this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
954 points (97.3% liked)
Political Memes
5413 readers
3333 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I always thought it was weird when people think of Jesus as a literal God.
The trinity. The father the son and the holy ghost. AKA Dissociative identity disorder
It's not DID, that's modalism.
Patrick and his bad analogies.
https://youtu.be/KQLfgaUoQCw?si=CUsGna435cYa2Qam
I love that video
That's canon tho.
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.
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.)
He was NOT the Messiah! He was a very naughty boy.
Muhammad out here gatekeeping prophets, it nice Muhammad. I think anyone can be whatever they want to, so long as they try hard.
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.
if he existed, he sounds like he was cool.
show me some real historical documents suggesting he did, tho.
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.
Yup, that's the myth.
Oh...you're serious.
And i can walk over water. You just have to believe me
If you can get me several people who saw it and are willing to die for that fact, I'd believe you
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.
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.
I guess i have to buy some Fentanyl and start my first communion. Theyll get some bread too.
Where in the Bible did he claim to be God?
Jesus claiming to be God:
John 10:29-30
John 8:58
Jesus accepts worship:
John 20:28-29
Matthew 14:33
Matthew 28:9-10
St Paul:
Titus 2:13
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".
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)
The truth is even better: the masses were too dumb for his educated metaphors, the priests got in a huff, the colonizers decided they could solve a problem for the local leaders.
His followers got organized and staged an early death (crucifixion takes 20 hours not 3) with anaesthetic on a sponge, dude healed up for 3 days in a cave covered in myrrh etc and guarded by loyals, then showed up to his ragtag band of radicals and gave them the heads-up. Sends Thomas off to South India because he needs a challenge. Grabs peter paul and mary and off they go to Rome, incognito, to undermine the heart of the empire with some radical ideas.
After a couple of decades building community in Rome, Issa retires to Kashmir, just in time for the big buddhist conclave. He injects compassion and the notion of a self sacrificing avatar into the venerable but vibrant philosophy. He and Mary settle down and enjoy the lovely isolated valley and he dies an old man, having made a difference.
For a start, He would have been hanging there for possibly longer than three hours as he was already dead. Still baking in the sun. Keep in mind He was really brutally whipped before going there which would be enough to kill somebody, as well as staying up for hours, sweating blood long before as well. Crucifixion would have very much killed someone in that state in three hours. Every breath He'd take would cause his back to scrape against the rough wood and cause excruciating (literally) pain. Lastly, His side was pierced and it showed His lungs had collapsed. Then He was buried in a tomb, and guarded by ROMANS, not loyals. In the state He was in, He would have very much died there in the course of three days if He was somehow still alive. Not recovered.
Your last paragraph sounds AI generated lol
Nah, the story has all the markings of a gambit. It was retconned on the spot.
How does it have the markings of a gambit? No idea how a guy can survive that and just be okay. And also, were the disciples in on it? If so, how come they died refusing to renounce it? Jesus would have had to do this without their knowing as well.
Literally is, at least according to trinitarian doctrine. Handy diagram:
Which of course implies that "isness" is non-transitive which mathematically speaking is bonkers. I mean it's not that you can't have intransitive relations but calling them equivalences is going to raise eyebrows.
"Isness" definitely doesn't need to be transitive.
It can be used to give properties to a subject. An apple is crisp, red, and 100g. Crisp isn't red, red isn't 100g, and 100g isn't crisp.
It can also be used to specify a general case. Honeycrisp is an apple. Golden Delicious is an apple. Fuji is an apple. All three of Honeycrisp, Fuji and Golden Delicious are distinct.
True, but then crisp isn't apple, red isn't apple, and 100g isn't apple: All your examples have the property that if x is y, then y isn't x, which means it's an asymmetric relation, while in the trinity there's symmetry: The father is god, god is the father.
We can go further and say that apples are fruit, and that Honeycrisp are fruit. That is transitive.
What you're describing is a strict partial order, which is not an equivalence, but the whole thing being some sort of equivalence is kinda important if Trinitarians want to be monotheists. Equivalences need to be reflexive, symmetric and transitive, at least if you ask mathematicians.
eh, Hercules and Bacchus are; similar situations. I say he gets a pass.
It is just one uppmanship. He didn't start out being thought that way but people kept adding. Whole process took over two centuries
Yeah? Well! My gods son can beat up your gods son!
Some Gnostics went pretty quickly down the road of "he's the real god, here to expose the demiurge (Yahweh, formerly known as Ba'al, according to them... But not according to Canaanite religion)"
Supposedly. I think a lot of scholars are in the process of reexamining what the Gnostics actually believed.
You're not alone. Every Muslim thinks of Jesus as a prophet.