I like Jesus. How about you?

[socialshockwave]

Seriously. I think atheists and Christians alike can agree Jesus did some good.

Even if atheists believe He didn't exist.

[cleanhippie]

1. .

[socialshockwave]

2. I can be an attack dog, too! See?

[cleanhippie]

3. .

[FLyellowdog]

24. A beautiful furkid!!!!! nt

[amyrose2712]

4. HA I want that smiley.

[rug]

27. You may want to wash it first.

[cleanhippie]

48. Is that what the priest says?

[rug]

51. No, I heard it at a demo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/numan/5166844617/

[amyrose2712]

59. Nah, I prefer it unclean like the heathen I am.

At least that's what my sister says.:eyes:

[Poll_Blind]

5. "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

"The materialism of affluent Christian countries appears to contradict the claims of Jesus Christ that says it's not possible to worship both Mammon and God at the same time." -Gandhi

PB

[RKP5637]

43. Same. I have no problem with Jesus, it's the people that worship him that

I have a problem with.

[PETRUS]

6. I'm not sure atheists dispute his existence.

Just his divinity.

He had a hell of a message, even after the "telephone game" got through with it.

Love.

[socialshockwave]

7. I agree with the Gandhi quote. People corrupt Jesus's true teachings

and use them for personal gain. It's something true Christians find abhorrent.

[darkstar3]

12. There's no such thing as a "true Christian".

[socialshockwave]

13. That is why

we need to live as well as we can in accordance with Jesus's teachings.

Love one another. Care for the poor, the sick. Treat each other fair, equally and lovingly.

Kinda like progressivism. Huh.

[darkstar3]

16. Whip the money changers, curse the trees that give you untasty fruit,

force the woman from outside the tribe to grovel at your feet before you'll bless her, and lie to your followers when you tell them you'll be back before they die.

I can play the "Jesus' words and actions" game, too, and I do it far more nicely than the actual Christians who would call you a heretic.

[PETRUS]

54. If you like those, you'd have a ball

...with the texts that didn't get canonized. The council of Nicea chose not to include the story of teenaged Jesus striking someone dead for being in his way.

[bananas]

60. 7% of DUers believe Jesus never existed, 35% believe he did, 58% not sure

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x59818

benburch (1000+ posts) Wed Apr-05-06

Poll question: Do you believe that Jesus existed, and do you believe there is real proof?

Just in time for Easter - Where do you sit on the Jesus story?

Poll result (131 votes)
Jesus existed, and there is real historical proof. (42 votes, 32%) Vote
Jesus existed, but there is no real historical proof. (4 votes, 3%) Vote
Jesus might have existed, there is some arguable historical evidence. (11 votes, 8%) Vote
Jesus might have existed, but there is no real historical proof. (40 votes, 31%) Vote
Jesus might have existed, but there is some arguable evidence that he never did. (4 votes, 3%) Vote
Jesus never existed, and there is proof that he never existed. (4 votes, 3%) Vote
Jesus never existed, but there is not historical proof one way or the other. (0 votes, 0%) Vote
Jesus never existed, but there can be no absolute proof that he never did. (5 votes, 4%) Vote
It doesn't matter if Jesus existed or not, because there is no God. (16 votes, 12%) Vote
Other, please explain. (5 votes, 4%) Vote

[bananas]

61. You missed all the "Zeitgeist" movie atheist conspiracy theories

Search DU for zeitgeist movie, historical jesus, etc.

[Goblinmonger]

8. I like Huck Finn. How about you?

I mean, sure, he was a pretty solid racist at the beginning, but he grew a lot over his trip down the river and came to realize that all humans are worth something regardless of their color. Pretty solid lesson. Much better prose than the Bible, too.

[socialshockwave]

9. Jesus loves us all. The Bible teaches that. n/t

It's the church leaders who utterly twist His true message for personal gain and profit.

When they go before their Lord this is what will happen:

"Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
-Matthew 7:23

[darkstar3]

14. Except the people he will condemn to hell for eternity.

One cannot love what one is willing to destroy.

[socialshockwave]

15. Hell is reserved for the most evil of evils.

Sinning does not get you a one way ticket. Sin is part of being human.

If you go through life and are evil and never repent....well. Satan will be waiting. People like this guy:

[darkstar3]

18. And how does one who has never known of God or Jesus repent of their natural sin?

And that doesn't even get into the fact that you didn't answer my point: You cannot love that which you are willing to destroy.

[socialshockwave]

19. Spread the Word. Let people know the true Christianity

and let them make their own choices.

[darkstar3]

20. A second dodge, and further proof that you ignore the following fact of your belief:

If you're right, then there are literally millions of souls in hell simply for the crime of not knowing that they were sinful, and being unable to avoid such sin because "it's human nature".

[socialshockwave]

21. Jesus died to forgive all sin. Not just Christian's.

Maybe I'm taking a liberal view of Christianity but I just want people to know "hey, there's a God who loves you." and "Jesus died for you". Let them make their own choices.

Jesus died so you could bash Him, Darkstar. :)

[darkstar3]

22. Jesus didn't actually die, but that couldn't be further from the point.

Are you now saying that Jesus' alleged sacrifice covers everyone? Because that contradicts your post #9.

[socialshockwave]

23. Those who uses Jesus's message and twist it for personal gain

are committing blasphemy. They will say they kill and they exploit for Jesus, but Jesus will deny them when they meet Him.

[darkstar3]

25. So God does send people to hell.

Now, in your faith, what is the path to salvation?

[socialshockwave]

26. It differs for everyone. For me, love yourself, believe in the Lord and be a good person.

People who never -knew- about Jesus will not be punished. It is not their fault.

[darkstar3]

30. The path to salvation is different for everyone?

How do you support that assertion? That hardly seems like something you'd find in the Bible.

[socialshockwave]

31. Some people interpret the Bible differently. n/t

[darkstar3]

33. So show me how you do it. Support the assertion.

[socialshockwave]

34. I'll admit to you I'm currently going to be reading the Bible.

But I know that some people interpret it differently then I do or will.

I admit my shortcomings. But I'm still strong in faith.

[darkstar3]

37. Read carefully.

[socialshockwave]

38. I don't understand the question, then. n/t

[darkstar3]

39. I meant your Bible. Read it carefully.

When the chance arises, come on back and tell me how your view of the path to salvation is supported by scripture.

[socialshockwave]

40. Oh. Shall do.

I really have respect for all religious beliefs, including atheism. A large amount of my friends are atheists and they and I get along just fine.

So don't think I'm some kind of anti-religious freedom kind of person.

[darkstar3]

41. It might help me to see that if you didn't refer to atheism as a religious belief.

[cleanhippie]

50. *facepalm* Dude, you just HAD to end with some total bullshit nonsense, huh?h

I almost thought you were a reasonable person there for just a second, then BLAMMO! you toss in that bullshit line.


Jesus is proud, my man, jesus is proud.

[LAGC]

74. According to you, it would be the utmost crime to spread Christianity anywhere.

After all, people are better off in ignorance than they are of knowing about Jesus and rejecting him anyway.

So why support Christianity being spread at all?

[trotsky]

45. Well obviously not ALL sin.

Since you believe hell exists, and some souls are there. Ergo, clearly there is sin that Jesus cannot forgive.

[ZombieHorde]

35. Why do you hate Mario? nt

[trotsky]

44. So you believe in hell, huh?

Odd. There are several Christians right here in this forum who say that TRUE Christians don't believe in hell. Apparently they are wrong and you are right - making YOU the true Christian, I guess. Thanks for this post - I will put it in my bookmarks to show those fake DU Christians who the real one is.

[Tyrs WolfDaemon]

10. While might does not always make right, I like...

[darkstar3]

11. How can a man who didn't exist do good?

[RevStPatrick]

17. One thing I'll say for him...

...Jesus was cool.

[FLyellowdog]

28. The Jesus I knew personally

was in one of my elementary school classes and he wasn't all that nice, as I recall. Maybe that was a different Jesus. :shrug:

[socialshockwave]

29. I think that was a different Jesus. n/t

[FLyellowdog]

32. Probably. nt

[safeinOhio]

36. I like

Siddhartha Gautama also. Perhaps more.

[stopbush]

42. The Jesus of the Bible is a fucking megalomaniacal asshole.

But it's all fiction, so it doesn't really matter that he said you needed to hate your family to be his follower, does it?

[customerserviceguy]

46. You're right

I have no idea that there was a real "Jesus" that existed, but the legendary Jesus, well, like Hercules, he's OK by me.

[darkstar3]

47. BTW, that's an awfully Aryan Jesus.

[laconicsax]

49. You don't expect him to post a Jesus that doesn't look like him, do you?

[AsahinaKimi]

52. I prefer the

big guy..

[DirkGently]

53. Guy's a little pale for a Nazarene. Empathy's an excellent idea. Don't hear it much from churches.

[LeftishBrit]

55. Yes.

I don't like some of the people who claim to act in his name, however.

[socialshockwave]

56. You and I both, LeftishBrit. n/t

[trotsky]

57. You may want to consider *your* actions in his name, then. n/t

[SecularMotion]

58. Jesus loves you

Everyone else thinks your an asshole

Disclaimer - this is a bumpersticker not a personal attack

[Angry Dragon]

62. you're

[SecularMotion]

66. correct

[rrneck]

63. Dunno. Never met him. nt

[MikeH]

64. I myself now feel indifferent about the person of Jesus; let me explain

I used to be a Christian. One thing I understood to be the point of the Christian faith, and which I took seriously, was that Jesus Christ is supposed to be alive today (after having been resurrected), and that one can have a personal relationship with him, and that such a relationship makes a transforming difference in a person's life. One supposedly can be given the "gift of the Holy Spirit", can be "indwelt by the Holy Spirit (or spirit of Christ)", can have the "peace of Christ", and can "walk in newness of life". One can have "eternal life", which I have understood is supposed to begin now, in this present life, and not after one dies.

I understood that being a Christian was supposed to be about more than just following the moral teachings of Jesus Christ, and accepting certain duties and obligations (i.e. things one "should" do, one is "supposed to" do, or "ought to" do). Christ is supposed to be in a person (if the person has accepted him), acting in a person, operating in a person, empowering a person, and supposedly enabling a person to "live victoriously" in Christ.

I myself once "accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior", and took the above things seriously, and came to realize after a period of roughly 15 years that my supposed "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" had never been of any help to me in my life, or in enabling me to deal with any issues or distressing circumstances in my life, or in enabling me to deal with anything that was a source of pain, frustration, or unhappiness for me.

I also had some problems with some things that some Christians believe, specifically that a person is "saved" by "accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior", and only by doing so, and only in this life. In other words, too bad for those who miss their chance in this life, for whatever reason. And too bad for those who happen to guess wrong by adhering to a religion other than Christianity. Even if I might have "accepted Jesus Christ" for myself, I could never accept having to have the terrible thought in the back of my mind that OTHERS are either "saved" or "unsaved", and I could never accept the duty and obligation to tell others about Christ with that thought in the back of my mind and motivated by that concern (which is something that Jesus said we are supposed to do).

I also had some problems with believing that this particular book, the Bible, is "infallible" or "inerrant".

That being the case, I eventually came to part company with the Christian faith; in particular I have absolved myself of any and all duties and obligations specifically imposed by the faith (as to those incumbent on any good or moral person). I am actually happy about having done so, and feel as certain as I am of anything that this was the right and healthy thing for me to do.

One thing resulting from this is that I now regard Jesus as being no more than somebody who might have been a historical person. (I have no more than a general knowledge of ancient or biblical history, so I am not in a position to say whether I think he really existed; and in any case it now doesn't make any difference to me personally).

Jesus said and did (or allegedly said and did) some very good things; however some things he allegedly said and did are quite questionable; some of these were alluded to in post 16 above. It is one of the Christian doctrines that Jesus was perfect, which I no longer accept.

I do not have any particular strong feelings of love or hate toward Jesus, and I do not feel that he imposes any more of any obligation on me than does any other historical figure. I can use my critical facilities to evaluate what I think of anything that Jesus said or did, just like I can of anything that anybody else has said or done. And if I do have strong feelings, either positive or negative, toward anybody, it is toward people today who are (or claim to be) preachers or followers of Jesus.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

65. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.

Lots of ancient gods with the same life story..Mithra, Apollo, Osiris.

[kwassa]

75. There is no historical evidence that Jesus didn't exist.

considering how little historical evidence of any kind from that era exists for this region.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. You know that's not an argument for his existence, right?

If there's scant evidence for or against his existence, then the reasonable position is to say he most likely didn't exist.

Also, there were quite a few historical figures from around his time and quite a bit further in the past whose existence could be verified. Just saying.

[kwassa]

77. uhm, no.

The position you have stated is not reasonable.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

To quote Carl Sagan on the subject.

There was little historical record of anything in this era in the area. As I already stated.

[darkstar3]

78. That's an abuse of that Sagan quote.

Had you read the book, you'd know that statement was ironic and that he actually meant the opposite. Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

[kwassa]

82. No, it isn't, actually. And Sagan is not the only person to make that statement.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence at all.

[darkstar3]

83. Yes, it is, as others have pointed out. Sagan was summarizing a logical fallacy

known as "argument from ignorance." Read The Demon Hauted World.

[kwassa]

85. You and several others are making the "argument from ignorance" here

as are all that assert that Jesus didn't exist because there is no historical record of him.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).<1>

Clearly, there is no evidence of anything that is conclusive in any way. To state that Jesus didn't exist because there is no historical record of him is completely unreasonable. There is very little historical evidence of anything from that era in this area of the world.

It is simply your prejudice, and nothing more.

[darkstar3]

86. So I point out that the Sagan quote is a summary of the argument from ignorance,

and you Google it and get the first link you can, and then completely ignore the point of our conversation?

The quote you pulled from Sagan is not his actual stance on any subject, but a demonstration of a fallacy. Go read the book and learn a little more about Sagan and maybe even the world in which we live.

[kwassa]

87. The point of whose conversation? Yours, or mine?

I am talking about the argument itself that a lack of historical record indicated that Jesus never existed.

I have not read Sagan, nor am I particularly interested in him. I did watch his Cosmos show a zillion years ago.

I am sure I am misusing his quote, and this doesn't bother me in the slightest. I was using the "absence of evidence" quote long before I heard that Sagan had used it. I found it ironic that he was, though I didn't and still don't know the context.

The point it the point; a lack of a historical record proves nothing at all.

And, my new point, as I did look up argument-from-ignorance on Google, is that this exact argument that some make in this very thread. They are in fact guilty of the fallacy they quote.

[darkstar3]

88. The problem with your point is that it flies in the face of Occam's Razor.

You see, you say here (correctly) that there is a lack of historical evidence for Jesus. Now tell me why there is any reason, especially in light of Occam's Razor, to entertain the possibility of his historicity (especially in light of the fact that the Gospels actually contradict what little historical record we have)?

Oh, and thank you for finally admitting that you misused the quote. That was the original point of this little subthread.

[kwassa]

89. So? Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything, either.

It is a theory about proof, unproven in itself.

I have no doubt that Jesus existed. The idea that a religion sprang up so quickly and left written evidence within a century of his death that was so specific about his life would require a major and wildly improbable conspiracy among many people, fooling a large number of other people.
That defies common sense. Now, exactly what Jesus said and did is a much greater argument.

There is a vast discussion on the subject here, if you would like to read up on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[darkstar3]

90. I don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of anything.

However, regarding your argument, Joseph Smith started a whole new offshoot of Christianity all by himself, without any help from a major and wildly improbable conspiracy. L. Ron Hubbard started a whole new religion by writing a single fictitious book.

My point? The creation of a religion with a few writings (that contradict other historical records and appear several decades after the supposed foundational events) is proof of nothing.

ETA: You've contradicted yourself. In #87 you flatly admitted that there is a lack of historical evidence, and now in #89 you use the word evidence to support your assertion of Jesus' historicity.

[kwassa]

91. The Wiki article is very long, very annotated and referenced.

and neither Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard created a fictional Messiah, a person that many allegedly saw and interacted with. Smith met an angel, which nobody saw but him, and I have no idea what Hubbard saw.

It would be much harder creating a fictional person, particularly with a strong oral tradition preceding the written-down Gospels, and it would require a conspiracy among a group of people, not the work of single individual like Smith or Hubbard. The likely conspiracy group would have to be the apostles. What would be their motivation for doing so?

My point is that there is no conclusive independent historical proof one way or another than Jesus really existed. This does not make him a myth. It simply means that this type of proof doesn't exist, which isn't all that surprising considering how few historical sources in the ancient era survive at all.

Read the Wiki article, it is really quite interesting.

[PassingFair]

93. Right, Rumsfeld would agree with your argument here! nt

Only the WMD's weren't there.

Just at the absence of evidence suggested.

:eyes:

[laconicsax]

79. I love it when people trot out that Sagan quote!

Nine times out of ten, they don't understand that it's a summary of a fallacy.

Because it often helps for things to be repeated, Sagan gave "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" as a summary of the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Read the book before you quote it next time.

[Humanist_Activist]

80. As others said, you are misquoting Sagan, but that's not the point...

interpreting the quote as you did is just wrong. You would have to argue that damn near every mythological and legendary person mentioned in any ancient text actually existed because many records from most of those eras are incomplete or lost entirely. Romulus, Remus, Hercules, Odysseus, Gilgamesh, Mithras, etc.; are but a few examples you would have to argue existed at one time or another as portrayed in many different literary sources.

[kwassa]

84. I would have to do no such thing.

We have no independent historical evidence that Jesus existed. This proves only one thing: We have no independent historical evidence that Jesus existed.

Hundreds of millions have lived and died on this planet without a historical record.

This does not mean that they didn't exist.

[Iggo]

67. I like Gandalf better. (n/t)

[ChadwickHenryWard]

72. I just realized that Gandalf was dead for three days.

I never realized the parallel until just now. They don't really discuss it in the films, but after Gandalf falls from the Bridge of Kazad-dum ("Fly, you fools!" in the film) he is mortally wounded slaying the Balrog and dies on the mountaintop. He is dead for three days (he experiences the time as tens or hundreds of thousands of years) but is sent back to Middle-Earth by the Vaiar (the gods of LOTR.) This three days of death directly parallels the three days that Jesus was "dead" in the Bible. I have never recognized any allegorical similarity between Gandalf and Jesus before. I have always thought that there was some half-baked similarity between Frodo's suffering and sacrifice and that of Jesus, but it falls apart when Frodo becomes corrupt and refuses to destroy the One Ring. Besides, I always thought Sam was the real hero.

[frogmarch]

68. I don't think you'd

catch him cuddling a piglet like he's cuddling the lamb in that picture. I don't think that he, as a Jew, was fond of pigs.

According to Matthew, Jesus exorcised demons out of two men and cast the demons into a herd of 2000 pigs, which then ran down a steep cliff and drowned in the sea.

In doing this, Jesus accomplished two things: He got rid of the demons and kept people from eating pork (unless some carcasses could be salvaged).

Are there any Bible verses that describe instances of Jesus being kind to animals, even lambs?

Had Jesus really existed, he probably would have looked more like this than the Jesus in the picture you posted:

[AngkorWot]

69. I liked him better when he knew kung fu and hanged out with Morpheus.

[Jokerman]

70. "Jesus, I like him very much, but he no help with curveball."

- Pedro Cerrano

[ChadwickHenryWard]

71. Partially.

The admonition that we should consider those that are most wronged by society ("least of my brothers," I believe the Gospels have it) is very important. It meshes nicely with the modern labor precept of "solidarity." Consider Debs's statement "While there is a lower class I am in it; while there is a criminal element I am of it; while there is a soul in prison I am not free."

Other than that, I find Jesus's moral pronouncements to be very problematic. It has been noted that the afterlife is for the most part absent from the Old Testament - the worst punishment one can receive is death. In the New Testament, however, we see the arise of eternal punishment after death. In this way the morality of the New Testament is even harsher than that of the Old (contrary to popular conception.) The contention that only those who worship him/Yahweh can get to heaven can be viewed as religious intolerance. Likewise, when Jesus orders us to cut off our hand or put out our eye if it induces us to sin, it is not uncharitable to characterize him as a religious fanatic. Ditto for the assertion that feeling anger is morally equivalent to murder, or that feeling lust is morally equivalent to adultery. This is thought crime, and Jesus comes off as somewhat of an extremist. Most problematic of all is the admonition to "resist not an evil man." There is quite simply nothing moral about going willingly with a man who kidnaps you, giving more than he would take to a thief, and inviting a man who has just physically accosted you to do so again. While "turn the other cheek" is on some level better than "an eye for an eye," it is still at base a morally flawed formulation.

[Marrah_G]

73. Not an atheist or a christian and I don't know that he did some good

nor do I even know if he existed. I do know his followers and the followers of his supposed father have caused massive amounts of death, destruction and oppression to humanity for quite a long time. Personally I think the world would be a far better place had none of the big three taken root.

[Book Lover]

81. For someone who never married, he sure had a strong and unfounded opinion about divorce

That was presumptuous of him. Perhaps it was borne of the brashness of youth.

[dmallind]

92. I am going to try to answer seriously

It's a question that can be asked of characters ranging from the entirely fictional to the entirely factual after all. As with most non-living characters we only can refer to their reported statements and actions, and on the affect they have in their narrative. I am fairly sure I have read everything available purporting to be a true narrative, both canon and discarded. Obviously I have barely scratched the surface reading books intended as analysis, but have been through a few. I'll try to not let the latter color my opinion, as with this character it's hard to avoid a preconceived bias either way.

As described then in various stories of his life, I find Jesus to be a conflicted hero archetype, torn between sincere fellowship with lesser characters, and contemptuous dismissal. It seems his patience or otherwise is difficult to predict, and not always although often based on the interlocutor's status as follower or would-be antagonist. We certainly see both snappish scorn and benign gentleness in dealings with his most faithful supporting cast, but we also see both great forbearance and withering contempt at various times applied to his enemies. This is not unusual of course in characters far above their counterparts. We see similar behavior in Gandalf for example. It's easily understandable, as we have a crucial dilemma common to those who rarely face an equal, and instead are constrained into helping those who seem infuriatingly helpless without the hero. Condescendingly overcome all their obstacles, but turn them into hapless stooges who neither learn nor grow, or leave them to suffer hardships you could easily remove, but encourage their unpredictable, and potentially malevolent, development? As with Gandalf et al, Jesus vacillates between the two approaches, curing ailments at a touch here, even resurrecting the dead there, but refusing to even criticize an overweening regime that oppresses his friends but could not stand against his powers.

Another contrast is between word and deed, and also to a lesser degree within both. A fine orator who spends much of his time encouraging a humble but potent benevolence in deeply sincere and occasionally even sublime rhetoric, he demonstrates it himself only sporadically, often lashing out at minor provocations with absurd overreactions. He preaches unlimited forgiveness for those who wrong his friends, while causing the death of his childhood bully and cursing a tree that did not have fruit for him, even our of season. He violently flies off the handle at tradesmen who corrupt the decorum he seeks in a specific aspect of his religion, and then offers naught but love and assistance to those who despise the totality of his religion. Again and again we see heartstopping altruism offered to some, and petty vindictiveness to others, in word or deed. While this is often in response to the object's own opinion of Jesus, he seems sometimes in reverse to dismiss the needs of those closest to him while offering his all to those opposed. Jesus, it seems, decides to rise up or put down on an alarmingly mercurial whim. But we must remind ourselves that he acts not only with greater power but greater insight. To continue with the Gandalf parallel, we only find out ourselves why Gollum is saved by the wizard much later on, and realize he was right; we never find out why the giant eagle that brings Frodo and Sam back from Mt. Doom could not have simply taken them there in the first place, saving countless lives and immense hardship. We suspect Gandalf knew, and acted for his own reasons. Why can we not extend Jesus the same grace?

Jesus' own behavior and self-characterization also bears out this conflicted hero status. He effortlessly outwits his greatest enemy, and closest counterpart in power, early on and has no more trouble from that quarter. However his much more limited adversaries, the priesthood and authorities of his own humble people in a minor vassal state, seem to stymie him repeatedly, and manage to keep many of his natural allies ranged against him on their own side. His soaring rhetoric, erratically demonstrated but jaw-dropping powers, and gripping, well-packaged philosophy should by rights have caused a determined and unflagging following across all demographics during his life, at least equal to that after it, but Jesus' dis-ingenuousness works against him here too. He refuses to maintain a consistent definition of his own status and role. He switches from seeking out and inspiring multitudes to a kind of Garbo-esque self-imposed exile. He sometimes is willing to prove his otherworldly power and sometimes not. His teaching style is sometimes clear and magisterial, especially when discussing moral precepts, and sometimes shifting and shapeless, especially, ironically, when discussing christology and soteriology. While he himself grapples with his role in word and deed, most commentators after him see his central focus as bringing a new revelation, a new covenant and a way to achieve eternal blessed life. It is, maddeningly, about these very matters that he is most imprecise and contradictory. Faith? Works? Catholic? Restricted? Kosher? Gentile? Dispensationalist? Supersessionist? Adoptionistic? Modalistic? Trinitarian? We'll never know from the one who by definition most have known best of all. Sometimes though the reader of those writings about Jesus (he left none of his own as far as we know) is left with the unavoidable conclusion that even he didn't know. That it wasn't coyness or a desire to lead people to the answer rather than dictate it that made Jesus so infuriatingly fungible about himself. Maybe we should conclude the conflict runs even to this level - Jesus could not work out what he was and what he should be rather than that he simply would not spell it out. His own death personifies this. Depending on the telling of the story, Jesus is either a tower of strength or a cowering abject sap. He is either demonstrating the crowning glory of a life devoted to being sn example for others or simply a stoic sufferer of a terrible undeserved fate. An even vaguely active reading of the Jesus stories tells us pretty clearly that he thought we should be humble, forgiving, preternaturally charitable, and above all loving. The lifetime's work though of deeply committed and devastatingly intelligent readers, for 2000 years or so, has been unable to tease out one consistent coherent universally credible version of what the man himself thought of the man himself. What else can my paltry intellect conclude then but that here we see the story of a conflicted hero, reflecting not only the multiplicity of accounts, but the multiplicity of character traits, motivations and conclusions we see in Jesus both within an between these accounts?

I've cited Gandalf a few times, but in the final analysis the parallel collapses. Reading about him, admittedly with the advantage of one narrative not the many abut Jesus, we are left not understanding his exact nature, his exact motivation,just as in Jesus. But we are left at least with the reassuring idea that he HAD an exact nature and motivation, and knew it himself. From the inner point of view rather than the purely plot-driven elements, a closer analogy may be the Matrix's Neo. A hero unsure of the extent and purpose of his powers, who strives inconsistently and reacts unpredictably, who seems variously omnipotent and clueless, and who eventually, like Jesus, collapses into a contradictory incoherent mass of limitless potential wasted on a fleeting illusion of self-destructive success that may or may not help the lesser followers who are left as conflicted and as confused as the hero himself - their own natures writ large in archetype.