this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
977 points (95.4% liked)

Political Memes

5611 readers
1724 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Mok98@feddit.it 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Only argument I have with this is that he was definitely christian, the dude strongly believed in himself, I mean you don't go around saying you're the son of God willy nilly

[–] PapaStevesy@midwest.social 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He literally couldn't have been, Christianity didn't exist while he was alive (if he actually lived). He was definitely Jewish, that's why he went to Jewish temples and quoted Jewish scripture. He claimed to fulfill Jewish prophecy and called himself the King of the Jews. You could maybe argue his zombie corpse was Christian after it got up and walked around for a few days and issued the Great Commission, but can a corpse really believe in anything?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

and quoted Jewish scripture

A sub-set of Jewish Scripture. He only talks about the stuff that was translated into Greek and widely distributed. Because that makes perfect sense for an Aramaic illiterate person to do. Check for yourself, he never once quotes from the Book of Esther for example.

Amazing isn't it? It would be like a book claiming to be the diary of George Washington only referenced Japanese textbooks about him that were popular in Japan 30 years later and has him speak in Japanese.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

A good con-man always believes in his own con.

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Jesus as a historical figure wasn't a conman tho. He was a man fighting the corrupt institution that religion had already become during his time. A bit culty, yes, but his intentions were to spread compassion and the love of others

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Your historical Jesus seems to be a very upstanding individual. Where can I go to find out more about him? The Jesus that I know about split up families and perpetrated lies about an imaginary afterlife to recruit people to continue his fantasy that has been a detriment to the growth of society.

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

As far as I'm aware Jesus didn't split up any families. There are plenty of papers that study the concept of Jesus and what he would have looked like, but if you are interested in just a simple overview you can just simply read the evangelions. I'm not able to recommend a particular translation, and I know the one used in english is a bit fishy, but it will be enough to get a rough understanding. But in any case, I'm not talking about Jesus as a religious leader, I'm discussing the character and the impact it had in cultures at the time, the same way one might talk about Homer, who most likely didn't exist either. But if you want to get into theology, Jesus himself was against the structure and corruption present in the church at the time, and would likely be against the institutionalization of the modern day catholic church as well. So he would definitely repude a lot of the attitudes of the north American evangelical church if that's what you mean

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Luke 14:26 "If you come to me but will not leave your family, you cannot be my follower. You must love me more than your father, mother, wife, children, brothers, and sisters—even more than your own life!"

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

And James was supposedly his brother.

Mark: ignore the James community, Paul is where it is at.

Matthew: ok Paul is still where it is at, but you know James was pretty cool as well. Please Jews that the Romans didn't kill, like all five of you, come join us.

Luke: you know what? Paul and James are basically equals.

John: James is amazing but have you heard of my man the beloved disciple?

Early Church: the beloved disciple is fine, but I am on Team Mary

2nd Century Church: Mary? Sure she was there, but the Holy Ghost was the one doing the job.

It is like Kanye West microphone stealing.

Luke was copying Matthew in that passage and the important thing for Matthew was to salvage the damage Mark had done to the reputation of the James community. So he makes Jesus disdain the family. Meaning James gets the job based on merit/faith not based on nepotism.

Even if there was a historical Jesus he is very unlikely to have said anything like that. No one is that much of a narcissist and even if they were it wouldn't work among the strong tribe-family loyalty of that time and place.

Once you get that the entire NT is propaganda it makes sense.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Jesus was very likely a historical fiction. Evidence for his existence that should be there is missing and what evidence we have is inconsistent. There is nothing you can say about the man that isn't contradicted by some other writer. No historical figure exists this way, however fabeled ones do.

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He may very well be historical fiction, I don't deny that. But I disagree with the rest. When I say historical figure, I'm talking about him in the same way one might talk about Homer. It's a character that has a presence in both contemporary work and ancient ones, no matter if he was real or not he is a historical figure in that sense. And we do have texts dated from the first century (the Pauline epistles) that talk about Jesus, so even if he didn't exist per se, we at least know for certain the myth is old. There are plenty of theologians and historians that believe jesus existed as person (obviously not as the son of a god, but as a regular human whose actions made an impact in the society he live). There are also those who believe a person existed in which the myth of Jesus was built around. In regards to your last point, yes, a lot of fabled people have contradictory history surrounding them, that's a quirk of the way we keep track of things and something historiography studies. (Historiography is the science that studies the way we retell history)

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure we have the Pauline Epistles. Where he admits that he never saw Jesus and that what he was saying about him was from visions not from eyewitnesses or historical record. "I did not get these revelations from man".

Meanwhile every writer that came after him is just using his letters and other writings in wide circulation through the empire.

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You are arguing with me that he for sure didn't exist. We're not arguing the same point, and I already said he very well might be historical fiction. The myth of Jesus, however, exists. And the fact we have letters from the first century that specifically talk about him makes him an historical figure. Also, and this is my opinion, it's not that far fetched that a person lived in the middle east 2 thousand years ago, started a cult of personality and the regurgitated stories about him passed from generation to generation. We also can't deny that by the 3rd century the Roman empire was full of his followers (Catholicism was made the official religion in 381, so the spread has to have started earlier), and as with everything in our planet, the jesus fandom has to have started somewhere sometime. Using Occam's razor, the most simple solution is a man in the middle east gets popular doing populist things, he gains followers doing this and after becoming ubiquitous, his followings get institutionalized by one of the most influencial empires in human history and now he's become universal. You can make a religion out of this.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

Right so your argument is you need a charismatic leader with a lot of energy and brains. Have you heard of St. Paul? The guy who was exactly that.

James was running a mystery cult. The province was full of them. Paul encountered them and saw potential. The rest is history.

This is why he doesn't seem to know anything about the ministry, there was no ministry.

[–] SuddenlyBlowGreen@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Jesus as a historical figure

As historical as Harry Potter or Superman.

[–] lazylion_ca@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 11 months ago

Is that like saying that Taylor is a Swiftie?