• CXORA@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      4 days ago

      Jesus never wrote any of it down, neither did anyone who ever met Jesus, as far as we can tell.

      • ouRKaoS@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        Thank you for this! I’m now going to add “Objection: Hearsay!” To my list of “How to argue with Christians using the Bible”.

        It will slot in very well right after the “Jesus said we don’t have to follow Leviticus” arguments.

        • CXORA@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          Christianity has a very rich scholarly history. If you find yourself discussing it often, i would absolutely recommend looking up some of the real scholars on the matter (rather than listening to me or any other random person online).

          But also, you’re welcome :)

      • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        You have to exist to be able to write stuff down, so that’s probably why he didn’t.

        • CXORA@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          There probably was a historical jesus.

          Otherwise I don’t see why Christians would have made up the whole trip to Bethlehem story about a census which we have no record of. They needed the real jesus to have some reason to be in the prophecied place.

          • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            At that time in that region there were a lot of cults. It’s very likely that the Jesus figure from the bible is an amalgamation of multiple cult leaders from that period.

            • CXORA@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Of course, by the definition of cult used at that time all monotheistic and henotheistic religions are cults.

              • BorgDrone@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Yes they are. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

                • CXORA@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Well no, in the first century a cult is a group which worships a single god. Like the various mystery cults that thrived in ancient Rome.