• CXORA@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        16 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
          ·
          16 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
            ·
            16 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
          ·
          16 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
            ·
            15 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
              ·
              15 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
                14 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
                  ·
                  14 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
                    ·
                    13 days 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.