Also, the Jewish God and Muslim Allah are on the International Space Station.
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
940 points (95.2% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26896 readers
2554 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Mary Magdalene. It's never explicitly stated in the canonical Bible (as if that means anything), but they were very close.
She was just one of His many followers, it's quite an absurd speculation. Also doesn't say that she was a prostitute anywhere.
True. If only the was more than one story from his life between being a child, and being in his 30s... Oh well I guess we'll just have to assume he lived as a monk and denied himself of anything pleasurable 🙄
Though I recently learned that there is a book about it, it's just that it wasn't chosen to be "canonical," and therefore means you can ignore it completely? Curiously, Jesus does some really fucked up things in that book, including showing off his powers, and killing people just to bring them back to life. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is the book btw.
Who gets to decide that book isn't true but the rest are?
The infancy Gospel of Thomas was written well over one hundred years after Jesus had already left earth, in the second century. It claimed that Jesus performed random frivolous miracles for fun, when the Gospel of John said that the water to wine miracle was the first. We also don't know who "Thomas the Israelite" is either.
It's likely just something someone made up to try and give a narrative for Jesus' childhood.
Jesus also likely cast the demons out of Mary Magdalene while in His thirties. Jesus wouldn't need a female partner if He actually was truly God.
When were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John written?
Here, let me save you a quick Google:
Oh look at that.
Lol ok bud. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
What are you trying to prove? The infancy gospel of thomas was written likely around 180AD and even then, people were already calling it out as being a fake.
You clearly aren't looking for an open-minded discussion by calling me "delusional", anyway.
Imagine using such a piss poor method of finding truth for literally anything in your life besides religion.
Would you consider me delusional if I told you that I have an invisible dragon in my garage, and that he's died several times, and has returned to Earth after each time?
Do you have proof of this invisible dragon?
I'm glad you asked!
Come on by my garage, the dragon's right there. Though I guess I did forget to mention that he's invisible.
(In case you weren't aware, I'm referencing a famous Carl Sagan essay/short story from his book "The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark" and obviously he did a much better job laying it out than I ever could. Here is the text of the essay plus explanation: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Dragon_in_My_Garage. By the way, incredible book that should be required reading for every adult human on the planet.)
Here is the conclusion of the essay where he does a pretty good job explaining what the point of it was:
I do ask you though, how would you prove God, if He was real? It's not like you can say "if God is real, then ice would melt if exposed to heat", could you? What proof would convince you, personally?
I don't know. Scientific evidence that is reproducible would be a good start. The scientific method is the only method I'm aware of that we have to accurately explain and predict the natural processes surrounding us.
One thing I do know, if I were God and I wanted people to know I was real, I would know exactly how to do that. There wouldn't be a question about which sect is correct, because I am all-knowing; I know exactly what it would take for each person.
But we also know that there are people who will not go to heaven, and instead will suffer for eternity in absence of God... So that means that there are people (quite a few) that God created knowing full well that they are "destined" to burn for eternity. Sorry, but that's really fucked up.
The scientific method isn't the only method. It cannot explain why the United Kingdom formed or why WWII happened.
I think it is a matter of perspective. Phil walked into a room and the kettle was boiling. Gregory was already in that room. Phil asked Gregory why the kettle was boiling. Gregory started talking about the heating element, electricity, how it heats the water, why water boils, etc. Then Bill walks in, and Phil asks Bill why the kettle is boiling. Bill responds with "because I wanted a cup of tea!"
Then, there is the historical method.
You say that there wouldn't be a question over what sect is correct. But history records a man who lived around two thousand years ago who said he is "the only way". He also claimed that he was God. Was he just a madman? Anyone can claim to be god. Well, no, because he had miracles to back him up. He was born of a virgin as well and ended up being executed, then somehow coming back to life, and was seen by many people. Then he was seen ascending into heaven. Not only does our past history point to this man, but his past history pointed to this man. There are writings predicting him that even outdate him. And it's not like throwing spaghetti towards the wall, as those writings were being actively held to those people that held them - yet many of them who witnessed his miracles did not believe, one even betrayed him. And then after death, he sent his spirit to aid many people in telling the world about him. To this day, people count the year based on days since his birth.
What I tell you is good news. This man is not just a man. He is Jesus Christ. History points to him.
Salvation is a free gift from Jesus. Even the tiny amount of faith saves from Hell. And if you think this is still mean, that doesn't disprove the reality. The fact your body will decay in the earth and you'll probably be forgotten is a cruel fact which many don't like, but it is reality.
Salvation is free. And it's offered to everybody. No matter their race, age, gender or background.
Empirical reasoning, of which the scientific method is a tool. If you think history is the same thing as faith, then you have no idea what reality is. We don't even know if Jesus even really existed, a problem that we don't have for others who were alive at that time. The Bible isn't a historical record.
My friend, don't waste your time. As soon as I saw that you're attempting to proselytize, I chose not to continue reading your comment. I spent ~20 years of my life as an evangelical Christian, and I probably know the Bible better than you do. I have no interest in your hateful ideology.
I honestly feel bad for people like you... You dedicate your life to a lie, while simultaneously becoming a smug loser that nobody wants to talk to because they never shut the fuck up about the invisible magic man that has a history of accepting large amounts of children's foreskins as a gift. Totally normal, reasonable stuff. Makes complete sense.
Don't even want to get started on Job. Or the horrific events that took place with Lot's family in Sodom & Gamorrah. Or the first born Egyptian kids who didn't deserve to die. blahblahblabh etc.
Your god isn't even the good guy in his own book.
The Bible is more of a historical record than a scientific textbook. Around the same time of Jesus, Mt Vesuvius erupted destroying Pompeii. An event that was likely witnessed by tens of thousands of people and killed many wealthy romans. Yet we only have one historical record of it from it's time. The rest of the records are archaeological. Historical figures accept the birthplace of Julius Caesar as Suburra, Italy, without question, despite there only being a single source written 175 years written after the fact. The earliest source we have to Alexander the great was written around 300 years after his death, yet people accept that without question. Heck, going back to birthplaces, we even have three accounts within 90 years of Jesus existence and archaeological evidence of very early first century pilgrimages to show that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Yet people dispute that, and you claim that "We don't even know if Jesus even existed"
It seems your main problem is that personally, you think that God is "mean", so therefore you try and convince yourself that He doesn't exist, even if it means applying an unfair standard to the historicity of Jesus.
Many Evangelical circles don't teach you crap, they deliberately empty the faith to it's barebones. Some of them are very toxic and really just care about politics. Knowing just the Bible and nothing else without knowing how it came about and early church history, historical context, etc, can leave someone lost. But like how the father forgave his prodigal son and partied, you can always come back to God.
So I would recommend dropping the intellectually-dishonest standards and coming back to Him.
Maybe you missed the part where I said I'm not reading your comments? Please stop wasting your time. I see Satan/Lucufer as "the good guy" in your holy book, and I see your "god" as pure evil.
I truly do not care what kind of weird mental gymnastics you can do to justify believing something so idiotic. It's not necessary.
(By the way, there was no census in that area at that time. And even if there was, they only counted adult males. There would be zero reason for a pregnant woman to return home for a census, that's fucking stupid. Also, you know, assuming a single word of it is true, she definitely fucked a dude...)
Proof there was no census? Also "satan is the good guy" is woefully incorrect, it shows you clearly never read the book 🤣
Wow you really must care about these beliefs. So much that you couldn't even bother to do a simple 10 second google search.
https://bam.sites.uiowa.edu/faq/can-you-explain-problem-census-gospel-luke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Yahweh committed genocide several times, usually for no reason. He is petty and acts out on petty human emotions like jealousy.
He creates humanity, only to damn them to eternal damnation. He knows all (all the hairs on your head, "it's part of god's plan," etc.) about the lives of all humans from the moment they are born, therefore, it stands to reason that there are humans that were created with the sole purpose of suffering for eternity in hell. Sounds like a great guy. He "loves" you, but gets jealous and will punish you for eternity for even the most minor slight against his pride. That's abusive.
Let's compare that to Lucifer/Satan/etc. How many people is he responsible for killing in the Bible? Spoiler: none.
The serpent did not give Eve the fruit, nor did he even tell either of them to eat it. He simply told her that eating the fruit would give her the knowledge of good and evil (let's set aside how fucked up it is that god would create fruit with that capability, and tell them they can't eat it. Why? Who would do that? He didn't want humanity to understand the difference between good and evil? Why would he want that? Why are you OK with this? Sounds abusive).
Who is responsible for literally killing Job's family and livestock, basically ruining his life, over a bet? Another spoiler: it wasn't Satan.
How about slavery. Should we be living our lives based on an ancient, non-historical, book that includes specific rules around buying/selling/beating/fucking slaves? Does that seem like a good idea?
Getting your most loyal servant to almost murder his child for a laugh. Abusive.
You are in an abusive relationship with your god.
Should we get into foreskins, or have you had enough? I could give reasons your religion is wrong for hours without repeating myself.
Neither of them exist, of course, but if I had to choose between god and Lucifer, the choice is pretty fucking clear. Your god could prove itself to me tomorrow, and I would still refuse to follow that evil piece of shit.
This is an actual Biblical fact, for more details see the documentary The Da Vinci Code.
If it was a biblical fact, you could give me details by giving me biblical references, not a french fiction novel 😂
Autism, huh?
What? I asked for references from the actual collection of documents that depict Jesus, instead of a fictional novel written in 2003
Interesting. Memories from my Christian school are coming back :'(
There does seem to be an effort made to get rid of her by the early church followers. Implying that she was a whore could have been a strategy. It's weird because the Johannine community tried to save her in text. Which would mean it was the Paul crowd that did it and there is not a clear reason why. She would have had little interactions with the Paul community.
Source?
The Bible. What do you want from me?
The Christ confessor in Mark, Luke, and Matthew is Peter while Mary gets to go to the cave. In John the Christ confessor is Mary and she gets to go to the cave. The early church fathers liked to really play up her supposed life of being a whore before repentance. Meanwhile Paul hints at her existence and says nice things about her. At the same time Mark makes her so dumb she "tells no one" about what would be the single most important moment in Christianity while Luke and Matthew give her a helper to make the right decision.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what happened but there is a trend. She goes from being a major leader of the earliest church to a whore that Jesus saves and is too stupid to know what she saw. If I had to take a bet: she was part of the very early church, funded and organized a lot, and had some falling out probably with someone from Paul's community. So Mark tried to memoryhole her and would have done it except John had some story about how she rocked and saved her.
What do you mean the Christ Confessor? In Matthew 28 , Peter isn't mentioned, but Mary finds the empty tomb. In John 20 and Luke 24, Peter runs to the tomb after being told by Mary. In all of these accounts, Peter is given a position which appears to be "lesser" than Mary Magdelene. In Mark, she was too afraid to tell anyone until Jesus appeared to her and reassured her (John goes into detail about this, and notes how she was crying in distress). If she actually didn't tell anyone permanently, that fact wouldn't have been recorded.
Also worth mentioning, she had seven demons driven out. Wasn't a whore. This is basically just a weirdly elaborate theory which doesn't really hold any water or value whatsoever.
Christ confessor: the person who answers Jesus when he asks who I am for the first time. Check for yourself the first three gospels it is Peter the fourth it is Mary.
The endings of Mark wasn't part of the original. They were attempts at harmonizing the text. The original ending ends with Mary fleeing the tomb and telling no one.
The original ending was likely a literary device - perhaps encouraging the reader to do what Jesus said as Mary wouldn't do it. It is still recognised as a very early addition, and the fact it was just someone tying up the story to make it read better was also recorded early on. As a matter of fact, if you remove verse 8, it actually makes sense again, so verse 8 seems to be an intentional cliffhanger.
What blog did you copy that from? And yes it was a literary device but that doesn't suddenly mean whatever ending you want goes there.
You are right there in the sense that we know the early church added on to it, but basically every copy of the Bible I have minus the KJV (which doesn't use footnotes and is from 1611 anyway) mentions that they were added on. They aren't even that significant, unless you're that snake handling denomination. Everything said there is backed up by the other three gospels.
It is only backed up because the other gospels plagiarized from it. This is like being amazed that Batman is an orphan in the comics, movies, cartoons, and graphic novels.
Mark diminished Mary's role just like he did with the entire ministry. Matthew invented what happened next by trying to figure out what Paul was talking about in the letters.
Welcome to the Bible where what really happened doesn't matter.
The greek language structure of Mark seems to be cut off abruptly at the end. It doesn't conclude the Gospel properly. It wouldn't have made sense to end it here either as we know from Paul's letters which were written before. The end of the Gospel of Mark was likely a call to respond, to do what the women were told to do.
Secondly, you even seemed to say so yourself that John was written more isolated from the synoptics, so if they were trying to "censor" out when making stuff up, why would he include her in his gospel in the first place?
Lastly, that's assuming Marcan priority, which generally tries to presuppose that Matthew wasn't an eyewitness account in the first place. The early church clearly records Matthew as being written first and Matthew being written by Matthew (keep in mind that the Gospels were widely circulated by then and they had already rejected forgeries under names such as Peter) and Marcan priority was only hypothesised in the late 18th century, yet is still quite debated. Athiestic Bible scholars like it because it is useful for them to explain away the Bible.
It made perfect sense to cut it there. It was a cliffhanger with Paul finishing up.
Because there is no "they". It was separate groups putting out works.
Which is a valid assumption since Matthew was not an eyewitness and Matthew copied Mark word for word at places. There is no presupposing here. Whomever wrote those two books were liars writing propaganda.
Genetic fallacy, sub-type argument from authority, logical fallacy. Something is true because it happened not because someone said it happened.
Irrelevant. Being right about one thing doesn't mean being right about everything.
And so was the germ theory of disease which I sincerely hope you buy into.
The existence of an argument doesn't mean both sides are equally likely to be true.
Circumstantial ad homunium attack. Another logical fallacy. 4th by my count.
I suggest you read up on logic a bit before going further.
Matthew was an eyewitness, Jesus literally called him in person. And Mark could have copied from Matthew instead. This "genetic fallacy" or whatever you made up is purely ignorant, as people who actually knew this stuff and where it came from are the strongest and most reliable sources.
Saying "We know Mark was written first because Matthew copied from Mark" doesn't make any sense - as Mark could just have easily copied from Matthew. And I'm the one you say doesn't know logic? 😂
The author of that book was not an eyewitness. If there was a historical Matthew he would have been an illiterate Aramaic speaking Jew not a highly literate Greek speaker. Even if the historical Matthew managed basic literacy he definitely would not have been witness to all the events that happened in secret, such as Mary speaking to the Holy Ghost alone.
No. Matthew is a superset of Mark and religious writing get longer with time not shorter. 85% of Matthew is from Mark. Additionally we see Matthew break chiastic structures that Mark had to get results he wanted. Finally historically it doesn't make sense. Paul was either freshly dead or very old so it would make sense for Mark to recast Jesus as Paul, by the time Matthew was written the Jerusalem community has been mostly destroyed so they needed recruits from Jews. Hence the echoing and rewriting to cast Jesus as the new Moses.
Logical fallacies. I didn't identify them first. They were discovered 5 centuries before Paul made up the Jesus myth.
Argument from authority. Present your evidence. The attributions of the Gospels were done by people over a century later. If it is so obvious why not just present your evidence?
Repeating yourself.
Matthew was a tax collector. It would have made no sense for him to be illiterate at all. And he would have likely known Greek as it was a common language in Judea at that time.
Again, "religious writings get longer with time not shorter" doesn't necessarily make sense either. Because the book of Jude, John's epistles, etc were all also written later. Papyrus was expensive. It would have made sense to make an abridged work with teachings in it from your own teachers as well for difference.
Matthew has a large chiastic structure too, so I don't know what that point was about.
Iraneus and Papias both referred to the gospels, and that was only within centuries.