Was Jesus A Narcissist?

[CynthiaCypher]

Ok my peeples I would like to move on to criteria number seite:

7.Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

I will show you that throughout all four gospels that Jesus routinely shows a profound lack of empathy for others!

I know some of you are thinking: She is mad and as gone too too far! How can anyone seriously consider that Jesus, the Prophet of Love and Peace, the Inventor of Forgiver, the Great healer who showed nothing but kindness and tenderness to the sick and the downtrodden was so narcissistic that it could be said he lacked empathy for others.

In the words of that famous moose: Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat!

 

[CynthiaCypher]

It is only their theology that gives them any historicity. It is not a historically accepted fact that Jesus existed, only the possiblity of his existance as a real person is accepted and not by all historians.



He said many and was speaking of those we have snippits of. He also said there are those that were destroyed that we can't date because they were destroyed.

You can't say you are using a scholarly approach and then pick and choose which data to use. A scholar will study all the data before making an informed decision. You are dismissing some of the data because it doesn't match up with the theology you are accepting as history while at the same time claiming to reject its theology.

Well sorry but that is what scholars and scientist do, pick and choose the data that is pertinent to what they are trying to say or achieve.

In other words: You don't study botany if you want to build an A-bomb

 

[fallingblood]

It is only their theology that gives them any historicity. It is not a historically accepted fact that Jesus existed, only the possiblity of his existance as a real person is accepted and not by all historians.

Jesus is just as much a historical accepted fact as is Caesar. The arguments used against Jesus can also be used against Caesar. However, nearly all historians agree that they existed (in scholarly circles, this really is a nonissue).

He said many and was speaking of those we have snippits of. He also said there are those that were destroyed that we can't date because they were destroyed.

You can't say you are using a scholarly approach and then pick and choose which data to use. A scholar will study all the data before making an informed decision. You are dismissing some of the data because it doesn't match up with the theology you are accepting as history while at the same time claiming to reject its theology.

It is generally accepted that the so called "lost Gospels" or the like are of later date. They are dated later because of the theology that we see in them. We can see a progression in the theology the farther away we get away from the time of Jesus. We can also see a progression away from Judaism as we get farther from Jesus. Both of these give us good reason to dismiss their material as unimportant when looking at Jesus. These other Gospels and such are only important in showing what Christianity later became.

The Gospels we have now are most likely some of the earliest, or at least based off the earliest. And since we have nothing else, it is a great place to start as it is relatively early.

 

[Super Universe]

Ok my peeples I would like to move on to criteria number seite:

7.Lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

I will show you that throughout all four gospels that Jesus routinely shows a profound lack of empathy for others!

We're waiting...

I don't think you're "mad". I think you didn't get the life you wanted so you're upset and trying to take it out on whoever could be responsible for it.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Well sorry but that is what scholars and scientist do, pick and choose the data that is pertinent to what they are trying to say or achieve.

In other words: You don't study botany if you want to build an A-bomb

Now now, that's not what I meant and you know it. Play fair.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

We're waiting...

I don't think you're "mad". I think you didn't get the life you wanted so you're upset and trying to take it out on whoever could be responsible for it.

Actually I am a happy happy person and I feel people are responsible for their own well being not some messiah. So you fail.

As for Jesus lack of empathy I would like everyone to turn their Bibles to Matthew 15:21-28

 

[idav]

First I would like to present to you guys what the DSM-IV defines as narcissistic personality disorder, if I may:



Oh boy, oh boy. What more could I say? All one has to do is pick up your own copy of the New Testament and you will see that Jesus was a bit narcissistic to say the least. So what say you guys, was JC a narcissist?

Did he think he was some sort of chosen one? Then yes narcissistic, his way or the highway. Then he starts making followers think they are also chosen, a vicious cycle.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Jesus is just as much a historical accepted fact as is Caesar. The arguments used against Jesus can also be used against Caesar. However, nearly all historians agree that they existed (in scholarly circles, this really is a nonissue).

I don't want to take this to far off topic but I will point out that you are comparing the existance of a man to the existance of a title. I don't totally disagree with your point though, most accept that there was a real man named Jesus but there are those who do not. And many that accept him don't do so due to scientific or historically proven facts but just because they believe.

It is generally accepted that the so called "lost Gospels" or the like are of later date. They are dated later because of the theology that we see in them. We can see a progression in the theology the farther away we get away from the time of Jesus. We can also see a progression away from Judaism as we get farther from Jesus. Both of these give us good reason to dismiss their material as unimportant when looking at Jesus. These other Gospels and such are only important in showing what Christianity later became.

Sure, but there are those that weren't from later periods and those that are gone forever. In other words, there is evidence that there was evidence of contradtions within the gospels of the first two centuries. Understand, I am only pointing out the fact that there is an element of the unknown here and that element is enough to make me wonder if what we are calling the gospel was indeed the correct set of books for the NT. Accepting that they are is a matter of faith, not scholarly study.

The Gospels we have now are most likely some of the earliest, or at least based off the earliest. And since we have nothing else, it is a great place to start as it is relatively early.

Since we have nothing else you are correct.

 

[Astravalon]

As for Jesus lack of empathy I would like everyone to turn their Bibles to Matthew 15:21-28

To clarify, are you looking for Jesus having a lack of feelings of empathy in those verses, or a lack of outwardly expressed empathy?


.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

To clarify, are you looking for Jesus having a lack of feelings of empathy in those verses, or a lack of outwardly expressed empathy?


.

Oh I have other verses to prove my point. Let's just look at this incident at first

 

[Astravalon]

Oh I have other verses to prove my point. Let's just look at this incident at first

This incident is the one I'm asking for your clarification about.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This incident is the one I'm asking for your clarification about.

It is my opinion that Jesus show a profound lack of empathy in this incident. He withholds what this woman needs until he extracts what he wants from her. He wants her to validate his superiority over her and fulfill his narcissistic supply.

Total narcissistic move on Jesus' part

 

[Super Universe]

Actually I am a happy happy person and I feel people are responsible for their own well being not some messiah. So you fail.

As for Jesus lack of empathy I would like everyone to turn their Bibles to Matthew 15:21-28

Hmm, seems quite a contrast, doesn't it? How can one preach forgiveness and prevent a woman's legal stoning and then turn on another woman simply because she was not Jewish? It never happened that way, that's how.

The Apostles had so much trouble accepting the ideas Jesus presented, that all are equal in the eyes of God, even the gentile.

They absolutely believed that Jesus was more than a normal human but didn't understand why He didn't want to raise the Jews up from Roman rule.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Hmm, seems quite a contrast, doesn't it? How can one preach forgiveness and prevent a woman's legal stoning and then turn on another woman simply because she was not Jewish? It never happened that way, that's how.

The Apostles had so much trouble accepting the ideas Jesus presented, that all are equal in the eyes of God, even the gentile.

They absolutely believed that Jesus was more than a normal human but didn't understand why He didn't want to raise the Jews up from Roman rule.

So you're saying that it's not true because it doesn't fit your picture of Jesus has some sort of altruist. Well you see that incident about saving the adulteress is uncanonical. Most scholars agree that the incident has no place in scripture and the incident I refer to about Jesus being an ******* to a minority, independent attestations. It's in two gospels, so it probably happened

 

[Astravalon]

It is my opinion that Jesus show a profound lack of empathy in this incident. He withholds what this woman needs until he extracts what he wants from her. He wants her to validate his superiority over her and fulfill his narcissistic supply.

Total narcissistic move on Jesus' part

He does seem to outwardly demonstrate a lack of empathy, or at the very least a hesitancy to express whatever empathy he may have been feeling. The verse doesn't seem to speak as to whether he was actually feeling empathetic; I would say he was feeling some measure of empathy to conclude the exchange with the woman by granting her request. Then again, one doesn't have to necessarily empathize with someone in order to remedy their situation I suppose.

Out of all the material I have read concerning narcissism, I really wish there was something out there that detailed what narcissism is like from the perspective of the narcissist him/herself. For example, do they not feel any empathy at all, or is it that they can/do empathize but choose not to act on that feeling for whatever reason. Most of the material I've read seems to approach narcissism from the vantage-point of those witnessing the behavior from the outside rather than first-hand experience as to what is going through the mind of the narcissist. (Sorry... I'm digressing a bit there, lol!)


.

 

[Hawkeye112200]

First I would like to present to you guys what the DSM-IV defines as narcissistic personality disorder, if I may:



Oh boy, oh boy. What more could I say? All one has to do is pick up your own copy of the New Testament and you will see that Jesus was a bit narcissistic to say the least. So what say you guys, was JC a narcissist?

So why create a thread name with a question and then proceed to immediately answer your own question?

Seems to me you might fit the same definition of narsasicm.

How about just start a thread simply titled "I think Jesus is X", "because in a medical handbook it says X". What is it you want to debate?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

He does seem to outwardly demonstrate a lack of empathy, or at the very least a hesitancy to express whatever empathy he may have been feeling. The verse doesn't seem to speak as to whether he was actually feeling empathetic; I would say he was feeling some measure of empathy to conclude the exchange with the woman by granting her request. Then again, one doesn't have to necessarily empathize with someone in order to remedy their situation I suppose.

Out of all the material I have read concerning narcissism, I really wish there was something out there that detailed what narcissism is like from the perspective of the narcissist him/herself. For example, do they not feel any empathy at all, or is it that they can/do empathize but choose not to act on that feeling for whatever reason. Most of the material I've read seems to approach narcissism from the vantage-point of those witnessing the behavior from the outside rather than first-hand experience as to what is going through the mind of the narcissist. (Sorry... I'm digressing a bit there, lol!)


.

I think he is showing his true colors in this incident. It's obvious he feels Jews are superior to gentiles, he calls this woman and her child - dogs. Basically he wants to put her in her place and get her to admit her inferiority

 

[CynthiaCypher]

So why create a thread name with a question and then proceed to immediately answer your own question?

Seems to me you might fit the same definition of narsasicm.

How about just start a thread simply titled "I think Jesus is X", "because in a medical handbook it says X". What is it you want to debate?

I would be the first to admit I am a narcissist. No problem there. But unlike little Mr. High and Mighty Jesus of Nazareth I can admit it

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I would be the first to admit I am a narcissist. No problem there. But unlike little Mr. High and Mighty Jesus of Nazareth I can admit it

And how would he have done that? :sarcastic

In 1898 Havelock Ellis, an English sexologist, used the term "narcissus-like" in reference to excessive masturbation, whereby the person becomes his or her own sex object.
In 1899, Paul Näche was the first person to use the term "narcissism" in a study of sexual perversions.
Otto Rank in 1911 published the first psychoanalytical paper specifically concerned with narcissism, linking it to vanity and self-admiration.
Sigmund Freud only published a single paper exclusively devoted to narcissism in 1914 called On Narcissism: An Introduction.

It seems the term as you use it came about a couple thousand years after Christ.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

And how would he have done that? :sarcastic



It seems the term as you use it came about a couple thousand years after Christ.

The Greeks had a term for it back then and wrote alot about it. So he has no excuse