• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Jesus Likeable?

Elora

The best is yet to come...
DP Veteran
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
44,727
Reaction score
11,316
Location
Down South
Gender
Female
Most people would say yes...even Gandhi was known to say...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”Mahatma Gandhi

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22155-i-like-your-christ-i-do-not-like-your-christians

But he did not really know Christ...


Years ago I read the book "They Like Jesus But Not the Church."* It had some valid points about the way we Christians can make the Gospel unattractive by clumsy remarks and rude attitudes.

But the book's basic premise was flawed. It suggested that people will like us if we act more like Jesus.

But that's not Scriptural.

We should try to speak the Truth in love. But even when we do, our message will be neither culturally acceptable nor tolerant of sin. If it is, we will have ceased to be representatives of Christ.

Jesus made people angry...so angry they killed him.

And it wasn't just the self-righteous religious people who hated Jesus. Anyone who refused to accept God's definition of sin hated Jesus (John 7:7). If we want to be like the true Jesus in Scripture, they will hate us too (1 John 3:13).

“You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22
---------------


*One reason they like Jesus is because they like "another Jesus," not the Jesus of Scripture.
https://biblelovenotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-jesus-likable.html
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Most people would say yes...even Gandhi was known to say...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”Mahatma Gandhi

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22155-i-like-your-christ-i-do-not-like-your-christians

But he did not really know Christ...



https://biblelovenotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-jesus-likable.html

I’m sure he was a very nice guy by modern standards. Still no verifiable evidence he was anything other than a regular human.
 

HIP56948

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2018
Messages
5,580
Reaction score
6,498
Location
Sarasota, Florida and Sydney, Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
In those times "Jesus" was a very common name. About as common as David, Bob, or James in these modern times.
The preacher Jesus was probably a decent fellow.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
11,245
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most people would say yes...even Gandhi was known to say...

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”Mahatma Gandhi

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22155-i-like-your-christ-i-do-not-like-your-christians

But he did not really know Christ...



https://biblelovenotes.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-jesus-likable.html

Gandhi was a racist pedophile so I don't think his opinion on Christians or Jesus counts for much
 

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
10,570
Reaction score
6,791
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I’m sure he was a very nice guy by modern standards. Still no verifiable evidence he was anything other than a regular human

But apparently, some like to think he was. Go figure.
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Was there an itinerant rabbi named Joshua of Nazareth that went around preaching what were considered heretic doctrines at the time and then got executed for doing so? Yeah probably. We have sufficient corroborating evidence to say that much.

Did he have supernatural powers? Was he god in the flesh? There’s no evidence to verify these claims.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
1,763
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Was there an itinerant rabbi named Joshua of Nazareth that went around preaching what were considered heretic doctrines at the time and then got executed for doing so? Yeah probably. We have sufficient corroborating evidence to say that much.

Did he have supernatural powers? Was he god in the flesh? There’s no evidence to verify these claims.
Yes there is, supernatural powers are corroborated in other reports, it is not unlikely Christ had them.
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes there is, supernatural powers are corroborated in other reports, it is not unlikely Christ had them.

No, they aren’t. The only source for Jesus’s supernatural powers is the Bible and works derived from the Bible. There are zero external sources.
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
9,903
Reaction score
1,763
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, they aren’t. The only source for Jesus’s supernatural powers is the Bible and works derived from the Bible. There are zero external sources.
Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East even have meetings with Christ. Spalding had quite an imagination. The books of the I am movement inform us, and the Chaitanya Avatar 1486 gives Christ verification.
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East even have meetings with Christ. Spalding had quite an imagination. The books of the I am movement inform us, and the Chaitanya Avatar 1486 gives Christ verification.

So people with undiagnosed mental disorders/people on copious amounts of hallucinogenic drugs have had "visions". That is not in any way verifiable evidence. Its even more garbage than bronze age books of mythology.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
2,316
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
From my experience, most liberals don't like the Biblical Jesus. First, a great many of them don't believe he is divine. Second, they're so pumped up on LGBTQ beliefs they try to make Jesus out to be gay, and try to tell folks he's ok with gay sex, shacking up, socialism, and all kinds of unbiblical beliefs. What's more a lot of them don't believe sin exists, or that people have to repent or perish (Luke 13:3). And they don't his Judgments in Revelation either. And like that slacker Whoopie Goldberg, they don't believe Jesus is the only way to the Father (John 14:6).

I've yet to meet or debate a liberal who believes in the Biblical Jesus. There's always some half-witted belief(s) they have to where he's not the one portrayed in scripture.
 

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
10,570
Reaction score
6,791
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
From my experience, most liberals don't like the Biblical Jesus. First, a great many of them don't believe he is divine. Second, they're so pumped up on LGBTQ beliefs they try to make Jesus out to be gay, and try to tell folks he's ok with gay sex, shacking up, socialism, and all kinds of unbiblical beliefs.
That is an observation which has nothing to do if someone likes Jesus or not.
What's more a lot of them don't believe sin exists, or that people have to repent or perish (Luke 13:3). And they don't his Judgments in Revelation either.
Because such things are merely religious concepts and stories. There's no reason to believe them.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
2,316
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is an observation which has nothing to do if someone likes Jesus or not.

Because such things are merely religious concepts and stories. There's no reason to believe them.
So far you have yet to make a dent in the Gospels. Until you do you've got nothing.
 

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
10,570
Reaction score
6,791
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So far you have yet to make a dent in the Gospels. Until you do you've got nothing.
You have yet to prove the veracity of them. Until then, they are merely stories. And that doesn't really address what I said anyway.
 

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
38,480
Reaction score
25,454
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
God, you can't live with Him, you can't live without Him.
I'm doing quite nicely without the christian god people choose to believe in. Last I checked, I still haven't met him nor do I know anyone who has.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
19,896
Reaction score
17,565
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure what the potential likability of a long dead dude has to do with...anything?
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
2,316
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You have yet to prove the veracity of them. Until then, they are merely stories. And that doesn't really address what I said anyway.

<chuckle> You've seen tons of evidence, and all you can come up with is "No, no, no".

By your common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, you unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, and authors of the accounts, etc., to advance a false narrative about Jesus. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy of yours and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.

1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas, who saw the risen Jesus and became believers. You would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception or foolishness to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty or mental / moral shortcomings on their part.

2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.

3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning, and interviewed eyewitnesses. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So, Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also in your opinion. Likewise Mark, who wrote for Peter.

4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus had to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace.

5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.

I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now way too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable. In short, and IMO, it would take far more faith to believe in what you're trying to foist on us than what we actually see in the Gospels.

And that what you look like to Christians and believers.
 

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
10,570
Reaction score
6,791
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
<chuckle> You've seen tons of evidence, and all you can come up with is "No, no, no".

By your common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, you unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, etc., to advance a false narrative about Jesus. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy of yours and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.

1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas, who saw the risen Jesus and became believers. You would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception or foolishness to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty or mental / moral shortcomings on their part.

2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.

3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning, and interviewed eyewitnesses. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So, Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also in your opinion. Likewise Mark, who wrote for Peter.

4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus had to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace.

5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.

I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now way too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable. In short, and IMO, it would take far more faith to believe in what you're trying to foist on us than what we actually see in the Gospels.

And that what you look like to Christians and believers.
What "evidence?" The best some come up with is "testimony" or Bible quoting. Basically nothing but subjective, anecdotal, or circular reasoning. Certainly nothing objective and empirical. Its quite laughable.
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
<chuckle> You've seen tons of evidence, and all you can come up with is "No, no, no".

By your common practice of discarding or attempting to marginalize ALL historical references to Jesus, you unwittingly would have people believe in a massive and complicated conspiracy by mostly common, uneducated fishermen, and authors of the accounts, etc., to advance a false narrative about Jesus. Let's review who would probably have to be in this unwitting conspiracy of yours and be labeled as liars, charlatans, etc.

1. Most or all of the disciples, including early unbelievers such as James and Thomas, who saw the risen Jesus and became believers. You would, in effect, be assigning acts of deception or foolishness to these men in spite of there being no narrative or history of dishonesty or mental / moral shortcomings on their part.

2. The women at the tomb. First-century testimony of any kind that a resurrection never occurred is absent in history.

3. Luke, the physician and author of his Gospel. He wasn't a disciple. He wrote that he carefully investigated "everything" from the beginning, and interviewed eyewitnesses. There's no evidence he just focused on the words and accounts of the apostles alone. What's more, he continues his narrative with the Book of Acts, with additional miracles and people (including Paul, a person initially hostile to Christianity) claiming to have had experiences with Christ. Plus, Paul's companions on the road to Damascus "heard the sound" of Paul's experience with Jesus. So, Luke would have to be a liar, fool, or charlatan also in your opinion. Likewise Mark, who wrote for Peter.

4. Eusebius and Josephus and others who wrote about Jesus had to be lying, mistaken, or also in on the conspiracy to defraud the populace.

5. We need to add Paul to the conspiracy, since he wrote of the resurrection of Jesus in his epistles, and since he wrote most of the New Testament. According to Luke, Paul had an experience with the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.

6. Let's also add in all the other eyewitnesses of miracles and/or authors of the New Testament, since they must also be liars, madmen, or charlatans.

I can probably dredge up some more, but the list of people who would have to be liars, charlatans, etc., is now way too long (and unsupported by any credible evidence on the part of skeptics) to be believable. In short, and IMO, it would take far more faith to believe in what you're trying to foist on us than what we actually see in the Gospels.

And that what you look like to Christians and believers.

Historical references to Jesus do not in any way confirm anything about the supernatural claims of the Bible.

And we have ZERO eyewitness accounts of anything of Jesus. At best we have second hand accounts and even the earliest copies we have of those are from decades later and are fragmentary. We have no way of knowing what changes were made from the originals.

You seriously don’t get that the Bible is not evidence. The Bible is the claim.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
2,316
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
What "evidence?"

You're not well read either. Books you no doubt ignore -

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

“Cold Case Christianity”, by former atheist J. Warner Wallace

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

Evidence Josh McDowell.jpgCold Case Christianity.jpg
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
You're not well read either. Books you no doubt ignore -

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

“Cold Case Christianity”, by former atheist J. Warner Wallace

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

View attachment 67377626View attachment 67377627

The “Historical Jesus” is a man with no supernatural powers.

Is that the Jesus you are contending existed?
 

Gordy327

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
10,570
Reaction score
6,791
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're not well read either. Books you no doubt ignore -

"The Historical Jesus," by scholar Dr. Gary Habermas;

“The Historical Jesus of the Gospels,” by Dr. Craig Keener

“Cold Case Christianity”, by former atheist J. Warner Wallace

"New Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by former skeptic Josh McDowell;

"Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler;

"The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas.

“Miracles – The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts,” by Craig S. Keener

View attachment 67377626View attachment 67377627
Nothing but the usual empty claims based on nothing but belief and Apologetics. No objective, empirical evidence provided.
 

Logicman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
22,672
Reaction score
2,316
Location
United States
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nothing but the usual empty claims based on nothing but belief and Apologetics. No objective, empirical evidence provided.

That's stunning. You've never read any of those works and IMMEDIATELY you bark out that they're all worthless.

That's about as pathetic a synopsis as ever seen in history.

And where's your Big Boy empirical evidence for anyone in history??? Lay it out for us. Show us the scientific criteria used.

I'll tell you what that is. Empirical HORSE MANURE. All hat and no cattle on your part.
 

Questerr

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2019
Messages
21,252
Reaction score
10,907
Location
San Antonio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
That's stunning. You've never read any of those works and IMMEDIATELY you bark out that they're all worthless.

That's about as pathetic a synopsis as ever seen in history.

And where's your Big Boy empirical evidence for anyone in history??? Lay it out for us. Show us the scientific criteria used.

I'll tell you what that is. Empirical HORSE MANURE. All hat and no cattle on your part.

There’s zero empirical evidence for any kind of supernatural phenomena so the claims from the Bible that supernatural events happened can just be tossed in the garbage.
 
Top Bottom