this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
507 points (91.5% liked)

Comic Strips

12817 readers
1598 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 56 points 2 days ago (37 children)

When you think about the Cristian lore... It is a pile of insane bullsh..t

[–] lime@feddit.nu 11 points 2 days ago (12 children)

i mean it's mostly all metaphor and allegory, meant to teach you lessons rather than to act as a historical document.

it's like a book of fables for people who think animals are silly

[–] Flax_vert 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The four gospels read as eyewitness accounts and reports of a real person, not as fables and allegories.

[–] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

"read as" is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Most scholars say they were written well after the fact (decades to generations after), after a bunch of oral tradition related changes crept in. Plus, they were sort of down selected from a much larger corpus.

So this is just a narrative technique rather than an actual eyewitness account.

[–] Flax_vert 7 points 2 days ago

By "well after the fact", it's still within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Contrasted with other historical records, it's pretty good. Like Alexander the Great being written about 800 years after the fact, or some details about Julius Caesar being written down 200 years after the fact which nobody disputes. For something we can archaeologically prove which also happened at the time - the pompeii disaster - there is one record 30 years later. Despite it being an event witnessed by hundreds of thousands and likely having influential romans among it's victims. You're really overestimating the frequency of writings and documentation from the first century. In which the New Testament is abnormal in that it has a high frequency. So something that clearly was a big deal did happen. The traditions as well carried across societies, so must have been rooted in fact. As for the larger corpus - those were the centuries later forgeries that were removed for that reason - because they were much later and not seen as reliable. Some of them were attributed to more important figures also, like Thomas. So the early Church clearly cared about accuracy.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

Most scholars say they were written well after the fact (decades to generations after), after a bunch of oral tradition related changes crept in

Almost like it's all a bunch of bullshit invented to control the masses 🤔

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (34 replies)