this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
597 points (86.1% liked)

Atheist Memes

5563 readers
420 users here now

About

A community for the most based memes from atheists, agnostics, antitheists, and skeptics.

Rules

  1. No Pro-Religious or Anti-Atheist Content.

  2. No Unrelated Content. All posts must be memes related to the topic of atheism and/or religion.

  3. No bigotry.

  4. Attack ideas not people.

  5. Spammers and trolls will be instantly banned no exceptions.

  6. No False Reporting

  7. NSFW posts must be marked as such.

Resources

International Suicide Hotlines

Recovering From Religion

Happy Whole Way

Non Religious Organizations

Freedom From Religion Foundation

Atheist Republic

Atheists for Liberty

American Atheists

Ex-theist Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Other Similar Communities

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 91 points 8 months ago (6 children)

The consensus among historical scholars is that some itinerant preacher who we can reasonably call the historical Jesus existed. That is the state of the field. There was lots of religious fervor at the time, it was already probably clear to everyone that something bad was going to happen to the Temple, there were lots of similar guys running around.

Arguing that the man probably existed is not arguing that he advocated for the things he was saying in the Bible, that he was in any way divine, or that one should believe in Christianity. It’s not arguing for leftist hippie Jesus either. Just that at this point in history, some sort of Jewish rabble rouser claimed to be a messiah and started a small group of followers. This is not a crazy claim - rabble rousers exist, Jewish people exist and have a complex religious/political figure called a messiah, and the group of followers was causing problems in less than a hundred years.

Remember that historical argumentation and proof looks fundamentally different than argumentation and proof in physics or math. You can’t do “Josephus minus The Testimonium Flavianum plus Pliny’s letters equals Christ.” No one is going to be able to trot out a photo of Jesus. Although here’s something fun: here’s one of the first depictions of Jesus.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

There's a set of atheists who don't stop at saying the Bible is full of contradictions. They feel the Bible must be wrong in every single aspect. This is a position just as fragile as fundamentalists--after all, some events like the sacking of Jerusalem by the Babylonians definitely did happen--and you don't need to make that claim in order to disregard the bible as divinely inspired.

Edit: clarified wording

[–] [email protected] 13 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's dope that Jesus had one of those horse-heads masks all the way back then. Truly ahead of his time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Dude was shitposting all the way to the end. Truly a man worth worshipping.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

My Lord and Savior of Memedom

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago

I like leftist hippie Jesus tho

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The consensus is also that Mark at least somewhat more accurately represents the historical figure than the other gospels, which are all either fairly culturally Greek or Greek to the core (John).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

What part of Mark? Give me the passage that references something that Jesus said or did that you are confident that he did say or do that thing.

I ask because I have no idea. Every time I try to do this I find out it happened in the OT or in Greek literature or in the letters or it served a selfish purpose for Paul.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Jesus almost certainly claimed that he and his twelve disciples were going to rule over the new kingdom of God (more or less a new era of the world in which suffering didn't exist). We can be pretty sure because Judas then goes and betrays him, which we're also very certain actually happened. No one has any idea why Judas flipped on Jesus, but we're pretty dang certain he did. In any case, if Jesus really were everything people claimed about him later on, he wouldn't have said all 12 of his disciples were going to be glorified in the next world.

Furthermore, we can be pretty certain John the Baptist really did baptize Jesus. My understanding of why is a bit more limited but basically that action put John in a higher position of authority than Jesus which would have been a big issue. Scholars think Jesus was originally a disciple of John.

Finally, Jesus probably actually was from Nazareth, because that town was basically like being from nowhere in those days. It would be strange to invent a story about a god and have them come from a podunk place, especially in those days where class mobility didn't exist.

I'll be honest though, if you're going to come at me expecting a deep discussion, we've pretty much reached the limit of everything I know. I'm a very casual learner in this area.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago

Jesus almost certainly claimed that he and his twelve disciples were going to rule over the new kingdom of God

Prove it.

We can be pretty sure because Judas then goes and betrays him, which we’re also very certain actually happened.

Prove it. Also explain why Paul doesn't seem to know about it.

Finally, Jesus probably actually was from Nazareth, because that town was basically like being from nowhere in those days. It would be strange to invent a story about a god and have them come from a podunk place, especially in those days where class mobility didn’t exist.

Not if you held to a doctrine that "the last shall be first and the first shall be last". A very popular theme in Jewish mysticism. Plus it would explain why there is no Jesus family around to claim the throne, except for James.

Furthermore, we can be pretty certain John the Baptist really did baptize Jesus. My understanding of why is a bit more limited but basically that action put John in a higher position of authority than Jesus which would have been a big issue. Scholars think Jesus was originally a disciple of John.

Criteria of embarrassment is the term you are looking for. That thing almost never used outside of biblical studies since it is a weak argument. It doesn't work here. John the Baptist was more well known than Jesus was at the time of Mark. By attaching Jesus to him it was just another form of name dropping. Additionally Mark has John still humbled in the role. So even less embarrassing for Christianity.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

It's not that there is one part of Mark where we can say, "Oh yes, Jesus really said that specific thing." It's Mark presents what is called a "low Christology". That is, Jesus was a guy, who was especially wise and holy, and therefore rose up and become somehow more than a man and imbued with the supernatural. This is what his followers almost certainly believed about him during his life and shortly thereafter.

Later gospels, especially John, present a "high Christology": Jesus was with God on high and descended to earth and enlighten humanity, then went back to God.

It's been awhile since I've read the Gospels but I believe that there are some things Jesus says in Mark, like, "Don't preach to the Greeks", or "Avoid the Sumerians" that are right on the money, so to speak, about what a Jew form Judea at the time would have said. These statements are generally ignored by the modern Church because they contradict Christianity's catholic/universal current state.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

It’s not that there is one part of Mark where we can say, “Oh yes, Jesus really said that specific thing.” It’s Mark presents what is called a “low Christology”. That is, Jesus was a guy, who was especially wise and holy, and therefore rose up and become somehow more than a man and imbued with the supernatural. This is what his followers almost certainly believed about him during his life and shortly thereafter.

It is possible the James community thought that way but Paul certainly didn't. Also worth mentioning that Mark borrows the Latin fiction trope of the empty tomb meaning ascending to godhead. So even if Mark downplays Jesus while he was alive he makes him a god on his death.

Later gospels, especially John, present a “high Christology”: Jesus was with God on high and descended to earth and enlighten humanity, then went back to God.

Paul said nearly the same thing about a century earlier. What John added was the whole bit about the word. Paul does not talk about a normal person he talks about a celestial being who came to earth, did stuff, and unlike other humans (Paul didn't believe in an afterlife) came back to life in heavenly body form. Which meant he was the new Adam.

It’s been awhile since I’ve read the Gospels but I believe that there are some things Jesus says in Mark, like, “Don’t preach to the Greeks”, or “Avoid the Sumerians” that are right on the money, so to speak, about what a Jew form Judea at the time would have said. These statements are generally ignored by the modern Church because they contradict Christianity’s catholic/universal current state.

I am being honest and not snarky at all here but I have no idea what you are talking about. I did double check this morning and saw nothing like this in Mark. Could you quote the passage?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

No worries, I know you're not being snarky!

My impression is that Mark and to some extent Matthew were probably written by Helenized Jews who may have even spoken Greek as a second language. They were not part of Paul's proto-church.

But I really am not an expert. I will defer to you because I have the impression you are a bit more well read than me in this area.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No worries, I know you're not being snarky!

My impression is that Mark and to some extent Matthew were probably written by Helenized Jews who may have even spoken Greek as a second language. They were not part of Paul's proto-church.

But I really am not an expert. I will defer to you because I have the impression you are a bit more well read than me in this area.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's fine.

Mark I can't really see it. He doesn't speak Aramaic and makes some mistakes about Judaism. Matthew it is possible but he doesn't seem to know Hebrew and speaks greek fluently. Plus Matthew is a bit antisemitic.

Really it is just easier to accept that they were outsiders looking in vs insiders who kept making mistakes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Interesting. You make me want to find some time to read about all that stuff again.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

If I may make a suggestion. Take a copy of Mark and put it on the word processing software of your choice. Go through it line by line and search to find what the lines echos, where it comes from. When you find a match highlight it. Then do the same for every line that the author is making fun of the apostles.

Nearly the whole book will be highlighted. Mark built Jesus out of Elijah and Paul. The so called oral tradition is like 20 lines or so.