Saw this recently:
A nifty paragraph that sums up exactly who Jesus was
…according to someone who wasn’t Jesus.
Jesus couldn’t have written it.
It’s too stupid.
…wasn’t American and never spoke English…
Yet this sign is written in English.
…probably by an American.
…never mentioned abortion or birth control…
He never mentioned arson, transgender, homophobia, cocaine, kidnapping, puppets, telephones, tax cuts, community organizing or slut shaming either.
You can build an impressive pile of legalistic fundamentalism out of ‘stuff Jesus never said’
…that doesn’t mean you should.
This whole definition of Jesus seems like it
…maybe…
…perhaps…
…possibly…
…has an agenda.
Here’s something that will shock you.
Jesus actually defined Himself!
Yeah! He did!
He said:
I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.
Then Philip said, “Okay, great. Just show us The Father and we’ll be convinced.”
The internet hadn’t been invented yet so Philip couldn’t write this over a sarcastic picture.
Jesus patiently responded:
Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Apparently, Jesus wasn’t just doing His own thing.
He was doing His Father’s thing.
It would have been great if Jesus had quit talking right there.
Sadly, He didn’t.
He went on to say:
Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.
Jesus’ love appears to be contingent on obedience.
If you love Him, you obey Him.
Which is about as intolerant as it gets.
Doesn’t mention, “God wants you to be happy.”
Doesn’t mention the righteousness of posting internet memes to scold those who don’t embrace your Marxist Jesus as Messiah.
Christianity is better understood by interpretation of what Jesus actually said
…rather than inferences from what He didn’t.
12 Responses
Assuming the following definition of contingent:
occurring or existing only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on.
“resolution of the conflict was contingent on the signing of a ceasefire agreement”
synonyms: dependent on, conditional on, subject to, determined by, hinging on, resting on
“the merger is contingent on government approval”
Jesus’ love is *not* contingent on obedience, although you are not the first to draw that error.
Obedience is likely not the correct tone for the passage you cite. The word is not present in the Greek.
perfect John! Thanks!
Loves it.
Jesus demanded love and tolerance. He demanded charity and a spirit of caring. All these he demanded from those who followed him. Not the rulers. He was not political. Charity, love, tolerance, caring and all those other attributes you say makes him not like conservatives are things to be given willingly not taken by a government claiming moral authority. The founding fathers never mentioned free health care in the constitution either.
Pfftt!!!!
…I hope it’s not another four months before we hear again from boundless wisdom!
But it’s hard to argue that He didn’t preach for charity or against the accumulation of wealth. It seems He was “anti-wealth” and did not advocate for “tax cuts for the wealthiest”. Indeed, the excessive concentration of wealth among relatively few in the world (not just the states) would almost certainly draw His scorn.
He certainly also preached non-violence.
He did hang around with lepers, hookers and crooks, although I appreciate the certain modern GOP and Canadian conservative leaders seem to embrace associating with hookers and crooks (at least in private). Good for them?
He also opposed the death penalty: something about “let ye who are without sin cast the first stone” speaking against the death penalty… in defense of a prostitute.
It seems you deliberately miss the point, John: many of the values and agenda items of the North American Right are in stark contrast to what Jesus preached about. Dodging and then deflecting attention to other things Jesus did preach doesn’t preserve the alleged “piety” of the Right’s agenda.
Jesus would, in all likelihood, condemn the agenda of the North American Right.
BTW it seems Jesus would seem to support free health care. Even if one were to dispute that He would “support” it how difficult is it to see Him opposing it?
With all due respect…
Hey Angus,
Thanks for posting.
I’m not arguing that Jesus didn’t preach for charity. In fact, my article doesn’t speak about any specific teaching of Jesus. I am responding specifically to the meme that summarizes the character of Jesus without referencing what Jesus said about Himself. My unconfirmed suspicion is the meme exists to advance an agenda rather than expose the nature of the Son of God.
It seems uncontroversial that Jesus preached non-violence.
I didn’t mention any particular political party so I don’t feel compelled to respond to your criticism of ‘the North American Right’. I’ve never been so staunchly attached to a political viewpoint that I can’t abandon it when it runs counter to New Testament teaching. It seems unrealistic to expect a First Century document to contain specific commentary on 21st Century, Western politics. Apparently you don’t agree.
Jesus was certainly a believer in free health care. He was also the only person in history who was able to provide it.
And with all due respect…
Does it seem a little inconsistent to tell me that Jesus “opposed the death penalty” yet He would have nothing to say on the topic of abortion?
Seems to me the meme’s authors object was to cast light upon the glaring contrast between Jesus’ tolerance of many of the things that the North American right express such blood boiling condemnation… all in the name of “obedience” to Jesus, God, the Bible, whatever
“It seems unrealistic to expect a First Century document to contain specific commentary on 21st Century, Western politics. Apparently you don’t agree.”
You just effectively argued for the irrelevance of Biblical teachings to many of the most pressing challenges humankind face today. I don’t see how you think I am in disagreement with that
I’m saying one cannot intelligently defend much of right wing thinking/ policy on these very topics by reference to Biblical authority
It is on that count that you seem to deliberately miss the point: this meme is wrong because Jesus *was* intolerant of those who try to come to the Father except through him? Pffttt!!!!
(not sure why I didn’t get a notification for your response: probably in the spam folder lol. Somebody else reposted)
Well he did have harsh words for those who caused little ones to stumble. How much more would he say to those who KILL little ones that it would be better that a millstone was tied around their necks and they be cast into the sea. Pretty violent words coming from Jesus.
Excellent apologetic defense of our Lord’s character and life!
Much respect John. Keep it up.
Thank you so much! This is really great! I saw this about a mount ago and was wanting to give a response. You wrote it much better than I would have.