'? Are you saying that it left? That the various things that are in your Jesus -- the love, the mindfulness, the sharing, the goodness -- left and it has to come back? So what's been happening in the time since your Jesus hasn't been back? Intriguing...)
 
some more priming


(further inquiryconnexions: so believing in the Bibble and g_d and Jesus as a positive, holding these concepts as positive, being taught that these concepts are positive and practicing these can lead to positive behaviour for believers? hmm...)
 
Kimmio said:
I am not a Belieber. There's no such thing as Jeebus.

There's Jesus.

To answer your question seriously, out loud...if the humour has anything that helps us to look at our own folly and mistakes, laugh at ourselves, learn, and become better people than, yes. If it's just a low blow to insult Jesus, and Christians, then, no.
Click to expand...

But your Jeebus can't be insulted

Neither can Jesus, especially since you just denied Bieber's Jesus.

You and only you get to determine if the humour is a low blow to Jeebus (or even Jesus)?

You don't get to say 'hey, Jesus is offended' -- that way eventually leads to genocides and totalitarianism -- various people trying to tell you what is acceptable to think, what ideas are acceptable or not (as opposed to actions, which are completely alright to make laws against...)


Oh, and btw, the opposite of humour isn't seriousness...one can be both humourful & serious at the same time?

The opposite of humour is not being humourful?

And sorry for taking your words too literally -- they're all over the place. But I, unlike chansen, can deal with that. It doesn't clash with my psyche. You and I are squishy types -- chansen is the spikey corners must meet logically type.

flaunt your power
 
Last edited:
Who is Jesus?

Jesus is whoever or whatever one thinks he is.

What do I think?

Well, Jesus is the symbolic figurehead of the Christian religion. As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, far too little is known about him to make any statements that are historically accurate. The Gospels, even those that were not included in the Bible, are not historical documents but legends mixed with mythology. Moreover, they were told and re-told many times before finally written down. About the historical Jesus we can only speculate.

Paul and others popularized Jesus the Christ, but how close this idealized version of Jesus comes to historical reality is anyone's guess. It seems to me that Paul took elements from various mid-Eastern mythologies, and piled them all on this itinerant Jewish Rabbi, who, for all we know, may have vehemently resented being made the figurehead of a Roman religion.

Who the historical Jesus was doesn't really matter to me. To regard and emulate Jesus Christ as a symbol for unitive consciousness and unitive love is enough.



Jesus appeared to me in a vision and permitted me one question.

"Is what Paul wrote about you really true," I asked.

"Who's Paul?", said he.;)
 
Inannawhimsey said:
But your Jeebus can't be insulted

Neither can Jesus, especially since you just denied Bieber's Jesus.

You and only you get to determine if the humour is a low blow to Jeebus (or even Jesus)?

You don't get to say 'hey, Jesus is offended' -- that way eventually leads to genocides and totalitarianism -- various people trying to tell you what is acceptable to think, what ideas are acceptable or not (as opposed to actions, which are completely alright to make laws against...)


Oh, and btw, the opposite of humour isn't seriousness...one can be both humourful & serious at the same time?

The opposite of humour is not being humourful?

And sorry for taking your words too literally -- they're all over the place. But I, unlike chansen, can deal with that. It doesn't clash with my psyche. You and I are squishy types -- chansen is the spikey corners must meet logically type.

flaunt your power
Click to expand...

I didn't deny Beiber's Jesus. I denied his music (Nooo! Turn...it...off. Tell me it I didn't just hear that.), and some of his behaviour (Nooo! Stop.) I denied him his idol status, all from my pov....but not his Jesus.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top