this post was submitted on 24 Dec 2023
902 points (96.6% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26948 readers
3343 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/ExplicitContent


-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

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

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
 

AMEN!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

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 making memes.)

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

potentially?

It was definitely about memes. It's why the Gospel of Thomas is heresy.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The Tank? That was a canon event.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

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

Come on man. We have been over this. You can't dump all this at once.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

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

(1) You'd have a difficult time showing the dependence of John on Mark, and John also has Peter's denials. That work claims to be based on an earlier work by the beloved disciple who is depicted as separate from the later apostle tradition within the work, so there may have been an earlier narrative work both John and Mark share, absent the sayings work Mark would have been relying on which is one of the places it differs noticably from John. I agree that Mark is largely written to set up Paul (if you haven't, check out Dykstra's Mark, Canonizer of Paul), but given Paul's claims are that Peter directed him to the areas he was active in and that he had studied under Peter (but no one saw him except James) in Gal, the work still needs to prop up Peter as the successor who then passed things on to Paul.

(2) Where is Mark 4:3-9 in Elijah? Or Mark 13:1-2? Both public statements that are expanded upon in private instructions in the text. These were very likely known to the audience Mark was being written for and proceeded the work in saying form, which is why it characterized them as being said in public while trying to spin them with the private parts (which it should be noted may well be a later reactive layer to Mark anyways). You might find it interesting to reread Mark closely paying attention to when it breaks off for private instructions or secret disclosures (such as the secrecy around Messianic claims - claims completely absent in something like Thomas).

(3) Correct, the empty tomb was likely a later embellishment, which would make sense given Paul himself likely developed a lot of the eschatology around resurrection and a sin sacrifice. The Corinthian Creed did possibly predate him, but even then it would have only been a core part of it, and Paul expanded on the mythos quite extensively. It's not that Mark is introducing the empty tomb that's remarkable, it's that he's having his only witnesses not tell anyone about it. You see something similar in John where Peter and the unnamed beloved disciple race to the tomb, Peter loses the race, but then the other disciple doesn't go in. There was clearly an effort to try to fit figures like the women or the unnamed beloved disciple (who takes the women into his household at the end of John) into an empty tomb narrative as silent or reluctant witnesses, which would make sense if a competing tradition connected to such 'superapostles' wasn't saying anything about the tomb or resurrection.

all 4 quests have failed

Quests? Like Arthur and the holy grail?

you can deal with actual scholars not amateurs like me who suck at Greek.

It was pretty awesome spending nearly every day for years participating in /r/AcademicBiblical alongside PhDs and very knowledgeable fellow contributors. I definitely learned a lot, and was honored to be labeled as one of the sub's Quality Contributors (their label for a handful of participants without a Master's or PhD who had high quality comments or posts). But unfortunately Reddit administration killed a good thing with their greed, and now I'm on Lemmy and probably won't be back to Reddit again.

If I do get around to a video series one day, the network of some of the people I befriended in that sub who produce the same kinds of material will be a good sounding board though - it's one of the things motivating the eventual effort.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago
  1. No difficulty at all. John borrowed from Mark and altered the text. All of them did things like that. None of them were historians and all of them lied

  2. I didn't say all of it. The public denials were a Mark invention to downplay Cephus.

  3. Glad you agree that the tomb narrative never happened. You are nearly there btw. Only 1% more and Jesus is gone completely.

  4. Quests for the historical Jesus. There have been 4.

[–] NegativeLookBehind@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Clearly you have no idea what you’re talking about

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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?

You don't think he'd be like coming in hot on a comment chain?

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what to do with this information.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I imagine they want you to be convinced and become a Christian.

[–] dang_rangatang@startrek.website 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Please don't commit link dump articles you didn't read advocating for a viewpoint that is not supported by evidence.

Jesus didn't exist. No one can keep their story straight about events in his life. Everyone who spoke about his life was lying and we can identify the lines via basic textual criticism. Evidence of his existence that should be here is missing.

I am sorry your Messiah was just a grift by James and Cephus but it is better to hear it late than never. Happy Saturnalia maybe spend this evening trying to find the nativity scene in the Bible, and not building a hybrid one off Matthew and Luke.

[–] dang_rangatang@startrek.website 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Bruh I'm not even Christian. All of the events in his life don't have to be corroborated for him to be a real person. You for example probably haven't had everything you've done recorded but you are certainly a person because there are contemporary accounts of your existence. Jesus from Nazareth didn't have to be proven to have risen from the dead to be a real man who existed.

Having a combative attitude isn't gonna make your point dude.

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

If Jebus isn’t real, how did she make that meme? Checkmate Atheists!

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I am an ordinary person so any claims about my existence are ordinary. Even a minimum historical Jesus (I am sure you know that term without looking it up ;)) would be extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. The very first writer of the man described a celestial being, not a human, the second writer of the man recycled Elijiah.

Why don't you tell me which part of the claim you have evidence for? So far you have listed his name and village of birth. There were other Messiah figures named Jesus both from birth and as a title. Since it means saviour. As for Nazareth, historians can't find it. Josphius names ten towns right around it and doesn't mention it. After hundreds of archeological digs they found a barn, a barn that they can't even prove was standing 0 AD, only around that time period. Could easily have been built in 50AD.

[–] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pft. Guy admits he’s not a biblical scholar then proceeds to have an opinion on the matter. Ridiculous

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

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/experts!? Did you never ask a single question in school or your job(s)?? How the fuck do you learn without questions?

You being upset at this is pathetic.

[–] Aremel@lemmy.world 2 points 11 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.

[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

He is a fictional. The question is if the writer needs him to do it or not.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago (23 children)

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.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago
load more comments (22 replies)