Sorry, I’m really not sure of the point you’re trying to make here.
I’m not saying the bible is historically accurate, beyond criticism, or that eye witness testimonies aren’t problematic. Had I done so, the above would make a lot more sense.
All I’m saying is, of the records that exist, such as they are, he was very vocally anti-wealth. You’re replying as though you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying. However, you don’t seem to refute anything that I’ve said.
Are you saying he is recorded as being vocally anti-wealth?
the things he’s “reported as having said” are almost certainly not things he’s actually said.
with very limited exceptions, we don’t really know anything at all about him. We don’t even know if he really existed. (It’s probable. Yeshua was a super common name at the time, as was Joseph. So it’s almost certain there was some guy named Yeshua ben Joseph- or in modern rendering, ‘Jesus son of Joseph’.
Given at the time the region was rampantly awash with faith healing mystics, it’s not unlikely one of them happened to have that name. Actually, It’s not entirely improbable that there was more than one faith healer with that name.
Any assertion that Jesus is anti-wealth or anti-capitalist is belied by a single, easily overlooked fact: the disciples were almost certainly well off. Of the disciples whose professions were recorded, they’re all at least successful business men. Andrew, James, John, and Peter were fishermen- each with their own boats; and probably supporting a small crew. Mathew was likely the most wealthy, as a tax collector. Thomas, Nathaniel and Philip were likely fishermen as well; Simon was a politician or rebel leader (he may have been the brokest, but, also, he wasn’t exactly one of the masses, either.)
remember, that Jesus never outright forbade wealth, or condemn being wealthy. he did condemn the love of money; however, and warned of the spiritual hazards of greed; and taught that pursuit of god was more important, that pursuing god and pursuing money together were impossible. but that doesn’t mean being successful is inherently immoral. Also recognize that the businesses didn’t just go away without the disciples there to tend them.
The boats were still in good order, there would have been a crew, income. Which is how, after the crucifixion, they had boats to go fishing in, and followers were praised for their devotion, by bringing in money and resources for use of the whole.
as for statements of jesus that we can readily believe, if you accept the historicity of Jesus, and that’s not unreasonable to assume, then Jesus called himself the king of the jews. We can believe that because it’s really the one thing the romans would have executed him for. (to their way of thinking, he was setting himself as a literal king, in opposition to Rome.) the religious disputes… meh. that’s not their concern. (and remember, there were lots of faith healers/mystics/heretics running around. The typical solution by the mainstream jewish authorities would be to knife them on some lonely road and leave their bodies in the ditch. the roman governors did not like that. for one, it was untidy, for two, they saw it as an affront to law and order- roman law, and roman order.
Oh, I see, you are saying that. I forget how many people subscribe to supply side Jesus.
So, we can dismiss anything he is supposed to have said that disagrees with you but we can beleive the ones you believe agree with you? Thats an interesting take.
They gave their professions up to follow Jesus. So, its very in keeping with what I said and belied any idea that their former professions belied anything. That’s very much you drawing back from where you wanted to end up and not the other way round.
Remember that “mammon” doesn’t mean money. Had Jesus only meant money, when he said that, he would have used the Hebrew word for money or coins and not a completely different word. Even then, very few people had any contact with actual money back in those days and, of the few that did, they would only ever use them to pay taxes. So, telling people not to love something they didnt come into contact with and, even if they did, would hate their contact with it would have been a bit silly. So, he clearly could never have meant that.
Its bizzare that you go on about deliberate misrepresentations in the bible and missed one of the most egregious.
Mammon means wealth or profit above what you need to survive. “The love of profit is the root of all evil.” “If you have 2 shirts, your second belongs to the man with no shirt.”
Jesus was anti wealth and Christianity, according to what he is recorded to have actually said, is incompatible with capitalism.
But seriously. The gospels were recorded as oral tradition. Maybe from geriatric as hell disciples, but more likely who ever they told stories to. Most the disciples died around the same time Mark was written (70 C.E.)
If you accept that jesus wasn’t made up out of whole cloth, and that’s reasonable, then the details like who the disciples were and came from are probably reliable. They would have been still in living memory. (Or alive, at least to tell the author of Mark.)
Same for things like who lent Jesus a tomb to rot in, S well as numerous other examples. So, if you want to point to all the Things People Wrote About Him, you’re going to have to take all the parts where rich people gave him places to sleep, and food and hospitality, and generally hung out with him; along with all the “yup money bad.”
As written, he clearly didn’t have a problem with wealth when it was shared with him.
It really doesn’t make a difference if you are or aren’t and i presumed you were an atheist the whole time.
No one disputes the first part. However, you seem to have convinced yourself it proves your second part which it doesn’t.
So, even after having to point out that you toon completely completely the wrong point over the business owners part, you double down, despite STILL literally giving yet more examples of what were all meant to be details specifically about people giving up their wealth for God.
Somehow you’ve literally taken away the exact opposite point from the one being made every single time and you’re arguing my point, against yourself, better than I ever could.
Sorry, I’m really not sure of the point you’re trying to make here.
I’m not saying the bible is historically accurate, beyond criticism, or that eye witness testimonies aren’t problematic. Had I done so, the above would make a lot more sense.
All I’m saying is, of the records that exist, such as they are, he was very vocally anti-wealth. You’re replying as though you’re disagreeing with what I’m saying. However, you don’t seem to refute anything that I’ve said.
Are you saying he is recorded as being vocally anti-wealth?
the things he’s “reported as having said” are almost certainly not things he’s actually said.
with very limited exceptions, we don’t really know anything at all about him. We don’t even know if he really existed. (It’s probable. Yeshua was a super common name at the time, as was Joseph. So it’s almost certain there was some guy named Yeshua ben Joseph- or in modern rendering, ‘Jesus son of Joseph’.
Given at the time the region was rampantly awash with faith healing mystics, it’s not unlikely one of them happened to have that name. Actually, It’s not entirely improbable that there was more than one faith healer with that name.
Any assertion that Jesus is anti-wealth or anti-capitalist is belied by a single, easily overlooked fact: the disciples were almost certainly well off. Of the disciples whose professions were recorded, they’re all at least successful business men. Andrew, James, John, and Peter were fishermen- each with their own boats; and probably supporting a small crew. Mathew was likely the most wealthy, as a tax collector. Thomas, Nathaniel and Philip were likely fishermen as well; Simon was a politician or rebel leader (he may have been the brokest, but, also, he wasn’t exactly one of the masses, either.)
remember, that Jesus never outright forbade wealth, or condemn being wealthy. he did condemn the love of money; however, and warned of the spiritual hazards of greed; and taught that pursuit of god was more important, that pursuing god and pursuing money together were impossible. but that doesn’t mean being successful is inherently immoral. Also recognize that the businesses didn’t just go away without the disciples there to tend them.
The boats were still in good order, there would have been a crew, income. Which is how, after the crucifixion, they had boats to go fishing in, and followers were praised for their devotion, by bringing in money and resources for use of the whole.
as for statements of jesus that we can readily believe, if you accept the historicity of Jesus, and that’s not unreasonable to assume, then Jesus called himself the king of the jews. We can believe that because it’s really the one thing the romans would have executed him for. (to their way of thinking, he was setting himself as a literal king, in opposition to Rome.) the religious disputes… meh. that’s not their concern. (and remember, there were lots of faith healers/mystics/heretics running around. The typical solution by the mainstream jewish authorities would be to knife them on some lonely road and leave their bodies in the ditch. the roman governors did not like that. for one, it was untidy, for two, they saw it as an affront to law and order- roman law, and roman order.
Oh, I see, you are saying that. I forget how many people subscribe to supply side Jesus.
So, we can dismiss anything he is supposed to have said that disagrees with you but we can beleive the ones you believe agree with you? Thats an interesting take.
They gave their professions up to follow Jesus. So, its very in keeping with what I said and belied any idea that their former professions belied anything. That’s very much you drawing back from where you wanted to end up and not the other way round.
Remember that “mammon” doesn’t mean money. Had Jesus only meant money, when he said that, he would have used the Hebrew word for money or coins and not a completely different word. Even then, very few people had any contact with actual money back in those days and, of the few that did, they would only ever use them to pay taxes. So, telling people not to love something they didnt come into contact with and, even if they did, would hate their contact with it would have been a bit silly. So, he clearly could never have meant that.
Its bizzare that you go on about deliberate misrepresentations in the bible and missed one of the most egregious.
Mammon means wealth or profit above what you need to survive. “The love of profit is the root of all evil.” “If you have 2 shirts, your second belongs to the man with no shirt.”
Jesus was anti wealth and Christianity, according to what he is recorded to have actually said, is incompatible with capitalism.
Bro, I’m an atheist.
I don’t subscribe to anything to do with it.
But seriously. The gospels were recorded as oral tradition. Maybe from geriatric as hell disciples, but more likely who ever they told stories to. Most the disciples died around the same time Mark was written (70 C.E.)
If you accept that jesus wasn’t made up out of whole cloth, and that’s reasonable, then the details like who the disciples were and came from are probably reliable. They would have been still in living memory. (Or alive, at least to tell the author of Mark.)
Same for things like who lent Jesus a tomb to rot in, S well as numerous other examples. So, if you want to point to all the Things People Wrote About Him, you’re going to have to take all the parts where rich people gave him places to sleep, and food and hospitality, and generally hung out with him; along with all the “yup money bad.”
As written, he clearly didn’t have a problem with wealth when it was shared with him.
It really doesn’t make a difference if you are or aren’t and i presumed you were an atheist the whole time.
No one disputes the first part. However, you seem to have convinced yourself it proves your second part which it doesn’t.
So, even after having to point out that you toon completely completely the wrong point over the business owners part, you double down, despite STILL literally giving yet more examples of what were all meant to be details specifically about people giving up their wealth for God.
Somehow you’ve literally taken away the exact opposite point from the one being made every single time and you’re arguing my point, against yourself, better than I ever could.