I’m Jewish and have been told very angrily that I killed Jesus more than once. It’s fun.

  • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    7 months ago

    It is perpetually disappointing the extent to which so many people who claim to be Christians fail to understand even the CliffsNotes version of the Gospel.

    Jesus’ arrest was probably bound to happen sooner or later though. As noted Biblical scholar Andrew Zaltzman has often pointed out, Pontius Pilate was a law and order administrator, and Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Also, without Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion, he wouldn’t have died and been resurrected, saving everyone’s souls. So shouldn’t Marjorie be thanking Jews for that?

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Jesus was absolutely guilty under the law at the time.

      Guilty of what? Insulting the Jewish Religion and trying to reform it? That wasn’t a crime in the Roman Empire.

    • CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      7 months ago

      Tbh, Jesus probably didnt exist anyways.

      They started writing about him almost 100 years after his supposed death, and AFAIK theres zero proof outside the bible that he existed.

      • mkwt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        The earliest set of Pauline epistles have a consensus dating around 50, 20 years after the nominal death of Jesus.

        The gospel of Mark has consensus dating to 70, 40 years after the nominal death of Jesus.

        Multiple Jewish and Roman historians wrote about the existence of Jesus, who weren’t all getting their information from the Bible. There is a long and well-sourced Wikipedia article on this.

          • ccunning@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            Historical Jesus:

            Virtually all scholars of antiquity accept that Jesus was a historical figure, and the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure has been consistently rejected by the scholarly consensus as a fringe theory.

            Scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the biblical accounts, with only two events being supported by nearly universal scholarly consensus: Jesus was baptized and Jesus was crucified

            • Xaphanos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              15
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              7 months ago

              So…

              • A preacher lived around that time.
              • His name was ridiculously common.
              • He was baptized.
              • He was crucified.

              Notably NOT:

              • He was born of a Virgin.
              • He was the son of a supernatural deity.
              • He performed supernatural acts.
              • He was resurrected.

              To call this “Historical Jesus” is misleading at best. It is reasonable to say DOZENS of people fit that description.

              Let’s try the same argument today… “A preacher named John was baptized and later was convicted of serious crimes and sentenced by a judge.” How many fit this description? Isn’t it more likely true than false? What does that prove?

              This whole argument tries to equate mundane statistics with miracles. It adds nothing to any reasonable discussion outside of post-hoc theological justification.

              • ccunning@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                I don’t think anyone here claimed historical Jesus was the son of the magical sky wizard.

                Some folk heros are based on historical people; some aren’t.

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  The thing is that people are basing the magical sky wizards manifesting himself as his son as this “Jesus” character they’ve made up and have decided existed in the way they pretend because there is some tangential corroboration somewhere.

                  • ccunning@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    11
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    No one here made that claim. But it’s the claim you’re continually arguing against.

                    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

              • Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                7 months ago

                What makes a better lie:

                • A 100% fabrication
                • A lie that selects elements from reality, and invents parts of the whole story

                Muhammad was also a known historical figure, as was Joseph Smith.

            • gnutrino@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Check the talk page on that (and similar) articles. There are some very zealous editors making sure that they come down harder than the sources really support on the “everyone definitely agrees that he existed” side of the argument…

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              7 months ago

              I asked for you to provide some kind of proof.

              You provided a statement that scholars have faith.

              I am being serious here, where is the contemporary record of Jesus existing?

              • ccunning@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                14
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                7 months ago

                I’m leaving this one to the experts. If you don’t believe the them that’s up to you to prove. I personal don’t believe either of us is more informed than they are.

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  I would argue that both of us ought to be smart enough to be able to look at the “proof” and recognize a lot of it is personal faith.

                  You believe what you want.

                • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  this conversation is split into so many parts im just trying to chase down this one key point: it’s not enough to say “well I don’t believe them” - I want to be proved wrong here, for my own education. But I want to be proved wrong - with proof. Not just a throwaway comment of “they have not met my (undefined, and unexplained) threshold of proof”

                  What do you have to show that Jesus didnt exist as a real human? That isn’t your own belief or thought process as your primary source?

                  • supamanc@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You can’t be proved wrong. Noone can ever prove that someone never existed, but you can prove that someone did exist. If you have such proof for the existance for jesus, please share it.

            • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              However, Tacitus does not reveal the source of his information. There are several hypotheses as to what sources he may have used.

              • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                buddy, if scholars past and present piled opprobrium on Voltaire for doubting it’s authenticity, what hope do you have?

                Not only does this link and the other link youve been given provide many historical sources and discussions, but they also then lead to other sources.

                The burden of proof lies with you invalidating hundreds of sources over thousands of years. Don’t act like I’m the one with a crackpot theory.

                Let’s compare like for like - what link with a reasonable amount of scholastic cachet can you provide to back up your theory?

                • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  It’s not a crackpot theory it’s just one that doesn’t hold up to the smell test.

                  A man mentions tangentially three things and history decides that’s enough corroboration.

                  He wasn’t alive at the time, he doesn’t mention what his source is and he is writing about something else.

                  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    the smell test is irrelevant. This is a conversation about whether the scientific / historian community is at a concensus on the historical existence of the person in question.

                    really, mine and your individual opinions are also irrelevant, because even if both you and I never existed- the historical, academic consensus suggests the guy lived.

                    I’m happy to be the bad guy in that conversation because it’s really not me thats on trial here - it’s your personal faith/belief, that’s as vulnerable to subjectivity as a belief in the spritual Christian (or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, etc) deity’s existence.

                    I am not commenting on whether I believe Jesus was a deity, nor am I commented on whether I personally believe there was a real Jesus as political and historical figure at the start of the Common Era - I am saying that to say definitively he did not exist is a faith/belief based assertion, and it’s misinformation to claim it as a fact, it is a belief/opinion that flies in the face of established, peer-reviewed consensus.

                • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Buddy if we collected nickels from anthropologists every time they got something wrong we’d all be rich.

                  • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    Well, again, I ask you - where’s your sources? Me and another guy provided a source that also contained sources. I would genuinely like to read the first-party or academic sources for your argument for my own education.

            • prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Tacitus mentions Christian’s and their namesake. He mentions Pontus.

              He does not mention these things together as a cohesive event.

              He is writing about something else.

      • Ghost33313@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        …and Pontius Pilot was one historical figure we can prove exists. In letters from Rome telling him to stop genosiding so many Jews. We are supposed to believe that if this really happened, such a guy cared what the Jews thought, and would give them a choice on who to kill? Really? He would have killed Jesus, the other guy, and the crowd for good measure.

        It’s clearly written to absolve Rome of any guilt since they founded the religion and all of the source material is more likely attributed to Mithra and Simon Magus.

      • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Apparently, Christians are not the only ones who lack basic knowledge about the history of Jesus …

    • Name-Not-Applicable@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      54
      ·
      7 months ago

      This. Why don’t these people understand that Jesus died for EVERYONE’S sins?
      WE ALL KILLED JESUS. Accept Him and repent.

          • MagicShel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            7 months ago

            I feel like the stigma of sin is vastly overplayed when it’s just an element of being human. Adultery and murder are the same as existing? Alrighty, almighty!

        • Nakedmole@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          7 months ago

          In a wider sense, just by shopping in the supermarket or owning a cellphone, you are participating in worldwide exploitation and mass murder.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        7 months ago

        I never asked him to do that and I don’t particularly want to go to an afterlife filled with sanctimonious Christians, so I’ll take the L, thanks.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Valhalla seems pretty chill, I’ll look forward to seeing you there… or maybe I’ll go chill with my pa in the sky people’s city. Honestly, I think I’d probably want to be an afterlife tourist… I wonder how early I need to book that.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t want to go on forever. It sounds awful. Imagine every boring moment in your life and multiply it by infinity.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        You all can have your little LARP and potluck, but kindly leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. I get that the world sucks and thinking someone will give you cookies for taking all the shit rich folks pile on you day after day is appealing, but it’s just excusing your own exploitation. I’m not about that life.