Real talk: Either this is some pagan ritual shit added later on by the Romans (like the polytheistic [Trinitarian] nature of Christianity and everything Paul said) or it was never meant to be taken even remotely literally. I’m going with the first one.
Jesus talked about morals and duties, and used allegories (Sermon of the Mount). For anyone who can read, this is very noticeably bizarre to say the least, but maybe it just meant “you gotta really walk in my shoes”. Relax.
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. 😅
Tbh, I assumed figuratively. Doesn’t Jesus use figure of speech?
And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for the wealthy to enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matthew 19:24
Real talk: Either this is some pagan ritual shit added later on by the Romans (like the polytheistic [Trinitarian] nature of Christianity and everything Paul said) or it was never meant to be taken even remotely literally. I’m going with the first one.
Ah yes, this ONE crazy nonsense must have been added later, unlike all the other bullshit.
Jesus talked about morals and duties, and used allegories (Sermon of the Mount). For anyone who can read, this is very noticeably bizarre to say the least, but maybe it just meant “you gotta really walk in my shoes”. Relax.
Sounds like transubstantiation to me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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. 😅
Tbh, I assumed figuratively. Doesn’t Jesus use figure of speech?