• normalexit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      True, it’s just a little too magical for my brain to process. To me he was a prophet and probably a good dude… but that’s probably about it.

      To worship a guy as a literal God because his mom had a tale to tell about why she was pregnant, was the beginning of the end of religion making sense for me.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        To me he was a prophet and probably a good dude… but that’s probably about it.

        And you have stumbled upon the big difference between Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

        Jews already had a list of criteria for the messiah. Jesus didn’t check all of the boxes, so the Jews went “he’s not our messiah. We’ll keep waiting for the real one to show up.”

        Christians believe he is the messiah; Literally God given flesh, so He can experience mortality and die for their sins.

        Then the Muslims believe he was a prophet, but not the last prophet. They believe the last prophet was Muhammad. Jesus is featured pretty heavily in the Quran, because they do believe he was a prophet. But Muhammad said there would be no more prophets after himself, so anyone new claiming to be one is lying. (Worth noting that this “no new prophets” thing doesn’t negate Jesus’ second coming. Because Jesus wouldn’t be a new prophet, he would be a returning prophet.)

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Muhammad out here gatekeeping prophets, it nice Muhammad. I think anyone can be whatever they want to, so long as they try hard.

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

            I mean, the Bible also discusses an anti-Christ as well. Jesus preached that there would be false prophets.

            Almost as if starting a cult requires your followers to actively reject other belief systems.

      • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        if he existed, he sounds like he was cool.

        show me some real historical documents suggesting he did, tho.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          It doesn’t matter much if there was a “real” Jesus, because the Jesus Christians worship is not him. The Jesus Christians worship is a magical son of a god that defies death.

          • melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            okay yeah that guy didn’t exist, but the George Washington Americans worship couldn’t tell a lie and did manual labor one time and was a good general and his teeth were stupid instead of nightmare fuel

            and we consider them the same guy.

      • Flax@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s not the only reason. Jesus claimed to be God, His followers worshipped Him, He performed miracles and ultimately died and rose again and was seen by many. Then ascended into heaven like a month later.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            If you can get me several people who saw it and are willing to die for that fact, I’d believe you

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 months ago

              The supposed water walking event wasn’t documented by anyone until 5 decades later. Paul never mentions it, all the other early writings don’t mention it, only in about 81AD or so did it appear. Where did Mark get it? We have no clue. Maybe he saw the optical illusion of people walking by water looking like they are walking on water, maybe local magicians were using the rocks underneath and he heard about, maybe it was symbolic that Cephus was involved and he wanted to talk more smack about the man (Mark really hated him), maybe there was a local play that had a god in it that did it. Point is the chain of evidence was broken.

              And the deaths of the apostles are even more poorly documented. There was a huge incentive to lie about everything. We don’t know how James died, we suspect he was very old when it happened, there is a possible reference to him being killed as an old man but for what crimes we don’t know. The idea that he was killed for his beliefs doesn’t show up until nearly two centuries later in text form.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                There couldn’t have been rocks underneath as Peter began to sink. John was the one who talked smack about Peter.

                For historical accounts from that time, 5 decades after is rather close. Most records we have about history from that point in time are written centuries later. Generally copies of copies, etc. When mark wrote it though, there’d be several other guys who would have been there who could have said “actually this didn’t happen”, by this point they were spreading all over the world, but they already accepted Mark’s gospel.

                Also worth noting that the 5 decades date primarily comes from the presumption that Jesus couldn’t have told the future in the Olivet discourse. Which if Christianity is true, the account could very well have come earlier.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  If Christianity was true, you wouldn’t need to make these sorts of arguments because the words of Jesus would have been enough to make them for you.

          • Flax@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            Jesus claiming to be God:

            My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no-one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’

            John 10:29‭-‬30

            ‘Very truly I tell you,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, I am!’ (Exodus 3:14)

            John 8:58

            Jesus accepts worship:

            Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God!’ Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.’

            John 20:28‭-‬29

            Then those who were in the boat worshipped him, saying, ‘Truly you are the Son of God.’

            Matthew 14:33

            Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshipped him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.’

            Matthew 28:9‭-10

            St Paul:

            while we wait for the blessed hope – the appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,

            Titus 2:13

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              You notice how not a single one of these passages just says what you want it to say? Each one of them there is wiggle room. And each one of them only comes to us after the Trinity was an accepted idea and centuries of monks “corrected it”.

              • Flax@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                Any evidence that these manuscripts were tampered with after the Council of Nicea? (I assume that’s what you’re referring to as “Trinity” as an accepted idea, although the idea was accepted likely before these scriptures were even originally written)