I know what it is, I’m questioning the origins since Jesus spoke sense and truth and was not of the superficial, ritualistic people (nobody intelligent is). It’s basically a blood rite, lol.
I’d go further even and go full “all I know is I know nothing” like Socrates, but we can be practical and discerning: if you’ve ever met a wise person, you can imagine how a really wise, anti imperialistic, revolutionary religious leader who preached righteousness and wasn’t in it for the money would act. 🤷
So youre just projecting… you want jesus to be a wise, anti imperialistic revolutionary who wasn’t in it for the money, and so you assume he was… despite there being insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion… if you reject the catholic orthodoxy as true.
If he’s the man who preached the Sermon of the Mount and had enough followers through his words and actions the freaking Roman Empire had to co-opt his ideology (mostly in name only, and not without corrupting it entirely, ofc), I feel like I have enough reasons to see Jesus that way.
Who was it, then?! Regardless, whoever that person was preached things in that category, because those words stand by themselves and have that character by themselves, it just happened to have come from Jesus at that time (and others throughout history, ofc). If you disagree with the Sermon on the Mount, that’s a different story, but I’m not making an argument of authority here.
Also, what? What do you think the “Roman Catholic Church” means? Or the Vatican being in Rome? Constantine the Great?! This is just basic history. 😅
Paul, the “faith without works”, “just believe Jesus = God and you’ll be saved” guy? That’s your point of reference? Even in its nonsense, Paul without Jesus is nothing, but here you are saying “how do you know Jesus was that guy?” And the Sermon on the Mount is basically the ideological basis and the soul of everything good in Christianity! And you gotta pick and choose, because of corruption and obvious nonsense. What makes sense stands by itself, what doesn’t doesn’t, and when we meet God (I assume you believe in that at least…) we’ll explain ourselves. Also, much of scripture is just letters from one group or dude to another, like by their own admission not “the word of God”. It can make sense, it cannot, what was kept in the Bible can be gold and it can also be shit.
You’re very confused, both about the world and in your internal belief system, it’s completely incoherent, but to you your system and to me mine, I guess. 🤷
I know what it is, I’m questioning the origins since Jesus spoke sense and truth and was not of the superficial, ritualistic people (nobody intelligent is). It’s basically a blood rite, lol.
We cannot, with any authority, assert what jesus did or did not say if we assume catholic tradition is not reliable.
I’d go further even and go full “all I know is I know nothing” like Socrates, but we can be practical and discerning: if you’ve ever met a wise person, you can imagine how a really wise, anti imperialistic, revolutionary religious leader who preached righteousness and wasn’t in it for the money would act. 🤷
So youre just projecting… you want jesus to be a wise, anti imperialistic revolutionary who wasn’t in it for the money, and so you assume he was… despite there being insufficient evidence to come to that conclusion… if you reject the catholic orthodoxy as true.
If he’s the man who preached the Sermon of the Mount and had enough followers through his words and actions the freaking Roman Empire had to co-opt his ideology (mostly in name only, and not without corrupting it entirely, ofc), I feel like I have enough reasons to see Jesus that way.
Sure, but where’s the evidence thst jesus ever preached the sermon on the mount, or that the Roman empire adopted his philosophy…
Who was it, then?! Regardless, whoever that person was preached things in that category, because those words stand by themselves and have that character by themselves, it just happened to have come from Jesus at that time (and others throughout history, ofc). If you disagree with the Sermon on the Mount, that’s a different story, but I’m not making an argument of authority here.
Also, what? What do you think the “Roman Catholic Church” means? Or the Vatican being in Rome? Constantine the Great?! This is just basic history. 😅
You’re the one that rejects Paul, ie, the earliest Christian writings that exist.
Clearly you want to pick and choose scripture.
I fail to see anything amazing in the sermon on the mount to be honest…
Paul, the “faith without works”, “just believe Jesus = God and you’ll be saved” guy? That’s your point of reference? Even in its nonsense, Paul without Jesus is nothing, but here you are saying “how do you know Jesus was that guy?” And the Sermon on the Mount is basically the ideological basis and the soul of everything good in Christianity! And you gotta pick and choose, because of corruption and obvious nonsense. What makes sense stands by itself, what doesn’t doesn’t, and when we meet God (I assume you believe in that at least…) we’ll explain ourselves. Also, much of scripture is just letters from one group or dude to another, like by their own admission not “the word of God”. It can make sense, it cannot, what was kept in the Bible can be gold and it can also be shit.
You’re very confused, both about the world and in your internal belief system, it’s completely incoherent, but to you your system and to me mine, I guess. 🤷