• flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      30·
      9 months ago

      I like what this guy named Matthew said Jesus guy’s ideas were. Mark and Luke said the same but weren’t as good as writers. And another guy named John wrote a fanfic expanding on the original.

      And then a guy called Paul (aka Saul) got involved despite never having met the OG crew. And started an expanded universe messing up the canon forever.

      • presbypenguin
        6·
        9 months ago

        I mean, Mark had to go first, so we can give him some slack. And Luke isn’t a worse writer, just a bit of a pretentious one. John is definitely the best storyteller, even if he does go…off the rails a bit. And Paul didn’t write nearly as much as we give him credit/blame for.

          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            2·
            9 months ago

            American Christo fascists trying to find the differences between the two pictures.

            they’re the same picture meme

          • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
            1·
            9 months ago

            Pretty low to liken the Apostles to terrorists. The difference is that they created the story and witnessed it. The 9/11 terrorists believed Mohammed’s lie.

              • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
                4·
                9 months ago

                There’s a huge difference between being killed by the authorities for showing disloyalty to an autocratic government and committing an act of terror by killing thousands of random people to make your point.

              • Flax@feddit.ukEnglish
                1·
                9 months ago

                They had great conviction because they literally witnessed a man’s death and resurrection.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              I partially agree. The apostles did create the story. Bunch of local legends and grifts. The only thing they witnessed were the bags of money Paul raised for them.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          1·
          9 months ago

          Paul only wrote half the letters attributed to him, John didn’t write John, Mark didn’t write Mark, Matthew didn’t write Matthew, and Luke didn’t write Luke. Of the 27 books of the NT only 8 are attributed correctly.

          As for their supposed dying for their faith we don’t actually know that. That is all later church traditions. It’s certainly possible since pretty much everyone got murdered who the Romans noticed but we don’t have evidence that it happened to them and there was plenty of reason to lie about it.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              1·
              9 months ago

              We are talking about 27 books here, this would take me pages to go through. You got to work with me a bit. Give me one book/letter in particular that you really think was written by the person it was attributed to that isn’t the Apocalypse by John or the 7 undisputed of Paul. Want to start with Mark?

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  2·
                  9 months ago

                  Fine.

                  • Apostle Matthew would have been an illiterate Aramaic speaker. Yet the Gospel is written in educated Greek.

                  • Apostle Matthew would have been Jewish and at least somewhat familiar with the Hebrew Bible. And yet the Gospel only shows references to the Septuagint Bible. Check it yourself, not a single reference to Purim or the book of Easter.

                  • apostle Matthew would have recognized the poetic structure of Hebrew where the last sentence is repeated in slightly different ways. Example “and he went to the city. To the city he traveled”. The Gospel writer didn’t recognize it which is why he doubles stuff, hence Jesus riding a donkey and a colt.

                  • apostle Matthew would not have had access to the Gospel of Mark as it came out decades later in a totally different part of the empire. And yet the Gospel writer copied whole passages word for word out of Mark.

                  • apostle Matthew would have been about the same age as Jesus and from Galliee not the Bethlehem or Nazare and yet the Gospel writer claims to know about events going on prior to Jesus’ birth including events with Mary and Joseph with no eyewitnesses

                  • apostle Matthew would only have had access at best to stories from Jesus while the Gospel writer shows stories that were retroconned. This is why you have a scene where Mary calls Joseph the father that later translations tried to surpress.

                  • apostle Matthew would have had no details about the events around the death of Jesus. How does he know what happens when Jesus is praying in private? How does he know about the trial with Pilot and what was said? And yet the Gospel writer did.

                  • apostle Matthew would have had little to know knowledge about Greco-Roman or Persian or Indian myths and yet the Gospel writer did and borrowed extensively.

                  • apostle Matthew would not have known Paul’s letters and yet the Gospel writer references them.

                  • apostle Matthew would never have seen the events of 70 AD and yet foreshadowing of those events is found

                  • apostle Matthew would not have had any clue about the proto-Trinity debate of when Jesus was elevated and yet the Gospel writer takes a firm stand on that issue

                  • the whole attribution to him was made two hundred years later and not from even church tradition.

                  Let me know if you need more.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            2·
            8 months ago

            There is that idea yes, that there was an oral tradition for fifty years until the author of Mark came along. It is also possible the Mark Gospel was two lost written accounts that were merged, meaning the oral tradition was much shorter. About 85% of Matthew is found in Mark and most of the 15% are Greek legends. Luke seems to have had Matthew, Josphius, and Mark. John seems to have had the three plus that weird community that might have existed in Jerusalem. I hate using weasel words but really this is all speculation. Not convinced the M source had to have existed, since you can get there without it.

            It is worth mentioning that the story about the adulteress in John was in oral form for a long time before written down. So, yes it is possible that this feat happened more than once. Pity that story is even less likely to have happened compared to the rest of the stories, given how nice it is.

            • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
              1·
              8 months ago

              I am aware of the two-source hypothesis. My opinion is that those two sources probably derive from oral tradition, and this oral tradition is also the source material that Paul drew from.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                2·
                8 months ago

                Sure why not? Some Essen community is chilling there with their stories of a Jewish dying and rising God, Paul shows up and takes it seriously.

      • rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        8 months ago

        I think it is a mixed bag. The teaching about divorce messed up the lives of a lot of people. Then there was that time he told a guy to abandon his dying father to go preach with him. He called a gentile woman a dog. He said most people will be destroyed. Jesus as chronicled by Matthew seems fond of referring to everlasting fire.

        To be clear, I am not saying he didn’t say anything good. He said don’t be a hypocrite. He said help others and pay your taxes. He said feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But that doesn’t erase all the bad things the character of Jesus said.

        I do agree that Paul sucks balls though.

      • JDtheGeek@lemmy.world
        8·
        9 months ago

        Not the same. Actually reading the new testament and about what Jesus did and stood for, compared to what the church was teaching, is what actually got me thinking for myself and eventually becoming an atheist.

        The ‘teachings’ of LRon Hubbard on the other hand, are JUST bad ideas, badly interpreted (or manipulated), wrapped up in a fancy bow for those too naive or vulnerable to spot there issues (ok, so that’s where the similarities remain)

  • havokdj@lemmy.world
    16·
    9 months ago

    This is not true

    Atheists tend to follow Jesus more closely than Evangelicals, they just don’t need a leash to be good people.

  • UltraMagnus0001@lemmy.world
    16·
    9 months ago

    well, in their defense they are forgiven and allowed to sin until they return to donate more money… i mean ask for forgiveness.

    • ANGRY_MAPLE@sh.itjust.works
      7·
      9 months ago

      If that God exists, the irony is that he would see right through them.

      The idea isn’t to be evil and hateful until the last 5 minutes before death. I would even argue that that plan in itself would be another form of evil. It wouldn’t be true penance or regret, but instead, it would just be a way to save themselves at the last minute. Selfishness.

      It could also maybe be seen as an insult to that God, to believe that he as an all-knowing deity would somehow not know their true intentions.

      • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
        4·
        9 months ago

        Yes, I find it fascinating how much religious people want to cheat their own god. There are entire systems of rituals and actions to show everyone how faithful you are. But you are showing it off to other people, not god.

      • lingh0e@lemmy.filmEnglish
        2·
        9 months ago

        It would only be ironic if god and heaven were real. Otherwise those duplicitous fucks go to their graves never knowing true retribution. My only hope is that they die with the uncertainty of not knowing, and their last few moments of lucidity are spent in internal existential angst.