One interesting thing I came across a while ago was that Jesus healing people was not very sensational at the time, as spiritual healers were not that rare. What blew people's minds about the healing was that he was doing it for free.
Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there's no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.
Let's say it's all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?
The physical miracle demonstrates his identity and power, but they have a spiritual significance beyond the physical. For example, raising the dead indicated that He is the Creator with power over life and death, but also that He can give spiritual life to people dead in their sins.
You can make fun of religion nowadays, sure, very original, or ignore the question and talk about historical accuracy, alright. But if you want an answer what is compelling and mythical about these stories, try not to take them literal. Just like fairytales, they have something psychological about them. E.g. when Jesus made the blind see, this is about depression and how it is cured. Try to cast a friendly eye on the whole topic.
He was literally hangry. Immediately after he curses the out-of-season tree, he goes into the temple and has his famous hissy fit, overturning tables and shit. It's basically the ultimate Snickers commercial. Read for yourself:
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
Figs are sweet, and in the old testament were a symbol for wisdom, especially wisdom from your teacher.
Jesus was condemning the corrupt religious mafia that was in cahoots with the Romans and Herod, and not doing its job in teaching and being a blessing to the people.
It‘s a tree that bears no fruit. Well-looking but not nourishing. It‘s traditioned literature for a reason. But reject the meaning and consume whatever you like, everyone
No, he wasn't. The Romans executed a Hebrew cult leader for treason/rebellion and it was a big enough deal that Tactitus commented on his followers still being pissy about it decades later.
all 50 comments