Comment

Comment on The Jebus Said So.

m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

I’m not a biblical scholar, like at all, but isn’t that exactly the sort of thing he’d say/ do?

source

Sort:hotnew top

NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about

source
- m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Like yeah I don’t, but didn’t he curse a fig tree for not having fruit, while it wasn’t fig season?
  
  Didn’t he get himself executed for like being offended that people were doing business at the temple?
  
  How is that not taking shit personally and arguing with strangers?
  
  source
  - afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The cursing of the fig tree has echos in other Jewish literature best example is Moses hitting a rock to get it to send out water.
    
    The temple had to do business. It wasn’t practical for everyone to bring their own animals and the coinage issue wasn’t considered a big deal. If there has been a historical Jesus (again there wasn’t) he most likely started the assault on the temple because he was trying to fulfill the OT prophecy of its destruction. Kinda like when you want sex so you give your partner a back rub.
    
    You got to understand all the accounts of man were written multiple decades later by liars.
    
    source
    m0darn@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I’m not sure what to do with this information.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    dang_rangatang@startrek.website ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Please don’t spread misinformation .
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- SuckMyWang@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Pft. Guy admits he’s not a biblical scholar then proceeds to have an opinion on the matter. Ridiculous
  
  source
  - MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s not a bad thing to ask for clarifying questions… How the flying fuck do you think people learn things from people who are scholars/teachers!? Did you never ask a single question in school?
    
    You being upset at this is pathetic.
    
    source
    Aremel@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I like to think everyone responding negatively to you is just following the prompt, “take memes personally and argue with strangers.” I wouldn’t take any of it to heart.
    
    Doubly so if they’re being serious.
    
    source
- wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Oh ok
  
  source
kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Extra-canonically he was certainly talking a lot about dank images:

Jesus said, "When you see your likeness, you are happy. But when you see your images that came into being before you and that neither die nor become visible, how much you will have to bear!"

Gospel of Thomas saying 84

[…] Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, […] an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."

Gospel of Thomas saying 22

(This was more relating to Plato’s concept of eikon and what was effectively a version of the simulation hypothesis in antiquity, but if we throw out the context it could potentially be talking about memes.)
source
- Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  potentially?
  
  It was definitely about memes. It’s why the Gospel of Thomas is heresy.
  
  source
  - TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The Tank? That was a canon event.
    
    source
- afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  See I like your work. I don’t get why you buy into Bible Literalism. Go ahead and publish already something already on the Gospel of Thomas. I will buy it if you do.
  
  source
  - kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    I don’t get why you buy into Bible Literalism.
    
    I don’t, and I’m not sure where you get the sense that I do.
    
    There’s a very wide gulf between thinking that a historical person named Jesus existed and that the New Testament depiction of that person is accurate.
    
    There’s a ton of things in there that are pretty clearly BS, but the way in which they are BS seems much more like an attempt to spin historical events than to invent them from scratch.
    
    For example, Peter’s denials.
    
    Dude is nicknamed after a “hollow rock” which is actually a terrible thing to try to use as a foundation, but it’s an incredible nickname for someone regularly missing the point and arguing with you.
    
    Then around the time Jesus is being tried approximately three times Cephas is also denying Jesus three times, even seen going back into a guarded area where a trial is taking place to do so.
    
    But it’s all okay because a rooster crowed?
    
    That sounds a lot more like there had been earlier eyewitness testimony or rumors about “hollow rock” having had a more prominent role in testifying against a historical figure which needed to be spun to be a lesser offense which was explained away as acceptable than it sounds like a fabrication originated by a religious organization owing itself to “hollow rock.”
    
    There’s many places where the earliest layers of the NT are sort of engaged with a phantom tradition we can no longer see directly, and only in reflection of its opposition. Things like Mark pointing out that the women saw the empty tomb but didn’t tell anyone or that Thomas doubted the resurrection but then changed his mind. Given Paul was combating the disbelief in physical resurrection in Corinth in 1 Cor 15 among what was a community following some version of Jesus, maybe traditions later on that owed themselves to female teachers, prominently had females receiving sayings from Jesus separate from the other disciples, and had an over-realized eschatology such that it rejected physical resurrection like the proto-Thomasine group were a bigger deal earlier on than the church would like to let on?
    
    My point is that this kind of undermining and spin - “yes Cephas denied him but it was prophesied” or “no, the women actually saw the empty tomb they just didn’t tell anyone, we pinky swear” - is the kind of thing we should expect from a very early split around a cultush origin and not something like Mithraism where a mythologized narrative is adapted and embellished from purely fictional origins.
    
    As for publishing - I’d like to and plan to one day probably at least do a video series on the topic. But this is a hobby and people take religion very seriously to an irrational degree so I’m probably not going to be comfortable linking my real world self to a counter-cannonical Christian public stance until I’m retired. On the upside that gives me many more years to continue to find out more nuances.
    
    source
    afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Come on man. We have been over this. You can’t dump all this at once.
    
    Peter denying Jesus comes from Mark and Mark was advocating against the apostles pushing for Paul being the leader of the church. The central message of the story is the apostles didn’t get it. Heck Jesus is basically a stand in for Mark. All the interesting stuff happens on the non-jewish side of the Sea of Gallie. Which isn’t even a sea. He was trying to make Jesus in the image of Paul.
    
    As for the earlier layers we know what they were. The Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Elijiah mostly. Almost everything Mark says is right from there or the letters. For the very few things that aren’t I have no problem with an oral tradition but that doesn’t mean the oral tradition was accurate.
    
    As for why Mark ended the way it did (originally) I admit I am not sure. I can speculate that he was trying to diminish Mary but again this doesn’t matter. We know Paul was in Jerusalem and makes no mention of the tomb additionally he does say buried.
    
    I am sorry but the evidence just isn’t there, which is why all 4 quests have failed.
    
    Also yeah I get your hesitation. Do what you got to do. I am just saying I do respect your work on the Gospel of Thomas and would love if you put something out there. Help you as well, you can deal with actual scholars not amateurs like me who suck at Greek.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
He is a fictional. The question is if the writer needs him to do it or not.

source
- kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  He was almost certainly not fictional.
  
  Fictional constructs don’t end up having bitterly opposed factions splintering off within decades of their supposed death, but that’s an extremely common feature of nearly every cult organized around a historical central figure.
  
  The specific depiction of Jesus canonized likely has many fictional elements, but the idea that there was no historical figure in the first place is pretty ludicrous.
  
  source
  - afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    He is almost certainly is fictional. I don’t see at all why you think it matters what people did after his supposed existence. Also not sure where you are getting bitterly opposed. Paul was sending money to the Church of Jerusalem. He argued but you don’t give free money to people you bitterly oppose. You also don’t write a letter saying how the leaders were good people. The fighting really started as Christianity moved into power and little spats made a difference. Plus you know we have no evidence that Buddhism had that fighting after Siddharth death and the Mormons didn’t break out into civil war after Smith died. Scientologists are also doing fine.
    
    Every detail of his supposed life was pulled from literature available and was to generate a specific result. We can also see where they were taking “known” facts at the time and misrepresenting them to try to get what they want.
    
    source
    TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Jebus never condemned Hummus. Look it up the Bibble. It’s not there.
    
    source
    kromem@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. I think that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.
    
    2 Cor 11:4-5
    
    Corinth then later on full on deposed Rome’s appointees which led to the letter from the bishop of Rome, 1 Clement that’s almost entirely devoted to trying to damage control the schism.
    
    And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”? Their judgment is deserved!
    
    Romans 3:8
    
    I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another gospel, but there are some who are confusing you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel[a] from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!
    
    Galatians 1:6-9
    
    You can even see some of the specific concepts that there was a schism about, such as whether there was an over-realized eschatology:
    
    As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here.
    
    2 Thessalonians 2:1-2 (likely a bit later than Paul)
    
    Avoid profane chatter, for it will lead people into more and more impiety, and their talk will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth, saying resurrection has already occurred. They are upsetting the faith of some.
    
    2 Timothy 2:16-18
    
    So I’m not sure where you get the notion there was one big happy family of Christian thought in Paul’s time and the later 1st century CE when literally the earliest records of Christianity we have are so concerned with competing traditions and ideas. You may be mistaking the survivorship bias of cannonical Christianity eradicating most competing thought later on for a picture of unity (as that’s what they try to project) which is why a closer read is warranted.
    
    Plus you know we have no evidence that Buddhism had that fighting after Siddharth death
    
    It had that fighting even before Siddhartha’s death when his brother in law Devadatta broke away to form his own group.
    
    Mormons didn’t break out into civil war after Smith died.
    
    You might want to read up on the succession crisis
    
    Scientologists are also doing fine.
    
    You might want to look into the Free Zone schisms from Scientology near and after L Ron’s death.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - TokenBoomer@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Source? /s
    
    source