/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14814477]

>read the bible
>realise that the cultural idea of Jesus isn't really supported in the text

I'm not some kind of epic deus vult larper who only knows the passages about Christ bringing a sword and flipping the table but Jesus was a profoundly troubled, edgy, and sarcastic man, while also being very generous and kind.

For example in the gospel of mark before Jesus walks on water he watches his disciples struggle to row against the fierce storm and when he walks across intends to avoid them entirely and pass to the other side.

When he curses the fig tree in a rage

in Mark when his disciples fall asleep he tells them to sleep the endless sleep.

In John 11 Jesus learns that Lazarus is sick but waits two days for him to die before setting out, in verse 33 the greek is enebrimesato to pneumati kai etaraxen eauton which is usually translated in many different ways to avoid the truth, this means "to snort with rage". Translators are clearly biased in how they translated this verse. an accurate transaltion would be something like "he snorted angrily and was troubled in spirit".

In John 18 when the soldiers come to arrest him and ask him who he is he boldly proclaims that he is god so that they stagger backwards and fall to the ground

In John 2 when he turns water into wine he snaps at mary.

Also Peter is a dumbass and an asshole, if you know the greek you see in John 21 he still doesn't get it and mixes up agape and phileo, he denies Jesus and literally curses (Mark 14:66) Jesus (again often dishonestly translated by many translators). He's literally Jesus's worst disciple after Judas

basically a lot of what people think about Jesus is just "tradition" (whether it be holy or not) and he's a much more interesting and dynamic figure in the text, not some random hippie. He was very scared and stressed out from knowing his fate.

[Anonymous No.14814488]

You just figured out all 4chan christcucks are LARPers who make cucktianity seem a blood cult without even reading a single passage from the bible, fucking amazing

[Anonymous No.14814509]

>>14814477
It is Protestants who misinterpret the life of Jesus, if you read Catholic or Orthodox theologians, there is a real understanding of Jesus as a multifaceted and quite interesting figure. And yes, in John especially, Peter is an idiot. Hence the Beloved Disciple getting preference in seating and almost all else. Paul's letters reflect a real tension with Peter as well, because he wanted to just keep their base of operations in Jerusalem. Good post anon.

>>14814488
Thats not what OP was saying in the slightest you ridiculous ass.

[Anonymous No.14814571]

>>14814477
I don't think anyone who has engaged the text seriously would disagree with your assessment, but it's also important to remember that the writers of the Gospel were also chiefly interested in conveying Jesus' teachings. Some of his more mystifying actions (like cursing the fig tree) may have come from real feelings, but they also carried real meqnings (again, in cursing the fig tree he was pronouncing judgment upon Israel.) There's a duality and a unity there that reflects his nature.

[Anonymous No.14814573]

>>14814571
*meanings

[Anonymous No.14814583]

>>14814477
This is the first post that has actually convinced me to read the Bible

[Anonymous No.14814584]

>>14814477
The more you read the New Testament the more you realize that Jesus and his followers were really a Marshall Applewhite tier extreme cult in the making.

The theology of Jesus is extremely life deniying, it encouraged people to dissociate from their families to join Jesus's followers, it preached that the end of the world was near etc.

[Anonymous No.14814602]

>>14814509
yup, theres a reason dogma is important

[Anonymous No.14814624]

>>14814571
Yes I agree. Jesus cursing the fig tree is also meant to be a message to his disciples (He curses the temple and it will never be rebuilt).

it's also interesting how he visits the temple twice, (11 And he entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And when he had looked around at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.) first to check it and and then the next day curses the fig tree and casts out the moneylenders.

why did he wait?

and also interesting how he talks of telling a mountain to throw itself into the sea, he may be talking about the temple mount of the jews

[Anonymous No.14814637]

>>14814477
>I thought this neurotic, even psychotic Jesus was not very different from the shifts of mood and psychology that you find glimpses of in the Gospels.

That's Martin Scorsese on The Last Temptation of Christ, of which he made a movie released by fucking Universal Pictures, one that has steadily grown in popularity since its well-publicized release.

Your view here isnt ground breaking. It's mainstream to the post-Freudian worldview.

[Anonymous No.14814910]

>>14814477
>in verse 33 the greek is enebrimesato to pneumati kai etaraxen eauton which is usually translated in many different ways to avoid the truth, this means "to snort with rage". Translators are clearly biased in how they translated this verse. an accurate transaltion would be something like "he snorted angrily and was troubled in spirit".
καὶ doesn't work that way. However you want to translate ἐνεβριμήσατο, the basic structure of the clauses is accurate in the KJV, which renders the line "he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled"

[Anonymous No.14815150]

>>14814637
Good point by Scorcese but I have an intense dislike for the man after that abominable travesty of the so called "Christian movie"

"Silence" which endorsed the denial of Jesus and heavily impied it is what Jesus would have wanted, the biggest flaw of the film but not the only one by any means

[Anonymous No.14815337]

>>14814509
Not really. Catholics constantly preach that no one comes unto the father except through the pope, and that you must pray to Mary just like Jesus commanded except Jesus never once mentioned the Pope or praying to his mother.

[Anonymous No.14815427]

>>14815337
>Catholics constantly preach that no one comes unto the father except through the pope
You're fusing Jesus saying that "nobody comes to the father except through me" and the investiture of Peter with the keys to bind and loose on heaven and earth, as in, the establishment of the office of the Papacy. These are two different concepts entirely and your language seems to distort this.

>you must pray to Mary just like Jesus commanded
Again, nobody claims that Jesus commanded people to pray to Mary, not directly. Your reductionist attitude towards this is typical but not accurate.

To say that Jesus "never once mentioned the Pope" is idiotic. He doesn't say "you're the Pope now Peter" but the Catholic church can claim an unbroken succession of leadership going back to the original authority given to Peter, the authority which IS mentioned explicitly by Jesus. You can agree or disagree with the possibility of succession but its not nearly as cut and dry as you're making it.

[Anonymous No.14815508]

>>14815150
You're surprised a bunch of corporate Jews are bankrolling movies which undermine Christ by forcing him into a variety of late-19th century Jewish liberal/psycholigised paradigms and using "lapsed Catholics" with a questionable moral and artistic outlook to do so? Worked on OP.

[Anonymous No.14815512]

>>14814477

[Anonymous No.14815532]

>>14814477
Even if you don't believe everything in the Bible as being historical fact, Jesus is Achilles/Hamlet/Ahab tier as a literary character

[Anonymous No.14815596]

>>14815427
>unbroken

[Anonymous No.14815612]

>>14815596
If you have evidence to the contrary now is the time to share. A few antipopes do not a schism make.

[Anonymous No.14815653]

>>14815150
>"Silence" which endorsed the denial of Jesus and heavily impied it is what Jesus would have wanted
--------------->the point
your head

[Anonymous No.14815730]

You're on the right path

[Anonymous No.14815731]

>>14814477
Ok zoomer

[Anonymous No.14815747]

>>14815731
You're 22

[Anonymous No.14815748]

>>14815150
ur dumb

[Anonymous No.14815788]

>>14814477
>Jesus was a profoundly troubled, edgy, and sarcastic man, while also being very generous and kind
Best description I've ever heard of him. It's been a long time since I read the bible, but always wondered why no one else was noticing the verses where he throws a hissy fit.
>In John 2 when he turns water into wine he snaps at mary.
"Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." - John 2:4,5
Notice how quickly she backs down? Like this is a regular occurrence and she is used to letting him have his way. I bet he was a very intelligent, attractive and charismatic child who got spoiled rotten by everyone.

[Anonymous No.14815804]

>>14815532
Except that he's an historical figure rendering him the greatest performance artist of all time, bar none.

[Anonymous No.14815981]

Man, I feel you OP. I've always daydreamed about travelling back in time to first century Roman Palestine and meeting the historical Jesus. What would it be like to live as a charismatic preacher travelling about a turbulent but vibrant region, preaching to crowds who themselves are negotiating an idea of themselves as monotheists chosen by god in a world dominated by those they see as idol worshipers and tyrants. Did Jesus know that what he was saying would transform the world? The story of a uneducated carpenter in a provincial backwater rising to become the most important person in the world, worshiped by emperors is almost enough to make a person believe.

[Anonymous No.14816033]

>>14815981
>Did Jesus know that what he was saying would transform the world?

[Anonymous No.14816091]

>>14814477
>athony ainely
that's Roger Delgado

[Anonymous No.14816108]

I have been reading the bible more and more lately, and I purchased a study bible to get some more context, and what just even the introduction says about Mark is very interesting, he was source that Matthew and Luke got several chapters from, yet he is vague and about Jewish traditions, gets some of his geography wrong, conveys Jesus as passive-aggressive almost, and he is comparitively clumsy with Greek.

So he wasn't an elite scholar, or likely to have been a strictly observant Jew who lived in Palestine or anything that gave him particular authority to write religious texts. It just seems like he could, so he did. And thus his gospel is mosttly about evil spirits and miracles.

Having said that I think Matthew/Luke are far too dry and John and Mark just have an allure to them.

[Anonymous No.14816110]

>>14814477
>Jesus was a profoundly troubled, edgy, and sarcastic man
Any thoughts on the (Gnostic) Gospel or Judas, where Jesus laughs (Laughing Jesus)?

[Anonymous No.14816140]

>>14816108
Matthew is my least favorite gospel overall despite having some iconic moments. Mark grows on you, while John is undoubtedly the best.

[Anonymous No.14816142]

>>14814477
I feel like Jesus would definitely frequent on 4chan to learn more about the outsiders perspective and just fuck around. He was literally carpenter not some skinny long hair wimp that loved everything and everyone

[Anonymous No.14816169]

>>14816142
>literally a carpenter
Shit I’m losing braincells

[Anonymous No.14816263]

>>14816033
>look mom I posted it again!

[Anonymous No.14816300]

>>14814477
See, this is why Gnosticism was so popular. Because it was obvious to everyone that the priests of the christian churches were exactly the same as the pharisees from the gospels, and would have rejected him if they ever met him.
Jesus broke pretty much every law in the old testament bible, publicly and brazenly, while mocking other people for following them, yet the christian priests still teach the same laws (excluding a few about animal sacrifice and dietary requirements) as if they are Jews.

[Anonymous No.14816304]

I'll echo the comments in here that Jesus is much less "nice" in the actual Gospels than He is portrayed in popular culture. He is intensely loving and kind, but He can also be frightening and severe. Consider this passage from Luke:

>At that time some of those present told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. To this He replied, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered this fate? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam collapsed on them: Do you think that they were more sinful than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you. But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

But doesn't this ultimately serve to make His claim of divinity more compelling? People like to say that the Old Testament and the New Testament depict two different versions of God. But if you read the Gospels, Jesus is a mixture of kind and merciful but also concerned with justice and punishment. And, for that matter, if you actually read back through the Old Testament, numerous passages talk about Yahweh's mercy and forgiveness, in addition to everything depicting His wrath. I think a good faith reading of the Bible is more than sufficient to prove that both testaments talk about the same God.

[Anonymous No.14816337]

>>14814583
ditto my friend

[Anonymous No.14816346]

>>14816300
>Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

[Anonymous No.14816465]

Taking on human form doesn’t just mean the body of a human, it means the essence of a human. Of course Jesus got passionate, emotional and scared. To lack these attributes would make him inhuman, and so God would not be taking on our form.

[Anonymous No.14816488]

>>14816142
He hung around with rejects and criminals, of course he’d be here. He’d be here trying to help us. And maybe... just maybe he would be a sneedposter

[Anonymous No.14816501]

>>14816488
Jesus would start memes that were somehow simultaneously dank and wholesome.

[Anonymous No.14816504]

>>14816346
>but the “true” meaning of the law was akshually: just be a cuck lmao
really even the prohibition from eating shrimp and mixing different types of cloth?
>yeah! Lmao that’s the spiritual meaning of not eating shrimp: be a cuck

[Anonymous No.14816516]

>>14815512
This is so retarded on so many levels. It's a man getting upset over something he made up himself and writing paragraphs about it

[Anonymous No.14816544]

>>14816346
What do you think about the differences between Matthew and John's Gospels?
Matthew was clearly written for the Jews, and John for the Greeks/Romans. In John, Jesus is almost an anarchist, probably because the audience wouldn't have cared about the old testament law anyway. Matthew would have been stoned for certain if he had taught the same thing. I wonder if he pussied out and made up some parts to smooth things over. Either that or Jesus had a very complex interpretation of the law.

[Anonymous No.14816572]

>>14816544
Christ seems to differentiate between the portions of the Law which actually lead the soul towards God, and the portions of the Law which are merely for the organization of society. I mean, if you read Leviticus, there is some tedious shit in there. It seems to me that what Christ does in all four Gospels is to divide those parts of the Law apart from each other. That which unites you to God is universal, that which organizes human society is less so. So you still have the Ten Commandments, but you don't have the dietary restrictions.

[Anonymous No.14816615]

>>14816572
But Matthew 5 18 is "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
So it would seem from this that all of the old testament law is valid.

[Anonymous No.14816685]

>>14816615
Matthew 12 clears this right up

"At that time Jesus went through the corn on the sabbath: and his disciples being hungry, began to pluck the ears, and to eat. And the Pharisees seeing them, said to him: Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days. But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame? But I tell you that there is here a greater than the temple. And if you knew what this meaneth: I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: you would never have condemned the innocent.

For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath."

Basically letter of the law Jewish ruleslawyers obsess over the text without realizing the point of the text is to get people closer to God in the correct manner, not to be rules for the sake of rules. The letter of the law hasn't changed, in so far as Jesus has not abolished the Sabbath totally, but he has placed the letter of the law in proper perspective with his incarnation.

[Anonymous No.14816948]

>>14816685
That's wishy washy reasoning and you know it. What you have said is more insulting to the old testament than anything Jesus said. Law means Law, and not guidelines. You should spend more effort on trying to find the truth than on trying to make the bible fit together neatly.
Jesus's interpretations of the old laws are so cryptic that they can be used to justify anything. For example: in John 10, Jesus quotes Psalms as evidence that it is ok to say that a man is a god as long as he does the work of god. By this reasoning I can walk into a church and announce myself god without contradicting Jesus and everyone should accept it.
We should have to acknowledge the contraries of the bible before we can begin to understand it properly.

[Anonymous No.14817127]

>>14816948
Law exists for a reason, it points towards something else, and is guided by a principle. Otherwise, it would be arbitrary, For example, civil law reflects certain (usually unstated) commitments to equity, justice, ethics, etc. Laws barring theft aren't there because certain objects can't be moved in a certain way, its because we acknowledge rights to ownership of things. Any laws regarding theft which don't correspond to rights of ownership are just empty words.

Likewise here. In fact, Jesus says in Mark (forgive me for not looking up the exact quote at the moment) something to the effect that "man is not made for the sabbath, the sabbath is made for man." This corresponds nicely with what is going on in Matthew. God has no special prejudice against working on certain days of the week, the Sabbath is there to get you closer to Him and provide the opportunity for prayer and reflection. Once is ceases to fit this purpose, it ceases to be the sabbath and becomes an empty observance. The letter of the law serves the spirit. Pharisees and other Jewish legalists are constantly rebuked for only seeing the text and focusing on minutia. I fully admit that there are many cryptic parts of the NT, and that Jesus frequently speaks in riddle and parable. Likewise, there are parts of the OT that are hard to reconcile, and the Bible is a challenging text. I will, however, defend what I said against the charge that it offends or undoes the OT, or that it is some kind of easy out.

[Anonymous No.14817216]

>>14814477
Yes, finally someone who gets that Jesus was also a man. The walking on water bit is especially interesting, it has a great double meaning in that he would rather pass them by, but they notice him. This is a fairly good description of God, perhaps the best in the whole Bible.

In fact his long-suffering character is the thing that most singles him out as God. It's quite beautiful actually considering that theologically we all have a God-given soul, that radiates that same intense desire to be loved and oft finds so little of what it seeks. Literally the fact that Jesus was a bit of an edgy loser is the best bit about Jesus, that he embodied the common human experience of unrequited love to a profound degree.

Thanks anon for your thoughtful perspective.

[Anonymous No.14817225]

>>14815427
Prottie spottie

[Anonymous No.14817227]

>>14814477
>realise that the cultural idea of Jesus isn't really supported in the text
Half of these atheistards are just protestants who cant cope with sola scriptura, which wa sa huge mistake

[Anonymous No.14817238]

>>14814477
>. Translators are clearly biased in how
Man who knows no Greek is le transnational expert

[Anonymous No.14817247]

>>14814477
i dont really get the part about peter denying jesus
i thought peter denied him so he wouldnt have to testify against him?
can someone help me with the nuances of the passage

[Anonymous No.14817262]

So you're interpreting a translation of dialogue written down a AT BEST by a primary source years after the events, at worst a secondary/tertiary source decades after the events.

[Anonymous No.14817320]

Reminder to read Pope Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth" series if you want a really good Catholic interpretation of the Gospels and the character of Jesus in them.

[Anonymous No.14817488]

>>14817247
nah he was just scared of being imprisoned or killed or something, especially after he swore to Jesus he would never deny him, but he forgot in the moment because he was scared I imagine

[Anonymous No.14817492]

Was Jesus even a carpenter? Does anyone read greek, I heard the word is just skilled tradesman and he could have been a stonemason or something else

[Anonymous No.14817997]

>>14815512
Good pic anon

[Anonymous No.14818238]

>>14816488
I have no doubts at all that Jesus would be a sneedposter. He'd send every jannie straight to hell real quick.

[Anonymous No.14818252]

>>14816465
Jesus wasn't then and isn't now god.

[Anonymous No.14818283]

>>14817320
>good Catholic interpretation of the Gospels

[Anonymous No.14818294]

>>14818252
These Trinity cucks are so gay, and I'm not even a Christian. "MUHHH 100 PERCENT GOD AND 100 PERCENT MAN"

[Anonymous No.14818307]

>>14817262
Just like all Christians

[Anonymous No.14818310]

>>14818294
>PERCENT
>100
>quantity
Retroactively refuted by Rene Guenon.

[Anonymous No.14818315]

>>14818294
It's just retarded. Not as stupid as transubstantiation though. Yeah dude that bread is LITERALLY the body of christ. I wonder when it turns back into regular bread, or if I'm literally shitting god into the toilet later.

[Anonymous No.14818329]

>>14818307
>>14818294
>>14818283
>>14818252
>>14818310

[Anonymous No.14818344]

>>14818329

[Anonymous No.14818364]

>>14818329
You're gonna burn in hell with an agnostic like me if you believe that stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.14818503]

>>14818329
>>14818310
>>14818344
Holy based.....
I have grasped non-duality...

[Anonymous No.14818512]

>>14818315
>Christ can't transform the essence of a piece of bread into the essence of His body

[Anonymous No.14818525]

>>14818512
Doesn't understand Symbolic language.

[Anonymous No.14818533]

>>14818525
>it's just a symbol bro! bro it's just a larp.
I bet you think Adam (pbuh) and Eve were just symbols too.

[Anonymous No.14818536]

>>14818533
No I don't actually, but I'm not a fucking retard that thinks I'm eating Jesus.

[Anonymous No.14818655]

>>14818536
Millions have died over the Eucharist throughout the centuries.

[Anonymous No.14818684]

>>14818536
>calls most of the Church Fathers "fucking retards"
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.14819007]

>>14817225
I don't know how you could read my post defending the Papacy and think to yourself "Protestant"

[Anonymous No.14819449]

>>14818512
At what point does he transform it back into bread or am I literally shitting out Jesus into my toilet?

>>14818525
Is transubstantiation literal or not?

[Anonymous No.14819456]

>>14814477
> projecting your own psychological issues and conceits onto Jesus Christ
Is that a yikes? A cringe? A lol? Maybe all three rolled into one sorry big bunch of fail?

[Anonymous No.14819474]

>>14814477
>In John 2 when he turns water into wine he snaps at mary.
Iconic moment to be honest