Opinion of people who think Jesus of Nazareth would be a "......." today

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Jesus was certainly political in one sense of the word, but the politics of his time was very different from the politics of our time.  However, charity is a virtue that Jesus took seriously, and very seriously, so I don't think it would matter to him whether the poor were being supported through private or public funds as long as they were being supported.  As far as general politics goes, I find using Jesus to back up specific policy positions as fallacious as using the Founding Fathers' opinions to support your own.  All those guys would be in for quite of a culture shock if they saw the world today, so what looked like a good idea back in the day might not seem so great for present time.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Option 3, because Jesus likely didn't even exist.

So, how much time did you spend researching this to come to that conclusion?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

Right.  No single picture of Jesus has convinced most scholars.  Just because scholars view Jesus from different perspectives doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence entirely.  Scientists differ on how evolution occurs; they don't doubt the whole thing because of it.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

Bear in mind that scholars of the bible, if they have faith themselves tend to be guilty of confirmation bias. The Bible does show, to the neutral observer, signs of it's own 'fabrication'. I am not in the business of giving as much of a sh-t these days to talk about it, (unless there's an asshat pastor on the street) but it's worth pointing out.

That's certainly plausible, but it's not always true.  I don't think one's faith should be considered a roadblock to their credibility as a scholar.  You could easily discredit non-Christian scholars who reject the evidence for the same reason.

I admit that the other two quotes I mentioned can be interpreted to mean heavenly salvation or whatever you people like to call it, but this one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

needs no interpretation whatsoever.

As for real historical figure of Jesus's existence...nil. The Bible is a completely self-contradictory, unreliable text that was written quite a few generations after Jesus had supposedly lived. There's very little or no physical proof of his existence either--and don't even bring up that 13th century relic, the Shroud of Turin.

Really. Quit kidding yourselves.

There is plenty of evidence for Jesus' existence.  Granted, there is a lot of dispute over whether certain events in his life are factual, but the baptism is almost universally accepted and the crucifixion is almost universally accepted.  Even Richard Dawkins thinks a man named Jesus of Nazareth probably existed.

You also can't use the Bible as an all-or-nothing accreditation of something.  The Bible isn't even a 'book'; it's a library, and it was written over a thousand years before and after Jesus' life before it became what we know it as today.

Did you read the article? Therein, it is said that the Baptism, as well as Jesus's supposed Galilean heritage--the two "accepted facts" of Jesus--aren't even agreed upon by large enough an amount of scholars to constitute a consensus.

It says "almost universal assent."  I'm willing to bet these scholars have done a good deal more research than you have.

"[N]o single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" - the article

Right.  No single picture of Jesus has convinced most scholars.  Just because scholars view Jesus from different perspectives doesn't mean we should discredit the evidence entirely.  Scientists differ on how evolution occurs; they don't doubt the whole thing because of it.

I would be willing to bet there's a much larger consensus on how evolution occurs as opposed to how this Jesus character lived and died. That's probably because there's much less to work with when it comes to Jesus--nothing more than some writings about this Jesus dude composed years and years and years and years after his supposed death.

You're missing the point.  All the facts point to the probability of there being a Jesus of Nazareth who lived, was baptized, and died at the order of Pontius Pilate.  There's reason to believe and to doubt other aspects of his life, but you won't find many scholars who outright reject his existence.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

FFs because I am one.
Jesus supported social justice in his time.
Democrats support social justice.
Therefore, Jesus would support Democrats.
It's simple logic.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

Social justice is social justice. A=A. This is a very simple logical law.

Does the Catholic Church's Magisterium mean the same set of issues when it says 'social justice' as such-and-such dot tumblr dot com means when it says 'social justice'?

They are different in practice, but they ultimately mean the same thing.

See, the thing is, A=A is a very simple logical law, but it's not always true of the way people actually use language, so...

I don't know what you're getting at.

'Social justice' means different things to different people.

My retort to that was while their 'social justice' takes different forms, both are, at the core, the same thing.

Your retort didn't really help because it didn't explain how the Democratic Party has a monopoly on that core, as opposed to just certain manifestations of it.

The Democrats do have a monopoly, though. A good gage of the social justice scene is tumblr and when tumblr only supports one party it is the social justice party. There are no republican demisexuals for a reason.

...You're not really using Tumblr as justification for why only party supports social justice, are you?