nakedpastor: Jesus Predicting the Future February 9, 2012

nakedpastor: Jesus Predicting the Future

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • I doubt the founders of Xianity were powerful men to start with, just insanely opportunistic.  From what I read about the 2nd half of the 1st century AD, it sounds like the 1960s-1970s- lots of gullible people looking for a new  kick, and charlatans happy to oblige them.

  • Anonymous

    Meh. This just feeds into the myth that Jesus was “holy” and his followers corrupted. That’s the same line used by heretics, protestants, orthodox, catholics, and spiritual religionists from day one. It’s just so much bullshit (and so, not really funny).

  • Or perhaps it’s accurate in that Jesus predicted a literal kingdom of God ruling the world within a matter of months, got killed, then his followers spiritualized the kingdom into the Church.

    This is the option where both Jesus and his followers got it wrong.

  • Jesus of Nazareth. Now there was a Saul Alinksy-style community organizer.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, it’s not such a bad cartoon. I think it makes a cute point.

    Btw, I spoke with a Religion& Culture/History student a few years ago who presented some very interesting hypothesizing about 3 ‘anointed ones’ (a more accurate translation of the word Christos) rather than one.

    Pardon me for being too lazy to google that. I’m not one of those pedantic people who cares enough to dissect every subclause in the bible for the sake of debunking. I’m more interested in the psychosocial aspects of religion and non-theism, or Durkheim’s “God as a symbol of Society” thesis.

    I’d always assumed that JC himself was a real person, tho highly mythologized and NOT a demi-god. I found this 3-Christos hypothesis rather intriguing. Yes, it sounds a little Wachowski Brothers Matrix-y, but it may be a hypothesis worth looking into. A ministry that attempted for the missing 18 years of JC’s documented life, and failed twice before putting the perfect martyr out there with the perfect surrounding mythology? That sounds more plausible to me than one perfect historical figure. (By that I mean perfect for the goals they had in mind–compelling narrative, enduring following, etc.)

     What do you folks think?

  • Spencer

     I personally opt for the option that Jesus probably never existed at all, but if he did, then this is the most likely scenario.

  • David McNerney

    “….and you can be damn sure that when they are selecting the ‘canonical’ accounts of my life any that contain this quote will be automatically excluded.”

  • SJH

    What? Please explain.

  • SJH

    Pretty strong accusation/implication. Is there something you can back that up with or is this just propaganda?

  • SJH

    What have you read? I would be interested in finding more information on that.

    My understanding is quite the opposite but what I have read would probably be considered biased. Is there something about what you have read that would make you conclude that it is not biased in the other direction?

  • @font-face {
    font-family: “Times New Roman”;
    }@font-face {
    font-family: “Arial”;
    }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial; }table.MsoNormalTable { font-size: 10pt; font-family: “Times New Roman”; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

    Hi, SJH. It’s a joke, and my knowledge of Alinsky is limited, so you
    might find the comparison simplistic.

    Saul Alinsky worked to improve the lives of poor people. He
    championed the plight of the most oppressed in society, and he wanted principles of compassion to spread worldwide. The first statement in his last book said, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be.” He bluntly confronted corrupt civic leaders who used their status and power for self-aggrandizement and personal profit. For this, they denounced him as a dangerous radical. Sound familiar?

  • Anonymous


    The sound you hear is the joke going over your head

  • Clocknthemorning

    The only problem with your position is that you doubt they were powerful… You don’t have any proof just doubt. You can’t dicredit someone or sonething based upon a doubt. NonBelievers have to provide tangible proof for their position. So I think we have a draw!

error: Content is protected !!