You can make fun of religion nowadays, sure, very original, or ignore the question and talk about historical accuracy, alright. But if you want an answer what is compelling and mythical about these stories, try not to take them literal. Just like fairytales, they have something psychological about them. E.g. when Jesus made the blind see, this is about depression and how it is cured. Try to cast a friendly eye on the whole topic.
What’s it about when he curses that fig tree cuz I heard some stuff about the non-literal symbolism.
Figs are sweet, and in the old testament were a symbol for wisdom, especially wisdom from your teacher.
Jesus was condemning the corrupt religious mafia that was in cahoots with the Romans and Herod, and not doing its job in teaching and being a blessing to the people.
The fig tree is symbolic of the apple tree in the garden of Eden. Jesus cursing the tree to not bear fruit shows how he has come to stop original sin.
And if you buy that bullshit I just made up, you’ll really enjoy church.
Yes, yes. Very clever. Not contributing but don’t you look smart.
My contribution is just as valid, unless you’re looking to hear from people who read the original Aramaic.
Genuinely, that’s not how literary criticism works.
Nah, Jesus ate a bunch of figs, shit his brains out, then used his god powers to curse the fig tree for making him shit his brains out.
It was a typo, he actually cursed gifs because he was sick of all the memes.
It‘s a tree that bears no fruit. Well-looking but not nourishing. It‘s traditioned literature for a reason. But reject the meaning and consume whatever you like, everyone
I’m going to claim brain fart. I’m horrified to find I had thought that it was about, like, modern Israel. Dumb.
OTOH, it sounds like you are suggesting taking interpretations like that; reading things into the text and adopting the symbols for our own purposes. Blindness wasn’t a metaphor for depression. You have to insert that as a modern reader. The text doesn’t fully support it and you have to creatively interpret at times. I don’t think that’s very satisfying.
You mean depression is not just a modern word but a modern concept (it did not exist before)?
When the original authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote their words in the original Greek, they were not imagining blindness to be a metaphor for clinical depression. Or even for feeling sad, if that is what you mean. While many people understand these passages as referring to literal blindness, blindness is often used as a metaphor in the Bible, for example for ignorance, pride, deception, and unbelief. You can attempt to take it as a metaphor for the modern concept of depression (which of course they did not even possess) but to do so, you are clearly reading into the text. And it’s not clear how the message of Jesus is meant to cure your depression, the way it can presumably cure you of spiritual ignorance, unbelief, etc.
I’m trying to understand if you are advocating reading into the text intentionally, but it’s not even clear if you’re aware and accept you’re doing that at all.
He was literally hangry. Immediately after he curses the out-of-season tree, he goes into the temple and has his famous hissy fit, overturning tables and shit. It’s basically the ultimate Snickers commercial. Read for yourself:
12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14 And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
There is no remotely reliable evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed.
Edit:
Funny how some people downvote this, but without providing any reliable evidence.Ok but like if I asked why did Gandolf stop to fight the Balrog you’d have no issue answering.
GandolfGandalfNo but that’s because Lord of the Rings is way more consistent than the Bible is.
There is actually a hell of a lot of evidence he did.
You can read a capsule summary with references on Wikipedia, but it is accepted fact among historians - not just religious scholars - that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Judea under King Herod, was baptised by John the Baptist, and was cruxified under the orders of Pontius Pilate.
Here’s a fun excerpt: “There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus such as the letters of Paul (contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses), the gospels, and non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee) and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator).”
I’m an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.
only two key events of the biblical story of Jesus’s life are widely accepted as historical, based on the criterion of embarrassment, namely his baptism by John the Baptist and his crucifixion by the order of Pontius Pilate.
Except there is no historical evidence of these events.
The only evidence there is, is that John the Baptist is an actual historical figure, and there exist AFAIK a reference to Pontius Pilate, although his position is unclear. But the events are NOT documented and neither is Jesus.The historicity of Jesus is a concept driven by Christians that have undertaken the biggest accumulated search in history spanning 1800 years, to document the existence of Jesus, and they have turned op NOTHING!!! Just the Mormon church alone has spend massive amounts of resources on this for more than a century. Obviously the Catholic church is by far in the lead, since they are both the oldest and most wealthy of all.
There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors
No there are not, not a single one is contemporary, and not a single one is first hand or even has a reliable source. This is required to be considered reliable historical evidence.
It may sound convincing on the surface, until you dig into it, and find out it’s all hear say, and it’s all created AFTER Christianity became a thing.
Also evidence for the existence of Jesus is just about the most faked historical/archeological thing there is. Because it creates fame like nothing else, and churches are willing to pay enormous sums to get their hand on it.I’m an atheist, but a historical Jesus almost certainly did exist.
You didn’t investigate enough to get past centuries of Christian lies and propaganda.
This is a long piece, but it’s easier than doing the research yourself:
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/did-jesus-exist/Alternatively you can present me with just 1 piece of reliable evidence for the historicity of Jesus.
But please before you do, check up on the criticism about it first.Other people also second hand referencing the circulating myth/rumor is not the same thing as a first hand account of the person. References to him popping up “within a century” is not a firsthand account-just people writing down hearsay.
There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus’ existence. The earliest gospels weren’t written until around 40 years after his supposed death, and they were anonymous writings that were only attributed to the apostles.
The Jesus narrative is just mythology.
No, not true. Go read Wikipedia for some reliable sources on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth.
Wikipedia is never to be used as a source for contested topics because anyone can edit it.
Do link to a source that you think can prove he was real, and I’ll take a look at it.
I said go there for some reliable sources.
You want evidence of the historical Jesus, that article contains almost 300 references and about 40 external sources.
The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is widely accepted. If you believe otherwise, you need to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims.
You’re defending the claim that Jesus was a real person. Cite sources.
“Do your own research” isn’t going to cut it because I did, and obviously came to a different conclusion from you.
There are usually sources listed on Wikipedia articles
Yes, but a response like that is just someone trying to shift the burden of proof.
deleted by creator
Do you notice the comment you replied to explicitly said “first hand” and you explicitly said “reliable”.
You are talking about different things.
So they were just picked at random?
Idk. Do you think the Greeks picked a name at random for Herecles? Both characters fill the same role as a son of a god.
Obviously not, Herakles was named that as Zues’ hamfisted attempt to appease the wife he cheated on by naming his bastard after her
According to the mythology, yes. They never existed either.
He’s a fictional character.
All fictional characters can do miracles?
No miracles were done.
Fact
/s
Not sarcasm. Christianity is lies created to control people. Just like all religions.
Yeah that’s clearly the Lemmy hive mind opinion.
Not a “hivemind” opinion. That’s what I’ve learned from Christianity itself. From decades of indoctrination, I eventually opened my eyes to how full of shit it all is.
Jesus absolutely existed, even Atheist or anti-Christian historians don’t debate that he was a real person.
Jesus was a common name un that time. He was made up.
No, he wasn’t. The Romans executed a Hebrew cult leader for treason/rebellion and it was a big enough deal that Tactitus commented on his followers still being pissy about it decades later.
His deeds were made up.
The physical miracle demonstrates his identity and power, but they have a spiritual significance beyond the physical. For example, raising the dead indicated that He is the Creator with power over life and death, but also that He can give spiritual life to people dead in their sins.
Did he really do them though? The reason why this is within the scope of belief is the fact that there’s no conclusive evidence that removes reasonable doubt by contemporary standards.
Let’s say it’s all exactly as it says in the four different versions that are somehow considered canon and none of it is a millennia old game of telephone: did he choose to do them? Did his dad force him? Could he maybe not have had free will in this regard? Do we know about all the miracles? Maybe there were more! Would it be fair for us today to judge him based on incomplete records?
What do you mean by deal?
One interesting thing I came across a while ago was that Jesus healing people was not very sensational at the time, as spiritual healers were not that rare. What blew people’s minds about the healing was that he was doing it for free.
They just seem weird. Walk on water, not really that impressive. We fly through the sky these days I’m sure that might blow away some people who lived in jesus times. Heal the sick, that’s like a job you get and I’m sure we pulled many many people back from the brink in our age. Turned water to wine? Feed people? If he was god he had to know these miracles would be kinda lame sauce to people in a few thousand years. Why not like swim in a volcano or lasso the moon?
How the actual fuck is walking on water not impressive? I’m not a Christian, I don’t necessarily believe it happened, but yeah, that would probably blow some people’s minds.
I mean that’s pretty cool, but it’s a lizard, not a man. You’re saying if you saw a human walk on water you wouldn’t be impressed?
It would be novel i guess
The point is that they are fucking miracles. It doesn’t matter whether they are “impressive” or “lame” when they prove that the natural laws of the Universe do not apply. Whatever the effect of the miracle is less significant than the simple fact of it and what that implies.
Walk on water,
Turned water to wine
Metaphors
Feed people
Inspiring compassion
Yeah but like when hulk smashed loki around in the first avengers movies that was a much cooler metaphor. When Tony Stark paid everyone’s college that was also inspiring compassion.
Do better lord of all the universe.
I had a class in college about Jesus. It was taught by a Catholic priest.
One thing he said that stuck with me is that people don’t see the real miracles.
When they talk about the miracle of the loaves and fish, people talk about how enough food for the multitude was created out of just what a couple people brought for their own lunch. People think the miracle is the creation of food. However this priest pointed out that the real miracle is that people who didn’t know anyone else there gave all they had so that others could eat. Everyone shared so that no one went hungry.
Edit: one other thing that he said that stuck with me was, “Jesus Christ, son of Mary and Joe Christ”
Jesus = basically Josh, son of Mary and Joe
… Brother of James, father of Tamika, Joshua and James?
That sounds like a cool priest, but unfortunately Catholicism is still against gay marriage, meaning they are still discriminating.
Catholicism across the board isn’t against gay marriage, different people believe different things.
That’s strange, because the old pope was. I thought he was supposed to be the one defining catholicism more than anybody else.
Jesus was only reading the script. It was all setup by his father.
Remember if you want to be a God you need a Godfather, and I’m not talking about Pacino.
Jesus basically teached us, how fucked we are, if we’re born poor.Them deal was they fictional.
Remember the prime directive.
