"...not my Jesus."

I seriously doubt Christians will ever "understand" the most basic trait of Jesus. Jesus is a myth. This is somewhat ironic since it is that trait that has allowed them to play games with the Christ figure all this time. Since there never was a real Jesus every sect and flavor of the Christian faith can easily make whatever claim they want. They shape the Christ into whatever best suits there needs. In some ways this is the greatest asset Christainity has when comes to perpetuating itself.

Posts like Travis Eaves' "That is Not My Jesus" just reinforce what I have long since concluded about most Christians' inability to think critically about their beliefs especially those regarding the Christ figure. The subtitle does a pretty good job exposing his willful ignorance; "The more I get to know Jesus, the less I recognize him in His church today." Like so many before him, Eaves cherry picks passages that fit what he wants to believe and ignores or glosses over the rest. It isn't even remotely possible to "know" Jesus even if you make the huge assumption that he ever existed. Our only "record" of this figure(s) comes from scriptures which do not agree on anything and frequently contradict each other or spiral into incoherent gibberish. There has also never been one "church" and certainly not one that can be directly linked to a non-existent founder.

Sorry Christians, the "my Jesus, your Jesus" game just makes you look like a bunch of childish irrational spoiled brats.

....And Jesus wept

....Or did he? Chris Boeskool's HuffPo piece "Saving a Murderer's Life: Who Would Jesus Execute?" is pretty ridiculous. It meanders in and out of all sorts of logical fallacies and disjointed trains of thought that if it weren't for the title it would be easy to lose the main point he seems to be trying to emphasize. Even though I actually agree with a few of the point he makes when he wanders into "non-religious reasons to be against the death penalty" even those are poorly represented and expressed. The whole piece is based entirely on his own narrow interpretation and understanding both theology and the social issues/public policies related to capitol punishment.

Ultimately he comes back to his main objection: his views on what Jesus would do. Of course, he has no clue that what he has expressed is not only an opinion loosely based on other opinions but that it actually has no solid foundation in the scriptures as he assumes it does. I have pointed out over and over that there is no single narrative for the Christ figure and therefore not a single version of Jesus. There are plenty of instances where it is easy to see the Jesus figure not just being okay with executing Tsarnaev but outright demanding it. Anyone care to reread Luke 19:27 and then try claiming Jesus would forgo putting this asshole to death.

Here are just a handful of previous posts I have written about such interpretations of the various claims about Jesus as a single "historical" figure.

A not so cute WWJD story (10-26-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-not-so-cute-wwjd-story.html

How many assumptions can be squeezed into one title? (9-14-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/09/how-many-assumptions-can-be-squeezed.html

What makes it a "taunt"? (4-20-14)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-makes-it-taunt.html

Which Jesus is More Absurd (2-24-13)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2013/02/which-jesus-is-more-absurd.html

Jesus is.... amorphous (9-15-12)
http://www.atheismith.blogspot.com/2012/09/jesus-is-amorphous.html

Actually, Christ does Need Christianity

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I will once again point out that without "Christianity" there would be no Jesus Christ. Shane Hipps makes a feeble attempt at the opposite claim in his HuffPo piece, "Why Christ Doesn't Need Christianity." Like so many before him he simply ignores the most relevant details. That there are no accounts of Christ* outside of scripture should bother anyone interested in legitimate historical research.

I found the third paragraph particularly amusing. It is a single sentence but serves as an excellent example of his mindset.

"Just because Christianity claims Jesus as its own does not mean that Christ automatically claims Christianity as his own."

Setting aside that the likelihood that Christ ever really existed is near zero, it is an odd comment considering the consensus among Biblical scholars is that the earliest pieces in the New Testament are at least one generation removed from the time Christ was supposed to have lived. Having been dead for a handful of decades it would be rather difficult for Jesus to claim anything about Christianity whether he wanted to or not.

Which brings me back to the main point. Whether real or mythical, the odds that anyone would know anything about Jesus Christ had the Christian religion not formed is very low. Christ does need Christianity. On the other hand I can see Christianity outliving the notion that Christ was real. Daoism (or Taoism, if you prefer that spelling) is still around despite scholars coming to the consensus that its founding figure, Lao Tzu, never actually existed.


*There are accounts of Christians but that is hardly the same thing.